I'm glad to see that, when it really matters, Americans are able to take action and force their legislators to OBEY! From the BBC:

The US state of New Jersey has scrapped plans to ban bikini waxes after an outcry from beauty salon owners.

The Cosmetology and Hairstyling Board proposed the move after two women were hospitalised for infections following the procedure; one filed a lawsuit. But officials reversed course after salon owners complained about losing business ahead of the swimsuit season.

*****

David Szuchman, New Jersey's consumer affairs director, said in a letter to the board on Friday that he would not support the ban."Many commenters have noted that the procedure can be safely performed. I, therefore, believe that there are alternate means to address any public health issues identified by the board," Mr Szuchman wrote.

*****

Spa owner Linda Orsuto told the Associated Press news agency: "It was an unnecessary issue. "In New Jersey especially, where the government has been picking our pockets for so long, it was like: 'Just stay out of our pants, will you?'" 

Oh...if only the raging anger to keep the government out of our pants could extend itself to keeping the government out of our pockets, purses and wallets. 

THE PRESIDENT:  Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.

This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture.  Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans.  We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained.  But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together.  Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays -- by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations.  Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders.  We have serious differences that have grown over time.  My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.  This process will not be advanced by threats.  We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice.  The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.  You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.  And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek.  It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce.  It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily.  There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences.  But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago:  "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share.  And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.

Do you love this guy or what? 

Last night's post, updates below -

As most of you are aware, Obama will appear on Jay Jeno tonight. Of course, the show was already taped, and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC Countdown just let it be known that part of Obama and Leno's chat turned to the topic of bowling. As Olbermann reported, Leno asked Obama if he had taken the bowling alley out of the White House, to which Obama replied that it was still there and he had been practising. "I scored a 129...I know, it sounds like the Special Olympics." (for the record, this was my recollection of what Keith said on his show, around 8:30pm, having seen the original taping that had yet to be aired at midnight)

The exact transcript, according to economides:

For the record the exact words were:
Leno: Are they gonna put a basketball...I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.
Obama: No no, I have been practicing already...
Leno: Really... really?
Obama: I bowled a 129 [applause]. Yes, I have...
Leno: Oh no that's very good, yeah, no that's very good, Mr. President. {holding his hand to his mouth to exaggerate the fact that he mocking}
Obama: (muffled) I was sorta just like...{putting his hand on jay's arm} This is like Special Olympics or something.
Leno: Oh that that's very good .
Obama: No, no, listen, I..I.. I am making progress on the bowling

 

So there you have it. Be prepared for self-righteous indignation that Obama made a joke about handicapped kids. The horror......

I'm ready to give him a pass, I'm sure we'll get a heartfelt apology pretty soon, but the wingnuts, who have been busy cutting back the very programs that help the physically and mentally challenged, will, of course, have a field day with this.

Update -

Per ABC News, the White House has issued the following apology:

"The president made an off-hand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. "He thinks the Special Olympics is a wonderful program that gives an opportunity for people with disabilities from around the world."

Update Part II - Friday Morning Punditry -

From the New York Times:

He had one impolitic moment when trying to make a self-deprecating joke about his bowling score of 129, saying, "That was like the Special Olympics or something." But mostly he stayed benign and folksy even while discussing the need to undo bonuses, fix banks and regulate credit card rates.

From Reuters:

President Barack Obama has apologized for a gaffe in which he described his bowling skills as akin to participants in the Special Olympics, a sports program for people with intellectual disabilities...

"It's like -- it was like Special Olympics or something," Obama said.

The Special Olympics is a global nonprofit organization serving some 200 million people with intellectual disabilities, with a presence in nearly 200 countries worldwide. They compete in sporting events like the real Olympics.

Soon after the Jay Leno interview, Obama telephoned Special Olympics chairman Tim Shriver to apologize.

Shriver told ABC's "Good Morning America" television show that Obama had apologized "in a way that I think was very moving" and that he said "he did not intend to humiliate the population, didn't want to embarrass or give anybody any more reason for pain or kind of suffering."

Shriver said people should gain a lesson from the incident.

"I think it's important to see that words hurt. Words do matter. And these words in some respect, can be seen as humiliating or a put-down to people with special needs, do cause pain. And they do result in stereotypes," Shriver said.

From The Washington Post:

Obama Likens His Bowling Game to Special Olympics: President Obama seemed relaxed and in good cheer tonight during his appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." But there was one misstep that surely made his advisers wince.

Leno asked the president whether the White House bowling alley had been "burned and closed down" in light of Obama's gutter ball embarrassment on the campaign trail last year.

Obama replied, "No, no. I have been practicing . . . I bowled a 129."

The audience roared with laughter, and the late-night talk show host assured Obama "that's very good, Mr. President." To which Obama interjected, "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something."

The audience laughed. But the White House didn't let the comment linger without clarification.

Huffington Post has it headlined "Obama 'Special Olympics' Crack on Tonight Show" and includes a poll, currently showing evenly split public opinion:

Quick Poll

Obama's joke about the Special Olympics was...

Just a light-hearted, self-deprecating comment. Get over it people. 28.05%

Maybe a dumb thing to say, but he didn't mean it in a mean-spirited way, and it is pretty funny. 26.73%

A tasteless comment that he should not have said, period. 22%

Why are we even talking about this? 23.22%

It's been pretty quiet on the Coleman v. Franken front, as we wait for the Minnesota Election Contest Court to issue its ruling. What's taking so long? Any bets on whether the ruling will be announced by Friday afternoon?

A quick Google turned up a website that has been following the case. Today's update from Campaign Silo:

It's Thursday, and we're still waiting for the Election Contest Court's rulings on the case, so here are some more news items to keep us occupied.

The Senate recount contest isn't the only legal action Norm's been involved in recently.  MinnPost's Cynthia Dizikes reminds us that the Kazeminy lawsuits are still very much out there and lying in wait for the former Senator Coleman once he's done burning through his donors' money here in Saint Paul.  

Meanwhile, Joe Bodell over at the Minnesota Progressive Project is curious as to why Norm's been spending so much time in the Election Contest Court -- every single day, in fact -- even as Al Franken has not.  Bearing in mind that Norm is a lawyer, though not a currently active one, Bodell puts forth the possibility that Norm might be appearing on his own behalf as some sort of consultant, and racking up fees for doing so.  This is just the sort of thing that Franken's petition to have a losing Coleman pay for various expenses would uncover quite nicely.  It's also the sort of thing that would irritate Norm's donors nearly as much as his cavalier handling of their credit-card data.

Yesterday's update had an interesting note on the much-hyped GOP plan to take it to the Supreme Court, should Franken be declared the winner:

As Eric Black of MinnPost reported two weeks ago (and I referenced here), the Minnesota Supreme Court's justices have in their rulings on this case, been consistently referring to the end of the case being when the state courts are done with it -- in other words, once they, as members of the highest state court in Minnesota, have reached their decision on this case, the certificate question is over, even if Coleman appeals to the Federal level.  

So guess what?  The Republicans can throw all the money they want at this -- and really, I wish they would, because all the legal activity in St. Paul and all the spending generated by the hordes of lawyers in town for the past five months has helped the local economy more than the RNC ever did -- and it won't matter one bit for Normy because once the state Supremes flush this contest and appeal down the toilet, Al Franken gets his election certificate.

So yes, it's almost over, and Coleman can look forward soon to growing back those lovely locks from his hippie days. Of course, there is still the appeal to the State Supreme Court that we will have to sit through, but Coleman's burden looks even heavier if it goes that far. Here's an interesting breakdown of Coleman's claim to equal protection by Richard L. Hasen in Slate:

When the court hearing the contest finally rules, the losing side--which most people think will be Coleman--is expected to appeal to the state Supreme Court. There, Coleman will need more than an argument that the lower court counted the ballots wrong, a decision the state Supreme Court will not want to second-guess. So Coleman's lawyers and the Republican leadership are already previewing their backup argument: that the equal-protection principles of Bush v. Gore require the courts either to count more illegal absentee votes cast for him or to order a new election in the state.

The Republican leadership has professed a renewed love for Bush v. Gore. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently urged Coleman to fight on to the state Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, declaring, "We all remember Bush v. Gore." Sen. Lindsey Graham told Politico that "from what I can tell, there are legal issues well worth taking up in the [Supreme] Court. ... I think the whole Bush v. Gore--using the same standards to count votes is a big issue."

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled that Franken cannot get his certificate of election until the state election contest is resolved. To drag out the fight even longer, Sen. John Cornyn suggested that Coleman should bring a parallel suit in federal court should he lose in the state courts. All of this, of course, helps Republicans delay the day when the Senate has 59 Democrats.

Turning this debacle into a Bush v. Gore debacle may be appealing to the GOP, but the strategy is filled with so many inherent problems that it may be nothing but a right wing pipe dream. Hansen's article is well worth reading in full, but as he sums it up:

It seems unlikely that either of these Bush v. Gore arguments would fare well in court.

***

In the end, Coleman doesn't have a strong equal-protection argument. Then again, most of us thought George W. Bush didn't, either.

.

There is a great column up in the Washington Post today, Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know, by Billy Wharton. The column addresses the uninformed use of the term "socialism" by the minions of the right wing, but the money quotes are to be found near the end:

The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.

Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.

Recommended reading.