Why Richard Gere’s “Homeless” Photo Went Viral: It’s More Common — and Closer to Home — Than We Like to Think
“When I went undercover in New York City as a homeless man, no one noticed me. I felt what it was like to be a homeless man. People would just past by me and look at me in disgrace. Only one lady was kind enough to give me some food. It was an experience I’ll never forget.”
To date, the image has received 1.55 million likes on Facebook and has been shared over 640,000 times.
There were also hundreds of comments, many of them confessional, including the phrase: “I was homeless for a while…” After reading them, it’s difficult to avoid the impression that homelessness is not only a lot more common than many realize, but the kind of person who becomes homeless increasingly seems to be, well, ordinary.
. . . Clinton did end up supporting the administration's Iran nuclear deal, but her support came with a history of bellicose baggage.
Back in 2008, for example, she warned that Washington could "totally obliterate" Iran. During that presidential campaign, she chided Obama as "naïve" and "irresponsible" for wanting to engage the country diplomatically.
Even after the nuclear agreement was sealed, she struck a bullying tone: "I don't believe Iran is our partner in this agreement," Clinton insisted. "Iran is the subject of the agreement." She added that she "won't hesitate to take military action" if it falls through.
Contrast Clinton with the more moderate Secretary of State John Kerry. It's no wonder Obama's two signature foreign policy achievements - the Iran deal and the groundbreaking opening of diplomatic ties with Cuba - came after Clinton left.
There was a very telling moment about Clinton's attitude during the debate when Cooper asked, "Which enemy are you most proud of?"
Alongside the NRA, Republicans, and health insurance companies, Clinton listed "the Iranians" - which could mean either the Iranian government or the nation's 78 million people. In either case, it wasn't a very diplomatic thing to say while her successor and former colleagues are trying to chart a new, more cooperative relationship with Iran.
When it comes to war and peace, it might not matter too much if a Republican or Hillary Clinton wins the White House. In either case, the winner will be the military-industrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about.
When it came to one issue that Rubio is vulnerable on – his wildly regressive tax plan that completely undermines his middle-class-man-of-the-people message – John Harwood got railroaded by Rubio, who insisted his plan was “pro-growth” and even boasted that he would eliminate taxes on investments. That probably would have been a good time for Harwood to point out that zeroing out taxes on capital gains is a massive windfall for the super wealthy, who draw most of their income from investments, but he passed.
As for the rest of the field, there weren’t many surprises. John Kasich kicked off the debate by reiterating his complaint that candidates like Ben Carson and Donald Trump are ridiculous clowns, and then largely disappeared for the remainder of the event. Rand Paul was a nonentity, Christie got a couple of shouty tough-guy moments in, and Huckabee popped off some folksy zingers. Carly Fiorina spent the evening sermonizing about the evils of government without ever veering into specifics. Ben Carson somnambulated through the night and made clear that his grasp of complex economic issues is tenuous at best. Trump was Trump – nothing you haven’t seen before.
With Rubio and Cruz turning in solid performances, you could sort of start to see how the contours of the race might eventually take shape. Right now you have Jeb barely hanging on as the establishment favorite in the race, while Trump and Carson have the hearts and minds of the “outsider” bloc of voters. All three are, to varying degrees, weak candidates: Jeb doesn’t seem to even know why he’s in the race, Carson’s campaign is an elaborate fundraising scam, and Trump is a blowhard and obvious bullshit artist. If you assume that all three will eventually collapse, then establishmentarian Rubio and “outsider” Cruz are well-positioned to pick up their support networks.
Of course, that assumes Trump’s support will collapse or Jeb will pull the plug anytime soon. Even if they don’t, tonight’s terrible debate helped clarify who the serious candidates are.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Speaking of the current Idiocracy . . .
The Republican debate last night unveiled the nakedness of the self-serving thought processes surrounding the policies urged on the poor USA USA USA!!!! (Always more tax breaks for the rich and deep blood-letting cuts in programs and services that provide very little aid already to the middle classes and the poor.)
The question was extremely substantive. Carson's answer was laughably vague. The problem here isn't that Carson was asked whether he can do math, but that he couldn't show that his tax plan was based on sound math. And that's because it isn't.
As for the question to Kasich, he was asked about a speech he gave on Tuesday calling his rivals' proposals "crazy." As the New York Times reported, Kasich argued "that Republicans who proposed abolishing Medicaid and Medicare, imposing a 10 percent flat tax, or deporting millions of people were out of touch with reality."
Kasich is right about all that, by the way. And while the question was, as Cruz said, an invitation to attack some of the other candidates, it was keyed to a substantive debate about some very strange policy ideas.
Meanwhile, Cruz himself was also asked a substantive question. The moderators asked why he was opposing a bipartisan budget deal that would avert a debt ceiling crisis, a Medicare crisis, and a Social Security Disability Insurance crisis. Rather than answer that question, he attacked the moderators for refusing to ask substantive questions, during which he pretended a slew of unusually substantive questions were trivial political attacks.
Cruz's strategy was smart, and he was arguably the debate's big winner. But it bespoke a deeper weakness. Republicans have boxed themselves into some truly bizarre policies — including a set of tax cuts that give so much money to the rich, and blow such huge holes in the deficit, that simply asking about them in any serious way seems like a vicious attack. Assailing the media is a good way to try to dodge those questions for a little while, but it won't work over the course of a long campaign.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Our favorite CIA undercover journalist, Bob Woodward, has not slowed down a beat from putting the slam on real patriots.
Not yet anyway.
. . . Some people just depress the hell out of you because you've watched them sell out to the Republican-led Corporatocracy that America has become. One of the journalistic heroes of the Nixon Era, Bob Woodward, is now a stooge for the Republican Party and has been one of the most vehemently anti-Obama pundits out there, expecting him to magically fix problems that are only to be solved by a GOP Congress.
On Fox News Sunday, Woodward called Ryan a “true conservative” who “vibrates reasonableness.”
. . . Since we are on Fox 'News,' no one asks exactly what these big ideas are and who will suffer the most as a result of his bold plans.
Woodward truly thinks that Ryan wants to 'fix the government' by reforming entitlement spending. Fixing the government by hurting the poor is hardly considered a solution for millions of Americans who will suffer from his bold ideas. Reforming entitlement spending is code for cutting funds allocated to those who are most in need, it does not help the efficacy of government.
There are many others who beg to differ that this a moment to be optimistic. Solid progressives absolutely disagree that Ryan's plans for entitlements and tax policy are 'refreshing,' or even the least bit financially sound or fair for Americans. Robert Greenstein believes that this Ryan's allegedly bold plan for 'entitlement reform' is anything but the "Path for Prosperity" he claimed it to be.
Affluent Americans would do quite well. But for tens of millions of others, the Ryan plan is a path to more adversity.
Greenstein was the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Carter as well as the man appointed by President Clinton in 1994 to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform and headed the federal budget policy component of the transition team for President Obama. Ryan budget is thus an exercise in obfuscation — failing to specify trillions of dollars that it would need in tax savings and budget cuts to make its numbers add up. No one should take seriously its claim to balance the budget in ten years.
It’s also an exercise in hypocrisy — claiming to boost opportunity and reduce poverty while flagrantly doing the reverse. Here’s just one example: Ryan has criticized some of the poor for not working enough and says that he wants to promote work and opportunity. But his budget eliminates Pell Grants entirely for low-income students who have families to support, must work, and are attending school less than half time on top of their jobs.
You're not alone if you are wondering who funds Woodward these days. Eric Boehlert raised a good point a few years ago that it isn't Liberals. Liberals certainly do not subscribe to the ridiculous cult of Paul Ryan as the savior of the GOP. This Emperor has no clothes, but Bob Woodward thinks he's dressed to the nines.
How did America’s Nixon-era, “journalistic hero” become so un-cool? Go here for some "WhoWhatWhy" deep background. And if you haven’t yet, be sure to read this on Watergate, from Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets, where Woodward’s true colors really come out.