Visual source: Newseum
Nicholas D. Kristof sounds off on turning the world upside down one petition at a time:
Ecuador, for example, used to run a network of “clinics” where lesbians were sometimes abused in the guise of being made heterosexual. A petition denouncing this practice gathered more than 100,000 signatures, leading Ecuador to close the clinics, announce a national advertising campaign against homophobia, and appoint a gay-rights activist as health minister.
The masterminds of the successful campaigns aren’t usually powerful or well-connected. Mostly, they just brim with audacity and are on a first-name basis with social media.
Kathleen Parker thinks "pro-choice advocates, including the president of the United States, are willing to tread on fundamental freedoms in order to impose and secure ideological purity." Proving once again her ability to practice a different kind of turning the world upside down.
Mike Rosen hits about 6 out of 10 on the upside-down meter, showing his skills as a master of projection:
[Warren] Buffett extracts a pound of lie from an ounce of truth while throwing in a heavy dose of half truths and convenient omissions.
John Nichols weighs in on the "stunning," much-remarked-upon Chrysler ad at the Superbowl. But at the 50-second point, he says, when images of last year's pro-union protests are featured, "something is missing: union signs. Whited out. Winston Smith would have been far more productive if he had had such tools.
Don't start fuming before you finish reading E.J. Dionne Jr. today:
Two years ago, Citizens United tore down a century’s worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system. It will go down as one of the most naive decisions ever rendered by the court. [...]
A more troubling interpretation is that a conservative majority knew exactly what it was doing: that it set out to remake our political system by fiat in order to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy.
Doyle MacManus:
When it comes to national security, Michael V. Hayden is no shrinking violet. As CIA director, he ran the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretaps against suspected terrorists.
But the retired air force general admits to being a little squeamish about the Obama administration's expanding use of pilotless drones to kill suspected terrorists around the world — including, occasionally, U.S. citizens.
"Right now, there isn't a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel," Hayden told me recently.
Richard (RJ) Eskow:
The reaction to January's jobs report shows how tragically our expectations have fallen, especially among some Democrats and their supporters. Their cheerleading isn't just bad policy or bad politics, although it is both of those things. It's also callous and insensitive to the misery of millions.
The President has learned a lot, politically and economically, from the pressure he's received from the left. He's getting better at making the rhetorical case for economic justice. Now he needs to get better at losing, by losing Congressional battles with a set of solutions that the public will understand and support. It's incomprehensible that Republicans would oppose a jobs bill for veterans, but they will.
But it's equally incomprehensible that a Democratic President would offer small responses to such a large disaster. (I include the Jobs Act in the category of "small responses," since such a large chunk of it is dedicated to ineffectual tax cuts for business. But it would help.)
Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) addresses the slowed spending at the Pentagon and the reduction in troops levels:
The United States will remain stronger than any other power, or combination of powers, and with our network of alliances, should be more than capable of protecting our national interests and meeting our obligations abroad. The bottom line is, this new strategy provides us the security we need with the resources that we can afford.
Cal Thomas goes macho with another of his wimp-in-the-White-House rants:
I wonder if things might be different if we had a strong president who let Iran and the rest of the Islamists know we have no intention of negotiating with them and if they attack us they will die to regret it. Just asking.
