Last week, several video-sharing websites were blocked by the two main Internet service providers in India in response to a court order related to movie piracy. The company that had pushed for the court intervention said it hadn't intended such a blanket block. The Internet service providers said they merely did as told. The internet activist group Anonymous said it would shut down the website of the Indian Supreme Court in retaliation.

Meanwhile, over three million individuals had their right to exchange information and ideas summarily suspended.

India is not the only modern democracy where government institutions are pushing (and are being pushed) to facilitate blanket restrictions on internet use and flow of information to the detriment of human rights. In January this year, the U.S. Congress considered bills that would have encouraged internet service providers to pre-emptively block sites that may be used by some individuals to share pirated content, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). And the European Union is currently debating whether to sign onto an international treaty containing similar provisions: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

These developments are worrying.

From a human rights perspective, blanket restrictions on specific means of communication should always raise red flags. On the most basic level, human rights guarantee the conditions we need to live with dignity. For centuries, philosophers have agreed that this includes the time and space for each and every one of us to develop, express and share our unique beliefs and thoughts in peace, even if what we believe or think is offensive to others. When human rights were codified into law after the World War II, this notion was captured in very broad protections of the rights to freedom of expression and information.

Human rights law is particularly strict with regard to the limitations a government can legally impose on the exchange of information and opinions. This can only happen for certain specific purposes and only in the least restrictive manner possible. It is hard to imagine a situation where blanket restrictions on the exchange of information would constitute the "least restrictive manner" for the government to fulfil the purpose of the restriction, whatever this might be.

Of course, the purpose of many blanket restrictions on Internet sites -- including the stated purpose of the blocking of sites in India this week -- is the protection of copyright. It is not only reasonable for governments to seek to protect these interests, it is, in fact, their job. Just as we have the right to freedom of expression, we have the right to government protection of our intellectual property.

What we do not have the right to is the protection of our intellectual or other property at the expense of someone else's right to freedom of expression. We wouldn't, for example, want a government to impose a general curfew (violating freedom of movement for everyone) in order to prevent drunk driving, street crime, or other criminal behaviour rightly or wrongly associated with the night time. Yet this is precisely what blanket interventions of internet activity tend to do. Instead of the government imposing fines and blocking specific pirated content after fair and transparent judicial processes, Internet service providers are pushed to pre-emptively block entire websites as soon as individual users of these websites are accused of violating copyrights.

Some governments claim this is the only way to protect copyright where the Internet is concerned. And it is certainly true that the more fluid and fast exchange of information that has come with the spread of the internet makes regulation more challenging.

It is also true, however, that while the means of communication have changed over the years, our need, desire, and -- yes -- right to communicate freely has not. This is why the United Nations expert body charged with translating general human rights standards into concrete guidelines for implementation issued a statement last year spelling out the specifics of the right to freedom of expression in the age of the internet. This document is clear: generic bans on the operation of certain sites and systems are not allowed, whether these bans are imposed directly or through giving internet service providers strong incentives to take sites down.

Sure, it is easier to do what the Indian internet service providers did this week, and what the supporters of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement want to facilitate as a global standard: just block everyone from using sites that may or may not peddle pirated content. However, governments are not obliged to do that which is easier. Governments are obliged to protect our human rights. And that means targeting wrongdoers rather than facilitating or indeed imposing censorship in a blanket manner.

This article was first published on RHRealityCheck.org.

BOSTON -- Massachusetts Republicans Mitt Romney and Scott Brown have a history of supporting each other throughout their political careers.

But with each facing a tough election, neither the presidential candidate nor the U.S. senator is playing up that history, perhaps with good reason.

Brown, trying to win re-election in one of the most Democratic states, spends much of his time promoting his bipartisan bona fides and describing himself as a "Scott Brown Republican" rather than a conservative or liberal Republican.

He may be one of the few Republicans running who boasts of working with President Barack Obama to pass bills. On his campaign website, Brown has posted pictures and videos of him with the Democratic incumbent.

Romney has moved increasingly to the right, shedding some of the more moderate positions he held as Massachusetts governor as he worked to rally GOP activists during the primaries.

As Brown took a more moderate stance, he alienated some of the conservative and tea party activists who helped elect him in 2010. Those are the same people Romney will need if he hopes to win in November. Brown's shift to the middle could make him a liability for Romney among conservatives.

Brown probably will continue to play down his ties to his former governor and emphasize his own independent streak, particularly with recent polls showing Obama enjoying a double-digit over Romney in Massachusetts.

"Brown sees pretty clearly that there are no Romney coattails in Massachusetts for him to ride and, indeed, being close to Romney for his own re-election bid could be a liability," said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts.

The distance between the candidates is more than strategic. Romney and Brown have adopted competing views on several big issues, from a new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia to the fate of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Romney has said Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Brown says a woman should have the right to an abortion, although he opposes federal money for the procedure. Brown voted for the new START treaty with Russia, saying it was important for national security. Romney said the treaty was Obama's "worst foreign policy mistake."

The differences don't stop there.

Romney has called for repeal of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. Brown voted for it. Romney backs amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Brown opposes such an amendment and says gay marriage is "settled law" in Massachusetts. Such unions became legal in the state in 2003.

Romney, in 2007, said the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy seemed to be working. Brown voted with Democrats and some Republicans to end the policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military, earning praise from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.

While Romney hasn't said if he'll release more than two years of his income tax returns, Brown has made public six years of his tax documents.

When pressed on the differences of opinion, Brown's campaign repeats his endorsement of Romney.

"Sen. Brown thinks Mitt Romney is a good and decent person who is devoted to his family and strong on jobs and the economy and that's why he supports him for president," Brown spokesman Colin Reed said in a statement.

The campaigns also share staff, including Eric Fehrnstrom, a top political adviser to both men. Fehrnstrom did not respond to a request for comment.

Romney and Brown come from very different backgrounds. Brown's parents divorced early and his family moved often when he was young. Romney's father was a governor of Michigan and an automotive executive. Still, the two found political common ground nearly a decade ago.

Both are ambitious Republicans from a state known for frustrating GOP hopes.

When a seat opened up in the state Senate in 2004, Brown, then a state representative, jumped into the race. The seat had been held by a Democrat but, with a campaigning and fundraising assist from then-Gov. Romney, Brown squeaked out a narrow victory over his Democratic challenger, who at first doubted the results.

"It's a new day in Massachusetts politics when the Democrats are calling for a recount," said Romney, who appeared at a Statehouse news conference with Brown after the election.

When longtime Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy died of brain cancer in 2009, Romney supported Brown in the special election to fill the seat. Though Brown was considered a long shot, Romney issued campaign fundraising letters on his behalf.

"Scott's election would shock the country," Romney wrote. "Wouldn't it be nice to elect a fiscal conservative to Ted Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate?" Romney had challenged Kennedy for the seat in 1994, and lost.

The mutual accolades reached a pinnacle at an annual meeting of conservative activists the month after Brown's election to the U.S. Senate.

Introducing Romney, Brown joked that at the start of his Senate campaign "I could have held my campaign rally in a phone booth" and Romney was "one of those guys who was in that phone booth with me."

Romney returned the compliment moments later.

"Scott Brown, boy, I'd take him anywhere I could take him," he told the crowd.

Except that neither has taken the other anywhere lately.

Democrats are busy trying to make voters aware of the ties between Romney and Brown, especially in Massachusetts, where Brown faces a tough fight against likely Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats note that Romney and Brown both supported an amendment in the U.S. Senate this year that would have allowed employers or health insurers to deny coverage for services they said violated their moral or religious beliefs, including birth control. The amendment failed.

"Scott Brown and Mitt Romney have made clear that they share a close personal relationship as Massachusetts Republicans," state Democratic Party spokesman Kevin Franck said in a statement. "They share the same policy agenda of protecting tax breaks for big oil and millionaires, while refusing to invest in helping the middle class."

John Kass, Chicago Tribune
To our most gracious foreign guests from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization:(This includes world leaders, dignitaries, generals, distinguished diplomats and all you foreign spymasters who think you're fooling somebody by posing as a low-level clerk carrying the bags.)Welcome to the City by the Lake.You'll spend much time over the coming weekend trapped on Security Island, which our officials call McCormick Place. But beyond the hordes of protesters and phalanxes of police, there's a city out there called Chicago.

WASHINGTON -- A Democratic senator has asked the Obama administration to immediately bar Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin from re-entering the U.S., based on a previously unenforced 1996 law.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who as a congressman in 1996 authored an amendment that excludes from reentry into the U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenship for tax purposes, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday, asking her to enforce the law -- for the first time -- by barring Saverin.

"By all accounts Mr. Saverin has renounced his U.S. citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxes despite taking advantage of the multiple opportunities afforded to him by the United States," Reed wrote. A Homeland Security spokesman couldn't be reached for comment after the close of business Thursday.

Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to Singapore in September. Reed's letter comes on the eve of Facebook's initial public stock offering that is expected to value Saverin's share of the company at around $4 billion. Saverin's switch to Singaporean citizenship, which came to light two weeks ago, could save him hundreds of millions in taxes if his Facebook stock increases in value after the company sells stock to the public.

Earlier on Thursday, two Democrats proposed legislation that would hit Saverin with heavy taxes and bar him from reentering the U.S.

But Reed's plan doesn't call for a congressional action -- just an executive decision.

Reed wrote in his letter that the secretary of Homeland Security now has the power that was once only vested in the attorney general to determine who should fall under the 1996 statute.

And just like Homeland Security can bar aliens involved in terrorism or drug trafficking, Reed wrote, "I urge a similar and vigorous treatment for the exclusion of expatriates that have renounced their citizenship in order to avoid taxes."

Saverin issued a statement Thursday, insisting he was grateful to the U.S. and still intends to pay plenty of taxes.

"I am obligated to and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States government," Saverin said. "It is unfortunate that my personal choice has led to a public debate, based not on the facts, but entirely on speculation and misinformation."

Michael Barone, DC Examiner
Is it panic time at Obama headquarters in Chicago? You might get that impression from watching events -- and the polls -- over the past few weeks.In matchups against Mitt Romney, the president is leading by only 47 to 45 percent in the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls. A CBS/New York Times panelback poll, in which interviewers call back respondents to a previous survey, showed Romney leading 46 to 43 percent -- and leading among women.

The 162-year-old border war between Missouri and Kansas heated up again this week as Show Me State lawmakers voted three times to ban a Kansas logo from their Missouri license plates.

A bipartisan team of Missouri lawmakers proposed amendments to three separate bills to prohibit the University of Kansas' Jayhawk logo from being displayed on Missouri plates, a request made by KU's alumni association. The effort is the latest in a war between the two states which began over slavery issues in 1850 and continues today over college athletics, jobs and almost anything else.

"Like generations of Missourians before us, we face an incursion from the west," Missouri Rep. Stephen Webber (D-Columbia) said on the House floor Tuesday. "It will be repulsed. This is the effort to affix the dreaded, disgusting Jayhawks symbol to our Missouri license plates."

Webber has joined Missouri Rep. Caleb Jones (R-California) to push the legislation. Webber told HuffPost that the actual amendment does not single out KU or Kansans, but rather mandates legislative approval before issuing any university-related license plates. Currently, specialty plates can either be approved by the Legislature or by petition to the state revenue department. KU alums filed a petition on the subject prompting the move by Jones and Webber, whose district encompasses the University of Missouri campus.

In order to make the measure a state law, Webber said he and Jones have affixed the measure to various bills on the House floor to ensure it passes the House and Senate, and gets to Gov. Jay Nixon's desk. Three of those have passed through the House.

"We are getting it on everything," Webber told HuffPost, noting the amendments passed each time.

Webber said that he and Jones are trying to joke about the subject, but the Missouri-Kansas rivalry is serious business between the two states. It has turned primarily into a sports rivalry between KU and University of Missouri in both football and basketball. Mizzou's football team has historically ranked higher than KU's, while KU's men's basketball team has been superior to Mizzou's, but the sports war is likely coming to an end as KU has changed conferences and will not play Mizzou.

"It is exceptionally insulting this year," Webber said Tuesday. "This year is the year that those folks to the west after 120 years of competition have decided not to meet our teams on the field of competition. I don't like KU on any circumstances. This year that they can't find the heart and courage to play us, is the year they want to add something to our license plates. Not if this Legislature has anything to do about it."

Webber did say that if KU is willing to play Mizzou again, he would sponsor legislation to allow the plates.

The Missouri measure has managed to unite Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature. Kansas Rep. Brett Hildabrand (R-Merriam) said that as a Kansas State University alum he can understand rivalry with KU, but he is standing behind his home state. He said he is prepared to file similar legislation if Mizzou alums attempt to place their logo on Kansas plates.

Kansas Rep. Mike Slattery (D-Mission) joined his GOP colleague in attacking their neighbors to the east. "That is the most ridiculous display and a waste of time," Slattery said with a laugh. "If that is the most important thing they can do in Missouri, then go for it. We have been taking Missouri jobs for years. If they want to stop the license plates as a form of payback, then so be it."

During last week's debate over allowing local school districts to hold referendums on student activity fees, Kansas lawmakers took several swipes at Missouri, including comments that Missourians are fleeing to the Sunflower State for better schools and jobs.

Webber told HuffPost that he believes the feuding will continue, even if the sports rivalry ends. "We've been fighting since 1850, we just need something to fight about," he said.

DENVER -- Supporters of traditional marriage rallied at the Colorado Capitol as tensions remained high one day after state Republicans rejected civil unions legislation.

Dozens of people on Tuesday cheered Republican lawmakers and thanked state House Speaker Frank McNulty, who assigned the civil unions bill Monday to a Republican-led House committee sure to defeat the legislation.

A man with a horn heckled McNulty as he urged the crowd to carry the "message throughout the state of Colorado that we will protect families."

At the same time, Democrats blasted McNulty for the demise of the bill and another proposal that would ask voters to repeal three laws that have been ruled unconstitutional. They related to campaign finance and to a 1992 voter-approved ban on cities passing anti-discrimination laws to protect gays.

Today the House is planning to take up H.Res.568 -- a resolution that shifts the U.S. redline for war with Iran -- on a suspension vote. There has not been a single hearing on this measure and no debate about its very serious implications.

If passed, the House will be voting to contradict the unequivocal redline established by the President just one week before the U.S. enters crucial negotiations with Iran. The President reiterated his redline most recently at this year's AIPAC conference in Washington, where he stated:

"Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Some cosponsors of this resolution have been mistakenly convinced that it merely restates the President's position ruling out containment of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is completely false. In reality, this resolution endorses a lower threshold for military action by stating that the United States cannot contain a nuclear weapons capable Iran.

The President and the Administration have deliberately never used the "capable" phrasing when articulating its redlines because, as it stands, this term has no definition. In theory, it would apply to any country with a civilian nuclear program, including Japan, Brazil, and the Netherlands. It is dangerous and irresponsible to stake the question of war on such uncertain footing.

Had there been a hearing on this resolution, the House could have established what is the definition of "nuclear weapons capability." But instead of committing due diligence to ensure the U.S. is speaking in unified voice and conveying clear redlines to Tehran, the House is moving to play spoiler.

This measure comes at an incredibly inopportune and sensitive time considering U.S. diplomatic efforts. The U.S. and Iran are scheduled to hold negotiations on May 23, along with the rest of the P5+1 (Permanent 5 Security Council members plus Germany). These talks hold the potential to achieve real progress in achieving near-term curbs on Iran's nuclear program--with Iran's Supreme Leader for the first time publicly endorsing negotiations and signaling that Iran is prepared to make key concessions to cap its enrichment in accordance with U.S. national security interests.

This resolution could poison those talks by signaling to Iran that the President is weak, domestically isolated, and unable to deliver at the negotiating table because a hawkish Congress will overrule him. Perhaps this is good politics for some, but it is disastrous policy for U.S. national security interests. It gives Iran little incentive to finally make hard fought concessions. It also fuels Tehran's paranoia that the U.S. is committed to war and regime change regardless of whether Iran's nuclear program is for military or civilian purposes.

Finally, there are legitimate concerns that this resolution could be construed as an authorization for the use of force. Given H.Res.568's unambiguous statement ruling out containing a nuclear weapons-capable Iran, the measure should, at the absolute minimum, clarify that it is not an authorization for force. This was the subject of intense debate before the companion resolution was first introduced in the Senate, and ultimately the measure's supporters refused to include clarifying language that it is not an authorization for war. Step by step, Congress appears to be backing the U.S. into a war of choice.

Contact your Representative in Congress to tell them to vote NO on H.Res.568

John Arthur Johnson was born March 31, 1878, in Galveston, Texas. Both of his parents were born into and existed in the dehumanizing cruelty of slavery. Johnson lived in the system of Jim Crow. But he would rise from the boundaries that had held other African Americans down and forever carve his place in history. Today, we remember him as the great boxer Jack Johnson.

When Jack Johnson began his professional boxing career, it was possible for African American to wear the crown of champion in the lower weight classes. Unfortunately, the world heavyweight championship was off limits. But Johnson was not deterred. He pursued this seemingly unattainable goal with great tenacity. For two years, he stalked the reigning world champion Tommy Burns, pressuring him into a fight. On December 26, 1908, Jack Johnson defeated Burns, becoming the first black world heavyweight champion.

Johnson was not one to "stay in his place", as was expected of African Americans of the day. He openly dated white women, marrying two of them. This at a time when a black man could get lynched or beaten just for "improperly" looking at a white woman.

And it didn't bother him when he entered the various sport venues past men with loaded shotguns threatening him with death if he won. Nicknamed the "Galveston Giant", he'd taunt his opponents in the ring as he destroyed them, then he'd defiantly grin into the crowd as he was proclaimed the victor once again.

This prompted such animosity among many whites that a search for the "great white hope" to defeat him was launched. For years, it failed. Johnson defeated all challengers. Then, on April 5, 1915, Jack Johnson loss to Jess Willard in Havana, Cuba, in round 26 of the scheduled 45 round fight.

Jack Johnson then became the symbol of white fear of the black man rising to a position of power. Many also felt the self-assured and confident example he set for African Americans was dangerous to America. It was rumored that a gentleman's agreement was struck. The world heavyweight title would "remain in the family". Whether this was true or not, no black man was allowed to hold the title until the "Brown Bomber" Joe Louis defeated James J. Braddock (known as the "Cinderella Man") on June 22, 1937.

This was over twenty-two years after Jack Johnson lost the title.

President Obama is nothing like Jack Johnson. He's not a boxer. But like Johnson, he is black and he is a first. He's the first African-American President in the history of the United States. And it wasn't black people alone who put him there. He was elected by Americans of all colors. America has indeed changed.

However, there are many Americans who cannot and will not accept an African American as President of United States. Did any of these people send out pictures of the White House with rows of watermelons planted on the front lawn when President Bush was elected? What about during President Reagan's two terms?

Of course not. Just as those who declared it was their duty to see that he failed in leading the country through our troubled times, this experience is unique to President Obama for the obvious reason.

So, will President Obama be Jack Johnson-ed? If he becomes a single-term President, will he become the symbol of why blacks can't be trusted with the office? Will it be like some sort of cultural experiment?

Yeah, we tried that once, but it just didn't work out!

President Obama will have to do as others have done who were reelected. He'll have to earn it. And I know he wouldn't want it any other way. But he'll have to carry a heavy burden, similar to what every African American has had to carry since we arrived in this country. How history judges the black race, not just him. However, his will be even heavier because there will be many who will try to sell the idea that the office of the President is best if it "remained in the family".

Perhaps for another twenty-two years.

* President to meet smaller parties from 1630 GMT

* Talks with big parties hit impasse

* Radical left seen gaining if new poll held

* Der Spiegel calls for Greek exit from euro

By Lefteris Papadimas and Harry Papachristou

ATHENS, May 13 (Reuters) - Greek political leaders on Sunday ignored a final plea from the president to form a coalition government to avert a repeat election, pushing the debt-stricken nation closer to bankruptcy and a possible exit from the euro zone.

Leaders of the three biggest parties met at the presidential mansion for a final attempt to bridge their differences, but the talks quickly hit an impasse as they traded accusations on a deeply unpopular bailout package tied to harsh spending cuts.

Conservative leader Antonis Samaras, who finished first in last week's election, pinned the blame on the far-left SYRIZA party, which flatly rules out backing a pro-bailout coalition with Samaras's New Democracy and Socialist PASOK parties.

"They are not asking for agreement, they are asking us to be their partners in crime and we will not be their accomplices," said Alexis Tsipras, who has become an overnight sensation since leading SYRIZA to a surprise second place in the vote.

The other leader at the morning talks - Socialist leader Evangelos Venizelos - said he was holding on to hopes that a deal could still be salvaged, but warned time was running out.

"Despite the impasse at the meeting we had with the president, I hold on to some limited optimism that a government can be formed," said Venizelos, whose PASOK party finished a humiliating third in the election, a shadow of its former might.

"The moment of truth has come. We either form a government or we go to elections."

Both New Democracy and PASOK - which have taken turns in ruling Greece for nearly four decades and jointly negotiated a bailout that requires deep cuts in wages, pensions and spending - are eager to avoid facing the voters again.

Polls since the election show the balance of power tipping even further towards opponents of the bailout, who were divided among several small parties but now appear to be rallying behind Tsipras, a 37-year-old ex-Communist student leader.

Tsipras has injected a dose of enthusiasm into the squabbling left and offered hope to millions of austerity-weary Greeks by promising to rip up the bailout deal without abandoning the euro, saying Europe cannot afford to cut Greece loose.

European leaders have retorted that the country will not get new loans to stay afloat if it fails to honour its pledges, while banks and some companies like travel operator Kuoni have begun to prepare for a Greek exit from the eurozone.

But Greek voters remain unfazed. Indeed, they are expected to hand SYRIZA a first-place finish in a new election, winning the party an automatic extra 50 seats at the expense of Samaras.


ELECTIONS AGAIN

President Karolos Papoulias now meets the small parties that made it parliament from 1630 GMT onwards in a last-ditch bid to stitch together some form of a "national unity" government.

His final hope rests with the small Democratic Left party led by lawyer Fotis Kouvelis, which could provide enough seats to form a government with New Democracy and PASOK. But it says it will not do so unless the coalition also includes SYRIZA.

Papoulias' list of meetings also include the far right Golden Dawn, which made it parliament for the first time in its history on an anti-immigrant and anti-politician platform.

In one of the unfolding drama's many sub-plots, Greeks will watch with interest to see how the president, a revered 82-year-old veteran of the World War II anti-Nazi resistance, receives a group whose members give Nazi-style salutes.

The constitution sets no deadline for Papoulias to complete his search for a deal and he has given no indication how long he will spend trying before he calls a new election.

Greeks seem resigned to returning to the polls.

"Why would we believe they'll agree on something? All they care about is being in power and we're sitting here not even able to pay our electricity bills," said Maria Kissou, 53, a corner shop owner in Athens. "Let us go to elections again."

Kissou voted for Tsipras on May 6.

"He's young, I like him because at least he's trying to renegotiate with the Europeans," Kissou said.

Supporters of the two establishment parties will be hoping that if a new election is held, Greeks will be frightened of the prospect of leaving the euro and return to the fold.

Polls show an overwhelming majority of Greeks reject the bailout but want to keep the euro - a position widely regarded as untenable. As many as 78.1 percent want the new government to do whatever it takes to keep their country in the currency, a poll by Kappa Research for To Vima daily showed.

In a sign of the shifting mood in Europe towards Greece, Germany's influential Der Spiegel magazine suggested an exit from the euro zone may now be the best option in a front-page

Its front page headline read: "Acropolis, Adieu! Why Greece must leave the euro."

"The Greeks were never ripe for the currency union and they still are not today," the German magazine wrote in an editorial.

"Only an exit of Greece from the euro zone gives the country a chance in the long term to get back on its feet."

Oh, I get it. Mitt Romney was only "pulling pranks" when he layed the smackdown and forcibly cut the colored blonde hair of high school classmate John Lauber, who was perceived to be gay, at the prestigious Cranbrook School in the mid-1960s, during the reign of Romney's powerful father as Michiagn's governor.

According to The Washington Post Romney said, "'He [Lauber] can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!'" So Romney (and at least five others who are not the presidential nominee of one of the two largest political parties in the U.S.) targeted and teased Lauber based on Lauber's identity. Witnesses at the time also claimed that Romney tauntingly said "atta girl!" to another gay classmate during class.

Thus Romney didn't just tease John Lauber for perhaps failing to conform to Romney's worldview, or Romney's church's views, or Romney's then-governor-father's need to buy into the societal, dominant-majority, collectivist mindset. No. Rather than simply tease or pick on Lauber, Romney initiated the violent use of force against Lauber, attempting to ensure that Lauber appeared in a fashion acceptable to Romney.

The nexus between Romney's church's view relative to people with other identities remained so strong well into Romney's adulthood -- into his 30s, in fact -- that Romney's church didn't allow black clergy until 1978. So while Romney may try to suppress this claim of discrimination against Lauber's different identity during his school years by calling it a youthful indiscretion, it's more challenging to explain that claim once placed in the context of Romney's not rejecting, as a 30-something, his church's position holding that persons who were black were simply too inferior to be church clergy. Perhaps I missed Romney's personal "evolution" on that matter, but my research shows only that Romney's change on the issue occurred following his church's official change. However, I invite you to correct me if I'm in error. And while no church is beyond criticism, the point here is that Romney's worldview from cradle well into adulthood was shaped by a legitimacy underpinned by treating various "others" as inferior.

Segueing from the religious milieu buttressing Romney's understanding of others and now returning to a discussion of Romney and Lauber directly, Romney's initiation of violent force against Lauber wasn't just (the still-wrong) shoves into lockers or pushes into hallway walls that many kids endure at school. Instead, The Washington Post indicated that "Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, [and] Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors." Five different people involved recall this incident unfolding in the same way, four of whom spoke on the record, including a dentist, a practicing lawyer, a retired prosecutor, and a retired school principal. One of these men said that the attack was "vicious."

In 1984 (in the days before Ed Lesley may have mainstreamed haircutting as a silly form of entertainment), the organization then known as the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment) used a haircutting beat-down of legendary entertainer Andre the Giant (standing 7'4", weighing nearly a quarter of a ton, and displaying unwieldy locks of black hair) to set a precedent for how heel characters could draw heat from the fans. What could be more degrading in the eyes of the public, even in the eyes of those who may have recognized at the time that wrestling was indeed scripted, than for two people to hold down and cut the hair of a unique individual who looked different from everyone else? To the fans, regular scripted violence was one thing, but the scripted violence that attacked one of the core features of Andre the Giant that could be changed -- how he wore his hair -- led the television announcer (WWE owner Vince McMahon) to claim that this forcible haircutting was "sheer humiliation ... that should not happen to anybody," that "rap[ed] the dignity" of the person whose hair was being cut against his will, and that was "one of the most despicable displays of conduct in the history of the World Wrestling Federation."

Think about that. This act, the act of cutting someone's hair against that person's will, was one of the most despicable displays in the history of an entertainment genre that, at its core, glorifies violence over all else. This act was so over-the-top at the time, even in the world of pro-wrestling, that fans reacted by throwing cups and bottles into the ring at the entertainers who were cutting Andre the Giant's hair against his will.

So I invite you to advance to the 3:30 mark of this video, watch for yourself, and imagine Mitt Romney and his acolytes doing the same to John Lauber in Romney's attempt to exorcise Lauber's "wrong" difference, just as Big John Studd and former Brigham Young University athlete Ken Patera did to Andre the Giant.

When asked about the Lauber incident this week, Romney laughed and said that he didn't recall the incident. But unlike previous presidential nominees, such as Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, whose youths were lived in chemically induced hazes, Romney (whose opposition to re-legalizing marijuana remains so strong that he wants to use force against patients who use the herb medicinally) can't explain away this part of his youth as having resulted from drug-created memory loss; he was stone-cold sober. Therefore, either Romney has beaten down and forcibly cut the hair of a large number of non-heteronormative people in his life, or he's lying. Given that he's a politician, my money's on the latter.

At least Mitt Romney's actions have helped to dispel the stereotype that only gay men cut hair.

Mitt Romney walked back on his earlier comment that it's "fine" for gay couples to adopt, saying he will "simply acknowledge" that gay adoption is legal.

"Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago," Romney told Charlotte, North Carolina's WBTV on Friday. "So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

Romney's thoughts on gay adoption came up just one day earlier in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto. Romney appeared on the show to discuss President Barack Obama's recent support of same-sex marriage when he made a comment on gay couples' parenting.

"I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home," Romney said. "I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

Since Obama came out in support of gay marriage on Wednesday, Romney has continually reiterated his views on the issue. While delivering Liberty University's 2012 commencement address on Saturday, Romney again emphasized his stance, saying he believes "marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Hackers managed to seize the reins of a Tea Party PAC's website this week, replacing existing material with a variety of offensive messages, before it appeared to be taken offline altogether.

According to TechEye.net, users of the popular 4chan community gained access to administrator privileges for the website of the Independence Hall Tea Party PAC at some point on Thursday after guessing the website's password, which was reportedly "p9ssw0rd."

TechEye reports that the website at one point "flashed a vertical row of animated gifs of an animal appearing to rub its genitals, before redirecting to a Facebook user called 'Dillon Tilly.'" According to the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, the hackers also posted racist and anti-semitic messages, as well as child pornography for a period of time.

Beyond the digital vandalism, TechEye also notes that hackers had obtained and released a full list of the PAC's private donors.

At the time of publishing, the website appeared to be down entirely.

Independence Hall Tea Party PAC is a small organization covering Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania that has endorsed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It's unlikely to be a huge financial help for the Republican frontrunner, however, considering it has only raised around $300 in the 2012 election cycle.

PAC President Don Adams tells the New Times that he's now planning legal action.

"I really don't know if I want to make a comment about it," Adams said. "We're an all-volunteer organization, and our goal is to try to limit government, lower taxes and promote free enterprise. And if that's such an awful thing, there's obviously something wrong."

Click over to the New Times Broward-Palm Beach for screenshots of the various stages of hacker havoc, most of which are not safe for work.

The defeat of French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Sunday's French elections provides a clear lesson to America. So does the fall of the conservative Dutch government, the rebuke of the British conservative government in local elections, the defeat of the establishment parties in Greece and the turmoil in Spain. Europeans are using democratic elections and demonstrations to send a message: Austerity is spreading unacceptable human misery.

For months, conservative pundits have criticized President Barack Obama for not forcing more deficit reduction. House Republicans boast that their Mitt Romney-endorsed budget would cut deficits faster by slashing spending -- although they refuse to reveal what they would slash. Deficits are unpopular. They represent out-of-control government spending. Tightening our belts in hard times seems both responsible and inevitable.

For years, Greece's soaring deficits have been the object lesson of the right: Run up deficits and investors won't buy your bonds and you'll face bankruptcy.

But the real lesson of Greece, Spain, France, Ireland and others is that slashing spending in a weak economy serves only to drive the economy back into recession, increase unemployment and spread poverty. And it does little to reduce deficits or to reassure investors who worry about the economy tanking. Austerity is like bleeding a patient who is still recovering from a heart attack.

The U.S. enjoys better growth than Europe because we've done more to stimulate our economy and have been slower to turn to deficit reduction. But states and localities forced to balance budgets because of state constitutional requirements are laying off teachers and police and firefighters. Now the federal budget is being cut, adding to the drag on the economy. And if, no matter who wins this fall, the administration and Congress join in a "grand bargain" that combines spending cuts and tax increases, Americans may well learn the European lesson about austerity directly.

This economy is barely out of the operating room and just beginning to recover. Large companies are sitting on trillions of profits looking for customers. Small businesses won't hire until they see consumers coming in the door. We still have mass unemployment, falling wages and more families losing their homes. Yet Washington seems unable or unwilling to act.

This week, a committee of the Senate and House will consider the only major jobs program before the Congress: the transportation bill, which funds rebuilding roads, bridges and mass transit. The Senate passed a small, two-year authorization with overwhelming bipartisan support. But zealous House Republicans have defeated everything except temporary extensions.

This makes no sense. In fact, we should be doing much more to rebuild America. Interest rates are at near-record lows. The construction industry is idle. There will never be a better opportunity to borrow the money needed to rebuild an infrastructure that is in dangerous disrepair.

Maybe we should pay the legislators to junket in Europe. Let them see the riots, visit with defeated politicians, talk to embarrassed economists now calling for a change in course. The House Republican caucus doesn't seem to worry about the growing poverty in our cities or wonder whether those cities will blow up this summer. Perhaps they might reconsider if they learn from the Europeans that enforcing brutal measures on citizens to pay for the mess caused by banks doesn't just increase poverty and unemployment, it shortens political careers.

I was channel-surfing the other day, looking for something genuinely interesting on television, like maybe a repeat of the Big Ten Network's Diamond Report or video of a wrecked Nazi tugboat, when my fingers got stuck on a news channel. There, lighting up an NBC broadcast with her smile, was New Hampshire's Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte, talking about her Vice Presidential qualifications ...

Who? That was my first question, but then my second obstacle was the sudden recollection that we were in an election year. I'd actually forgotten this was the case. Four years ago at this time, that would never have happened – we were in the middle of one of the most witheringly nasty primary fights ever, with people very nearly coming to blows depending on where you stood in the Hillary-Barack battle.

Paul Krugman, New York Times
The French are revolting. The Greeks, too. And it's about time.Both countries held elections Sunday that were in effect referendums on the current European economic strategy, and in both countries voters turned two thumbs down. It's far from clear how soon the votes will lead to changes in actual policy, but time is clearly running out for the strategy of recovery through austerity "” and that's a good thing.

And another one bites the dust.

French President Nikolas Sarkozy just became the latest politician to lose his job because he wouldn't let economic experience - or political common sense - sway him from the path of austerity.

Will Sarkozy's downfall help Democrats learn what he never could? Democrats should consider Sarkozy's fate a cautionary tale - and a call to action. If they rally around the cause of growth, jobs, and optimism, the nation will benefit and they'll rewarded at the polls.

But if they keep pushing their own brand of "austerity lite," they - and we - will have gained nothing from the lessons of Europe. iI won't matter how much more extreme the Republicans are. Democrats, who hold the White House and the Senate, will still be seen as the party in charge - the one that presided over a terrible economy and, if the "Grand Bargainers" have their way, the one that cut popular government programs.

They'll also run the risk of paying the same price Nikolas Sarkozy paid.

The Austerity Democrats

This should be the Democrats' moment, a time to make political gains in the most honorable way possible: by fighting for what's right. Today's radical Republicans want to destroy government and slash the very spending that's needed to rescue the economy. The GOP is even rejecting the common-sense spending on roads and bridges embraced by past Republicans from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. As austerity measures eviscerate Europe's economy and undermine the political popularity of its leadership, this should be the Democrats' finest hour.

Unfortunately, too many Democratic leaders have preferred to echo the austerity rhetoric of their Republican opponents - and of Europe's embattled leaders. The President's last debt deal with John Boehner was a milder version of European austerity, and it slowed our country's tentative growth. And yet he's reportedly pushing for another "Grand Bargain," leaving him with a muddled economic message, and Americans in a prolonged state of fear.

Even Nancy Pelosi, a long-time stalwart of traditional Democatic liberalism, said that she would vote for the "Simpson/Bowles" plan, a set of personal opinions about deficit reduction which wassubmitted by the co-chairs of the Deficit Commission after they failed to lead it to a successful conclusion.

The Simpson/Bowles plan is nothing more than an American blueprint for repeating Europe's failed policies.

The Right Time to Go Left

These Democrats should have taken a cue from the surge in popularity the President enjoyed after he began fighting for jobs - jobs that can only be created through government spending. But they didn't seem to get the message. The President still repeats the meaningless conservative analogy between governments and families - that governments should "cut their budgets in tough ties, just like families do when they sit around the kitchen table ..."

Nonsense. A better analogy, although still imperfect, would be between government and a business ... a store, let's say, that has good workers and good merchandise, but no customers Nobody's shopping there because the showroom is falling apart and it's running low on inventory. The only way for that business to get back in the black tomorrow is by spending more today.

It's called "investment," and it's nothing more than common sense. That's what our government needs. Polls show that the public understands this common-sense solution.

Too Clever by Half

But too many Democrats seem to think they don't have to fight for jobs or spending to get us through these tough times - that they just have to be less extreme than the other guys. And they seem to have the too-clever-by-half notion that they can offer "bargainss" which the Republicans won't take, proving themselves to be more "reasonable" than the other guy.

One problem with that idea is that the Republicans might take their deal, as Boehner did last year. A bigger problem is that they're repeating the false austerity mantras of the right instead of explaining what's really happening, leaving the public confused and in despair.

But the biggest problem with that idea is the economy itself. More sluggish performance from the economy will sow more doubt on the President and his party while spreading even more pain among the general population.

Nowhere is the madness more self-evident than on the topic of Social Security. Its trustees' latest projections are seen as proof that the program's benefits must be cut, in classic austerity-economics fashion. But the lion's share of the changes to its long-term fiscal projections were due to an ongoing recession caused by ... austerity economics!

The Summit

Next week former President Bill Clinton, whose "triangulating" brand of Democratic centrism places him slightly to the right of Sarkozy economically, will join radical right-wing Rep. Paul Ryan for the second time at a "Fiscal Summit" funding by conservative billionaire Pete Peterson and his foundation. Even more disturbingly, Clinton will be joined by a key Pelosi aide, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, as well as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (who will also be making a return appearance).

Will Democrats use the "Fiscal Summit" and other upcoming events to challenge the failed austerity policies of Europe's leadership, or to mimic those leaders by leading us down the same road?

If it's the latter, they'll cause incalculable harm to our economy - and their political futures.

Poison

Austerity economics imposes sharp cuts in government spending in an attempt to restore economic growth. That's like putting leeches on a patient to draw the blood out: Instead of curing the disease it makes it much, much worse. Any lingering doubts about that have been dispelled by Europe's experience , where it has turned struggling economies have been turned into shattered economies.

And now Sarkozy's fall has given us yet more confirmation that the austerity which he co-promoted with Germany's Angela Merkel is a political career-killer. (Gallic pride made it impolitic to point out that France was clearly the junior partner in that duo, with Sarko playing Bob Hope to Merkel's Bing Crosby.)

Now he's paid the price. But Sarkozy's not the first to fall, and he won't be the last. Two leaders have already been defeated in Greece because they bowed before the austerity diktats of European power brokers. In the latest round of elections there, where democratic processes were initially all but overruled by the international financial sector, Greeks repudiated that country's externally imposed, "bipartisan" austerity consensus by soundly rejecting all the major political parties.

Would-be Washington "centrists," take heed.

Great Britain's Austerian Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition felt the pain this week too, as Labour made massive gains in local elections throughout England, Scotland, and Wales.

The "fiskalpakt" that the Germans are pushing on their reluctant continent is even becoming political poison in Germany itself, where Merkel's center-right coalition just took a drubbing in a state election.

That's not just a repudiation of economic policy. It's a rejection of the false "bipartisanship" that's forged when political insiders from the right and the mild left come together to follow unpopular policies dictated from powerful unelected forces.

As the guy in the cell phone ads used to say: Can you hear me now?

Warning Signs

Let's hope so. Because another disturbing trend to come out of Europe reflects an age-old pattern: When people feel fearful financially they turn in ever-larger numbers toward xenophobia, racism, and rage. The most dangerous situation in Europe today is probably the one in Hungary. The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban shows all the signs of incipient totalitarianism, fueled by and reinforced by its practice of using thinly-disguised code words to reinforce hostility toward any citizen who is not "ethnically Hungarian."

Even after Greece's "bipartisan" leaders trampled on the public's needs and preferences, this week's election results were still somewhat shocking. The Socialists led other Greek parties for many years and won 44 percent of the vote in 2009. But this time around they trailed a party called "the Coalition of the Radical Left," which won between 15 and 17 percent of the vote to its 12 or 13 percent. That may be understandable, since the increasingly bland parties of European socialism have lost their bite - but what's truly frightening is the rise of the anti-immigrant and Nazi-saluting "Golden Dawn Party," which achieved its first Parliamentary presence with 5 to 8 percent of the vote.

In France the racist, far-right party of Jean-Marie Le Pen, now led by Le Pen's more telegenic and less blunt daughter Marine, performed exceptionally well in the first round of this year's elections. Sarkozy openly appealed to xenophobia himself in the runoff. Had Ms. Le Pen not urged her supporters to abstain from voting, his ugly race-baiting appeals might very well have worked.

It can't happen here, somebody's probably saying. But it can - and we're already seeing the warning signs. Our elected officials have an obligation to do the right thing for the sake of our social order, as well as our economy.

Showtime

Republicans are already using our poor economic performance to argue that Keynesian economics and stimulus spending don't work, when the exact opposite is true: We're doing better than parts of Europe because we did have some stimulus spending, but it wasn't enough. Call our policy "austerity lite" - but if we switch to the hard stuff we'll have a hangover that will last for generations. And if the Democratic Party doesn't clearly and forcefully map the case for the policies we really need, the President and his party could find themselves following in Sarkozy's footsteps.

At last year's Fiscal Summit Bill Clinton repeated the austerity-economics claptrap of the right, especially on Social Security, telling the radically right-wing Rep. Ryan that Republicans and Democrats should "break out of theology" and push for "bipartisan cooperation." Now Nancy Pelosi's saying she would have voted for the draconian Simpson/Bowles plan, which is more of the same austerity madness.

If we hear more austerity talk at the "Fiscal Summit" rom party leaders like Clinton, Administration officials like Tim Geithner, and Pelosi ally Chris Van Hollen the result will be disastrous - for the economy, for ordinary Americans, and for the electoral prospects of Democrats everywhere. It would mean that the lessons of Europe, and the fate of Nikolas Sarkozy, has taught them nothing.

It's almost showtime. Will the Democrats meet the moment and fight for the future - or follow in Sarkozy's footsteps and walk blindly toward the failures of the past?

Embattled Indiana Republican Sen. Dick Lugar has fallen behind his Tea Party challenger in a new poll that finds the veteran legislator in danger of losing after 36 years in office.

The Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll released Friday puts Lugar a stunning 10 points behind state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, trailing 38 percent to 48 percent.

Voters go to the polls Tuesday.

Lugar has been one of Indiana's most popular political figures for decades, and had a reputation as a statesman, running clean, positive campaigns. But with Mourdock riding the Tea Party's enthusiasm and putting Lugar's political life in jeopardy for perhaps the first time, Lugar fired off a string of negative attacks.

They don't appear to have worked, and on Friday Lugar was trying a more positive approach in a new TV ad aimed at getting out the vote and stemming Mourdock's surge.

"America faces serious challenges, but Hoosiers' courage and determination are unbreakable," Lugar says in the spot. "It's this spirit that guides me every day in the Senate."

He goes on to list the conservative agenda points that Mourdock has said he has failed on, arguing that he's worked hard to "overturn Obamacare," to protect "our energy security" and to "destroy and keep from terrorists thousands of rogue nuclear and biological weapons."

Tuesday will tell if the reminder of what Hoosiers liked about Lugar for so many years will be enough.

Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?

A Republic, if you can keep it.

It seems ol' Ben Franklin was right. Republics, it turns out, are not so easy to keep.

From pitifully low voter turnout, to rock-bottom approval ratings for Congress (both parties, in fact Americans prefer Communism over our current Congress!), to the increasingly obvious power of big money to set and determine political agendas, to the overwhelming distrust of all public institutions, there are certainly signs that America's Republic is approaching a sort of modern Rubicon.

Only this time the threat to our Republic isn't anything as straightforward as an egomaniacal general. This time the Republic is being challenged by a powerful array of superhuman forces deeply embedded in the fabric of our culture -- large corporations.

That's the bad news.

But today we got a piece of good news. Fed up with corporations secretly meddling in their public affairs, a record number of patriotic Americans have sent the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a resounding message that the time has come to reign in corporate influence peddling.

You too can still join the more than 178,000 people and organizations that have asked the SEC to "create rules that would push corporate political spending into center stage," as Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen puts it.

Click here to read the comments or submit your own.

Never before have so many comments been submitted to the Securities Exchange Commission regarding any topic, but the Citizens United decision appears to have been a bridge too far. The potential of secret corporate money in politics is too insidious, the prospects for our Republic too dim, to allow corporate "speech" to be conducted in secret and with shareholder money.

The outpouring of input was largely at the behest of the Corporate Reform Coalition, which includes responsible investors such as the firm I work for, managing a combined total of $800 billion in assets, public officials, legal scholars, good government groups, and environmental organizations.

The Corporate Reform Coalition was formed after several prominent law professors, filed a petition urging the SEC to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. In Citizens United, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrongly wrote that comprehensive disclosure requirements were in place for publicly traded companies. This is not the case, however, unless the SEC requires disclosure.

There are grounds for wondering whether we have already lost our Republic to the power of big corporations. But if we still do live in a Republic, it is our collective responsibility to hold onto it.

Frank Bruni, New York Times
FOR a long time and for a lot of us, “college” was more or less a synonym for success. We had only to go. We had only to graduate. And if we did, according to parents and high-school guidance counselors and everything we heard and everything we read, we could pretty much count on a career, just about depend on a decent income and more or less expect security. A diploma wasn’t a piece of paper. It was an amulet.

At the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night, President Barack Obama joked that Hillary Clinton "won't stop drunk-texting me from Cartagena."

"Despite many obstacles, much has changed during my time in office," the president said at the annual event. "Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later she won't stop drunk-texting me from Cartegana."

Earlier this month, Clinton was captured on camera drinking a beer in Cartagena, Colombia, where she traveled to attend the Summit of the Americas. It was just before the trip that a striking photo of the secretary of state texting aboard a military C-17 plane on her way to Libya gave way to "Texts from Hillary" -- an Internet meme sensation.

Click here to check out "Texts from Hillary." Below, a photo of Clinton in Cartagena, Colombia.

We begin by saying we certainly hope we can live up to such an exuberant headline. You will have to judge for yourself whether all those exclamation points were justified or not.

The real reason for such titular excitement is the convergence of two contests here at Friday Talking Points headquarters. See? I had to restrain myself from typing yet another exclamation point, there.

One contest is over, and we are able to (finally!) crown a winner. And one contest is just beginning, so haul out your crystal ball and peer into the future with us, in the comments.

Last December, we ran a column entitled "Call The Newtsplosion Contest." In it, we used explosive terminology (such as "Newtroglycerine" -- although we have to admit that "Newtonium" and "Newtron Bomb" didn't occur to us until later...) to describe what was likely going to end Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign.

Now, you'll have to harken back to an earlier time -- a time when Newt was seen (by himself, at the very least) as "the inevitable Republican nominee." That was the setting for this contest, which was announced on December 12. In it, we invited folks to guess when Newt would say something so outrageous that he, in essence, disqualified himself from the race and went down in flames.

We have to report, sadly, that Newt Gingrich exits the race this week with more of a whimper (desperately seeking Delaware?) than any sort of bang. My own entry in the contest was "right after Super Tuesday" which would have been around March 7, just to show how far off I was. There were even farther-out guesses, such as "December 27, during the Trump debate" and "Newt will win the White House in a landslide," to show how wide the field of prognostication was.

But our winning entry was, quite simply, stunningly accurate this time around. Over at the Huffington Post comments section, we got an entry for "April 17, 2012." This guess was only eight days off -- which we feel is pretty impressive, considering how long ago the contest ran.

What is even more impressive is that this is the first time ever -- since I've begun running these amusing contests, I believe -- that we have a certified two-time winner! If that doesn't deserve an exclamation point, I don't know what does....

TakeSake of the Huffington Post comments section is our winner in the "Call The Newtsplosion Contest." Earlier, way back in FTP[141], we awarded TakeSake the 500 Quatloos he earned by guessing -- within a single day -- when Rahm Emanuel would exit the White House. That contest began even further back, in FTP[114] ("When Will Rahm Go?"), and although TakeSake did hedge his bet a bit, he also won stylistic points for his pithy comment on the entire "Quatloos as a betting medium" thing:

Kirk was dealing with an alien world of perverse, socialpathic [sic] gamblers. Obama is dealing with something much more sinister: Washington politics.

In any case, our hat is off to our two-time winner, and a whopping 10,000 Quatloos is hereby awarded to TakeSake for so accurately predicting the exits from the stage of both Rahm Emanuel and Newt Gingrich. Well done! Well done, indeed!

When one contest ends, another must begin. Well, not always, but today at any rate.

Since all the excitement is over in the Republican primaries (boredom, thy name is Romney... ahem), we reluctantly turn to opening the field for entries as to who will be Mitt's running mate. We say "reluctantly" because we really despise the saccharine cuteness of the term "Veepstakes," but since that's what we'll be holding, we are forced to use it. Sigh.

The question "Who will Mitt pick?" is already on the lips of cocktail-sippers inside the beltway, and this question will be batted around many a Sunday morning punditfest until the Republican National Convention (or until we're all sick of it, which will come much sooner than that). The field of possibilities is either open to everyone sporting a Republican bumpersticker on their car, or will hinge solely on the question of whether Mitt will have to get down on one knee or two to beg Marco Rubio to accept -- depending on who is giving odds, at this point.

We're going to open the contest with our own wacky guess, which we limited to selecting from "people whose names we haven't heard mentioned yet" -- which turned out to be limiting indeed. So we're picking a sort of worst-case scenario that seems to (so far) have occurred to nobody else out there: Scott Walker. Yep, the guy in Wisconsin. If Walker beats his recall vote, than he will become a rallying figure for Republicans in 2012, with his conservative credentials flawlessly displayed. He's a Midwesterner who could turn a few states (so the Romney thinking will go), but he's not so charismatic that he'll continually upstage Mitt on the campaign trail.

We certainly hope this doesn't come to pass, we should mention. Again, we had only those whom nobody else had considered to choose from (so as to not pre-empt choices others may make in the comments), as a self-imposed rule, and this was the best we could come up with given such strict limitations.

Think we're wrong? Got your own ideas? Well, toss them out there in the comments! Prove your own prowess of prediction!

(Because there will likely be a tie, a valid entry must name the exact date and time (East Coast time) when the veep choice will be announced by Mitt's campaign. To aid you in this task, the Republican National Convention begins on August 27. Winner will be the person who selects the correct running mate, and who also gets closest to the actual date and time of the announcement.)

 

Moving on to our weekly awards, we have to at least give a nod towards Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who just got the Violence Against Women Act renewal through his chamber with a very impressive 68-31 vote. That's a lot of Republicans for a Democratic bill, it bears mentioning. Republican senators (well, some of them, at any rate) have apparently woken up to the damage the War on Women is doing to their party among the electorate. In any case, for such a strong bipartisan victory, Reid deserves at least an Honorable Mention this week.

But the really impressive Democrat this week was none other than Barack Obama. While the mainstream media's "journalists" were competing with each other over how many times they could say the word "prostitute" on the airwaves, Obama was out in the countryside changing the Washington debate.

While we do realize that many would have awarded Obama the coveted MIDOTW award merely for his most-excellent "slow-jamming the news" segment on Jimmy Fallon's late-night show, we like to think we have higher standards here. I mean, the video is indeed priceless, but not impressive enough for the award.

Instead, Obama is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week because he got the Republicans to concede a major issue -- keeping student loan rates low. Before this week, Republicans were against the very concept. This week, after Obama's strong showing on a few swing-state college campuses, Republicans have reconsidered and are now setting the battle up over "how to pay for it" -- exactly what they did when they caved on the payroll tax holiday. In other words -- Obama is going to get a legislative victory, and it is going to happen before the June deadline. Bank on it.

That's a pretty impressive week, for an incumbent president. For utterly changing the debate from "should we do this?" to "how will we pay for this?" our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, due to sheer leadership qualities (and not slow-jam qualities), is none other than President Obama.

(Congratulate President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.)

 

Joe Biden has been... um, saying some interesting things this week. Sigh.

We were -- right up until today -- convinced that the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week was going to go to Joe Lieberman, for several reasons: (1.) Just because. (2.) We're tired of seeing him pop up on our television screens for no reason (3.) We won't have ol' Joe to kick around much longer.

Seriously, the best thing about the 2012 election -- better even than Obama winning a 50-state landslide, should such a thing happen -- will be the fact that Joe Lieberman will not be back in the Senate next year. Following this logic, there are only a limited number of weeks we can possibly hand out more MDDOTW awards to him, and we want to make sure he gets all he's worth.

But then we checked the news this morning, and learned that the House has already voted on their version of the student loan rate extension, which conveniently also doubles as part of the Republican War on Women, because they're going to pay for the whole thing by raiding a fund set up to provide preventative care -- like breast exams, for instance.

The really disappointing news, however, was that John Boehner could not have passed this without Democratic votes. The Tea Partiers were apparently off in their perpetual snit, and the bill only passed by the grace of 13 Democratic votes -- by a total of 215 to 195. Without these votes, it would have failed.

Now, normally, when a bill passes and a few Democrats cross party lines, it winds up making no difference to the outcome. They are not the key votes, in other words. This time, they were.

Because the vote is so recent, at this time we are unable to provide a list of those 13 Democrats who voted against H.R. 4628 today. We must therefore award, in absentia, the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to every House Democrat who voted against the bill.

[In a day or so, you should be able to search the Library of Congress' site for "HR4628" and see which Democrats voted against this bill. We apologize for the lack of contact information at this time.]

 

Volume 208 (4/27/12)

Welcome once again to our ceaseless efforts at convincing Democrats to get better at staying on message. Obama did a pretty masterful job this week on the student loan issue, so Democrats don't have much heavy lifting to do on that front.

But every little bit helps. We provide these talking points, as always, for everyone to use freely -- from prominent Democrats interviewed on Sunday morning political shows, down to rank-and-file Democrats standing around the water cooler on Monday morning.

Enjoy... and don't forget to cast your veepstakes vote in the comments!

 

   Voting for violence against women

Republicans are already on the run on the student loan issue. Democrats should turn this into a full rout with their advantage on the Violence Against Women Act.

"I see that the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act passed the Senate this week, but I was shocked that something like thirty Republicans voted against it. This wasn't a close vote -- the measure passed with 68 votes -- but still, it was eye-opening. Up until this year, this law was renewed with overwhelming support, but this year over half the Republicans in the Senate voted against it. Republicans say that there simply isn't any kind of 'War on Women' being waged by their party, but I think women voters are smart enough to judge them on what they do as well as what they say. Two-thirds of the Republicans in the Senate just essentially voted in favor of violence against women. That is shameful, to be bluntly honest. I have a message for Republicans in the House: women are watching you, on this bill."

 

   War on Women

This is really starting to get under Republicans' skins, which is excellent. They are on defense, and because they are they feed right into the Democratic "framing" on the issue every time they bring it up. So use the phrase whenever you get the chance, because they're obviously getting scared of it.

"Republicans in the House just passed their version of keeping student loan rates down, but they just couldn't resist opening another battlefield in their ongoing War on Women to do so. In order to pay for the student loan program, Republicans raided money set aside for preventative health care like breast exams and checkups for women across America. Even more insultingly, they call this a 'slush fund.' That's exactly how high women rate with the Republican Party: slush. Women are merely dirty snow to be scraped off Republicans' bootheels. No wonder women voters are fleeing the Republican Party and waking up to the fact that Democrats are the ones fighting for women's health, and not against it."

 

   Obama convinced Republicans

Give Obama a victory pat on the back, while the dust is still settling.

"President Obama showed real leadership this week on the student loan issue. Before Obama brought it up, Republicans were actually against keeping student loan rates affordable for millions of Americans. One even called it the 'stage three cancer of socialism,' whatever that means. By refusing to give up this fight, Barack Obama actually convinced the Republicans that his way of thinking was the right way, and they dropped their opposition to the idea like a hot potato. One wonders how many public opinion polls the Republicans had to conduct before the president brought them over to his position."

 

   Etch A Sketching

OK, this one is a blatant plug for a frivolous column I wrote yesterday. But still...

"I see Mitt Romney quickly Etch A Sketched on his position on keeping student loans affordable for middle-class American students. I look forward to watching Mitt Etch A Sketching on many other issues, in the next few weeks. I just wonder if the Republican base will let him get away with it -- especially if he comes out for any version of what conservatives sneeringly call 'amnesty,' after earlier being against such a concept. As I said, the Etch A Sketching has barely begun, folks."

 

   What was that about Europe, Mitt?

Salon pointed this one out, to give credit where it is due.

"I notice Mitt Romney's not saying much about Europe, after the news that the severe austerity measures Britain took -- all that budget-cutting that Republicans love -- has driven their country into a double-dip recession. Mitt used to love using Europe as an example in his speeches, but after -- yet again -- it has been proven that too much austerity in a weak economy is a bad thing, Mitt's been strangely silent on the issue. Still in favor of austerity, Mitt? The U.S. isn't going to become Greece if Mitt wins the election, instead we'll get Britain's double-dip recession."

 

   Bishops and politics

Let's just see how that political fracas with the Catholic Church is going, shall we?

"I see that Paul Ryan now sees the Catholic bishops in a new light, now that they've strongly come out against his budget plans. The bishops quite accurately noted that Ryan is balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and helpless, while continuing to shower tax cuts on the wealthy -- which I don't remember Jesus being in favor of, actually. I find it interesting that when the Catholic bishops say something the Republicans like, Republicans talk about how the church should be heeded, but when the bishops point out inconvenient truths, then it seems to be up to each individual Catholic to make up his or her own mind. Funny how that works, isn't it?"

 

   Let's just have a sing-off

Barack Obama -- while not technically singing -- caused apparent apoplexy in the Republican Party this week, on Jimmy Fallon's show. Going on the theory that whatever makes Republican heads explode the most must be a good thing, why not double-down? Heh.

"The White House has announced today that instead of three debates with Mitt Romney this fall, they will instead only participate in two formal debates. For the third event, President Obama will be challenging Mitt Romney to a singing contest, to be moderated by Simon Cowell. We'll let Americans vote with their phones and texts, and any money raised will be used to provide singing lessons for the loser. We feel this will provide American with a much more entertaining evening than another dry old political debate, and we invite all of America to participate in the voting afterwards."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

In the 11 years since she held one of the highest positions in American government as secretary of state, Madeleine Albright has been a professor, Democratic campaigner, grandmother and founder of an international business consulting firm. And she's authored books on national politics, foreign relations and her famous collection of brooches and pins.

It was only recently that Albright, who turns 75 next month, said she had the time and courage to explore her own complicated past. An Episcopalian who was raised Catholic, she discovered at age 59 -- via reporting by a Washington Post journalist and during the vetting process to serve in President Bill Clinton's administration -- that she was born to Jewish parents. She also found out that more than a dozen of her family members died in the Holocaust, including three grandparents in concentration camps. Her father, a former Czech diplomat, and her mother never told her the family secret.

In "Prague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948," released this week, Albright digs through a trove untouched documents that her parents left behind, visits her childhood neighborhoods in the Czech Republic and retraces the steps her family, which moved from London and back before relocating to Denver, took in the tumultuous time surrounding World War II. The book, part historical narrative, part personal story, explores how political leaders and families make moral decisions and live with the consequences.

Albright, who calls herself a "peripatetic Episcopalian" and attends church near her farm in Hillsborough, Va., and close to her home in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown neighborhood, visited the HuffPost Religion staff in New York this week to discuss her book, her ancestry and her spirituality. Questions and responses have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Why write this book now?

I did not have time. The way I describe this, it is like being asked to represent your country in a marathon and just as you are start to running, somebody gives you a heavy package and says unwrap it while you run. Here I was trying to become the first woman secretary of state and all of a sudden all this devastating kind of information came. So I sent my brother and sister to the Czech Republic to look at all this. ... But even though I went back in '97 and went to Terezin, I didn't have time to do the kind of in-depth research until this book.

Is there anything left to discover about your identity? Is there something you are still yearning for?

The only thing I am yearning for is that I wish my parents were alive so we could really talk about this. ... In my case, (identity) was always was complicated because of this business of being a naturalized citizen, of coming here as one thing -- a Czechoslovak -- and becoming American. When people ask me me what the most important thing in my life is, it's becoming American, hands-down.

I'm very proud of my Czechoslovak background, but my identity the way I describe it now: I am an American, I am a mother, I am a grandmother, I am a Democrat, I came from Jewish heritage, I was a Roman Catholic, I am a practicing Episcopalian, I am somebody who is devoted to human rights, I am somebody who believes in an international community and I can't separate those things. ... I can trace these various parts as having a profound influence on me in one form or another.

Considering your family history and that your daughter married into a Jewish family, what is it about Jewish traditions that you identify with?

My youngest grandson is just studying for his bar mitzvah. We have been talking about the various Jewish traditions, the appreciation for history, for family, for humanity, for education. This year, Passover and Easter were around the same time, so I went to a Passover seder with one of my friends, Rabbi David Saperstein ... and on Easter Sunday, I went to Harper's Ferry for Easter sunrise service, which was an ecumenical service. Putting all the stories together, what it makes me think is the extent to which people have a need to believe ... the idea that while we may be divided according to various religions, what is interesting is the similarities of the stories, of people yearning for something and being saved and having the hope of having a better life.

Also, the whole aspect of charity and forgiveness and generosity -- these are common in all religions as far as I can tell. It's interesting, I was always the most most religious member of my family. ... Even as a little girl, I played priest. I really find there is a comfort in religion and it doesn't matter which of the various traditions, it's a similar aspect. ... The thing that makes me the saddest is the divisions created by religion when it should be the opposite. ... I look for the common threads rather than the divisive ones.

Part of your book is about the moral decisions that were made by people, including your family, during World War II. Did the process of writing this book make you rethink decisions you have made?

I think a lot of the decisions I made were good decisions. A lot of decisions were made for me. Do I have any regrets? I think I made the right choices. I'm trying to analyze how much me is a reflection of how I was brought up. ... I'm grateful to be alive, I mean if it hadn't been for my parents having gotten me out (of Czechoslovakia), I certainly would be dead. ... A lot of what motivates me has to do with paying back. I know it may sound hokey, but it really is an important part of what makes me tick.

A thing I regret is that we weren't able to move faster on Yugoslavia. A thing I'm glad we did is Kosovo. The hard part is whether in order to stop ethnic cleansing, do you use air power with the idea that you might be killing innocent people along the way? Is it appropriate to decide that you are going to sacrifice one person's life in order to save another's? Those are very hard decisions that have to be made.

During the Kosovo War, one of the things I did was to hold daily conference calls with the other foreign ministers of NATO. We had the British, the French, the Germans, the Italians and me on the phone. The Italian foreign minister said 'Why don't we pause the bombing because it's Easter?' And the German official said, 'Why would we pause to honor one religion while we kill the people of another religion?' I thought it was one of the most amazing statements in terms of the commonness of identity and the importance of making the right moral decisions.