Skip to content


President Barack Hussein Obamas
Nobel Prize for Peace

In this segment of the Rachel Maddow Show, Oct 9, 2009, Maddow elucidates better than any source I’ve read or heard how the prize has been awarded in the past.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nobel Chair, Thorbjoern Jagland, defended choice as being for Obama’s achievements to date and not for anticipated achievements:

“Some people say, and I understand it, isn’t it premature? Too early? Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now,” Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. “It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.”

From AP via Yahoo!: In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

The name Barack Obama echoes around the world in answer to that criterion for the year past.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Obama, politics, progressive, tribute, white house.

Tagged with , , .


teabaggers, birthers, deathers, tenthers, you liars! OMFG

250px-US_Flag_BurnThe radical right, 3 years ago, wanted a ban on desecration of the flag by constitutional amendment. This amendment itself was a contradiction of Christian and conservative values. Decreeing by law that the flag is a sacred object, it would construct an idol against tenets of the Christian and Jewish (as well as other) faiths. At the same time, it would establish a state religion; it’s one sacred object: the Flag of the United States of America.

Wikipedia defines desecration thus:

Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character — or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual.

The whole idea, of course was to establish enforceable penalties for those who disagree with the right (another affront to the constitution as it stands).

That’s all over with — until next time.

That same right wing fringe that manages to suck up too much of the national oxygen through demagoguery, now wants to topple the whole nation–since they haven’t gotten their way politically for more than 6 months. Never mind that their puny numbers and morally corrupt tactics have managed pretty well to keep the majority from legislating against their wishes for at least as long.

One might say these are simply the expressions of a petulant child, and by appearances, alone, one might be right. The danger is that these same petulant children will take their protests to extremes.

Many are armed to the teeth, many are elected officials. Some are captains of industry and finance.

Only a couple of years ago, while writing about Blackwater, I questioned the wisdom of allowing a private army to be trained and maintained on American soil. The danger of it appeared only theoretically real. It’s easy to dismiss the idea that apparently patriotic Americans would take up arms against an elected government, one that still has broad majority support. It’s not the American way. The United States has had peaceful handovers of power for over 230 years–even in the North during the Civil War.

I’m not saying that Blackwater is the specific group to fear. It only is the most powerful among many mercenary groups and militias that could truly challenge the government. Clearly superior force and high-tech toys no longer assure victory. That’s been proven in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not earlier in Vietnam.

It seems it is the most passionate and most committed combatant wins these days. “Passionate” is not our present government, but better describes the forces who oppose it. Passion has worked to block legislation and passion will give the right-wingers unexpected advantage if they choose violent means for regaining what they never lost.

What the right wing believes they lost is a country that feels safe and familiar and looks like their collective childhoods. Problem is, that US never existed. Only their naïveté existed. Now naïveté has morphed into delusion.

The delusion has become a shared delusion through the manipulation of cynical politicians and political operatives. The same tactics used to convince the electorate that the flag was being attacked have been deployed to create a right-wing uprising that seeks to either marginalize the majority or to bring down the nation, through promotion of the delusion that the U.S. could ever look like 1945–1960 and that that would be a good thing

The hideous truth is that the whole uprising is being orchestrated to protect runaway profits for big pharma, health insurers, and energy companies. It’s a massive gamble as the toppling of the U.S. government could be the result, destabilizing global markets for years and threaten corporate profits everywhere.

The calculation has to be that by 2010 the corporations can reverse the democratic majority in congress and by 2012 install an administration that once again kowtows to The Corporation. It’s a massive gamble. The right wing is not endearing themselves to the nation-at-large.

A loss for corporations in this massive gamble is a loss for shareholders. If the government remains powerless in the face of massive quantities of electoral cash and lobbyist payoffs, it’s up to the shareholders to step in and do what’s right for the nation and what serves them best: modest but more certain profit. Fire your boards; sue corporate leadership. Appoint board members that will seek to be good citizens while seeking a more modest bottom line.

Contrary to court rulings, the corporation is NOT a person — but shareholders, individually and as members of groups, are persons. Persons who love the flag, and the republic for which it stands. Don’t be demagogued into destroying this nation of ideals, human rights, and personal freedoms. Allow it to evolve, because if frozen in time, it will die on its own.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in birthers, civil liberties, deathers, demagogue, fascism, fundamentalism, national delusion, peace, politics, teabaggers, tenthers, white house.

Tagged with , , , , , , .


Joe Wilson: “You lie!”

Treated with good humor on the Rachel Maddow Show in this piece by Kent Jones, maybe such an outburst as Rep. Joe Wilson’s can be easily laughed off.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My grandmother, now dead for 20 years would be horrified by such an outburst as was a small part of me. It’s not just the lack of respect for the Office of the President, let alone such a great, promising leader, but also the nature of the epithet itself.

Grandmother took seriously (as her intellectual honesty would allow), the meaning and words and the parallelism of the Ten Commandments. For her, each one was weighted more or less equally. To her, you didn’t call anyone a liar, unless you could find it in yourself to condemn them the same way as a murderer or an adulterer or blasphemer. It made no difference.

Grandmother had an out, though. She’d studied literature and knew that fiction genre relied on made up stories. They weren’t literally true, but she could distinguish that they weren’t lies, like the false denial, “no I didn’t kill him,” or, “no, I didn’t steal the money.” So then she had a way to cope in a world full of lies and half-truths and great storytellers.

If I told Grandmother, “the dog ate my homework,” She could tell it wasn’t on the same level as say, killing the teacher. But the commandments were parallel evils. So she’d say, “Don’t story to me!”

She was a stern enough grandmother that one warning was generally enough. The truth would out, and no one was going to Hell on that day.

When Joe Wilson shouted out in the joint session “You lie!” To Grandmother’s ears, it would have sounded like “you deserve the punishment of Hell!” Serious Hell, not story Hell. I’m glad Grandmother didn’t have to hear it, but her grandson was shocked on her behalf.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Obama, Uncategorized, congress, democrat, faith, first amendment, fundamentalism, hate, humor, politics, religion, white house.

Tagged with , , , , , .


Does Waterloo Comment Align White House With DeMint?

Jim_DeBonaparte3

I’m pissed at “A senior White House advisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity.” According the the Washington Post, the “advisor” says “I don’t understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo,” parroting the words if not the context of the cynical Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, by way of ‘C’ Street.

Maybe he didn’t live through the same 8 years of the Bush administration as the rest of us patriotic, left-leaning Americans. Could he have just stepped in from the alternate universe where Al Gore just finished his 2nd term, ended our dependence on foreign oil, created new solar, wind, and biofuels industries, reversed global warming, and one where no banks crashed? You know, that universe where the car companies tanked anyway for their stupidity continuing to make SUVs, but have then been reconstituted making a variety of zero emissions vehicles? Could he have missed the killings, US government sponsored torture, the end of private communications, and the politicization of the Justice Department?

You don’t have to be too far to the left to be mad as Hell.

And, if it hadn’t been for the American Left, Hillary Clinton would be President, and Roland Burris would still be enjoying his retirement. Granted many of the folks serving in the White House including perhaps this “senior advisor” would likely still be there if Hillary was Commander-in-Chief, but it is the left that brought Obama to his current residence and title.

It’s arguable who’s policies, between Sec. Clinton and Pres. Obama, would be more favored by the left, but Obama represented idealism and a perhaps a measure of redress for America’s greatest and most visceral shame. It was the left of the left that embraced him first, even before mainstream African Americans, and the left of the left who is responsible for his election.

Part of the anger of the center-left mainstream, is that single-payer was foreclosed even before it was floated or explored. The administration and congressional leaders started negotiating from a position that should seem reasonable to the unreasonable Republicans, rather than take the traditional approach of asking for the ideal position and resisting and then giving in to compromise as you bring your opponents on-board. So far, none of the opponents of health care reform are on board, we’ve started negotiating from our most compromised position, and are now giving away the farm.

This inept negotiating tactic, after the country was simply steamrollered for 8 years of, “if you don’t like our policies, get out of the way or be crushed,” reasonably leaves democratic voters who gave the govt a real majority with good margins, rather unimpressed with the progress our newly elected leaders have made, given their power.

Clearly there would be a benefit to having a bipartisan bill for healthcare. It’s absolutely clear the the Republicans have no intention of participating. Even a rather clean and comprehensive bill will need some adjustments and additions over time. If in the future reasonable people are working only to keep healthcare from being overturned, who will have the energy to graft on the missing parts? Bipartisanship would help ensure future cooperation to perfect these reforms.

“A senior White House advisor” has invoked Jim DeMint to say that we, the nearly 60% whom Rasmussen tells us want a public option in the healthcare plan, are somehow the “left of the left.” The White House advisor said that we have chosen this as our Waterloo, that place where we make our stand. Did he also mean as DeMint did, that this is where we make our stand and lose?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Iraq, Obama, civil liberties, climate change, democrat, environment, first amendment, government, justice, liberal, peace, politics, progressive, us attorneys, white house.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .


Maddow: From Pat Buchanan to Walter Cronkite in 24 hours flat

cronkite

I tuned in to The Rachel Maddow Show tonight, actually the podcast, hoping somehow to have an apology for her guest Pat Buchanan the night before. I knew she wasn’t going to take direct shots at him, a man who by loose definition, is a colleague.

What I believed would happen is that she would acknowledge the pain, anger, and frustration of her audience as we listened to his racist bile. She would let us know with certainty that she did not agree with his words. She would not provide full satisfaction, however, because she would not be making the announcement that his career on her network had ended with that broadcast.

Instead, Rachel Maddow presented a contrast so stark as to make any mention of Buchanan a defilement. She had to announce that the great Walter Cronkite had died. She correctly dedicated the entire broadcast to news of his passing, remembrances and official messages of condolence.

She had 2 of the best possible guests to help remember Cronkite. Tom Brokow, and of course, Dan Rather. Brokow kindly mentioned the third of his generation of anchormen, the late Peter Jennings, and the way the three were influenced by the way Cronkite had defined the role of reporter-anchor.

Rachel sweetly acknowledged how she was “humbled” by her 2 interviewees, in the context of covering the death of Walter Cronkite, saying “she felt like she’d just been moved up from the kids’ table at Thanksgiving,” in their presence.

Had “Uncle Walter,” lacked his deep integrity and sense of mission, the “most trusted man in America” he would have wielded far too much power. He did decide what it was important for us to know, and what was fit to report in the homes of millions of Americans.

That was an editorial role that even with the best intentions told us what to think just by what was selected and the effort made to remove any bias.

Television news, if it can still be called that, is vastly changed. There are any number of on-air and cable sources, from shows that still follow the traditional format–to a lesser extent, to those that have little mission but to provide entertainment. In addition, are the news programs that seek to speak to audiences with an ideological bent, starting with Fox, that at best, caters to conservatives and at worst, to the lowest common denominator of listeners, happy to repeat known untruths that it’s audience have come to believe as articles of faith.

Counterbalancing Fox and Fox wannabes is the recent ascent of MSNBC’s evening shows with Schultz, Olbermann, Matthews, and Maddow.

These shows do still try and present supported, well documented, credible news stories. But with a more liberal editorial slant, one that they make no secret of. (Fox presents its very tilted news as being “fair and balanced,” attributes that most thinking people see as ironic or an outright lie.)

It was interesting tonight, as it was around the inauguration of President Barack Obama, to see the MSNBC anchors leave off their entertainment orientation and present the news straight, much as the long traditions they were reporting on. In both cases, it was the only right thing to do, and there was no question.

My satisfaction regarding allowing Pat Buchanan on the air will have to wait for another day. Maybe that satisfaction is a long time coming. If I live longer than Mr. Buchanan, I’ll remember that Walter Cronkite occupied many headlines. Buchanan will be a footnote and missed by few.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in media, tribute.

Tagged with , , , , , .


twittering the Iran Revolution

It’s definitely an uprising. So far the revolution is in the minds of Iran’s inspired reformers and in social media, put to amazing new use. Given the strength of the two, the revolution may well become fact.

Iranian officials appeared to be ready, after uprisings elsewhere have been organized by phone texting. Phone text messages were blocked as election “official results” began to be announced. They were not so prepared for twitter and facebook and the many modes by which users connect to the online world. Twitter use was not so effectively shut down.

As a news junkie who rarely turns on the TV, when I began to see reports of protests in Iran on twitter I did what I have done to see breaking news for most of my life. I turned on CNN. To my surprise CNN was not covering Iran. Not on CNNHN either. After past experiences with CNN wall-to-wall coverage, Like when John-John’s plane went down, I was prepared for excruciatingly repetitive coverage. Instead I got entirely forgettable old news.

New to twitter as I was, I had the good fortune to be following a few bloggers and reporters, and through their tweets became aware of increasing intensity in Iran’s protests. Before long I was additionally following their sources, provided in attributions as (RT) “retweets.” Soon I was following people on the ground, observing and participating in the protests.

I even became an unwitting participant in the uprising if only for a moment. I followed one link that implored followers to shut down Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s website. The link led me to a proxy server that attempted to refresh Khamenei’s site every 1 seconds, which would in effect create a denial of service attack when multiple users follow the link.

It was exciting to think of myself as being involved, but realized that there is too much that I don’t know about Iran and the current situation (though I have strong sympathies) to be an active participant from half a world away. I closed my browser window and left it to true stakeholders to decide if blocking the site was a wise move.

In all, it was a heady experience to be following real events in Iran even while our mainstream media outlets were virtually silent. By 2 a.m. when I needed sleep, I was still keyed up to go to bed.

A couple of weeks ago I was still asking what twitter is for. Today I have a feeling it could — and may already have — change the world.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized.


Sonia Sotomayor’s Wise Latina Remarks

sotomayor

The angry white males are raising Hell, fomenting hatred among the small-minded for the sake of their ratings and to stir up the worst of the Republican base. Guys like Rush and Newt demonstrate why white men get a bad rap. You can no more generalize about white men than other groups, especially in these days of the sensitive metrosexual. Still there are some dominant features amongst the dominant crowd.

As one who looks much like other white males, I’d have to admit to have shared in some of the benefits granted as a matter of course to my race and gender. In my own mind and amongst those uncomfortable with gay men, I also can empathize with others who feel or are treated as outsiders. As a gay man of a certain age, having come into adulthood as AIDS was becoming known, I know what it is to be among friends who have experienced the same discriminations as I have.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s statement:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

even taken out of contex, does not trouble me. We who strive for legitimacy and integrity in a culture where straight white men are more frequently presumed to posess these qualities, develop our own myths to give us strength and help us see the value in our many diversities.

Our myths, our stories that convey what is transcendently true for us, may acknowledge what we don’t have that the dominant culture takes for granted, but more importantly, the stories are about what we’ve gained through our coming to terms with our unique gifts and attributes. For me, while I lack the easy self-assurance that I admire in other guys, there are compensations in a quality of empathy and self-awareness that can only be earned. A person who has been taught through many subtle messages that favor the white, the male, and the straight, that they are good, that they’re somehow complete, may not have the motivation to see the best in a diverse people, largely foreign to themselves.

I don’t know what is to be a wise Latina woman, but I find it not at all offensive, that she, among her sisters, would share a story about themselves, what they have learned and experienced that others likely will not have learned.

That people would get upset about the word “better” is ludicrous in this context of a shared myth. When we’re telling stories, hyperbole is just one of the many tools of the storyteller.

Put Sonia Sotomayor on the Bench of Nine, and she will begin to live in yet another myth and tell stories of fairness and justice and honoring precedent and above all, the Constitution.


Sphere: Related Content

Posted in civil liberties, courts, government.

Tagged with , , , , , .


What Nancy Pelosi Knew is the Wrong Question

pelosi

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has been under attack by Republicans and the right-wing media for the possibility that she knew that the Bush administration was torturing people. The mainstream media have abetted the right-wing tactic by making what Pelosi knew into multiple Headlines. What Ms. Pelosi knew is not the main issue. She could hardly even have been an accessory to the alleged crimes of torture as no one attributes to her the power either to approve or stop the torture. Yet somehow, through the perversity of the right-wing media and those who sell news rather than report news, Nancy Pelosi has become the main story.

Had Ms. Pelosi publicly objected to the content of the briefing she received, she had been warned that she would be sanctioned for breach of national security. She can not know how that would have played out. Would she have been arrested and isolated, would the right-wing news machine make her an enemy of the state in the minds of those who continued to support Bush and Cheney? Would she ever regain her credibility to oppose the policies she had been made aware of?

I don’t know if Ms. Pelosi is absolutely correct in her characterizations of the events of 6, 7, and 8 years ago. She was not allowed to document or share the information she received. I do know that she is not the villian in this story. Responsibility for the abuses of the Bush Administration falls precisely on those who made the policies, carried out the policies, sought to justify torture and sought justification for torture. These people to the extent of their guilt, when proven, are the villains. A leader in the minority party in the house at the time these policies were made and carried out was effectively silenced in the guise of keeping congress informed.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in congress, torture.

Tagged with , , , .


Josh Groban Recognizes Gay Men's Chorus of Washington in Comments on MSNBC


While the backing choruses at the “We Are One” concert on Jan. 18 were not acknowledged by the producers, Josh Groban was kind to give Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington a shout out in his comments yesterday on MSNBC.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized.


Gay Men's Chorus of Washington Sings for Barack Obama

One hundred members of the 225-member group were invited to sing with Josh Groban and Heather Headley at the Lincoln Memorial for the historic “We Are One” concert. The performance of “My Country Tis of Thee” recalled and paid tribute to Marian Anderson’s concert opening with that song at the Memorial in 1939.

The appearance was among important firsts: the inclusion of the chorus and the invocation by openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson. The president-elect mentioned lgbt people as an identity group in his remarks as he had done at the beginning of his whistle-stop tour. It’s unfortunate that the producers and HBO did not include any identification of the group, but word has gotten out that our singers were there. Also many who were there are perplexed why Bishop Gene Robinson’s Invocation was not even broadcast.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized.