2-1/2 years ago, I wrote a diary about how I grew up in a suburban Long Island, New York Republican family and yet eventually became a Democrat. I followed up with a second one two months later about how I further changed later in life, but want to return to my family upbringing as I think it makes for an important discussion about one’s political leanings over a lifetime.

Many of you have probably read a recent essay by Professor X in The Atlantic magazine. The surest sign that this has struck a nerve is that it was recommended by two adversaries: Andrew Sullivan and Eric Alterman. And they're not the only ones.

The author cites the unsuitability for college of many night students to whom he must teach ENG-101 and ENG-102 - "not because they want to but because they must". And while he notes that many of his students are there due to requirements for advancement on their day jobs, he appears to assign equal responsibility as follows:

Academia is all for it, naturally. Industry is all for it; some companies even help with tuition costs. Government is all for it; the truly needy have lots of opportunities for financial aid. The media applauds it—try to imagine someone speaking out against the idea.

Yet I've long felt that it stems primarily from employers deciding that certain jobs now require college, when quite possibly targeted post-secondary training courses would suffice - and would like your feedback.

(more after the jump).

 For 8 months, we here in semi-rural western New Hampshire have had the spectacle of a couple (Ed and Elaine Brown) holding our criminal justice system hostage - with the cheering support of the "Patriot", "Militia" and other groups on the fringe of wingnuttery.

 The Browns had refused to pay U.S. income taxes, due to their belief that no law compels them to. They were convicted in federal court and sentenced to five years - but since they declared themselves to be Patriots, gun-owners, et al, they found no shortage of supporters. And they remained in siege the past eight months at their home, with a "You'll never take me alive, copper!" attitude.

 But this past Thursday evening...they were. (more after the jump).  

I want to re-tell a story of someone (related to me) who accomplished not just one, but two heroic acts in life. I hadn't been that comfortable discussing him (other than with close friends) until last year because:

(a)  Historically, I've been shy about tooting-the-horn of people in my family, and
(b)  As a cousin-once-removed, he is not strongly related to me, plus
(c)  I rarely met him (although his policeman brother Dennis I have met from-time-to-time and consider myself closer to) and so he's not that familiar to me, and finally
(d)  I suppose, like many of us, I felt awkward about stepping forward in such a politicized atmosphere surrounding 9/11 (plus, I have no idea of this individual's politics).

But in the end, I realize that it was stupid of me to feel that way because - on this day five years later - it's important not to let our opponents claim ownership of 9/11.

(more after the jump).....

....you thought she was dead-and-buried, didn't you? You hoped she was dead-and-buried, didn't you? In the words of John Belushi, "But noooooooo".

   She appears in today's Wall Street Journal and one might think, "Well, she's an experienced correspondent, based in Manhattan where the Journal's offices are........makes sense". Yet she appears not in the paper's news section...but instead, in the Op-Ed section. Yes, that Op-Ed section. And she's got something to say....

   (more after the jump)

This appeared in my Cheers & Jeers comment for today and for which I received an e-mail suggesting it as a possible diary - you be the judge.

One of the things that troubles me the most about right-wing TV shows (and probably yourselves, also) is a common trait amongst O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, et al: the "tell us your reasons" for supporting a, b or c opening question. It's uttered in a request-for-information style, ostensibly for the benefit of the viewers. Yet just about 8-10 seconds into the response, the host barges in with a "Yeah, that's a crock; what about the left-wing-loony who said 'x', or the anonymous commentator who wrote 'y'". In other words, it was a contrived opening gambit for the host to confront their guest with what the host really thinks. And from that point on, the guest is left to try to squeeze in a thought or two, only to be constantly interrupted or have their mike cut-off. While Keith Olbermann seldom has on guests with opposing viewpoints, he didn't treat John Ashcroft that way.

"There's gotta be a way", I 've thought, "to make the host pay for such transgressions". It seems to me that Planned Parenthood may present an idea.

(more after the jump)

For some time, readers of Daily Kos have been able to read of the change in retired basketball star Charles Barkley. An outspoken player who proudly professed his Republican beliefs back in his early playing days years ago (someday hoping to be the GOP candidate for governor of Alabama) then leading up to the now famous "I used to be a Republican until they lost their minds" quote, to more meaningful actions on his part, as Skulnick has diaried about on more than one occasion before.

Now from this month's GQ Magazine there is an article about the TNT network show "Inside The NBA", with further two stories of Charles' evolution (more after the jump).......

I know we don't need another reason to dislike the Disney organization....but by golly, from today's Boston Globe they - along with the equally culpable Pop Warner football league - have given us another:

In order to participate in the Pop Warner national football and cheerleading championships in December, children on teams nationwide were required to stay at Disney hotels and buy tickets to other parks within Walt Disney World. Pop Warner stands all but alone among organizations that impose such requirements on teams competing for national titles at the Disney complex. The vast majority of other child athletes travel there either to participate in invitational events with much less at stake than a national championship, or in competitive tournaments in which they face less restrictive requirements for lodging and amusement passes.

More after the jump............

I forgot that today is a Friday late-edition of C&J (the holiday week has thrown off my internal calendar). But as I will not be around to participate then, I thought I might open the pool early for those in the same boat.

As always, this is a special version, and is not affiliated with the real C&J - and the "pictures, descriptions and accounts" without the C&J Commissioner's consent.
With that.....what's on your mind, today?

As much as I enjoy politics, I tend to avoid hearing about it Sunday morning, even when I agree with what's being said. And nowadays, the risk runs great that you'll hear some Planet Starboard rants, most unsettling with breakfast.

So imagine my surprise yesterday to hear (within one hour) two surprising commentaries - one from someone that I just didn't expect political commentary from and another who made my jaw drop by saying the opposite of what I expected.

More after the jump..........

I want to tell you of someone (related to me) who accomplished not just one, but two heroic acts in life. I haven't been that comfortable discussing him (other than with close friends) until now because:

(a)  Historically, I've been shy about tooting-the-horn of people in my family,
(b)  As a cousin-of-a-cousin (once removed, I believe that is?) he is not strongly related to me, plus
(c)  I rarely met him (although his policeman brother Dennis I have met from-time-to-time and consider myself closer to) and so he's not that familiar to me, and finally
(d)  I suppose, like many of us, I felt awkward about stepping forward in such a politicized atmosphere surrounding 9/11 (plus, I have no idea of this individual's politics).

In the end, I realize that it was stupid of me to feel that way because - on this day five years later - it's important not to let "our friends" on the other side of the political divide claim ownership of 9/11.

(more after the jump).....

   I was surprised to read that - while Sununu the Younger vehemently opposes Net Neutrality (calling it the "liberal's last stand") - our other New Hampshire Senator had not (at least publicly) declared his intentions.

   Which is more than a bit surprising, as he normally comes out fairly quickly (being a FOB - a Friend of Bush) and he is not up for re-election this year. It's Sununu who usually tends to brood a bit more on issues.

   I responded to a recent call from mcjoan to check the Net Neutrality scoreboard, and to call our Senators if they were still listed as undecided. I said that I had sent a fax to his office, and would report back.........(more after the jump)...

  Although a long-time subscriber to "The Economist newspaper (and one who values their foreign news coverage) it hasn't been easy reading the U.S. coverage the past few years. Especially with the rise of US-based reporters John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge into their hierarchy, their U.S. political coverage has consisted primarily of warmed-over GOP talking points. And so I was convinced that their post-Lieberman analysis would be dire.

 But (after the jump) I was pleasantly surprised......

 

  Missing from all of the GOP indignation that Joe Lieberman must face a challenge is......well, some history.......

.....back in 2002, here in New Hampshire we had a sitting Senator (Bob Smith) challenged in a Republican primary (by Sununu-the-Younger) in 2002. And Smith was defeated, with Sununu-the-Younger (S-t-Y) going on to win the general election (in part due to some phone-jamming).

      Surely, the GOP commentators must have criticized that primary...somewhere....I just can't recall it.........

(more after the jump)...

(cross-posted from today's Cheers & Jeers)...

ON THIS DATE .......in 1950, the U.S. team (comprised of semi-pro players) defeated England 1-0 in one of the great upsets in World Cup history at Belo Horizonte, Brazil. And the man who scored the only goal met a tragic fate only fourteen years later...

(more after the jump)

 Hi, folks - having a great time; so busy I've not had time to say much. First: Ignore FOX News; nobody has been talking much about Zarqawi (unless it's been in a Current Events or National Security panel group). This sounds like a Fox News "Some have said" trick.

  Some notes (below the jump)

Six months ago, I diaried on this site about the lack of an economic statistic that:

(a) Applied to the majority of people (i.e., non-supervisory wages after inflation, employee benefit costs, etc.)
(b) That consists of verifiable published statistics, lending credibility
(c) Compiled into an "Improving", "Steady" or "Declining" vs. 100 (and thus easy to understand)
(d) Without an inflammatory name (i.e, the "how the over half lives") that might discourage usage
(e) Easy enough for the business press to pick up on, and
(f) Important - Democratic politicians would pick up on.

(more after the jump)

  The New Hampshire Democratic Party has been on-the-ball this week; quite opportunistic in responding to the GOP's worries and miscues. For example, in the rabidly right-wing Manchester Union -Mis- Leader issue this morning:

State GOP officials had apparently known for a few weeks that chief White House political adviser Karl Rove would keynote their June 12 annual dinner in Manchester.

They sat on the news, allowing themselves to be scooped by state Democratic Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan. She spun it her own way and connected it to the phone-jamming case that is once again in the news this morning.

  More after the jump.........