Embracing Your Inner Peep with the Washington Post's 'Peep Show'

Many, many moons ago -- well before e-mail or the internet -- two of my good friends couldn't wait to tell my husband and me about their hilarious adventures putting yellow, marshmallow Peeps into the microwave oven as the confections become comically contorted.

Now, a lifetime later, Peep pop art has become a creative endeavor. Instead of just being content with its status as a super-sugary, Easter time treat which happens to be fun to watch morph in the microwave, it's now at the center of a Peep diorama contest, the sixth held by the Washington Post, called the Peep Show. The news organization solicited photos of Peeps in various dioramas and many of the submissions were pretty amusing.

I first became aware of the Peeps-as-an-artistic-medium when I saw photos on BuzzFeed. In honor of Easter weekend, I thought I'd share some of this frothy Peep goodness with you all.

Occupy Peeps

Royal Wedding Peeps

Adele's Rolling in the Peeps

Bridespeeps

'Homeland' Peeps

'Downton Abbey' Peeps

Romney Family Vacation Peeps

Republican Debate Peeps

Not sure if I'm going to share these images with my kids. The last thing I want to be doing is cleaning up after the gritty, sugary, sticky Peep guts from around my house.

Image credits: BuzzFeed and Washington Post.

Notes from the Political Middle: Cracker Barrel vs Whole Foods; Protesters of the Year & Newt Leading GOP Pack

Cracker Barrel vs Whole Foods

Quick, which one do you prefer: The restaurant/gift shop chain Cracker Barrel or the supermarket chain Whole Foods?

If you selected Cracker Barrel, you must be a Republican. If you picked Whole Foods, you’re obviously a Democrat. It makes sense that if you buy the $7.39 Chicken n’ Dumplins from Cracker Barrel, where they play country music in the background, you must be a conservative, right? And if you’re in the market for anything organic or for fare like arugula, man, you’re a liberal, just count up them Priuses in the parking lot.

Wait . . . what? Well that’s what the Washington Post asserted in a recent story saying that there’s a cultural divide between the two venues which can serve as easy proxies for patrons’ political choices.

“In 2008, candidate Barack Obama carried 81 percent of counties with a Whole Foods and just 36 percent of counties with a Cracker Barrel – a record 45-point gap,” the Post reported. “. . . This growing divide signals shifts in the electorate. In the 2008 primary, Obama was able to overcome Hillary Rodham Clinton partly because the Democratic Party had become more Whole Foods than Cracker Barrel.” Hillary Clinton is a Cracker Barrel most valuable patron? Since when?

An author/journalist from Texas told the paper: “Politics is aligned with lifestyle right now, not policy. Food used to be political because it represented a class of farmers or workers. Now it represents certain tastes.”

While I’ll concede that there may be some discernible lifestyle correlation between an organic/free-range/Whole Foods-type lifestyle and voting Democratic, this type of false dichotomy makes my hair stand on end. It’s a lazy, simplistic shortcut which ideologically paints folks with one, broad brush. Even here in liberal, blue state Massachusetts, I know folks who defy this simplistic either-or stereotype. I know Republican Whole Foods shoppers and Democratic Cracker Barrel patrons. Scott Brown, in case you’ve forgotten, is from here, and we’ve had many Republican governors who likely never went to a Cracker Barrel but I'd wager they've set foot inside a Whole Foods, or a similar market because they can afford to do so.

Now picture Mitt Romney for a second. Which seems more likely to you, that Romney would be shopping at a Whole Foods or dining at Cracker Barrel? What about Jon Huntsman? Hillary Clinton? Chris Christie? The comparisons don’t always work as cleanly as people would like to make them seem. When you have such a growing body of independents in the electorate who could vote blue or red depending on the candidate – and regardless of where they buy their groceries, which is more related to income than a political culture – it seems more than a little insulting to try to pigeon-hole voters by grocery stores, restaurants or by what sport their kids play, as pundits are wont to do. (I’m a soccer mom AND a hockey mom AND a basketball mom . . . and none of that has anything to do with how I vote, rather it has to do with my kids’ interests.)

Protesters of the Year

Every year Time Magazine’s selection for “Person of the Year” creates controversy. That’s by design. At around Christmas, Time gins up some robust watercooler buzz as people debate their choice.

This year the magazine’s editors went out of their way to make an outside of the box selection by annointing “The Protester” -- whether it’s an Occupy Wall Streeter or an Egyptian woman or Tunisian street vendor, all of those who rose up in protest of their government, their economy, the elite class or all of the above -- was given the props.
“Protests have now occurred in countries whose populations total at least 3 billion people, and the word protest has appeared in newspapers and online exponentially more this past year than at any other time in history,” explained Time’s managing editor Rick Stengel. “. . . Everywhere, it seems, people said they’d had enough. They dissented; they demanded; they did not despair, even when the answers came back in a cloud of tear gas or a hail of bullets. They literally embodied the idea that individual action can bring collective, colossal change.”

I, for one, think it was an inspired choice. What say you?

Seriously, Newt’s Leading the Pack?

As I noted in this post in September (where I wrote about becoming a voter who’s unaffiliated with a political party), I don’t and never have towed any kind of a party line in the voting booth. I vote the person, not the party. Being of the moderate ilk, I tend to cotton to people who are not fire breathers and are apt to feed big, bloody slabs of red meat to their base. As Pollyanna/Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as it may seem, I like the person who doesn’t demonize his or her competitors and who is willing to work for the compromise that’s best for the most people, and who'll do so by collaborating with politicians with whom you don’t necessarily agree, as opposed to thwarting everything in order to just make a stand or prevent someone’s re-election.

Which brings me to my Newt Gingrich question: How is it possible that the GOP primary voters would think that the voters in what’s called the “mushy middle” (Independents and the like) would ever, in a million years, vote for a President Gingrich? I remain stunned by the phoenix-like rise of the former House Speaker as primary voters are scrambling to try to find anyone other than Romney to be their presidential nominee. Certainly there are more appealing candidates who do not have such steep negative ratings as Gingrich.

As I’ve perused the commentary from various political pundits about Gingrich's sudden surge in the polls, the piece that resonated most with me was from conservative Peggy Noonan who, in a blistering Wall Street Journal op/ed likened Gingrich to “a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!’”

“What is striking is the extraordinary divide in opinion between those who know Gingrich and those who don’t,” Noonan wrote, after calling him “ethically dubious,” “erratic and unreliable," "impulsive” and “egomaniacal.” “Those who do are mostly not for him, and they were burning up the phone lines this week in Washington.”

Once we hit 2012, I have to believe that the primary voters will go in a different direction, unless, of course, they’re just looking to cede the election to President Obama.

Image credits: Cracker Barrel, Whole Foods, Peter Hapak/Time, Charlie Neibergall/Christian Science Monitor.

'Occupying' Our Sense of Right & Wrong: Calls for Modifying the U.S. Economic System

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The ugly scene in Oakland this week -- where police broke up an Occupy Oakland protest that resulted in the serious injury of an Iraq War vet -- I fear, is just the beginning. Is this scene – where officials violently cracked down on protesters (some of whom, a minority of the protesters, were inciting the police with their own violence) – going to replicate itself all over the nation in other disgruntled, makeshift tent cities?

As more and more Occupy Wall Street protests spring up -- newly emboldened by recent Congressional Budget Office numbers showing that over the past 30 years the top 1 percent of U.S. wage owners have seen their incomes rise by 275 percent as compared to 40 percent for middle income wage earners – and you consider that a recent with a New York Times/CBS poll found that 74 percent of Americans believe our country is on the wrong track, and you find that there’s an overall unsettled feeling out there, like the way the air feels right before a big storm, electric, with an edge of unpredictable danger and the meteorologists can only speculate about what's going to happen next.

While I was watching the new footage of the Oakland protests, I read Nicholas Kristof’s column in today’s New York Times about the merits of some of the Occupy Wall Street group’s arguments. And damn, was that piece powerful and persuasive. Some excerpts from the writer who billed himself “as passionate a believer in capitalism as anyone:”

“Capitalism is so successful an economic system partly because of an internal discipline that allows for loss and even bankruptcy. It’s the possibility of failure that creates the opportunity for triumph. Yet many of the major banks are too big to fail so they can privatize profits while socializing risk.”

Privatizing the profits while socializing the risk . . . I haven't heard anyone put the current economic situation that succinctly and that well.

Kristof also quoted the CEO of “one of the world’s largest money managers” as suggesting that what we need is to modify the nation’s economy, practice “'inclusive capitalism’ and embrace broad-based job creation while curbing excessive inequality.”

“You cannot be a good house in a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood,” the CEO told Kristof. “The credibility and the fair functioning of the neighborhood matter a great deal. Without that, the integrity of the capitalist system will weaken further.”

Then you listen to conservative Republican Joe Scarborough in the video above from today's Morning Joe, where he’s talking about a guy in his late 20s who worked for a hedge fund a half dozen years ago who complained to Scarborough that he was only making $2-3 million a year and was thinking of leaving his company so he could go to a boutique hedge fund where he’d get an even more lucrative salary. Noting that even CEOs who run their companies into the ground now receive multi-million-dollar golden parachutes, he said, “It is so skewed that it is perverse.”

Why yes, yes it is.

Notes on Politics: Cain's Odd Smoke-Filled Campaign Ad, Rich Getting Super-Rich & Gotta See 'Margin Call'

What are We to Make of This . . . Cain’s Campaign Blowin’ Smoke?

There has been a lot of buzz about GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain’s sudden rise in the polls, in at least one of them he has, shockingly, topped front runner Mitt Romney.

And while we’re trying to figure out when the Herman Cain 9-9-9 apples and oranges bubble is going to burst – I will be utterly astonished if it doesn’t – I’d like to know what in the heck is up with this latest Cain ad featuring his chief of staff literally blowing cigarette smoke at the camera. Seriously, anyone care to venture forth an explanation for the cigarette followed by Cain's Cheshire cat grin? It's baffling. I don't know what it means and it's been bugging me.

Top 1 Percent Saw 275 Percent Increase in Income, CBO Says

A new Congressional Budget Office report says that the top 1 percent of U.S. wage earners have seen their incomes increase by 275 percent over the past 30 years, Politico reported. Politico continued:

“The after-tax income for the highest-income households grew the most out of any group form 1979-2007, the CBO reported. The richest 1 percent of Americans saw a 275 percent growth in household income, while the poorest 20 percent experienced just 18 percent growth . . . The 60 percent in the middle of the income scale saw just under 40 percent growth in after-tax income.”

This provides the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy [Everywhere] protesters with fresh ammo in their objections to the widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots.

Go See ‘Margin Call’

Over the weekend I caught the new “inspired by a true story” film Margin Call, an insiders’ look at what happens when a Wall Street investment firm realizes it has taken on more financial risk than the total worth of the company and decides to sell off investments which they know have no value to unwitting customers in order for the firm to survive. It mixes a little bit of the aura from The Company Men and Up in the Air, as it starts off with mass layoffs at the firm, and also has the intelligent tension of the HBO drama Too Big To Fail.

It provides an unflinching look at the 2008 financial meltdown from the perspective of folks from inside one firm who are making decisions which they know will have a wide-reaching impact only most of them only care about what happens to themselves. While moral questions are raised, many immoral, greedy answers are provided, as some folks who aspire to do the “right” thing – which isn’t always clear – find themselves trapped within the confines of the framework of today’s financial world and believe they have no good choices. This whole financial mess, it’s complicated and ugly. But, then again, we already knew that.

Notes from the Political Middle: Treacherous Terror Plots, Christie Endorses Romney, Occupiers Making House Calls

News just in this afternoon – mere hours before the economy-centric Republican debate tonight at 8 on Bloomberg TV (simulcast on the Washington Post’s web site) -- U.S. officials announced that an “Iranian-directed” assassination plot aimed at killing the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, as well as plans to attack the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. have been thwarted, Reuters reported.

Two Iranian men, one a naturalized American, were charged with crafting an assassination plot though only one of the men is in custody. He was arrested on September 29, Reuters reported. Here are some of the chilling details from the complaint that was filed in federal court:  

U.S. officials said the two defendants allegedly went to Mexico to hire a man affiliated with a drug trafficking cartel to kill the ambassador, but that the person with whom they met was a paid U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration “confidential source.”

One of the defendants reportedly asked the confidential source if he was knowledgeable about explosives because he also wanted to attack the Saudi Arabian embassy.

Law enforcement officials claimed that one defendant confessed to authorities that “he . . . was recruited, funded and directed by men he understood to be senior officials in the Qods Force [a covert branch of the Iranian Army]." The complaint alleged that Qods officials "were aware of and approved, among other things, the use of [the confidential source] in connection with the plot; payments to [the confidential source] and the means by which the Ambassador would be killed in the United States and the casualties that would likely result.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder pointed his finger directly at Iran and said, “The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions.”

Now I wish that tonight’s GOP debate wasn’t solely on the economy. We’re at the point where you can’t just talk a convincing game on the economy and jobs front in order to persuade people to vote for you, but you need to also be fleet-footed when it comes to the rising Iranian threats and what we’re going to do with that mess we call the war in Afghanistan.

New Jersey’s Christie Endorses Mitt Romney

In another strange turn in today’s news, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie – who many people wanted to jump into the GOP presidential race -- not only endorsed Mitt Romney for president, calling him the most qualified GOP candidate, but also took aim at Texas Governor Rick Perry’s association with a minister who has decried Mormonism, Romney’s religion, a “cult.” “Any campaign that associates itself with that type of conduct is beneath the office of the president of the United States,” Christie said of Romney’s competitor.

Ironically, while I was working on this post, I received a robo-call – bearing a Boston area code – from Christie inviting me (and the thousands of others who were contacted via phone) to remain on the line to listen to Christie and Romney live. What did I hear on that tele-town hall? Romney said he understood why the folks who are participating in the “Occupy [Fill in the Blank]” protests across the country are upset: “They’re angry because it [the Obama presidency] is not at all what they expected.”

As for Christie, he said endorsing Romney was “a very easy decision for me.” When he fielded a call from a Midwestern voter about why he didn’t endorse Perry instead, Christie said, “I thought Governor Romney was a better candidate,” citing Romney’s executive leadership skills in the public and private sectors.

Was I listening to a pair of running mates, these current/former Republican governors of blue states? Another voter was thinking the same thing as he called the two an “unbeatable pair” and asked if Christie would agree to be Romney’s running mate. Christie didn’t answer the question. “That’s going to be Gov. Romney’s choice,” Christie said. “. . .We won’t make any of those decisions unless or until we have to.” Not exactly a denial.


Occupiers Making House Calls

While 100+ participants in Boston’s version of the “Occupy Together” economic movement were being arraigned today for unlawful assembly, after being busted this early this morning for failing to heed police warnings not to expand their protest area (protesters complained of police brutality), their New York counterparts, the original Occupy Wall Streeters, hit the road in what they called a “Millionaires March,” protesting in front of the homes of some prominent businesspeople whom they believe to be examples of the "greedy" rich. (Reminds me of some scenes from A Tale of Two Cities which I read for the first time this year.) Meanwhile, 75 people from Occupy D.C. flooded into a U.S. Senate office building today, chanting along the way, resulting in six arrests, Politico reported.

Between the alleged Iran-directed terror plot and the Occupy arrests, the news seems like it’s getting a late 1960s kind of vibe to it, don't you think?

Notes on Politics: Chris Christie’s Head Fake, Bono’s ‘F’ Word Campaign, Occupy [Your City]

Christie a Presidential No-Go

I must admit, I was disappointed to learn that New Jersey’s outspoken governor, Chris Christie won’t be running for president . . . as he has repeatedly said he would not, despite the lure of the siren’s song emanating from the lips of those who are desperately dissatisfied with the current GOP field.

I think Christie’s a smart, tough, work-with-anybody kind of person who would’ve brought much-needed pragmatism and leadership to the race. I’ve appreciated how he’s actually fielded questions with honesty and realism – like when he was asked why he was cutting funding for public school when he was sending his own children to private school – and think it would have been refreshing to see him go toe-to-toe with Mitt Romney, who often reminds me of a car salesman, and Rick Perry, who seems as though he’d rather be anywhere than talking policy while wearing a suit and tie.

And as for all the naysayers who were griping about Christie’s weight and saying he’s a bad role model, they were outright annoying and sanctimonious. I can’t stand the sanctimony. Christie’s in the business of developing and implementing public policy, not sashaying down a catwalk in a size zero sports jacket, sprinting up and down a basketball court or running a marathon. Last time I checked, he wasn’t jonesing to become an underwear model. Would he make a good poster boy for good health? No, and he’d be the first one to admit that. But he wasn’t being considered for either of those posts. He was being considered as a potential presidential candidate based on the contents of his head, not his stomach.

One’s ‘F-Word’ Campaign

Bono’s “One” organization has released a new public service ad aimed at energizing us regular folk to be galvanized to act and pressure those with power to do something about the African famine, to intercede in some fashion. Featuring, of all people, Mike Huckabee, along with Jenna Bush, George Clooney, Kristen Davis, Michael Bloomberg, Arianna Huffington and Rob Lowe, to name a few, the ad tries to combine the shock of the “f” word (“f” standing for “famine”) with anger. It’s a dark and twisty kind of ad, clever.

Hey, it’s a lot better than rebooting “We Are the World.”

 

Angry About the Growing Financial Inequities Between a Small Percentage of the U.S. Population and Everyone Else? Occupy [Your City]

The hodgepodge of folks -- many of them college students and members of unions -- who have been demonstrating in New York City as part of a loose group called “Occupy Wall Street,” have called for Wall Street types, who’ve fared well in this down economy, to pay a price for their recklessness. They want jobs and a whole bunch of other things, and they see rich, corporate titans, bankers and the assorted Gordon Gekkos of the world as standing in their way. They aspire to what one newscaster called, “An American Autumn” (to complement an Arab Spring, one would guess).

As some 700 people were arrested over the weekend for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge, the movement against “corporate greed, unemployment and the role of financial institutions in the economic crisis,” as the New York Times put it, has spawned other “Occupy” groups in cities across the country including Boston, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, with anti-corporate, anti-banker actions/protests slated for Memphis, Minneapolis and Baltimore and a ton more locales. The central organizing web page, Occupy Together was created by some of the movement’s un-leaders (they don’t have official “leaders” per se, but some leader-y type person had to put together the web site) to “provide people with information about events that are organizing, ongoing and building across the U.S. as we, the 99 percent take action against the greed and corruption of the 1 percent.”

Here’s how the “Occupy Together” movement looks to an English columnist who said we’re witnessing “the dissolution of the American Empire:”

“We are watching the beginnings of the defiant self-assertion of a new generation of Americans, a generation who are looking forward to finishing their education with no jobs, no future, but still saddled with enormous and unforgivable debt. Most, I found, were of working class or otherwise modest backgrounds, kids who did exactly what they were told they should: Studied, got into college and are now not just being punished for it, but humiliated – faced with a life of being treated as deadbeats, moral reprobates.


Is it really surprising they would like to have a word with the financial magnates who stole their future?”

So, is this the left’s answer to the conservative-leaning Tea Party? Imagine how wild it would be if the “Occupy Together” people and the Tea Party people actually got together on something . . .