Thanks to NPR

Obama agrees to Boehner’s invitation to address a Congressional Joint Session on jobs next Thursday at 7PM. Here are some some suggestions for the Prez.

Irene leaves us with several tragic cities to repair.

Controversy: Can a sex offender sell real estate?A Maryland commission thinks not.

And can we really predict the long-term effects of breast implants?

Image Courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

Weinergate had Americans asking themselves many questions.

Is that really a picture of Anthony Weiner? Why did he take so long to resign? Is a politician’s personal live public property? Why didn’t he know how to use Twitter?

A couple of journalists have been asking another more interesting question:

Why is it always male politicians who get caught up in sex scandals?  What about the women?

The New York Times explains that

“Research points to a substantial gender gap in the way women and men approach running for office…’women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody…’

The article goes on to explain that women run for office less than men, hold themselves to a higher standards, are held to a higher standard by voters, and have to work harder once in office, all deterrents from getting involved in a sex scandal.

Christiane Amanpour of ABC’s This Week looks at the sparse numbers of women in politics and asks

“(would) more women in positions of power change this trend and the public sphere’s culture?”

GOOD explains the phenomenon with one word: sexism.

Female politicians who cheat are just as vulnerable to [being called 'hypocrites' and 'distractions,'], but they’re also liable to get slapped with a whole other set of labels. ‘Slut’ comes to mind… Their ability to be good mothers would also likely be called into question.

What do you think?  Why are women involved in fewer high-profile sex scandals?

And, on a slightly related topic, should Anthony Weiner’s greatly respected and admired wife Huma Abedin consider running for his seat?  Ann Freidman thinks so.  Do you?

A 6.3 magnitude earthquake rocks New Zealand,

U.S. Democratic-leaning states are now fewer in number,

and will we recognize our own planet in 40 years?

Saturday’s shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in Tuscon, Arizona, shocked the nation.

It seemed within minutes of the incident fingers to started to get pointed.

The tragedy quickly turned into a left-versus-right, who-is-responsible-for-all-this, blame-the-other-guy discussion.

This blogger feels, probably naively, the discussion should have first been one of reverence and thoughtfulness.

Only later, when the time is right, should the thorny issues of gun violence, security of public officials, and American political culture be addressed.

To be fair, this event was hard to comprehend. Even Jon Stewart, whom ForeverPlaid looks to for the right things to say all too often, admitted on his show last night (video here) that he didn’t know how to respond to the tragedy. He did say some necessarily sincere things, which should be appreciated:

If there is any solace in this, I think it’s that for all the hyperbole and the vitriol that’s become a part of the political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven’t lost our capacity to be horrified.

In relation to the “rhetoric” that Stewart described, in the past few days, there has been a lot of talk about how Sarah Palin’s “cross hairs” map, which came out last spring to single out Democrats in traditional GOP districts to be “targeted” for their votes for health care reform.

It’s also been well-reported that Congresswoman Giffords herself commented on how the heated rhetoric and imagery like this can be consequential.

Yet, it’s difficult already to know if or how the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner, in particular was affected by gun-related graphics and language like Palin’s and others’. At the same time, mixing guns and political communication shouldn’t be tolerated because of what it stands for implicitly.

H/T TPM

On the other hand, Nick Gillespie wrote for the Reason blog that:

The problem isn’t with the current moment’s rhetoric, it’s with the … politicization of every …  thing not even for a higher purpose or broader fight but for the cheapest moment-by-moment partisan advantage. Whether on the left or on the right, there’s a totalist mentality that everything can and should be explained first and foremost as to whether it helps or hurt the party of choice.

Perhaps it’s difficult not to be a political reactionary or opportunist when violence that is so politically-tinged occurs.

Still, these questions are raised: Can the blame rest solely on the shoulders of an allegedly mentally unstable gunman? Or is there a greater problem with political culture or violence culture in America?

Should such a tragedy be fodder for political posturing?

Update: CBS has released a poll of 673 American adults that indicates:

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Genuine Ken: The Search for the Great American Boyfriend. Wait, what?

Another crooked politician headed to the jailhouse: This time, it’s Tom DeLay.

Non sequitur alert! Cat video:

When reflecting back on 2011 there was one party that got every one’s attention:

The Tea Party.

Despite their sometimes silly costumes and signs, the ultraconservative Tea Party proved they were serious in 2010.

From Florida to Alaska, Tea Partiers bucked the GOP establishment by making sure their candidates were on the ballots of many of the year’s most watched electoral races.  Their new-found political clout garnered media attention all over the country.

The attention wasn’t always positive.  In Delaware, Tea-Party-favorite Christine O’Donnell was repeatedly mocked after being forced to announce she wasn’t a witch.

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul received bad press of his own when he made provocative comments about civil rights. Eyebrows were raised when some of his supporters physically attacked a liberal activist.

In the end, the group had  highs and lows like any political movement.  While they might be credited with putting Republicans into the leadership of the US House of Representatives, they failed to help them take control of the Senate.

So, the question is: Who will be invited to the Party next year?

Is it so hard to get some good service these days? An exploration of the American customer service straight jacket.

A race for the ages and worthy or your attention: The O’Malley-Ehrlich REMATCH! Let the punches start being thrown in Maryland!

Many Americans are at their wit’s end with the government, and as the video below shows, even members of government are stumped.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Sunday, 86% of Americans believe that the government is broken.  Only 14% of those polled thought government was working properly.

There is hope though! Of the 86% that believe our government is broken, 81% say it can be salvaged… but 5% claim it is irreparably damaged.

So what do you think? Is government broken in the first place, and if so, how can it be fixed?

A year is a long time in politics. Twelve months ago President Obama was looking strong, but today things are different. (Read the blog post above for proof.) Still, many presidents have ups and downs during their four years in office. Do you think President Obama will recover to become more popular in the months and years ahead? (Cartoon by KAL)

Thanks, Wikicommons!

We here at USDemocrazy love discourse, particularly when it involves us telling our editors what we think of their pathetic ideas. Thus, we have been very excited to follow the special election in Massachusetts.

Paul Kirk, the interim replacement for the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, will not be seeking to serve out the remainder of Senator Kennedy’s term.

This has led to much interest in political circles. Kirk, a Democrat was one of the sixty votes in the Senate that helped health care reform squeak in.

For awesome sites this week, therefore, we want to share some interesting info on that important Massachusetts race. Most notably… the candidates and Health Care.

Let’s start with Democratic nominee and Bay State Attorney-General Martha Coakley. Her website boasts her “progressive health care leadership” , and received an award affirming such. A concise press release on iterates  support for the current U.S. Senate reform plan.

Next there’s  the Republican candidate Scott Brown. He is a state senator who takes a different view on reform. His website says that he supports the state health reform adopted several years ago in Massachusetts, but opposes the current national Health care bill as passed bt the US Senate.

There is a third independent candidate in the race, and this is what makes the upcoming election really special.

He is Joe Kennedy, unrelated to Ted Kennedy or any of the well-known Massachusetts Kennedy’s.

His website bosts that he is the ”Tea Party candidate”, presumably relating to the anti-Obama protesters from last year who claim they are inspired by the Boston Tea Party from the 1770’s. His stated position on health care is the the most extreme.

His view is that free market principles should guide reform efforts.

To follow this race, set for January 19th, in greater detail, check out boston.com, the website of the Boston Globe.