Points to Ponder

           Little squeezed for time today, so make do with some random points to ponder.

            Starting with Jimmy Carter in 1976, there have been six completed presidencies—his, Ronald Reagan’s, Bush the Elder’s, Clinton’s and Bush the Idiot’s.  The two Democrats remained very active on the world stage, in mostly non-political and non-partisan ways.  Carter has literally traveled the world advocating for human rights and of course devoted countless hours to Habitat for Humanity.  Clinton established his foundation that has made possible remarkable improvements in health care for third world countries.  The Republicans? Well, they all retired to their ranch/estate and have scarcely been heard from for anything other than appearances at Republican fund raisers.  Oh, and Bush the Elder occasionally straps himself to the back of a sky diver and jumps out of an airplane.  If the skydiver he straps himself to is a member of the middle class, the symbolism is deliciously apropos. 

            What does this dichotomy mean?  I have no idea, but it’s a point to ponder.

            Is it perhaps time for the FCC or the FTC to order Fox News to remove the second word from its name or be indicted for deceptive advertising?  Could maybe persuade me that Shepard Smith at least honors the letter of “fair and balanced” if not always the spirit, but the rest of the Fox lineup?  Let’s see, there’s Sarah and Newt, one of whom may end up the Republican nominee for president; then we have the Sunday morning lineup—Chris Wallace, Brit Hume and William Kristol, none of whom ever saw a liberal idea they couldn’t distort into something insidious; and finally we have the gold-plated wingnut contingent—O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin and of course Glen Beck, who surely holds the Guiness record for most bald-faced lies told on national television.  And the liberal balance to keep things fair is . . . Juan Williams? 

            Perhaps Fox Propaganda would be a more appropriate name for the network.  Point to ponder.

            Is it possible that more long established judicial precedents have been ignored or outright overthrown by this Supreme Court than by any other?  On the possibility that Christine O’Donnell reads this blog, I’m not going to list all the individual cases (she should do her own homework), but particularly in the 20 months since Obama took office, the Roberts Court has swung hard—and very consistently—to the right, and engaged in some very strained legal reasoning to justify its decisions. (See the majority opinion for Citizens vs. United--OK Christine, there's one for you) Any Republican will tell you, “We hate judicial activists!” (unless of course they’re OUR judicial activists).  Point to ponder.