You don't need a briefing book on being a mother to answer this one: What do you do when your daughter comes home complaining that she wants to drop off the swim team or quit the play or, with the little ones, never go to school again because the other kids are being so mean, calling her names and saying unbelievably terrible things about her family and especially her mother?
Professional politicians and political journalists don't waste energy on political corpses. They reserve their energy -- positive or negative -- for viable politicians.
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built," Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said last year to explain why Sen. John McCain picked her to be his running mate. Those words may come back to haunt her. When she assumed office in December 2006, Palin committed to Alaskan voters to serve four years. Having failed to do so, she will be in no position to campaign in 2012 for four years in the White House.
Why are cities growing faster than the rest of the country? That's happening and reverses a decade-long trend, according to new U.S. Census figures. Gainers in 2008 included such diverse locations as Chicago, Los Angeles, Columbus, Ohio, and Lincoln, Neb. The Census found that cities losing people, such as Cleveland, were shrinking at a slower rate.
One policy of the Obama administration that has understandably attracted little public attention is its proposal to make the Federal Reserve a "systemic risk regulator."
After nine months of explosive monetary and fiscal stimulus, you'd think economic recovery would be upon us. But the June jobs report tells a much different story.
Americans hope to discuss health care, climate change, green economics or public infrastructure with any degree of realism, then the time has come to acknowledge that hearing someone say "a trillion dollars" is no reason to panic. Politicians and pundits cite that figure to argue that we cannot afford health care reform, following recent cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), but the plain truth is that we spend (and squander) more than that on purposes not nearly so wise and humane as universal quality health care.
Americans agree on health care. Ask them, "Who should pay for it," and they all answer, "Not me." But follow up with, "Who, then?" and you have a fight on your hands.
The Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the case of the New Haven firefighters, was a ringing endorsement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on racial discrimination and a repudiation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's decision in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Is there still a revolution about to happen in Iran? Is my state going to run out of money tomorrow, and start printing IOUs? Can the crazy North Koreans really attack Hawaii? Was there a coup in Honduras? Do we care? The short answer to all the above questions is -- who knows? What I can tell you is that the traffic on Sunset near Michael Jackson's house is backed up. Again.
How many California state employees does it take to screw in a light bulb?
An open-minded individual, I am willing to support an adulterer for elective office. But my ability to look past marital infidelity depends on how much humiliation was heaped on the wife. The details matter.
Democrats' plans to pass major health care legislation have been stymied, at least for the moment, by the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimates. To the consternation and apparent surprise of leading Democrats, the CBO scored Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus' latest offering at $1.6 trillion over 10 years, while it scored the completed sections of Sen. Christopher Dodd's bill at $1 trillion. Presumably, the incomplete sections would cost more.
This is not a joke. Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that required an Oregon public school district to pay a $5,200 monthly tuition (plus fees) for a private boarding school for a high-school senior whose psychologist had diagnosed him with ADHD, depression, math disorder and cannabis abuse.
Why do we need President Obama's big-bang health-care reform at all? What's the real agenda here? If it's really to cover the truly uninsured, a much cheaper, targeted, small-ball approach would do the trick.
There is a tendency for newly installed presidents, like adolescents suddenly liberated from adult supervision, to do the exact opposite of what their predecessors did. Presidents of both parties indulge in this behavior, though Democrats who campaign as candidates of hope and change are more likely to do so.
If Congress fails to enact health care reform this year -- or if it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the "public option" -- then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption. The punishment inflicted by angry voters is likely to be reduced majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives -- or even the restoration of Republican rule on Capitol Hill.
An 11th Commandment could read: Thou shalt not cheat the meek.
There are two schools of thought on this nation’s health care dilemma. One asserts that the primary issue is the 47 million uninsured.
I always love it when politicians start talking about "the American people" believing this or that, as if we all do and they know it.
