I cannot possibly cover all the stories and topics that interest me and that I believe deserve broad exposure. In fact, some might  be worthy of only a few paragraphs at most, and my readers should know how loath I am to limit myself in verbiage.

Therefore I will periodically, if not every day, provide links to stories or opinion pieces that pique my curiosity. I may see fit to offer a remark or two of my own. Please feel free to peruse the artcles I link to and comment on them to your heart’s content.

I do not follow the so-called reality series such as The Bachelor. Frankly  I cannot image how realistic it is for one man (or woman) to be faced with the dilemma of choosing a life partner from a bevy of 25 or so hand-picked contestants.

However, according to The Root, two gentlemen have filed a class action suit alleging racial discrimination in the selection of the participants on these asinine programs, both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.

Even assuming their allegations are true, I’m of a mind they should be counting their blessings rather than hollering “Foul!” But to each his own.

Also arriving today, appropriately enough as it is the day tax returns must be in the mail, is an opinion by Matthew Yglesias in Slate that the reason for complicated taxes is  an “unholy alliance of tax prep firms and conservative activists”.

I don’t know how accurate his charges are nor do they, if true, affect me personally. But, as Yglesias points out, one of the favorite avocations of Americans is to knock the IRS, taxes and the whole bleeping process. His piece is certainly something you might want to explore in greater depth.

When I saw the following piece on The National Review, I assumed that it would add to the condemnation of Hilary Rosen for her comments last week about Ann Romney not working.

Surprisingly it’s a well-balanced piece instead on the validity of criticism of first wives and the spouses of candidates. Essentially Victor Hanson’s position is that if a spouse injects him or herself into the political fray, that spouse becomes fair game.

One thing I would like to stress is that Rosen’s comments were obviously about work outside the home, not inferring that moms who stay at home do not work.

In  the category “Mitt Romney is a political chameleon” comes this about how he recently distanced himself from his own father in asserting the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would be a target for cutting in his administration. George Romney served as HUD Secretary and was enthusiastic about the services it provided.

The writer, Andrew Leonard, views this as an example of how far the Republican Party has moved to the right.

I myself find it curious that the Mittster has, in effect, basically disavowed two of the major accomplishments of his father’s life. The first instance was his opposition to the auto industry  bailout when George had run an auto company. Now this. Maybe family is not nearly as important to Mitt as he would like us to believe.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • little_minx  On April 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM

    Another link you overlooked — “Return of the ‘white man’s party’?”:

  • umoc193  On April 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM

    I always welcome links to newsworthy items. I’m not quite convinced that the situation has reached that point, but it is surely a concern.

    Reading that I found this link about how the GOP is losing the war on taxes, or at least the public’s image of taxes.

    Coincidentally yesterday I had a phone conversation with a definitely conservative close friend of mine who happens to be in the 1%. I told him, “Pay more tax!”

  • little_minx  On April 17, 2012 at 11:14 PM

    Of course, our erstwhile ROW colleague “myreply” would likely claim that even questioning whether the GOP might be turning into a “white man’s party” is racist on the part of non-Republicans.

    • umoc193  On April 17, 2012 at 11:41 PM


      The link to the following was posted on FB by a friend of mine earlier on Tuesday.

      There are white lies. There are ordinary lies. There are big lies. And then there are lies that are so huge that it is difficult for a rational person to believe that such a lie has been attempted. The left’s talking points about the GOP, contraception, and women in America in the year 2012 are based on the biggest[i] lie of our century: the GOP is attempting to ban contraception in America.

      This lie cannot stand examination. The left lies about Social Security reform, unemployment numbers, the state of the economy, global warming, etc. The list is long. The script is methodical and boring. The politicians who deliver the lines of that script are boorish. But the assertion that the GOP is attempting to deny women contraception at the state level is so absurd and so heinous that the Party must not be silent. It must not sit quietly or offer up tepid rebuttals. The GOP must respond loudly and rationally. It must do so now.

      This is the source

      Of course it is just the opposite that is true. I cited the recent attempt in Arizona to forbid contraceptive prescriptions unless the woman could prove she needed them for medical, non-contraceptive reasons. Some fool has now challenged me, or thinks he has. He calls me a drone. Should I wipe the floor with his ass?

      • little_minx  On April 18, 2012 at 10:25 AM

        Well, it’s your friend, not mine, so it’s your choice what you want to say, if anything — especially if you plan to attend reunions together any more 😉

        P.S. Back in the early-to-mid ’60s, only married women could be prescribed birth control pills for contraceptive purposes (can’t recall whether husband’s express permission was required); unmarried women could get them only for “medical, non-contraceptive reasons” (because birth control for women outside of marriage was considered immoral).

  • little_minx  On April 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

    Talk about bigotry and bullying still being alive and well in the US 😦 Not only does Fox News head Roger Ailes slur CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien’s proud Hispanic heritage, he also calls her “girl” — thereby automatically dismissing her as someone to be taken seriously as a TV journalist. Reasonably interpreted from his statement are that:
    a) Ailes prejudicially assumed her parents were so ignorant or declassée that they considered being in a prison estimable, and/or perhaps even had a relative/friend locked up there (Ailes was playing into bigoted stereotypes of Hispanic-Americans as a criminal element and/or ignorant); and,
    b) Ailes thinks it’s OK to demean an identifiably Hispanic-American woman by calling her a “girl” — as if she were a “mere” domestic servant, or a Colombian prostitute engaged by the Secret Service during their recent Cartagena stay. One can only imagine the Faux News hue and cry had CNN’s Ted Turner called Fox’s Juan Williams a “boy.” (No doubt Ailes is still trying to “spin” George Allen Jr’s. racist “macaca” moment on the 2006 campaign trail, now that Allen’s trying again for his former US Senate seat from VA.).

    Here’s the relevant portion of the report on Ailes:

    “Roger Ailes: Soledad O’Brien Was ‘Named After A Prison'”:
    “Roger Ailes made a jaw-dropping comment about CNN’s Soledad O’Brien during a college lecture on Thursday night.
    “The Fox News chief was speaking to journalism students at the University of North Carolina. In the question-and-answer segment of the talk, he referred to O’Brien as ‘THAT GIRL THAT’S NAMED AFTER A PRISON.’ [my emphasis]
    “Ailes was referring to the Soledad Correctional Facility in Monterey County, California. CNN responded to the remark on Friday. An insider told The Huffington Post, ‘Roger is wrong. Soledad is named after the Virgin Mary, “Maria de la Soledad.” It’s a name her parents gave her in part because they met at Daily Mass.’
    “Ailes made the comment while speaking about the latest developments at the network for a lecture at the university’s journalism school…”

    • little_minx  On April 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM

      Should read, “…thereby automatically dismissing her as someone NOT to be taken seriously as a TV journalist.”

  • Deke  On April 18, 2012 at 4:55 PM

    Roger Ailes Is a Twinkie shy of a ton. He is one of the most ignorant slobs in pretend news or partisan news.

    • little_minx  On April 18, 2012 at 5:26 PM

      Perhaps Ailes is Tweedledum to Rush’s Tweedledee.

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: