Cartoon of the Day

Tom Toles, Washington Post

Reflections of Life

Flowers from Valentine's Day.

The Cowardly Nation

AG Eric Holder addressed his new colleagues in the Justice Department during a celebration of Black History month, remarking that we are "essentially a nation of cowards" with respect to things racial. It certainly captured everyone's attention, Holder: US a "Nation of Cowards" on Race Discussions:

In a blunt assessment of race relations in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people "essentially a nation of cowards" in failing to openly discuss the issue of race.

In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated."

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.

* * * *

The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

"On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad," Holder said.

I guess he didn't get the memo that black is in. He obviously needs to check his in-box more often.

My first reaction was that this was quite a change from the office previously held by John Ashcroft, who preferred to cover up statutes, and Alberto Gonzales, who preferred to cover up illegal deeds, rather than address uncomfortable truths, as Holder is doing. Whatever else we may be, we are surely a nation that hates hearing the truth about ourselves.

Of course, many people have interpreted Holder's comments to mean that he believes that white people have a problem with race. See e.g., Holder 'nation of cowards' remarks blasted, praised and Defining 'Nation of Cowards' Down. I guess for these people, "the nation" still only belongs to whites.

However, I don't believe that Holder was talking about those, on either side of the great race divide, who are closed to the conversation, since they would only hear their own words anyway. The monologuers never allow for an opportunity to listen and learn any other point of view. Without that, nothing will change, which is Holder's point. A prime example is the very Hardball show discussing the issue of Holder's speech, with Pat Buchanan & Michael Eric Dyson. Lots of words exchanged, but no discussion there. They each engaged in a strident monologue, yelling past each other. Although, as FN said, you have no doubt where Buchanan stands on issues of race. To the extent that there is a problem with race, for him -- it's all black people's fault. As for Dyson, he spent a lot of time pontificating, without actually saying a whole lot.

Nor was Holder speaking about racists, since many of those individuals have removed the white sheets & are fairly open about expressing their bigoted views (you know, 1st Amendment rights & all). There's really no changing those entrenched views.

Instead, as he said, he was talking about "average Americans" who hold no great animus towards those of another race, but are reluctant to discuss racial issues and concerns out of a fear of being misunderstood (and labeled racist), or even worse, being lectured about the other's point of view (along the lines of we're now post-racial, so give us a break, or the man has kept us down for years, so give us a break).

It's unfortunate that the media focus always has to look for & create a "stir the pot" controversy, even when there isn't really a pot there. As rikyrah of Jack & Jill Politics said, Holder's speech "was thoughtful, smart, historical, honest and contemplative."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News

See also, Jack & Jill Politics for a transcript of the speech.

I remember when I was younger being taught the old Maxim -- you should never talk about politics or religion (as well as sex or money) in polite company. I don't know that we, as a society, have ever gotten much beyond that. You can also add race to that list, as well as issues dealing with the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine (which I suppose could fall under the category of politics and/or religion).

I realize that my world is very different that that of most people. I live in a very racially, ethnically & religiously (& let's not forget sexually) diverse environment. My weeks (and week-ends) are integrated on many levels & I do engage in discussions on those issues on a regular basis (and live to tell the tale). I live in Mount Airy after all -- the liberal, hippie, Birkenstock haven of the world & I know my experience does not equate with other parts of the City -- or country. Yet, I also do know that the conversation can happen -- even with some humor on occasion, as Lewis Black notes about Politics & Religion:




Apply that philosophy to race & voila, as Gawker said: "Problem: solved!"

Cartoon of the Day

Chan Lowe, Sun-Sentinel

No News Is Good News

Media-monger Sarah Palin, she of VP fame & infamy, may yet decide that being in the news isn't all that. Especially when the news, as of late, is all bad.

For example, the latest news from the Alaska shores is that Palin didn't properly pay her taxes. The Washington Post reports, Palin Now Owes Taxes on Reimbursement Payments for Nights at Home, State Rules:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) owes income taxes on nearly $17,000 paid to her as travel reimbursements when she spent nights in her Wasilla residence, according to a state legal opinion that the payments were not legitimate business expenses, a state official said yesterday.

* * * *

Palin's expenses were reported by The Washington Post last year after the Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), named Palin as his running mate. The Post reviewed records from late 2006 through early August 2008, and the story prompted a review by state officials. The governor continued to seek the payments through the end of the year, according to the Anchorage Daily News, which first reported this week that she owed taxes on the payments.

This makes me wonder if, a la Daschle, this means that Sarah Palin can't run for office ever again or accept a political appointment, since non-payment of taxes -- especially for Republicans, seems to be killer offense.

The news on the budget front for Alaska is also not good for high-flying (and spending) Sarah. Even worse, it may mean that she has to focus on the home state, as noted by the AP, Sarah Palin In Trouble As Oil Prices Fall:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first two years in office have been called a time of milk and honey, when the resource-rich state was flush with wealth from record oil prices.

The second half of her term isn't looking so rosy as Palin faces her first major financial challenge as governor.

The rapid decline of oil prices has left the state in a looming budget crisis and a late-entrant in the national recession. And that could have political repercussions for the former Republican vice presidential hopeful, who has signaled an interest in a 2012 presidential run but must stay visible in the Lower 48 to be successful.

'Given these bad times, she's going to have a much more difficult time traveling outside Alaska,' said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. 'When times are good, people will let their governor roam. In bad times, citizens expect their governor to stay home and work on solving the problems.'

Her job as Gov seems to be giving her headaches even beyond the budget. As Steve Benen of Political Animal reports, in PALIN'S PROBLEMS:

Oddly enough, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not only in over her head on the national stage, she's also struggling in Alaska.

A couple of weeks before the Alaska legislature began this year's session, a bipartisan group of state senators on a retreat a few hours from here invited Gov. Sarah Palin to join them. Accompanied by a retinue of advisers, she took a seat at one end of a conference table and listened passively as Gary Stevens, the president of the Alaska Senate, a former college history professor and a low-key Republican with a reputation for congeniality, expressed delight at her presence.

Would the governor, a smiling Stevens asked, like to share some of her plans and proposals for the coming legislative session?

Palin looked around the room and paused, according to several senators present. "I feel like you guys are always trying to put me on the spot," she said finally, as the room became silent.

Gone was the self-assurance that Alaska had come to know in its young Republican governor, well before her life and career were transformed by Sen. John McCain's selection of her as his vice presidential running mate. "She looked ill at ease, more defensive than we've been accustomed to seeing her," said one legislator who was there and spoke on the condition of anonymity because he said he might need to work with Palin.

The governor, apparently, isn't having any fun anymore.

It's hard to say with any certainty what Palin's plans are for the future, but she seems anxious to maintain a national profile -- she created a leadership PAC, she's on Fox News, she made an Alfalfa dinner appearance, she's weighing in on Republican primary contests far outside Alaska, etc. Jason Zengerle suggests Palin, if she's serious about seeking national office, should "give up her position as partisan firebrand, focus her attentions on being Alaska's governor, remake herself as more of a pragmatic executive (which, prior to the '08 campaign, is what many thought she was), and then return to national politics."

Then, of course, was the news that her daughter Bristol, who called telling her mother about her pregnancy "harder than labor," also spoke out against abstenence-only policies, Bristol Palin Speaks Out:

Bristol Palin, the 18-year-old daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, told Fox News in her first interiew since giving birth that she would like to be an advocate against teen pregnancy.

'Everyone should wait 10 years,' Palin said. 'I hope people learn from my story.'

* * * *

Bristol Palin described to Fox's Greta Van Susteren the moment when she, her boyfriend, Levi Johnston, and another friend told her parents that she was pregnant. She described that moment as "harder than labor."

But this was not the only surprise Bristol Palin said she had for her mother, Alaska's youngest governor. She told Van Susteren she had only told her mother she was doing this national television interview - in which Van Susteren and crew flew to Alaska - one day prior to the taping.

And, at the same time she's out there shopping her book, an unauthorized biography about her is being published this week by a People editor. The book, Trailblazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin, is not a flattering portrayal, as noted by The Politco, Palin disputes 'fantasies' in new book:

The book spends little time on Palin’s experience as the GOP vice presidential nominee, delving mostly into Palin’s childhood, family and interaction with friends. Of the book’s 228 pages, Benet’s account of the campaign makes up roughly 30 pages.

Much of the rest of his account of Palin’s political rise portrays her as an ambitious and aggressive politician, determined to gain a prominent job and plagued by a contentious relationship with the press.

Shortly after being elected mayor of Wasilla, Palin is quoted by friends as saying, “I want to be president.”

Soon after becoming mayor, her interactions with the media grew heated. “My goodness, I’ve been here 11 days. Give me a break, please,” she said at a press conference.

“I don’t remember other mayors getting grilled like this,” she is quoted as saying later. The book also states that Todd Palin got into a feud with a local editorial cartoonist over the drawings of his wife.

Benet asserts that Palin changed her tune after becoming governor and sought ways to use the press to polish her national profile. He writes that Alaska spent $31,000 in state funds on media consulting for the governor in attempts to book her for major television and newspaper interviews."

I'm not sure that this is the type of media attention that we had in mind when I made my wager with one of the LLWL gang. Our bet was whether Palin would continue to remain a force in politics (or become a media personality & land a show on Fox News). Of course, this just means we have something fun to argue about until the Ides of March (& then we'll spend some time arguing about how we decide who won the bet).

Cartoon of the Day

Pat Bagley, The Salt Lake Tribune

Pocket Book

Moving to the top of my book list, I'm fast & furiously trying to finish George Eliot's "The Mill on the Floss" for my book group meeting this week-end. I also recently made a neat discovery. The book is available on Google Book Search, which now includes a mobile version for the iPhone. So, now I can carry the book in my pocket & read a few pages if I have a spare minute where ever I am.

He'll Always Be Last To Me

In honor of President's Day, C-Span issued its Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership, with a number of presidential historians ranking the 42 former occupants of the White House on ten attributes of leadership. Not surprisingly, Abraham Lincoln was first, followed by George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. Finishing last was James Buchanan. George W. Bush came in 36th, just beating out Millard Fillmore, who ranked 37th.

Obviously, a bit of nostalgia played into the rankings, since George W. Bush did not finish as the Worst. President.Ever. Other surveys, such as that conducted by the History News Network, put him in his rightful place as Worst.President.Ever. And he'll always be last for me.

I'm also sure that Will Bunch of Attytood, who has just written a new book on Ronald Reagan, Tear Down this Myth, will have something to say about Reagan's ranking at #10. His book came out just in time, as Bunch certainly has his work cut out for him on that one!

The complete Overall Ranking is also available. The C-SPAN Washington Journal video is also available, discussing the report.

(Via Think Progress)

We're Gonna Get You

Senators McCain & Graham have been complaining that Obama hasn't lived up to his promise of bipartisanship, since he passed a stimulus bill that they didn't like, GOP senators say Obama off to bad start. Of course, the reality is that "he" didn't pass anything, Congress did, and major concessions were made to the GOP, which didn't make a damn bit of difference in the final vote. But, as we know, that doesn't matter to the Republican Party.

Instead, SNL's so-called parody of the GOP sounds a little too real -- that the Republicans are the party of opposition and nothing else.



See also Crooks & Liars, Video Cafe.

What a Loser

Listening to the Right, the Left and the Media, it is clear that newbie President Obama has made a royal mess of things already and the stimulus package he's planning to sign into law is way "too" (much/little, depending on your bent) to ever save us. In other words, he's a loser & we're all screwed.

Of course, after all of the agita expressed by the various factions, that's one way to look at things. On the other hand, after I heard that the bill had finally passed on Friday night, I said to my husband, I sure hope that he can keep losing like that. As the Washington Post put it, Obama Scores Early Victory of Historic Proportions:

Twenty-four days into his presidency, Barack Obama recorded last night a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure.

Echoing that sentiment, Steve Benen observes, A 'Hostoric' Win:

Looking back over the last couple of weeks, I've complained a bit about aspects of the economic stimulus bill and the process in which it worked its way through Congress. It's not ambitious enough. There are too many tax cuts. President Obama overemphasized bipartisanship. The White House lost control of the message. House Democrats made too many concessions. Senate Democrats made far too many concessions.

You get the idea.

But the Washington Post has a good piece today that adds some perspective to what's transpired in recent weeks. It's a reminder that while the trees have been frustrating at times, the forest looks pretty impressive.

And then Frank Rich provides his usual witty and on-point analysis, in They Sure Showed That Obama:

Am I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”

Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.

But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.

We're certainly don't know how much it will help (or, if anything can do it at this point), but at least he's determined to try. And, if it doesn't work, I'm sure he'll try something else, if he can, before the naysayers try to declare total defeat.

Either way, I agree with Obama's words that doing nothing is not an option. Here's hoping he can change what the Bush Administration has otherwise made inevitable.

Cartoon of the Day

Matt Davies, The Journal News

The 6-word Valentine

I'm definitely a sucker for the 6-word story. I've penned a few Mini Memoirs.

So, when I saw the call for 6 word love stories in the Washington Post, Your Love: In Six Words, I just couldn't resist.

My contribution:

Summer love.
Long ago.
Still today.

Cartoon of the Day

Randy Bish, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Cartoon of the Day

Rob Rogers, Post-Gazette

Have a Heart

"Fidelity" from Courage Campaign.

Valentine's Day. The celebration of love. Couples.

Truth is, no matter how much we may "have," there's one thing that we all want more than anything -- love. Anyone who possesses a heart knows that.

That applies to us all.

And for a few more words on this issue, I think Mary Shaw expresses the sentiment at Love is love. Period. Deal with it..

For more information, see Courage Campaign.

Cartoon of the Day

Cal Grondahl, Utah Standard-Examiner

Friday The 13th, A Lucky Day for Lawyers

Yes, today is Friday the 13th.

After yesterday's news in the legal profession, today may be a lucky day for those lawyers left standing.

Traditionally, Friday the 13th is considered the unlucky day. For true believers, it's known as Paraskevidekatriaphobia Day.

But, for lawyers, Thursday the 12th may be the unluckiest day of all.

Legal news blog Above the Law reports that over 800 lawyers & staffers were let go by big firms across the country at the end of yesterday. See So, What Are We Calling Today Exactly?

According the the Wall St. Journal Law Blog, The Darkest Day Ever for Big Law Firms?:

The day’s wreckage:

* DLA Piper announced it was laying off 80 lawyers and 100 staff members in the U.S.
* Goodwin Procter announced it was cutting 36 lawyers and 38 staff members
* Dechert cut 19 lawyers
* Faegre & Benson (yesterday) axed 29 lawyers

A later update from WSJ added:

Holland & Knight has fired 70 lawyers and 173 staff.

Of course, that doesn't mean lawyers have escaped the wrath of the 13th. See K&L Gates Battens Down the Hatches: Salary Freezes, Delayed Start Dates (But good news: no layoffs. For now.). And who knows what may yet to come. After all, there happen to be three such occurrences in 2009, two of them right in a row. That means next month brings yet another Friday the 13th (and even worse, Thursday the 12th).

What a Juddhead

So, some guy I never heard of before, Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire (who was picked by Obama to be Commerce Secretary), has decided he's had enough of the play nice stuff with the Democrats already and has withdrawn his name from consideration. Gregg Ends Bid for Commerce Job.

Why, you may ask? Good question. The reasons appear to run the gamut. Gregg's stated reason is that he realized he wouldn't be a "good fit" with the Obama Administration. Of course, speculation covers everything from bad vetting process, to the fact that he objected to the stimulus bill to problems with census policies. Now, I wasn't involved in the process, but you mean to tell me that none of these matters were issues he might have been aware of before he agreed to the nomination?

The only excuse that hasn't been proffered, as far as I can tell, is that he wants to "spend more time with his family."

But, what do you expect from a man who demanded a promise from the Democratic Governor that his senate seat go to a Republican (which was agreed to) before he accepted? Gee, if this guy was a girl, you just know that she'd be labeled a prima dona for sure!

I tend to agree with the analysis of Steve Benen, who notes, in What Was Gregg Thinking?:

Indeed, the whole thing still seems quite odd a day later. Two weeks ago, Judd Gregg really wanted to be a U.S. senator. Last week, Gregg really wanted to be the Secretary of Commerce. And this week, Gregg really wants to be neither. Something doesn't add up here.

Really. Really! As Benen explains:

But what remains unclear is what prompted Gregg to back away from a job he'd asked for just last week. The various explanations don't stand up well to scrutiny.

* It was the stimulus package: Key among Gregg's "irresolvable conflicts" with President Obama was the White House's recovery initiative, which Gregg apparently can't support. But this doesn't make sense -- the stimulus package was already under consideration on the Hill when Gregg sought and accepted the cabinet invitation. Indeed, Gregg had publicly defended the president's policy. If the plan was a deal-breaker, he wouldn't have agreed to the job in the first place.

* It was the census policy: This isn't compelling either. Gregg told reporters yesterday that the census "was so insignificant that he would not even address it," calling it a "slight" matter. The census hullabaloo was something of a canard anyway.

* It was pressure from the GOP: Gregg was, to be sure, pressured by Republicans on the Hill not to help President Obama, and pressured even more from GOP activists in New Hampshire, who saw his cabinet move as a betrayal. But with Gregg retiring in 2010 anyway -- he said yesterday he would not seek re-election next year -- why would partisan pressure affect him so strongly?

* It was the result of bad vetting: Some in the media have begun blaming the White House for the breakdown, describing it as another problem with the vetting process. This also doesn't make sense -- there's no evidence that Gregg's departure has anything to do with new information that vetters had missed.

* * * *

It seems like there's part of this story we do not yet know.

Andrew Sullivan suggests that it's just more of the GOP being itself. Partisan to the bitter end. According to Sullivan, The GOP Has Declared War On Obama. However, I have to say, I disagree with him in one regard. With the dire financial situation the country is faced with (ignoring who caused it), I'd have to say -- they've declared war on America, not Obama.

Ron Chusid of Liberal Values concurs, The Republican War on Obama (and America). As he says in a follow up post, Andrew Sullivan’s War of Words Against The Republicans:

It is one thing to oppose specific acts by Obama on principle, but many of us believe that the Republicans are opposing Obama’s acts purely because they want Obama to fail for partisan reasons, regardless of the harm this might do to the country. They believe that voters have such a limited memory that if things are bad they will vote Republican in the future, forgetting that in so many cases it was Republican policies which got us into our current mess.

They just hate our country if they can't get their own way.

Cartoon of the Day

Koterba, Omaha World Herald

Taking it to the Street

I've been suffering through a nasty cold that's lingering on a bit past its prime. Unheard of for me, I even left the office early yesterday and got a bit of rest. I also did a little reading & finally thinned my book pile by one.

After a violent incident involving a homeless man occurs at the big DC firm where Michael Brock works, his world -- and high living life style -- suddenly is meaningless, along with his marriage. He discovers a secret that ties the firm to Mister, the homeless man who took several of the lawyers at the firm hostage and his attempt to gather evidence of the misdeed leads to his theft of a client file.

After he departs from the firm, and his chance at partnership, Brock joins a legal clinic and becomes an advocate for the homeless, which gives him a perspective on a world he never even noticed before. Along with Mordecai Green, the driven lawyer who runs the clinic, they try to solve the plight of the homeless and expose the firm's wrongdoing. Reviewing the book, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette describes Green:

[A] firebrand in his early 50s who represents the poorest of the poor. He educates Michael and the reader about the elimination of low-cost housing and the trend in America to criminalize homelessness.

"The big cities have passed all sorts of laws designed to persecute those who live on the streets. Can't beg, can't sleep on a bench, can't camp under a bridge, can't store personal items in a public park, can't sit on a sidewalk, can't eat in public," Mordecai says, before moving on to "sweeps" such as the one that removed homeless people from Atlanta's streets before the Summer Games.

"The Street Lawyer" is not just a primer on the poor. It's a legal thriller about Drake & Sweeney's connection to the hostage-taker - it wouldn't be a Grisham book without a corporate conspiracy or cover-up - and how Michael puts his very livelihood on the line.

The book was written over 10 years ago, but the novel, The Street Lawyer, is especially timely today in these dire economic times, addressing the issue of homelessness. In his usual fast paced, page-turner style, Grisham depicts homelessness in a sympathetic, yet realistic manner, showing the degree of research he did for the novel.

I think the January Magazine Review sums it up best: "The suspense and tight drama that readers of earlier Grisham novels lapped up like so much honeyed milk is absent from The Street Lawyer. And though this is not an inferior novel, it reads more like a Jerry Maguire than a Firm or a Pelican Brief. A feel-good movie with masculine themes; a Fried Green Tomatoes for guys."

You Say It's Your Birthday

Sarah Palin
Born this day in 1964

Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me.
(Not as much as those who tell the truth.)

So, today Sarah is 45 years old. I guess these boots are made for walking (mid-life crisis, anyone?).

And, whenever it seems that the media attention is beginning to fade, Palin manages to re-appear. From her interview in this month's Esquire., to the news that there's a Sarah Palin Movie in the Works. And, if you just can't get enough of news of Sarah, there's Sarah Palin turns 45 today. How are you celebrating?

Finally, for a few (made up) facts that you might not have known about Sarah, check out Scott's Tip Of The Day.

And no, I haven't given up on my Palin-Be-Gone Wager!

UPDATE: To give me solace, Wonkette notes that Palin is no longer that fresh young thing, Happy 45th Birthday To Middle-Aged Anger Bear Sarah Palin!:

And now she’s back home in the snowbilly trailer-trash burg of Wasilla, with her loser husband riding in circles around the house on a snowmobile, all night long, and her unmarried teen-aged daughter raising the grandchild of some random oxycontin dealer, and Trig dressed up like Shrek or something, who knows.

Oh and her top legal adviser resigned in disgrace today. Troopergate, etc. Her outrageous outfits, all $175,000 of ‘em, still rot in garbage bags at RNC headquarters in D.C.

Happy 45th birthday, Sarah Palin! Middle-aged people sometimes say “life begins at 40, or maybe 50,” or whatever, but not in your case. You’re done.

UPATE #2 (2/13):  And finally, this birthday tribute to Sarah:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Photo via Veto Corleone: Sarah Palin's 'F**k Me Boots' is Your WTF? Pic of the Day.)

O'Wicked

I realize Bill O'Reilly's shtick is to mouth off, with as many vile and hateful thoughts as possible, but his gratuitous nastiness towards journalist Helen Thomas was truly despicable. Is there no minimum level of respect for anyone from these people? O'Reilly called reporter Helen Thomas the "wicked witch of the east" Monday night after Obama's press conference.

And then there was "Helen Thomas' fifteen minutes were up during the Lincoln administration," from Bernie Goldberg (whoever he is), who added: "It's time for Helen to find something else to do during press conferences."

As Bonnie Erbe of US News & World Reports describes O'Reilly, "an angry homunculus who's outlived his useful life span."

O'Reilly: The White House press corps looked intimidated to me... Except for that, what's her name? The old lady, Helen Thomas. [squawking sound]

Colmes: Is that your Helen Thomas impression?

O'Reilly: Yea! [squawking sound]

Colmes: I didn't know you did impersonations.

O'Reilly: It's like the wicked witch of the east! If I were Obama, I would've poured water on her, and she would dissolve!

Colmes: It's not nice to make fun of an old woman, Bill.

O'Reilly: It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter and neither does O'Reilly.

(Via Crooks and Liars)

They're Back

I suppose I'm showing my age, because I remember them. Yes, for those of us who were raised Catholic, of a certain age, indulgences were a staple of the crazy patchwork of silly stuff the nuns taught us, which we then giggled about in later life.

Yet, for some, they are obvious serious enough to redeem from the dustbin of hazy memories. Especially for a Catholic Church intent upon eradicating the reforms of Vatican II, it is just one more way to move the Church back in time.

According to the NYTimes, Indulgences Return, and Heaven Moves a Step Closer for Catholics:

The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: “Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences.”

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

The fact that many Catholics under 50 have never sought one, and never heard of indulgences except in high school European history (Martin Luther denounced the selling of them in 1517 while igniting the Protestant Reformation), simply makes their reintroduction more urgent among church leaders bent on restoring fading traditions of penance in what they see as a self-satisfied world.

“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”

Like the Latin Mass and meatless Fridays, the indulgence was one of the traditions decoupled from mainstream Catholic practice in the 1960s by the Second Vatican Council, the gathering of bishops that set a new tone of simplicity and informality for the church. Its revival has been viewed as part of a conservative resurgence that has brought some quiet changes and some highly controversial ones, like Pope Benedict XVI’s recent decision to lift the excommunications of four schismatic bishops who reject the council’s reforms.

So, for the uninitiated, what's an indulgence, other than an "excuse me"?

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

I have just one question. So, what's next? Pagan babies anyone?

(Via Pharyngula)

Cartoon of the Day

Tom Toles, Washington Post

Quote of the Day

In the last few months, as the scavengers have picked at the carcass of the Republican party, I’ve heard a lot of people talk about what “conservatism” means. . . .

Well, I can’t definitively say what “conservatism” means. I possess no advanced degrees, am not a philosopher, and have almost no knowledge of political science.

However.

I can tell you what Republicanism means, and that, I think, is a more germane issue. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, we don’t have a “Conservative” party on our ballots. No. We have a “Republican” one. So figuring out what they stand for seems to be a much more useful endeavor than attempting to define “conservatism.”

Well, I’ve done a lot of observing and thinking, and it seems to me that the Republican party stands for two things.

1. Tax cuts are the cure for everything, including the common cold.
2. Fuck you.

And that’s pretty much it. All of the shit that the Republicans do flows from those two points.

* * * *

So it comes down to this: Republicanism is an ideology by and for bullies. But not the kind of bullies who have the guts to get in actual fights, even if the deck is stacked in their favor. No. They hire people to do their fighting for them. Even in their grand and glorious overseas crusades, the ones where they denounce everyone who opposes them as cowards and appeasers, these cocksuckers stay on the sidelines. How many prominent Republicans ran out and enlisted after 9/11? How about before the Iraq war? Which major Republican pundits were cops? Not a goddamn one. Why? All talk, no action.

First Draft, Republicanism Explained

(Via Suburban Guerrilla)

Cartoon of the Day

Jack Ohman, The Oregonian

The Confession

I spent most of my life being monogamous. In recent years, however, I admit that I ventured into polygamist relationships -- and now, there doesn't seem to be any going back.

Of course, I'm not talking about my sexual proclivities. I'm talking about my reading habits.

Posing the question at Read Street, Are you a monogamous reader?, Dave Rosenthal of the Baltimore Sun thereafter penned an amusing piece on the shocking (to him) habit of many readers of reading several books at once. Do you read multiple books at a time?.

I have always been an avid reader and consumed at least a half a dozen books a month. As I mentioned before, as an English major, in my younger days, I fancied myself to be a purist. That is, I tried to read "literature" and was guilty of sneering at popular fiction. As time went on, I expanded my horizons and permitted the occasion light reading. I was able to keep up the habit even through law school and the grueling big firm days (I'm sure it helped keep me sane). Same during my daughter's childhood, even when juggling a busy law practice. Then, for some reason, I just stopped reading books. See And They Didn't Read This, Either.

Luckily, I began reading again, and even joined a book group. However, my reading habits have changed a bit. For one thing, I read more non-fiction than I used to. And, I've started to read more than one book at a time. I'm not even quite sure how it began. In part, I suppose it's due to my book group, which causes an overlap of a book for the group with another that I am reading on my own. But, things have gotten out of hand.

I'm now in the middle (or somewhere in the book) of 4 books, with a back-log of another 7 books (not counting the other dozen or so unread books on the shelf waiting to be picked up "when I'm in the mood."). As pictured above, I'm reading:

The Mill on the Floss, by George Eliot. The latest book for my book group. I missed our last meeting, but we somehow switched from being the Jewish Book Group to the Literary Guild (next up is Crime & Punishment, as seen in the to-be-read pile).

The Almost Moon, by Alice Sebold. One of the LLWL gave me this one to read. I liked Sebold's The Lovely Bones, but this tale of a mother/daughter bond that ends in murder has been a difficult read.

The Street Lawyer, by John Grisham. Someone gave me a few Grisham books (& I just picked up his latest). This one's a quick, fun read that I took on my trip to South Florida. Almost done with this one.

White Tiger, by Aravind Adiga (not pictured). My book group's last pick, which I didn't finish yet (and then left at a friend's place).

I'm trying to resist starting any of from the Next Up pile, although a few are calling out to me.

The Evil Lurks Within

Sunday. The time to turn to thoughts of religion.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is vying with the Evangelicals to see who wins the Christian Less Christ Award. The Catholic Church is beginning to remind me of the GOP, a bunch of old (mostly white) guys who are totally removed from reality, baying at the moon.

The Pope (formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger, who served in his previous Vatican job as Pope John Paul’s Dick Cheney) is a hard-lined conservative who is intent on repealing most of, if not all, of the ecumenical teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict's decision to remove the excommunication of traditionalist bishops (including a Holocaust denier) has caused a storm of criticism from Jewish groups and other political leaders.

It's not just the reprehensible views of Bishop Williamson, however, that's the problem (although that is a major problem). It's the overall ultra-conservative turn of the Church itself that's so troubling. As noted by Clerical Whispers, Pope's Controversial Move Gives Hope to Shunned Traditionalists:

These ultra-traditional Catholics want the Vatican to declare that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, want a return to old liturgies in which Mass is said in Latin, and say Vatican II, which met in the early 1960s, violates true Catholicism and is the reason why many have left the faith."

* * * *

Experts say some of the most controversial aspects of the group are more prominent in Europe, particularly in France. Those include anti-Semitic comments by society leaders and calls for governments to favor Catholicism.

"Lefebvrists want a much closer alliance between the church and the state than is permissible or possible in the post-Enlightenment world," said the Rev. James Massa, who heads ecumenical and interreligious outreach for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

And nowhere is that more true than in little ole Scranton. My brother alerted me to the latest travesty from the Catholic Church in Scranton, courtesy of the Bishop there, who apparently runs the Church like his own little Fiefdom. As the Scranton paper reports, Bishop Martino accuses Sen. Bob Casey of “cooperating with … evil”:

Diocese of Scranton Bishop Joseph F. Martino accuses Sen. Bob Casey of “cooperating with … evil” by refusing to back legislation to block U.S. tax dollars from flowing to foreign family planning groups that refuse to renounce abortion.

In a Jan. 30 letter to the senator, the bishop also calls on Mr. Casey to live up to his Catholic faith and “oppose abortion and other clear evils, including contraception.”

* * * *

The letter was prompted by Mr. Casey’s vote against an amendment to the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, which the Senate adopted last week. The amendment, authored by Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, would have required family planning groups abroad to agree, before they receive U.S. aid, that they would not perform or promote abortions.

I've known the Casey family from my days in Scranton. I went to school with one of the Caseys (they are a big family, so who didn't?) and I knew the former Governor Casey. The family is very religious and they personally toe the Church line, including Senator Casey. He espouses his views, even though it has meant that, like his father, he has had a difficult time in the Democratic Party because of his stanch pro-life views. Casey certainly does not deserve this treatment by the Church. Yet, in Martino's letter, he chides Casey for his position:

Quoting church doctrine, the bishop contends Catholics are required to oppose “any law that attacks human life” and some Catholics “are given a particular title to this task … including those who hold economic and political power.”

Bishop Martino said Mr. Casey should reverse his vote because his “responsibilities as a Catholic … exceed even those of your office.”

See also, Bishop Admonishes Sen. Casey. Martino also made news during the primary for his stance on abortion as the single issue in the campaign for Catholics. See Say It Ain't So, Joe. Like the Pope he emulates, this is a man with major power & control issues, as they say.

I also suppose Martino forgets that the main opposition to JFK as the first Catholic to run for President was that he would put his religious beliefs ahead of those duly enacted laws of the land. Notwithstanding his personal/religious beliefs, abortion is still legal in this country and as a Senator, Casey is obligated to respect those laws.

And as for the Bishop, if Martino was so concerned about "life," where was he on the issue of the unjust war in Iraq? Is he working to end it? How about the death penalty? Nothing extinguishes life like the death penalty. And, let's not forget he is the Bishop in the Scranton Diocese, an area rife with gun lovers. Where does he stand on gun control? Does he preach to his flock to put down the guns? And finally, this is the Catholic Church we're talking about. How did he respond to the pedophiles in the ministry? I'm sure I don't need to answer these hypothetical questions, since the answers are obvious.

He's A Rock

Chris Rock: No White Man Would Change Places With Me

Chris Rock
Born this day in 1966

And then there's my favorite, the SNL skit about the election, Road to the White House.

See also, Rock on relationships at Electronic Village.

Take the Money & Run

With the shady practices employed by Bank of America, I'm frankly not sure how they've gotten into the financial trouble that they have. They should be in great shape. They sure know how to take the money & run.

Of course, the latest news of the dastardly deeds of BOA is the attempt to collect the credit card debt from the son whose mother had died, with an outstanding balance due on her credit card. Despite the fact that a family member is not legally obligated to pay this bill, the BOA representative tried to mislead the son when he called to report that his mother had died. The rep also suggested that the son had a moral, if not legal, duty to pay. Finally, he added that the financial crisis was due, in part, to defaults such as this. As TPM reports, How Theresa Hatt Caused The Financial Crisis:

The rep's apparent intention, as Kelleher described it, was to mislead him into believing that he was obligated -- at first legally, then, failing that, morally -- to cover his mother's debt (which, in any case, was not large: she had had a $1000 limit on her card). Of course, Kelleher was sophisticated enough to know that's not true. But how many other less savvy callers in similar situations, he wondered, might respond to the rep's breezy "how are you planning to take care of her balance?," with a confused "I guess I'll mail in a check"?

The clear impression was that this was part of the routine collection practices engaged in by BOA, which Zackary Roth of TPM had confirmed by a former rep. As to these sleazy practices, he noted:

Bank of America and its competitors have already taken billions in taxpayer dollars. So it seems logical to insist on a similar set of public interest conditions -- and the industry's range of deceptive and rapacious lending practices would be a natural place to start.

Good luck with that! That's just standard operating procedure for these guys.

I'm having my own battle with BOA over a student checking account that my daughter tried to open at school in Miami. BOA is big in South Florida, and they have ATMs on campus, so she wanted to open an account with them. She first tried to open an account on-line and shortly after that, the Bank sent reps to the campus, to sign students up. My daughter told the rep that she had already opened an account, but he said to sign up for a new one with him. Of course, not knowing any better, she did. And, surprise of surprises, he gave her false & misleading information.

She then received a letter from BOA saying that they were closing her accounts. After several calls to "customer service," she was told they had closed the accounts because of suspected fraud (since she opened more than one account). First of all, I didn't know that it was illegal to have more than one account with a Bank. Second, although she tried to explain that the rep misled her about opening the second account, they brushed her off & advised her that it could affect her credit in the future.

When she came home for break, we went to a local bank office & explained the situation. The Bank manager took the information and said he would have the account re-instated. At the end of the holidays before she went back to school, we went back to BOA and we told that the account was re-activated. So, she deposited two checks, totalling $250. A few days later, she received her debit card. The next day, she received another letter saying that the account had been closed.

A few days after that, she received a letter stating that the Bank had confidential information that the checks would not be honored. I checked my account & the money I had given her was deducted the day after it was deposited. I just confirmed that the other check had been paid as well. So this accusatory letter was just wrong.

We tried to call the local Bank manager & were told that she had to speak to someone in "corporate." Several calls later & she was told that she'd have to go back to a local branch office to have the account re-instated, but that the account was closed and the money was being refunded. I said I wanted nothing to do with such a bad bank, so I wouldn't allow her to have an account there.

A few weeks later, she received a check from BOA in the amount of $190, stating that it was the full amount in her account at the time it was closed. What happened to the other $60? No explanation given -- then or since. A 24% charge for a student account that she was never able to access, after holding the money for three weeks before refunding it?

Of course, now that I've confirmed that they did in fact take the money from the other check, I certainly don't plan to let this one go. I will make a fuss, write a few letters (including to her college, suggesting that they considering switching on-campus banks), but I know that it won't matter in the end. That's the problem with BIG Banks, BIG business. They don't have to be responsive. There aren't as many choices, so you're stuck & they don't care.

Google "Bank of America Sucks" & you find 394,000 hits.

BOA stands for Bunch of Assholes.

Cartoon of the Day

Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer

Quote of the Day

“The American people are figuring it out,” Mr. McCain said. “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”

Similarly, this is not a restaurant; it's a place that sells food in exchange for money. And this is not library; it's a facility that lends books. And this is not my mother; it's the woman who gave birth to me and later provided me with sandwiches. And this is not a guy who should be president; it's some grandstanding senator with a very poor grasp of economics!

Oh, wait.

Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, What Could Have Been

The Myth, Redux

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ronald Reagan
Born this day in 1911

So my book arrived yesterday and, low & behold, it was the subject of discussion on the Rachel Maddow Show last night. Will Bunch, of Philly Daily News & Attytood, discussed his new book on the mythification of Ronald Reagan, Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future.

Like you-know-what, Bunch was also on Fresh Air with Terry Gross.

I wrote about Bunch's book before, The Legacy Lives, and predicted that the myth machine is no doubt gearing up for Bush. Of course, it will have to work overtime to try to rehabilitate his image. But knowing what masters of propaganda the GOP are (helped by the short memories of the public), I have no doubt they will spin him into a misunderstood man, who worked his genius behind the scenes or some such. That's why books like Bunch's are important -- to remind us of the truth.

I figured this was truly a fitting tribute to Reagan on his day.

Cartoon of the Day

Cam Cardow, Ottawa Citizen

The End is Near

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the party that is hoping that the end is near, that the Rapture will come to save them and destroy everyone else.

Yet, as we stand on the precipice of disaster, the Republican Party cannot bring itself to do anything to help stave off economic collapse. Rather, they are hoping for the worse. And not just for the economy -- now the terrorist fear-mongering is back, in full force. As David Kurtz of TPM says, Today's GOP: Hoping for the Worst:

It occurred to me while reading Politico's interview with Dick Cheney, that the GOP's plan to regain political viability in the short term rests on two disaster scenarios: the failure of the financial rescue efforts (stimulus, TARP, and other bailouts) to stave off complete economic collapse and a new mass casualty terrorist attack -- both of which they are positioning themselves to blame Obama for.

Without one of those two, they have to figure it's going to be a long time wandering in the political wilderness. Now think about the curdling effect, the blight on the soul that comes with rooting for such disasters to befall your country. The rot is now eating at the party's very core.

I guess it's easy when you've lost your soul, your humanity. Dick Cheney, the very individual to whom we entrusted our country for the last 8 years -- who left us with the dire results at hand, has the audacity to start pointing fingers the minute he leaves the door. Unlike most prior Presidents and VPs, who remain silent about their successors policies, Dick has no such compunction. Instead, Cheney warns of new attacks:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration’s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

See also, Dick Cheney Fear Mongering During Politico Interview: Warning of Massive Terrorist Attack.

And then, of course, there's that little matter of the economy. While some people are trying to stave off another Great Depression, the GOP is doing its part -- to make it happen sooner rather than later. Even I, cynic that I am, cannot truly believe that the Republican Party could be so destructive. That the GOP could not envision any issue that would trump partisanship, even if was necessary to save our economy from collapse. Yet, Josh Marshall of TPM describes it perfectly, in Denial As Political Strategy:

Behind all the back and forth over the Stimulus Bill is a simple fact: the debate in Washington is rapidly moving away from any recognition that the US economy -- and the global economy, for that matter -- is in free-fall. The range of outcomes stretches from severe recession to something closer to a replay of the Great Depression, though that label is perhaps better seen as a placeholder for 'catastrophic economic collapse' since the underlying place of the US economy in the world economy is very different from what it was in 1929. This reality was palpable in the political debate until as recently as a few weeks ago. But Republicans are using a strategy of conscious denial to push it off the stage.

Take stock of the last few weeks and you can almost visualize the two conversations -- path toward economic calamity and debate over Stimulus Bill -- diverging.

* * * *

Of course, at some level, why would Republicans be trying to drive the country off a cliff? Well, not pretty to say, but they see it in their political interests. Yes, the DeMints and Coburns just don't believe in government at all or have genuinely held if crankish economic views. But a successful Stimulus Bill would be devastating politically for the Republican party. And they know it. If the GOP successfully bottles this up or kills it with a death of a thousand cuts, Democrats will have a good argument amongst themselves that Republicans were responsible for creating the carnage that followed. But the satisfaction will have to be amongst themselves since as a political matter it will be irrelevant. The public will be entirely within its rights to blame Democrats for any failure of government action that happened while Democrats held the White House and sizable majorities in both houses of Congress.

President Obama was forced to remind us that we are at the brink of economic "catastrophe" and need to do something quickly if we have any chance of avoiding the worst case scenerio. See also, Paul Krugman, About that deflation risk.

When Obama ran on a campaign of hope, I'm not sure he realized how true it was. Things are so bad, that's about all we have left. Hope that we can avoid total collapse. Hope that it doesn't come to this, It’s Not Going to Be OK:

The daily bleeding of thousands of jobs will soon turn our economic crisis into a political crisis. The street protests, strikes and riots that have rattled France, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Iceland will descend on us. It is only a matter of time. And not much time. When things start to go sour, when Barack Obama is exposed as a mortal waving a sword at a tidal wave, the United States could plunge into a long period of precarious social instability.

At no period in American history has our democracy been in such peril or has the possibility of totalitarianism been as real. Our way of life is over. Our profligate consumption is finished. Our children will never have the standard of living we had. And poverty and despair will sweep across the landscape like a plague. This is the bleak future. There is nothing President Obama can do to stop it. It has been decades in the making. It cannot be undone with a trillion or two trillion dollars in bailout money. Our empire is dying. Our economy has collapsed.

Cartoon of the Day

Bob Gorrell

The Resume Enhancement Quandry

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reminded me of an interesting "resume enhancing" story that involves me, which has been the subject of much discussion among friends & family.

Apparently, questions have been raised regarding the credentials of the chief medical officer of a local hospital system, Doctor who checks credentials faces questions over his own resume. In his role as chief medical officer, this physician vets the credentials of the other physicians on staff at the Hospital, yet there are questions about the veracity of his own:

But the Navy's former surgeon general has long faced questions about the accuracy of his own resumé.

At least four official biographies have credited Arthur with a nonexistent master's degree - one that he agrees he never received.

Over the years, his resumé also has listed a Ph.D. and a law degree from two unaccredited schools, including one that closed after its leader pleaded guilty to fraud.

To the dismay of some veterans, Arthur has told Congress and others that he served in combat during the first Gulf War, though records show that his unit was never in battle.

And now for my story. A few months ago, my brother (he, who attended the Super Bowl with my husband) called to ask if I recognized a certain name from my law school days. I responded that the name sounded familiar, but that it's been a while since I was there. He said that he had read a nice feature article in the local paper about the guy, who was recently appointed CEO of a big business in South Florida. He then added that the piece mentioned that this guy was the valedictorian of my law school class. My brother (who went to the same school) said he checked his Alumni directory and sure enough, we were in the same graduating class. He said he was surprised to read that, since he recalled that I was the valedictorian (and that there wasn't a co-valedictorian).

Unlike this guy, who has apparently borrowed my class standing, I have generally never been one to emphasize that particular credential. In fact, I didn't even include it on my resume for many years. After he confirmed that the guy did in fact graduate with me, my brother & I laughed about it and thought of various methods that he would contact the guy to ask if he remembered me. After our conversation, I then googled the guy & discovered that he had been promoting himself as valedictorian of our class for many years.

I have to say that it's certainly amazing what a small world it is. Here's this guy, who steals my credentials & moves to Florida, only to be discovered. Not many people would even have remembered who was the valedictorian in any particular class year, so I'm sure he figured he was pretty safe. My brother, of course, would be one of that small group who would know & he just so happened to read the article.

Of course, I've been telling this story to friends & family, with various reactions. It certain raises a number of interesting ethical issues -- about the guy's conduct, as well as my own "obligation" to come forward. The opinion of most (by a significant majority) is that I should expose the guy as a fraud.

My favorite is my daughter's view -- that I should tell my mother what happened & let her take care of it -- and him. She imagines my mother marching over to his office & giving him hell and then spreading the news to the company. She just delights in the thought of the fireworks she would cause. My mother is nothing if not feisty (I get it honestly). During my visit with the family, my daughter just had to tell the tale to her grandmother. The family then came up with various scenarios for approaching the guy, some pretty humorous.

Obviously, this was totally unethical on his part and he deserves to be exposed for the fraud that he is. On the other hand, I don't want to be responsible for him losing his job, which may well occur if it were to be exposed. Does his "crime" really warrant the loss of his job and perhaps his career?

I already had that experience once, thank you very much -- related to the very same law school. In my last year of law school, I was an editor on law review & happened to see a law review article that had been plagiarized. It mysteriously disappeared when accusations were made by the editor of law review (before the days of computerized copies). As one of only two people who witnessed the plagiarism, I was the main witness in the disciplinary action (the other person was accused of bias), which resulted in the student's dismissal from law school. He deserved it, but I hated the fact that I was a major cause of this kid's expulsion.

In the end, it's just amazing to me that someone would be stupid enough to do something like this. Why was it necessary? He probably was in the top of our class, so did he really need to add the little extra bit of puffery to his resume?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Amnesty

Today is what's known as Blogroll Amnesty Day. Started by the only conservative that I regularly read, Jon Swift and a few others, it is a day of celebration of the smaller blogs. The idea is to mention some smaller blogs who don't get the recognition they deserve.

I know you're not supposed to say no one's smaller than me, but hey, it's true & who cares. I only say that so that my picks don't think I assume that they are smaller than me (not so).

In honor of the day, my list of 5 blogs are:

All Spin Zone -- Politics & a little bit of life, by a team of bloggers, but mostly by new father, Steven Reynolds;

Mirth, Musings, & More -- a witty world view & a cartoon of the day;

My Philadelphia Story -- mostly Philly doings;

Philadelphia Freedom Blog -- an activist's take on the important issues;

Philosophers' Playground -- life from a philosopher's point of view, with a bit of humor thrown in.

Video by that great supporter of small blogs, Blue Gal.

A Six-Pack & A Snowball

Back to the snow-filled City of Philly after our trip south. My husband is still high on the thrill of attending the Super Bowl, with an exciting win for his team, the Steelers. He & my brother (the two Daves) had fabulous seats (so they tell me) -- 18 rows back, near the 30 yard line. They saw all of the major action up close & personal.

And surprise of all surprises, I even watched the game. Even to my non-sports eyes, it was an exciting game. I was so happy for my husband that he got to be there for such a good game -- with the right outcome, of course.

I may not have gone to the game, but I got to spend some time with my family (including the daughter, who's a little homesick after her Christmas break). Of course, the weather cooled off a bit while I was there, but it was still a treat compared to the Welcome Home snow that greeted me on my return.



I spent a few days visiting my parents, so my on-line time was very limited -- they still use dial-up. In a way, it was a good thing. I got a chance to enjoy a good book without the usual breaks to see what's happening on-line.