Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

RE: Our First Lady - 'Nuff Said

hope · Guru

Gentle suggestion - maybe you should put that lovely post over in the "Off Topic" section, friend ! smile smile

longprime · Guru

I probably did,

But you know, I have my own agenda. evileye

hope · Guru

I'll just assume you misunderstood my post, lp. evileye

catahoula · Guru

Other than the odd convert, we're all products of our peer groups. If you want validation for ad homing a criticism, the internet's gorged on people who'll show you the way, including examples from prominent political pundits and figures. Is what it is and will change about the time... oh, rednecks start labeling all the intolerence coming their way as "hate" speech. Day after never would be a good guess.

Win: while I'm open to the idea our leanings are soft-wired, the fact is that sports fans don't typically go native just because they spend some time with opposing fans. The kind of transformational shift of the educational lobby's brainwashing curriculum you're speaking of sounds like something that'll spark a civil war.

hope · Guru

Well, snow predicted here tonight and tomorrow. Makes me happy, I love snow. No gardening plans here yet!

50+ Blue Herons must be quite a sight! We had a resident at our last house. At this house, we have resident deer. another reason not to start planning a garden.

Also, good news about your son ! Maybe youR son will have good taste in women, unlike my younger.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 07:32:59 PM

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 07:36:15 PM

longprime · Guru

daffadils are up. A few showing blooms.

I saw 50+ Blue Herons near Chehalis WA, on Amtrak Cascades. About 20 nests high in the cottonwood trees. Not sure if they are migrants or permanent resident herons, since we have both.

Geese are building bigger V's. They probably won't be here much longer.

Thinking about mowing the lawn again, which I did 15 days ago.

Got most of tree pruning done. Need more gas for chainsaw and mower. Need to plant a grape and put on a spray for the blueberries and fruit trees.

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 06:51:05 PM

longprime · Guru

hope wrote:
their smug superiority that they alone care for the planet, the children, the poor, the elderly, animals, people of color, the nonreligious, immigrants, gays, lesbians, trangenders, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Furthermore, our schools are for the most part liberal-controlled.
-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 05:23:49 PM

OK:

We had a farm on this "planet", still have the land. The Soil is important, as is the weather, markets, and labor.

We have a child. What is good for him is good for us. Perhaps it also goes the other way, too.

The "poor" will never become wealthy unless they take bigger risks.

The "elderly" I got three of them over 93. and one "touched" adult {besides me}

"Nonreligious" , in the Name of God.

"of color". Rather I have color vs having a mix of colors that make white.

2nd generation immigrant. DW is 1st.

"gay, lesbian, transgender..." Great news, I just visited DS, I needed to use his computer (he's not home) and I find that he has several conversations on an online dating site, so now I am more certain that he is straight and interested in "them" smile

"Schools liberal controlled", he graduated very high with many awards, at all his public schools and private university.

Can I [still] be your friend? evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 06:22:42 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 06:28:47 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Well, Argo was about a failed Democratic President who bumbled his way through failed foreign policy, so I guess there was some symbolism, there.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

So I guess what I am getting at, is why is dissent = hate? Why is it when I make a statement that I think the First Lady presenting an Oscar at an awards ceremony - flanked by our military as props, by the way - why is that hate?

I do think that politics and Hollywood has taken on a completely incestuous relationship. I am not even addressing that issue right now.

What Michelle Obama did was unprecedented. And this makes it weird. In my opinion.

I can address other things - seeing her on Fallon's show, dancing. Okay, that is cute, but really...is it appropriate for a First Lady? Do you want to see this? I guess some people do. I think that the more our First Couple goes on daytime tv or late night comedy, the more it makes me cringe. It makes me 1) wonder the cost of this excusion and 2) wonder the intent of why they are going on the show. Is it to reach out to the American people, show how normal they are? Because no first family is normal. They just aren't.

I believe that when millions of people are still unemployed and fell off the radar (not everyone unemployed gets those benefits), or is struggling to figure out how to pay their rent or mortgage or when they face an expense they weren't and are trying to figure out how to pay for it, it's a little difficult to see that our country's leadership thinks it is appropriate to spend money on frivolous things.

This isn't Hate with a little "h" or a big "H", either.

This is wondering what the hell our country is doing to balance our budget, make smart decisions and lead us on the right path.

Unfortunately, these days I don't believe they have any of those objectives in mind. Which makes me a minority.

Does that give me protected status? Will people be tolerant of my admittedly outsider viewpoints? Nope. But if I am doing it in public, someone like Nancy Pelosi will call me a Nazi, as she did when Tea Partiers questioned the direction our country was heading.

hope · Guru

Those were nice posts, Samurai.

Winchester, sadly, I do not think liberals want to understand why conservatives think the way they do. Most of them (not all), would not want to give up their smug superiority that they alone care for the planet, the children, the poor, the elderly, animals, people of color, the nonreligious, immigrants, gays, lesbians, trangenders, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Furthermore, our schools are for the most part liberal-controlled. They will not be open to Haidt's ideas, no matter how many times he tells them he is a liberal. :)

As a former liberal who transformed fairly recently (2000), I had liberal friends who , I sensed, just by virtue of my voting Republican, believed I had become a hater. Had, yes.

Edit - "had, yes" - meaning those are no longer friends.

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 05:23:49 PM

winchester · Guru

Michelle set off on the wrong foot with the 47 percent when she said upon the nomination of Barack " for the first time I am proud of my country." That gave a glimpse into her heart from which many (myself included) have never recovered. Think about that statement - especially those of us who have loved ones who have fought and died for the ideals of this country. it was,and remains, chilling.

Hope,

This, too, is a pattern of thought that is characteristic of the partial-spectrum morality. And yes, it is indeed chilling. The difference between Michelle Obama's thinking and the anarchic thinking of Occupy Wall Street is only a matter of degree. They're both examples of the style of thought - the cognitive processes - that go on in the mind(s) of those whose morality uses only a portion of the foundations.

The partial-spectrum morality does not "get" that "morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible." (From the same article quoted in my earlier post) Rather, it tends to see the glue of society - things like the customs, traditions, and institutions that are part of a culture - as tools of oppression that crush liberty and human happiness, and which therefore must be "fundamentally transformed."

I know references to history (i.e., dead white men) make many people's eyes glaze over, but the fact of the matter is that it has been ever thus. Human nature does not, has not changed. The two types of morality - the full-spectrum type and the partial-spectrum type - and the thought processes associated with each, are visible throughout human history since at least as far back as the enlightenment, and arguably hundreds of years beyond that.

In his Reflections on the French Revolution, Edmund Burke sees in the offing something terrible. What he sees is the unloosing of passions and vitriol. He sees in the elimination of these ageless institutions and practices, he sees in the reduction of the authority of the church – for all its faults – a liberation of the worst instincts of human nature, instincts that had long and healthily been controlled by monarchies, by clergies, by a sane and sober approach to life, not seeking perfection and the ideal, but rather seeking to get through a lifetime in a productive and decent way. He sees that with those restraints removed – terrible, terrible things will happen. - American Ideals: Founding a “Republic of Virtue,” Daniel N. Robinson, Ph. D., The Great Courses, Chantilly, VA, 2004, page 180.

And indeed, terrible things did happen.

And that same morality, that same style of thought, is evident in Occupy Wall Street. Those people actually marched on the homes of the rich. Is there any doubt that, had they felt they had the strength in numbers to get away with it, they would have entered those homes? And then God only knows what would have happened. Actually, we have a pretty good idea of exactly what would have happened, because we've seen it before. The revolutionaries in France did have the strength in numbers, and we all know what happened there.

Now, nobody is saying that Michelle Obama would think for one second that that sort of mob behavior is justifiable. But it is undeniable that the underlying mentality that sees human history as one big struggle between "the little guy" and the "institutions" of power and oppression are evident in comments like the one to which you referred that she, her husband, and many, many others of the partial-foundation morality have been making since, well, as I said before, since the enlightenment.

The experiences you had on CC, and the tactics you describe there, are just variations on the same theme. They demonstrate the same "liberation of the worst instincts of human nature" and the "unloosing of passions and vitriol" that happen when the foundations "that bind people into intensely interdependent groups that work together to reach common goals" are lost. As you said, "It's nasty stuff."

longprime · Guru

Well, February was Black History Month. A nominee was about Lincoln and the 13 Amendment. But alas, ARGO, won the best pix-The Academy didn't have an actor/director/producer award the prize{to ARGO, which is about producing a show of actors}

-Or did they? evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 12:24:45 PM

winchester · Guru

So what is the solution?

The “hate” you’re talking about is the demonization that comes from ignorance of the motivations – the morality – of others. The solution is to attack the problem at its source.

We can reduce demonization and shrink the political divide by teaching the lessons of The Righteous Mind in age appropriate modules in practically every subject – from literature to history to civics to health to economics – in our public schools from K through 12 and beyond. I am confident that if our children understand how Moral Foundations influence the way people think in all walks of life and how they affect the way people relate with one another in the social world then future generations will have a deeper grasp of human nature and will thus be better equipped to get along; leaders who emerge will make better decisions through an increased empathy for how our righteous minds really work.

In the introduction of The Righteous Mind Dr. Haidt says:

People who devote their lives to studying something often come to believe that the object of their fascination is the key to understanding everything. Books have been published in recent years on the transformative role in human history played by cooking, mothering, war . . . even salt. This is one of those books.

I believe Dr. Haidt is more right than even he realizes. I believe the righteous mind (the phenomenon, rather than the book) is an integral part of the history of mankind, and certainly of politics. For example, I believe that the liberal and conservative righteous minds provided the intellectual underpinnings of the French and American Revolutions, respectively, and more recently of the Occupy and Tea Party movements in America. The two outlooks are also reflected, I suggest, in the economic visions of Keynes and Hayek. Moral foundations are evident in the stories and fables we tell our preschoolers, and in the literature our teenagers read in high school English. Practically every subject in our public education system could include a module which explicitly identifies and reinforces the ideas of The Righteous Mind and shows how those ideas are brought to bear on that subject; Even, or possibly especially, “Health” classes, where our kids might be taught how moral foundations can sometimes make it difficult to see eye to eye, and how understanding where others are “coming from” can help them to get past that problem.

We cannot possibly expect future generations to get along unless and until we “change the path” in a way that gives them a truer grasp of why getting along can be so hard to do.

Anyone who has not done so already should invest twenty minutes in this video.

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 08:56:50 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

It is my belief that the word "hate" has changed meaning over the years. When you see bumper stickers that say "I hate mean people" on the back of cars, or hear a high school or say "I hate math" or a young adult say they "hate intolerant people", the message of what that word really and truly means is lost.

Think of hated like the foaming at the mouth Westboro Baptist Church members against innocent people, those who do not deserve scorn.

It is an appalling kind if hate that confuses most Christians that I know. You can hate the sin, but not the sinner, right?

hate in it's purest form is the kind of thing that inspires senseless violence against others, merely for really no good reason. Attacking a kid and beating them senseless because they are gay, or a different race or whatever...yes, that is a "hate crime".

But what about when you don't agree with another party's political beliefs? Does that make you a "hater"? Not even close. What about disparaging remarks about a President because he or she has a different opinion than you on policy issues? Are you hating on him?

the problem with this word in the current vernacular, is that we boil everything down to hate. Yet, truly, if you look at what often is considered hate, it is overwrought and overdone.

Sometimes we look for things that aren't there. We see things as truth when that is merely our own interpretation off the facts.

We assume things. Way too much.

When I was on CC years ago and made what I thought was a good friend across my political aisle, I called her on her frothing dislike of President Bush. She said things that were completely irrational, not based in proof. Largely because of her responses, I am careful to check the things that I say or do in public discourse, anonymous or not. I don't post things that are of questionable origin, I consider carefully my words and how they might offend - even if I have a valid point.

in that 5 years, I have learned a bunch. I have found that dissent can sometimes be construed as hate. If I didn't agree with Cash for Clunkers, it must be that I was a racist and just not giving the Preident a chance. (Yes, this really happened.)

if I believe that the President has been aloof and not a good leader, it is because I am... Fill in the bLank, it is possible I have been called many names over my beliefs.

As an admittedly secular conservative, leawning towards Libertarian, I have been constantly surprised (note: add sarcasm) by the media slant of the news, whether on front page or opinion sections.

What I find absolutely, positively hysterical is when my I opinions about illegal immigration get the response that I am intolerant of Hispanics. I believe that we should have a guest worker program. That said, I am baffled at the idea that we need to feed, educate and provide medical care for those who do not abide by our laws. Our fluid borders have allowed a situation where border states are going broke without any added stresses to the system. We provide breakfast and lunch to many of these children every day, and in return, they help overcrowd our schools. They crowd our ER's. They cost our state a bundle - money we don't have.

Sounds like I hate these kids, right? Not at all. In fact I work with them everyday and I know they are great kids. they have been dragged here by parents looking for a better life, or born here as anchor babies. I get it. But, that being said, I resent that they are a burden to our system and our country and my state doesn't deal with the basic situation at hand. Our borders. Enforcing the rules of immigration. Is it any wonder why they come? Our country wants to eeverywhere everyone and welcome everyone, but we simply do not have the resources to do so.

It is not uncommon in schools in my area to have 30-40 kids per classroom. When I was growing up, it was about half thaT number. Our budgets are not being balanced, our debt to income ratio is a killer.

So what is the solution?

Going back to that original statement - what is hate?

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 08:18:41 AM

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Tuesday 5th of March 2013 08:19:27 AM

winchester · Guru

FDR

Ronald Reagan - video cameo

Laura Bush - video cameo with several other public figures

None of these have presented awards.

To my point: Romani's response, "Michelle is not the first First Lady to make an appearance at the Oscars. Grasp for reasons to hate her elsewhere," is a common, and arguably ubiquitous, construct of liberal thought.

It is saying, basically, "Conservatives do it too, so get off your high horse," while at the same time it is ignoring important distinctions that really do make a difference.

Think of it in terms of the analogy of the moral "spectrum" in my previous post. "When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer."

From the perspective of the full-spectrum morality there's something unseamly about a political figure being "in bed" with the entertainment industry the way Michelle Obama was, but the above mentioned others were not. She crossed a line that the others did not, but it's a line that the partial-spectrum morality seems to be blind to.

The failure to see the line; the failure to see the important distinctions that really do make a difference, and the insistence that everybody else is just as bad, are variations on the larger theme of moral relativism that is an essential element of the partial-spectrum morality.

winchester · Guru

Why is criticism equated with hate in some people's minds. Serious question.

I’ve been offering the real, serious, answer to this question here for years.

Note that what I’m saying is general in nature. It is not directed at, or inspired by, any particular person, real or imagined. It is about trends and tendencies, averages and aggregates. Each individual person occupies their own unique spot on the political spectrum, and may or may not conform to the averages.

But, on average...

The logical leap that equates criticism with hatred is far more common on the left than on the right, and the reason for it is moral dumbfounding.

Moral dumbfounding is when a person innately ‘knows’ that something is morally right or wrong, but they just can’t come up with a rational explanation for it.

When a person is dumbfounded about their own beliefs, they say things like “Even though I can’t explain it right now, I just know it is right (or wrong.)"

When a person is dumbfounded in their attempts to understand or explain the beliefs of those with whom they disagree, they are generally left with but one conclusion: that the other person must be afflicted with some sort of mental, psychological, or moral disorder. For example, “hatred.”

Liberals perceive less of the spectrum of morality than conservatives do, and therefore have a greater tendency to jump to that conclusion.

morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?
…
A [conservative] Durkheimian ethos can't be supported by the two moral foundations that hold up a [liberal] Millian society (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). My recent research shows that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble). These three systems support moralities that bind people into intensely interdependent groups that work together to reach common goals. Such moralities make it easier for individuals to forget themselves and coalesce temporarily into hives, a process that is thrilling, as anyone who has ever "lost" him or herself in a choir, protest march, or religious ritual can attest.

In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.
…
If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns.

From: What Makes People Vote Republican?

winchester · Guru

Michelle is not the first First Lady to make an appearance at the Oscars

Who were the others? What was the nature of their participation?

hope · Guru

You know, maybe because I'm a woman, I have found myself being critical of almost all First Ladies. I think the only one in my lifetime I really admired was Laura Bush, for her grace and charm, softspokenness and steadiness, and also because she did much more good than was publicized, and shunned the spotlight. My view of Hillary is complicated--many things about her I do admire, any many not. I think the only First Lady I would truly love would be Bess Truman. Now there was a no-nonsense woman!

That explanation is a good one, Winchester, but I doubt a liberal who would label criticism as hate would even read it, let alone consider it. No, in an online community like this, the motivation is much darker, I think. It's to marginalize a poster so they will go away. I dealt with it constantly at CC., as did many conservative posters, especially the ones nearer the socially conservative side of the spectrum. It's nasty stuff.

Michelle set off on the wrong foot with the 47 percent when she said upon the nomination of Barack " for the first time I am proud of my country." That gave a glimpse into her heart from which many (myself included) have never recovered. Think about that statement - especially those of us who have loved ones who have fought and died for the ideals of this country. it was,and remains, chilling.

Unfortunately, for me, she has yet to win my respect. Not that she cares!!! Lol.

-- Edited by hope on Monday 4th of March 2013 09:08:36 PM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 4th of March 2013 09:10:46 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

FDR

Ronald Reagan - video cameo

Laura Bush - video cameo with several other public figures

None of these have presented awards.

Of all, Reagan was the most legit to be there - as a forner actor and firmer President of Screen Actors Guild

Just my two cents.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Monday 4th of March 2013 02:29:01 PM

hope · Guru

If the FLOTUS puts herself out there in a very public way, more as celebrity than First Lady, criticism goes with the territory. No biggie to her, I'm sure.

She's got, I think, something like a a 75 percent approval rating.

What I find fascinating is why if one doesn't get with the program and love her every utterance/action/ activity/initiative/appearance, one "hates" her.

Guess we'll never know, since my "accuser" left the building. :)

longprime · Guru

Saw Lincoln, while visiting son. Mary Lincoln may not have said much in public audience, but she sure said a lot to Abe. Perhaps PBO discovered that to keep his spouse happy, is to let her speak as she well pleases, but only if he doesn't have to hear it. Other that, do you think anyone pays attention to the doings of the President's wife? evileye

Maybe some have heard too much of Hillary while Bill was in the WH. Then to see her in the Senate and as SoS. Unlike Republican wives, Democratic wives speak their mind???

blankmind · Senior Member

You can like someone, and still feel that certain things they choose to do are inappropriate. Saying that you think something the First Lady does strikes you as not so cool, does not mean you hate her. I wonder why any criticism of the Obamas is automatically labeled as hate speech. Why do so some seem to feel that the Obamas cannot handle even slightly negative commentary?

catahoula · Guru

National face time alongside the people that support her and her husband. An equivalent might be Laura Bush having shown up at a national NRA convention, though I'm not sure there even is such a thing.

That it wouldn't be televised if there were certainly kicks the analogy in it's teeth anyway.

hope · Guru

Some things never change. Why is criticism equated with hate in some people's minds. Serious question.

It is our civic duty to evaluate our elected officials, as adults, according to our beliefs/conscience. This includes the FLOTUS, since her activities are at least partially subsidized by our tax dollars.

We currently have a two-party system in this country, meaning two legitimate schools of thought as to how our government should be run, how our President and First Lady should behave while in office, etc.

Labeling disagreement as "hate," or in the case of the Obamas, as racist is just an attempt to shut down dissent, IMO.

Why do you think you would label criticism of Mrs. Obama as hate, Romani? Did you actually read the criticism of her by people of color included in the article I posted below? Do you think those people, too, hate her ?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Hate is a strong word. Even CNN and the Washington Post made comments that her appearance there was maybe too much and not appropriate. A Jump The Shark moment, even.

Personally, I am far more aggravated that our President doesn't schmooze with actual politicians to get **** done. There is a lot of whining about the other party without actually working together. Leaders lead. Not everyone is a good leader, even if they are a good politician.

Even long time Democrats have discussed how Obama is a no-show on meetings. The President has said that it isn't his priority to schmooze and his own biographer even said it. He prefers to be home with his family instead of working on policy. Makes for a good dad, but not necessarily a good President who can make things happen. Gridlock in DC is worse than it has ever been.

I would like to see less of him on Letterman and the View and hear more about him working on things like budgets and silly things like that.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I didn't watch the Oscars. Celebrities don't appeal to me. Just think that some people look for reasons to hate her and this fit in well.

busdriver11 · Guru

I didn't watch the Oscars, and I didn't care whether the first lady was on it. But I did find amusing the article someone wrote about how she should have been presenting the Oscar for Best Actor in a Drama Series. And nominated her husband, for hysteria about the sequester.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Michelle is not the first First Lady to make an appearance at the Oscars. Grasp for reasons to hate her elsewhere.

And I thought the dance was hilarious.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I didn't watch the Oscars. I did think it was a little odd that our First Lady made an appearance. I think it has happened before but it still sees weird to me.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Although, a friend less cynical than me said, Hollywood and politics are like BFF"s" so maybe it isn't that weird.

I mean, the Silver Linings Playbook team hired Stephanie Cutformer formerly of Obama's team - to push not only the movie for Oscar consideration but also promote discussion of mental health issues since Sandy Hook.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 1st of March 2013 10:13:25 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

It isn't about hating on First Lady. It is about honoring and recognizing the value of award by having those who voted, acted, wrote, directed and all the things Hollywood does present these awards. Having an outsider present an award for Best Picture is odd. Why not a CIA Director? A basketball player? Honey Boo Boo?

I always thought of this night, like all other awards shows for film, tv and music to be pretentious snd over the top vehicles of self congratulation - but that is the model they have embraced, so I think it is odd to go outside the voting members of the Academy.

I think it takes the meaning of tge award and politicizes it. I would feel this way whether it was a Republican or Democrat, too.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 1st of March 2013 09:31:58 AM

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 1st of March 2013 09:34:51 AM

hope · Guru

What a relief that those of us who have had these opinions for years now are NOT racists after all! smile

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-michelle-obama-the-oscars-were-an-unbecoming-frivolity/2013/02/26/57d2105c-8050-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?hpid=z3">http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-michelle-obama-the-oscars-were-an-unbecoming-frivolity/2013/02/26/57d2105c-8050-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?hpid=z3

this, along with Woodward, some Politico pieces.....is there a change a comin'? evileye

hope · Guru

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-jimmy-fallon-performs-the-evolution-of-mom-dancing-with-first-lady-michelle-obama/">http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-jimmy-fallon-performs-the-evolution-of-mom-dancing-with-first-lady-michelle-obama/