AverageBro: Ohhh Snap! Palin claps back at Obama!

Whiskey Fire: Need another snitch

Politics in the Zeros: Hedge fund created assets designed to fail

Angry Bear: Actual list of Social Security Trust Fund assets

Watergate Summer: Charities working with the families of the West Virginia miners

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Ice Station Tango, Workbench, Bitch Slap Politics

DOWNLOADS: (939)

PLAYS: (1458)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly got called out by Media Matters the other day for comparing the South Side of Chicago to Haiti:

O'REILLY: I'm seeing a guy who's very, very committed to the government. To government, the government's going to solve the problems, and I'm going I don't know how that's possible. If you've ever been to the South Side of Chicago, I mean, it's a disaster, all right? It's like Haiti, it's like -- I've been to Haiti a couple of times. I support some charities there, but Haiti just never gets better, no matter how much money you put in there because they don't have a system. And I said the government can't do it but, Obama really believes the government can do it.

Last night on his Fox News show, O'Reilly -- rather than apologizing or ignoring the matter altogether (which is the Loofahmeister's usual MO) -- decided to double down on it altogether:

O'Reilly: Now those comments deeply -- deeply -- offend far-left Kool Aid drinkers even though every word is true. And if you don't believe me, just ask a guy named Lupe Fiasco.

Lupe Fiasco, it seems, is a rapper who was asked about O'Reilly's remark and answered that he agreed with him insofar as some parts of minority communities in America are like third-world countries.

That's right: O'Reilly cites a rapper -- who on any other occasion would be dismissed as a caricature by O'Reilly, particularly if he had disagreed with him or called him out -- as proof that he's right.

Moreover, Lupe Fiasco didn't seem to be agreeing at all with O'Reilly's larger (and more outrageous) claim -- that these poorer quarters of the world are essentially hopeless, and that the government should have no role in changing their conditions -- that it should just step aside and let nature take its course.

O'Reilly indeed expanded on this:

O'Reilly: For decades, Chicago's South Side has been a pocket of poverty and brutality -- Barack Obama is well aware of that, because he worked there. An enormous amount of federal and state money is poured into the South Side, and yet it remains a major problem.

The situation directly parallels what's happened in Haiti: massive aid, few results. Self-reliance is the key to success in life. A nanny state chokes that. If the president and I have one area of disagreement, it is big government. I believe it cannot solve your problems, he believes it can level the playing field at least somewhat.

Claiming that the conditions that created the malaise on Chicago's South Side are the same that made Haiti into the nightmare it is today is just ludicrous. About the only things the two have in common is that they're both products of generations of the systematic disenfranchisement and impoverishment of black people; to claim that American "big government" and federal aid to Haiti have somehow worsened the situation there is sheer ignorance.

And finally, has O'Reilly forgotten that, you know, there was just this thing called an earthquake that recently killed 200,000 people and turned Haiti into a massive disaster area?

Does he really think it's even remotely accurate to compare anywhere in the United States to that? It's one thing to talk about the Third World generically, but to make an analogy to Haiti, of all places, is indeed outrageous.

And you don't have to be from the "far left" to see that.

Never let it be said that lobbyists are too dumb to figure out a way around any rule we pass to keep them from paying off politicians:

WASHINGTON — On a mild evening last September, Citigroup lobbyists mingled with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn at a rooftop reception — complete with miniature putting greens — as the company hosted a party to honor the third most powerful Democrat in the House and raise money for one of his favorite golf charities.

Health insurers and hospitals, meanwhile, are donating millions to help build an institute in Boston to celebrate the career of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is attempting to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Despite a ban on gifts to lawmakers and limits on campaign contributions, lobbyists and groups that employ them can spend unlimited money to honor members of Congress or donate to non-profits connected to them or their relatives. The public — until now — had little insight into the scope of this largely hidden world of special-interest influence.

Under ethics rules passed in 2007, lobbyists for the first time last year had to report any payment made for an event or to a group connected to a lawmaker and other top federal officials.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members.

The total cost is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. government spends to operate Yellowstone National Park each year.

Most of the money — about $28 million — went to non-profit groups, some with direct ties to members of Congress. In two cases, USA TODAY found, the donations to non-profits associated with a member of Congress came in response to a personal appeal for funds from the lawmaker.

"It's another example of the many pockets of a politician's coat," says Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. The spending amounts to an "end-run" around campaign-finance laws "that are designed to limit the appearance of undue influence," she says.

The money came from companies, trade associations and labor groups that lobby Congress and the government on a range of issues, from seeking a share of last year's $700 billion financial bailout package to trying to shape the debate on climate change.

The donations cover various activities — from a golf tournament that raises money for a lawmaker's non-profit to gifts to the alma mater of a powerful House committee chairman.

"You can still have a gala or something or the other for a charity and earn some favor with members of Congress, which is what the gift ban was put in place to avoid," says Dan Danner, CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business and a veteran Washington lobbyist.

According to this article from the AP it seems the non-profit "charity," Army Emergency Relief has been stingy with money that is supposed to be used to help our men and women in uniform get through tough times. Not only are they unwilling to part with an acceptable percentage of their "charity" dollars during a time of unprecedented financial crisis, but they use mob-like tactics to intimidate soldiers struggling to repay the money and to solicit donations. Soldiers can be refused transfers and promotions if the "charity" money isn't repaid in a timely manner.

FORT BLISS, Texas – As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.

Superior officers come calling when AER loans aren't repaid on time. Soldiers can be fined or demoted for missing loan payments. They must clear their loans before transferring or leaving the service.

Despite strict rules against coercion, the Army uses pushy tactics to extract supposedly voluntary contributions, with superiors using language like: "How much can we count on from you?"

Compare the Navy and Air Force equivalent to the AER and the differences are astounding:

During that same five-year period, the smaller Navy and Air Force charities both put far more of their own resources into aid than reserves. The Air Force charity kept $24 million in reserves while dispensing $56 million in total aid, which includes grants, scholarships and loans not repaid. The Navy charity put $32 million into reserves and gave out $49 million in total aid.

The article goes on to say that the AER has helped a lot of people over the years and I won't question that, but the culture in the AER has become something barely resembling a charity, in my eyes. I imagine it comes as no surprise that this was allowed to happen during the Bush years.

One of the things that I always try to invest in my children during the conspicuous consumption capitalism that makes up an American Christmas season is that it's always better to give than receive. Trite, but true. I want them to always be grateful for just how lucky they are and aware of how so many in the world live an existence far more tenuous than we do.

Now, that's not to say it hasn't been a tough year economically in our house. There's been plenty of belt-tightening, and the Christmas tree will have fewer gifts under it this year. But at the same time, I want my kids to understand that even little gestures can make the difference in others' lives. We made our annual trip to the battered women's shelter to donate clothes and toys. Their school adopted a homeless family for whom we donated coats, blankets and food. And finally, we sat down with them to pick out how we will help through The Heifer Project.

If you're unfamiliar with The Heifer Project, donations go towards the purchase of livestock or resources to help a family create a cycle of food or industry that will sustain the family or village for an extended period of time. For example, the purchase of a sheep will provide wool for use or sale, hopefully can be bred for additional sheep, droppings collected and sold as manure, and finally, used or sold for meat at some point. This year, we opted to purchase honeybees, which can provide a livelihood for a family with the sale of beeswax and honey.

Certainly, The Heifer Project is not the only worthy charity out there. YouTube has a Project Awesome call to solicit endorsements of charities.

In the spirit of giving, I ask what charities C&Lers endorse. Leave your recommendations in the comments, and hopefully, we'll see a little spirit going their ways.

AP Via The Huffington Post:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to enter a church-state dispute over whether some religious organizations can be forced to pay for workers' birth-control health insurance benefits, a growing trend in the states.

The court let stand a New York court ruling upholding a state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.

New York is one of 23 states that require employers that offer prescription benefits to employees to cover birth control pills as well, the groups say. The state enacted the Women's Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone density exams.

Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued New York's law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful. Read more...

bluegal: Clearly the court sees that it is up to religious organizations to insist that their members practice the religion, rather than insist that the insurance companies enforce religion for them. For instance, contraception is very widely practiced among American Catholics: this report (pdf) points out that sexually active Catholic women above the age of 18 are just as likely (97%) to have used some form of contraception banned by the Catholic church as women in the general population (97%)." More importantly, "75% percent of Catholics believe that you can be a good Catholic without obeying the church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control and only 13% believe that the church hierarchy should have the final say in contraception."

Talking Points Memo: The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

Hard News: Doctors are fleeing Iraq and the medical system has become sickening

Oliver Willis: A moment of irony...

Vague Nihilism: What ideas are behind the Conservative Movement?

Bob Geiger: Best of the week's editorial cartoons

GRAB BAG: The disconnect between Israeli public opinion and government policy... Latest approval ratings for all 100 U.S. Senators...The "Ig Nobels" highlight science of a special kind...Why Bill Cosby is wrong...A map of active U.S. hate groups...recognizing the people and players responsible for polluting our information environment...the National Science Teachers Association has refused to accept free copies of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Attytood

GOP Pa. Sen. Rick Santorum's flagging re-election campaign has launched a new TV attack ad that can only be described as absurdist theatre, if not out-and-out absurd--Indeed, one of the past Casey donors -- portrayed by an actor -- died 22 months ago, while the Democrat had not yet even been considering his race for the Senate. And while he was alive, Philly power broker Ron White also forged a link to Santorum through their charities