It's bad enough that we here in Arizona have to suffer the incessant bigotry and hatred for illegal immigrants that has swept into law a shocking and almost certainly unconstitutional overreach by the police state of Arizona. (see my buddy Randall Amster's post "It's a Dry Hate" on HuffPo for more deatils) But now, we have slackjawed proto-neaderthal Steve Blair, a city-councilman in Prescott AZ inciting residents of the town to scream racial epithets at a mural painted on the side of an elementary school as they pass by in their cars. The offending mural depicts black and latino children prominently.

Blair, from behind the microphone at his AM talk radio show (from which he's subsequently been removed) decries the depiction of dark-skinned children even though the likenesses are of actual students at the school. This results in demands that the faces be lightened. The school superintendent and the principal acquiesce and the artists set up the scaffolding to do the deal. However, wind of this abomination makes it to the more level-headed population of Prescott and a full-blown protest at the elemntary school ensues (see video here shot by another of my friends, Moses Siregar III).

But I don't want to dwell on the negative news-getting aspect of this story. This dark (unlightened?) cloud actually has a silver lining: What's really interesting here is that on Saturday, before a chanting crowd, the principal and superintendent showed up personally to apologize and state that they were keeping the mural the way it was. I have to say this is something you almost ever see in Arizona or among fringy wingers generally: A change of heart followed by a change of position and an apology. This, sadly, probably won't get the coverage that the outrageous racism that led to the situation has already received. So Arizona seems a little crueller for it, and the hope of change takes a backseat to the more sensational bigotry and ugliness.

Be that as it may, many of us here in Prescott, emboldened by these results, are now seeking the resignation of Mr. Blair. I can tell you who I'm voting for in the next Prescott City Council election whether the papers and national news media show up or not.  

 

 

     So Sara's at it again, bashing the godless mainstream media elites for not scrutinizing Caroline Kennedy as closely as Miss Alaska herself.

"It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be."

The implication of this rambling run-on, if I understand it correctly, is that the media ought to skewer Caroline like they did Sara, but they won't because Caroline's pedigreed.

 So, Sara, here's some scrutiny for you. Let's compare apples to apples.

Caroline Kennedy is an attorney with a law degree from Columbia.

Sara Palin is the governor of a po-dunk state with a bachelor's degree from a community college in journalism.

Caroline Kennedy, having obtained a degree in law from an ivy-league law school has demonstrated direct knowledge of the law, and is poised to enter the legislative branch of government. While still an august position, it is hardly the highest office in the land and doesn't warrant the same scrutiny as, say, President or VP. 

Sara Palin, though she aspired to the second highest office in the land, a cardiac arrhythmia away from the highest, at a time of national and international economic crisis and with two wars going, has failed to demonstrate an even cursory knowledge of basic civics, foreign affairs, geography, or even proper English sentence structure, much less law.

Now, I'm sure one could argue that education is, in fact, a class issue, but that would be getting off point. Wasilly-Sara is talking about media bias against what exactly? Is she positioning herself as lower-class? News flash, Sara: Not many lower-class people, win beauty pageants, become mayors, are appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and then become governors and hire lobbyists. 

The only class issue here is that Caroline went to class, and Sara didn't.

In a recent WaPo article on the race for RNC Chairman: 

...Cathie Adams, an RNC member from Texas, said Duncan

is a "nice man," but should be replaced because "we lost, and

we lost pretty baldly."

 

Of course, the oddly chosen modifier "baldly" could be a typo and simply should have been "badly."

OR:

Perhaps she really did say "baldly." Maybe this is a sly reference to Mr. McCain who, in the presence of several shocked reporters, reportedly dropped the C-bomb on his wife after she commented on his thinning coiffure.

OR:

Perhaps she did say "badly" but Perry Bacon Jr, the author of this routine screed, inserted the offending letter "L" as a wry reference to the ever-emerging fact that the GOP is declining like so many of the pasty white, balding men who have been running it into the ground for years (like Rove).

 

OR:

 

Maybe it's just a reference to these unfortunate campaign stickers.

 

With $700B, or even, I daresay $350B, the government could, instead of
bailing out mismanaged coroporations and people who took on
disproportionately large debts compared to their incomes, pay off the
mortgages of middle class Americans (those who make, say, less than
$150,000 a year) who still hold a job, and who have faithfully serviced
their mortgates since before and even through this crisis. What effect
would THAT have on the economy?

A few speculations:

1. The creation of a new investor class.
2. Investment in a faltering stock-market would skyrocket.
3. The purchase of goods and services would rebound dramatically.
4. The mortgage companies would be absolved of much of the debt they
currently hold (since it would be paid).
5. Many of the now "toxic" mortgage-backed securities would be restored.
6. Credit markets would loosen.

  Of course, a sweeping and radical move of this kind would never take
place due to the many special interests spending hours and millions on
lobbying Congress and Treasury to bail out their particular mess. And,
of course, the fiscally responsible, gainfully employed majority of
Americans don't really have a lobbying firm pushing their agenda, they
figure that Congress is supposed to do that for them. The reason that an
economic bailout feels so wrong even to supporters is because deep down
we know that we're putting good money after bad. What if we just put
good money after good instead?