So I've had my say about Geraldine Ferraro and the Reverend Wright.
Now, for the last word on the subject, John Stewart's You're Not Helping -- Campaign Edition. As always, he gets it just right.
As Stewart says, "Please, can we stop making this campaign about race and patriotism and different candidate's supporters and get back to focusing to what it's about -- the black guy and the lady."
It sometimes seems like the Democrats are engaged in a game of Point, Counter-point. We bounce from one to the other. Of course, the latest examples are from Ferraro for Clinton, to Wright for Obama.
My on-line/off-line friend Susan emailed me about the latest foray into the game -- the controversy over the remarks of Obama's minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. My friend expressed her concern about what the future will hold for Obama, observing that, in addition to the efforts of the Clinton camp to attack Obama, the right-wing conservatives have already begun to slime him:After the last couple of days of listening to the repeated (and re-repeated, and re-re-repeated, and so on) plays of selected bits from Rev Wright's sermons, I have a sinking feeling about Obama's prospects with anyone other than blacks and over educated secular humanists like us. I predict a sizeable enough portion of the voting public is going to be believe he is both a Muslim terrorists and an acolyte of Christian Minster Wright and Louis Farrakhan, or at least use his pastor's sermons as a convenient way to rationalize their purely ignorant hateful racism.
The Washington Post has provided a hit parade of Wright quotes, in case anyone had missed them, Preacher With a Penchant for Controversy, such as:
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. . . . America's chickens are coming home to roost."And then there are the Editorials like this one by Ronald Kessler in the WSJ, Preacher With a Penchant for Controversy:-- Sermon, September 2001
* * * *
"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No, he ain't. Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky."
-- Sermon, January 2008
In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.
The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Mr. Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave the sermon at the school's Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006.
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
* * * *
Considering this view of America, it's not surprising that in December Mr. Wright's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement.
* * * *
Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.
Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his "sounding board" during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.
The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.
Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright's perspective, Michelle Obama's comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.
Besides the fiery sermonizing, the truth is Wright is mostly correct about which he speaks. See Barack Obama's appeal to the rational brain and Yes, this is a Racist Country, and Saying So is Not Racist. Frankly, using Ferraro's line, if he were white and expressed similar opinions, he'd be a celebrated Evangelical minister and he'd be best buds with many Republican politicians. Think Jerry Falzwell. Think James Dobson and Pat Robertson. Think John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Of course, in line with the new required standard of conduct, Obama has now publicly stated that he disagrees with the sentiments expressed by Rev. Wright. He blogged about it, no less, on the Huffington Post, On My Faith and My Church, saying:
The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Can we believe his words? Are you kidding? Seriously, is there truly any intelligent person out there who believes that Barack Obama harbors those views? No, but that doesn't stop people from trying to link him to those opinions to hurt his chances -- either in the primary or the general election. Repeat it often enough, it might convince enough people -- you know, the Archie Bunker's of the world.
I can't begin to say how ridiculous it is to hold either candidate to the words of a supporter and the latest trend of requiring the candidate to disavow the orator is asinine. I've mentioned this before, in admitting that some of my best friends are Republicans. See I Know a Republican. These relationships haven't affected my views even a little bit, trust me. Hell, I rarely agree with the political leanings of my mother -- do I have to reject her altogether in order to maintain my standing as a liberal feminist?
Also, to make my point clear, my previous objections to the statements of Geraldine Ferraro don't necessarily extend to Hillary Clinton -- unless there reaches the point at which it becomes a pattern of conduct that can be attributed to the Clinton campaign itself or the candidate. When it reaches that point is where I draw the line, as I mentioned in another essay on this issue, The Tipping Point.
Will this, as my friend Susan fears, cause Obama to become damaged goods and de-rail his chances in the election (primary and/or general)? I suppose if he survives these attacks, it will only make him stronger, which he will need to be to survive the fall onslaught of dirt and dastardly deeds by the GOP that are sure to come, if he is the candidate.
UPDATE (3/17): Echoing my comments that if Rev. Wright were white, he'd be a "darling of the Republican Party," one of the founders of the Religious right, Frank Schaeffer, observed Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" but When my Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero:When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the 'murder of the unborn,' has become 'Sodom' by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, 'under the judgment of God.' They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted 'controversial' comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
I know in that Geraldine Ferraro is so yesterday's news, replaced by the wrongheaded Reverend Wright in the Damage the Candidate Contest. Of course, what these outspoken "spokesmen" haven't quite figured out is which candidate they are damaging -- their own or the other side.
However, I wanted to write about my personal disappointment with Ferraro -- who was an inspiration to me when she ran as Veep on the Dem ticket in 1984 as to how far a woman could aspire to go. She was smart, feisty and successful. All that I too was aspiring for as I began my legal career and faced obstacles that were clearly due solely to my sex. She gave me hope that I could get beyond those impediments, which at times seemed substantial. In fact, I wrote not that long ago about the conundrum I faced trying to decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, now that Pennsylvania was given a say in the primary, Do I Follow My Sex or My Heart?.
But the fractured flaming by Ferraro has left me furious. As Will Bunch of Attytood put it:
You've probably hearing for months now that the 2008 election is really all about the legacy of some old white guy who was popular a generation ago. The Republicans want that guy to be Ronald Reagan. The Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party wants their 20th Century icon to be Archie Bunker.Citing a July 14, 1984, Associated Press story about Geraldine Ferraro's congressional district in Queens, N.Y., he notes the similarity:
And so now the Clinton campaign has found it's true voice in the person of Archie Bunker's former Queens congresswoman, Geraldine Ferraro. You couldn't make this up if you tried. It's just too perfect.
Davey glanced up and down the bar then leaned forward confidentially. "Let me tell you something about this neighborhood. It's like an Archie Bunker neighborhood here. Really conservative."See also, Geraldine's "Race-Bait 2008" World Tour started right here at the Philadelphia Daily News.
His voice dropped to a conspiratorial whisper.
"If Archie were real and he lived here," said Davey, "he'd be the mayor."
Hillary Clinton wouldn't be as strong a contender for the Democratic Party nomination for president if she were a man.See also, The Ferraro Fallacy. Not surprisingly, this just crystallized my cousin's view of Hillary Clinton -- and has made my job of convincing him not to vote for John "Hundred Years War" McCain all the harder. And harder for me too, I must say.
That's the corollary to Clinton campaigner Geraldine Ferraro's remark that Barack Obama wouldn't be the front-runner in that race if he were white.
Truth is, gender and race can't help but play an important role in this election. Either an African American or a woman is within months of becoming a historic first for this nation.* * * *That's what makes Ferraro's comment so egregious. It serves only to exploit the racist inclinations of that part of America that to this day refuses to see black people as equals.
The comment also smacks of a political calculation that includes both Bill Clinton's earlier comparison of Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson's in the '80s and Gov. Rendell's assessment that some whites in Pennsylvania will never vote for a black candidate.
Sure, what they said was true. But it was also what any adult with a working brain in America already knew.
Rather than providing insight, their statements had the distinct aroma of political stink bombs thrown to convince Obama supporters to jump ship.
You don't really think America will elect a black man president.
* * * *
Politics is like war, so no one should be surprised that the losing side would resort to unsavory tactics to win. But expecting the worse from politicians doesn't mean you have to condone it.
Indeed, it's voters' weariness with politics as usual that has pushed Obama ahead - not that his father was an African. Hillary Clinton should know that by now and dump anyone else who wants to exploit race to win votes.
That has been an outrageous political tactic for decades. And it has worked because America remains racially divided. The Democratic Party has touted itself as best able to bring the nation together. But comments like Ferraro's say otherwise.
Infuriated by Barack Obama's ascent, Geraldine Ferraro, erstwhile feminist icon, has transformed herself into Archie Bunker in heels. First she claimed that Obama owes his electoral success to being black, as if Hillary Clinton were some unlucky victim of affirmative action, in danger of losing a job she deserves to an unqualified token. As the uproar over her comments grew, she dug in further, claiming that she herself is the injured party: 'Racism works in two different directions,' she said. 'I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?'As she states, that presumes that a vote for Hillary is a vote for feminism, nothing more. How about her positions on the issues? My biggest objection to Hillary is that she's too moderate, which is why I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out. Goldberg recalls that the late, great Molly Ivins was no Clinton supporter:
How's that? Well, that's the kind of thing Rush Limbaugh and other self-appointed spokesmen for the beleaguered white male like to say. To hear a putative progressive, the first and only American woman ever nominated for vice-president, complain about the unfair advantages black men enjoy in American life is, to say the least, disappointing. (Maybe it shouldn't be - the Politico informs us that she said similar things about Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, though her comments had since been largely forgotten.) Yesterday, having thoroughly disgraced herself, she quit her post on Clinton's finance committee, though she remained blithely self-righteous about the entire affair, never offering even a hint of an apology.
Some have suggested the whole thing was part of a Clinton scheme to ratchet up racial tensions in advance of the Pennsylvania primary. That's possible, but there's a simpler explanation. Several otherwise admirable, even heroic women seem to identify with Clinton so profoundly that they interpret rejection of her as a personal rebuke. Stung, they accuse Obama supporters of flighty illogic, but there's a powerful, extra-rational emotional current in their arguments, a flailing in the face of an imagined betrayal. In their anger, they're lashing out in all kinds of counterproductive ways, doing far more damage to feminism than a Clinton loss ever could.
Of course, it doesn't. The fact is, some of the most incisive feminist writers and effective feminist activists - people like Katha Pollitt, Frances Kissling and Eve Ensler, among many others - are backing Obama. The late Molly Ivins - a fiercely progressive, genuinely populist Texan in her 60s - spelled out her opposition to Clinton in January of 2006, in a column bluntly titled "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president". "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone," she wrote. "This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."This is why I'm not sure that I will end up supporting Clinton in the primary -- despite intense pressure from my feminist friends!* * * *Many progressives, male and female alike, see Clinton as cynical and narcissistic, pandering to interest-group sectarianism even as she compromises on important principals.
(Cartoon: David Horsey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer)"I wish I were a black man," Ms. Ferraro told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "That way, I could make all the racist comments about black men that I wanted to and no one would call me a racist."
Ms. Ferraro added, "As it is, being a white woman, when I make racist remarks about black men everyone accuses me of being a racist."
"This is why being a white woman totally sucks," Ms. Ferraro said.
The former New York congresswoman also said that she wished her middle name was 'Hussein,' explaining, "If my middle name was Hussein I'd be president by now."
While Ms. Ferraro's remarks would appear to be disadvantageous to the Clinton campaign, she does seem to be drawing support from one key voting bloc: lunatics.
According to a new poll of likely voters, Ms. Ferraro has the support of 60% of respondents who describe themselves as incoherent.
I have nothing substantive to add to the Spitzer saga that hasn't already been said. However, I was on the phone yesterday with a client & somehow the subject of Eliot Spitzer came up. He asked me if Spitzer was Jewish, since a number of people had been referring to him as an Evangelical type -- a crusader, etc. I said that I was fairly certain that he was, but that I would check. After I hung up, I thought to myself that our discussion sounded like the SNL Gameshow skit "Jew, Not a Jew?"
Anyway, I did a little research and discovered this piece from Gawker, Eliot Spitzer: Shanda fur die Goyim. This answers the question:
And he could have been the first Jewish president! Eliot Spitzer, (still) governor of New York State, is weighing his resignation [obviously written pre-resignation] following his tryst with a shiksa prostitute. Though the idea of a Jewish president is great, let's be real: The guy was way too bald to ever make it into the Oval Office, regardless of his foreskin status. Some have blamed the Portnoy's Complaint instinct for this mess, but honestly, if this affair shows anything, it's that Jews are just like any other politicians, only occasionally more so.Spitzer's education, propensity to argue and dedication to fitness all made him a nice Jewish boy. But he never conflated his moralist streak with his religion the way some Jewish politicians do (cough, cough Joe Lieberman). Instead, like Michael Bloomberg, also a member of the tribe, Spitzer was a crusader. As attorney general, he went after white collar criminals, as well as prostitution rings, and created a reputation as do-gooder fighting evil. (Bloomberg, less didactic, went after smokers and fatties.) And the public loves when anyone self-righteous, regardless of religion, takes a fall.
Prostitution affairs ensnare B-list political goys like Randall Tobias, Ken Calvert and Allan Howe all the time. Eliot Spitzer proves that Jews can violate the codes of marriages just as well as any other religion, and his fall from pious grace makes it more shocking (or entertaining, depending on the observer). But only a Jew would've thought to put a down payment for future services.
Speaking of the SNL skit Jew, Not a Jew, I also discovered a site dedicated to the quest of Jew or Not Jew, which also ponders the Spitzer question:
We've often lamented the lack of prominent Jewish politicians here on Jew or Not Jew. That'll teach us.
The governor of New York State as a Jew would have been a cause to celebrate. We'd have waxed eloquent about the Hebrew Crusader. The tough as nails prosecuter who followed a hard line on crime all the way up to one of the most high profile governors' offices in the country.
Now? Not so much.
But who are we at JONJ to judge how one finds companionship? Surely there are worse offenses for a governor to commit. So we decided to forgive him and put the K score at 2. A nice low number that acknowledged the offense, yet admitted there was a chance for reconciliation.
Then we found out that his "woman of choice" was named Kristen.
Seriously now, a Sara, a Leah or even a Rachel -- that we could understand. But a Kristen?
Now that just goes too far.
Verdict: Sadly, a Jew.
This is dedicated to my favorite cousin Jim. When we were young, we grew up across the street from each other and walked to school together, with his older sister leading the way. For several years, we were neighbors again in Philly, before he took off for the Chestnut Hill of Jersey, Haddenfield. Jim and I remain close -- our families spend the holidays together and we are often aligned politically.
We have been emailing our thoughts about the Democratic primary since the departure of John Edwards. He likes Obama and is not much of a Hillary Clinton fan, especially with the way that she has been campaigning with a vengeance these days. So he keeps threatening to cast his ballot for McCain if Clinton ends up as the Democratic contender.
Truthfully, as I said on many occasions in the past, I believe that McCain is even worse than Bush. See, e.g., John Mccain: Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief. My latest mission is to convince him of the error of his ways. Jim mistakenly believes that McCain is a "straight shooter." So, between now and November, I have to make him see the light. This is a part of that campaign.
AMERICAblog writes about a former John McCain supporter, a Republican media consultant, who is running his own campaign - NoJohn.com - to educate the public as to how radical and how shifty John McCain has become. As they describe him:
For nearly 40 years I have been a campaign media consultant working exclusively for Republicans. My first spot was created for Governor Ronald Reagan in 1970 when I founded Spencer-Roberts Advertising for Reagan's two top political gurus, Stu Spencer and Bill Roberts. I was 23 at the time and went on to documentary filmmaking, television news, and ultimately, back to politics, working for moderate Republicans for the U.S. Senate, House, governors, mayors, and on one of the several Dole for President campaigns.For more, see NoJohn.com
I have always taken a low, or no, profile in campaigns, as I learned long ago not to become an issue myself. But as I approach 62, the impact of another Republican in the White House on my 9-year old daughter, my 39-year old son, and 1-year old grandson, drives me ever deeper to the radical center.
I admired and supported the John McCain of 2000, less so the John McCain of 2004. And, now I barely know the man, who he is or what he really stands for, and against.
As my medium is visual and my message, visceral, I have produced this brief video to take you to the www.NoJohn.com website.
NoJohn.com -- where anyone and everyone can be a "political consultant."
With the advent of email as the preferred communication device in the workplace, it's no surprise that phone calls and meetings are correspondingly on the decline. The real question is whether that is necessarily a bad thing? Does it make business more productive, by eliminating those time-wasters? The truth is that the lack of human interaction does result in a loss of certain valuable, but intangible information from being communicated among co-workers, clients and other business colleagues.
A piece in the NYTimes, The Office Phone Call Was Music to the Ears, discusses the decreasing use of the phone at work:
The waning of the office phone call is one of those cultural declines that few people are likely to lament. It’s true that the changing mechanics of the telephone itself have prompted some sentimental outbursts; a page on www.wikihow.com gives step-by-step instructions for using an old rotary phone. (Step 1. Remove the handset from the cradle with your hand.)
But the fact that a generation has grown up unaware of pulse dialing and seven-digit numbers seems meaningless when everyone still talks on the phone, constantly — on sidewalks, while riding the bus, in line at the store. That we’ve transferred a lot of office business to e-mail — well, who cares?
* * * *
How can anyone get a grasp of an industry’s pertinent relationships or decision-making time frames, let alone the fragility of a particular office’s egos, if there are so few chances to hear these people talking to the outside world? The office phone call, properly overheard, is really the cheapest, easiest way to transmit institutional knowledge.
At first glance, there are reasons e-mail seems a boon. It leaves a paper trail. It allows you to formulate responses, rather than having to think on your feet. And if anything has gone wrong, we prefer not to be aurally assaulted. Every time you answer a phone call, you introduce uncertainty into your day.
But this attempt at self-preservation is counterproductive. What else is lost when we skip the call? It’s not just institutional knowledge, but also all the information conveyed through the attendant rituals of phoning.
* * * *
Ultimately, resorting to e-mail rather than picking up the phone results in not merely a quieter workplace but also a feebler one. Until we can convince senior employees to do a better job of sharing what they know about business and how they know it, we’re all better off making phone calls — and eavesdropping on those of others.
Ditto meetings. Much as we like to complain about what a waste of time meetings are, there is a certain value to meetings, even if it's just an opportunity to communicate with others. As the WSJ notes, Another Meeting? Good. Another Chance To Hear Myself Talk:
[W]e are, by nature, needy huddlers and cuddlers. The same person who disparages meetings -- an exercise as easy as shooting fish in a barrel -- sometimes secretly thinks they can be productive, can be a totem of status or, at the very least, can be a great forum for the latest joke material. They can also change the day's tempo -- if only by introducing cinnamon buns.
Surprisingly, a study to be released later this year shows a great number of meeting moaners are total fakers.
Steven Rogelberg, a professor of industrial organizational psychology at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and a group of colleagues found that among people surveyed about their last meeting, 69% rated them at least "good," while only 16% rated them "poor" or worse. And although 50% said they complained about meetings, more than 60% of these complainers admitted that they either "don't mind them that much" or "enjoy them."
Asked what their ideal work day would look like, two-thirds of respondents said it would include at least one or more meetings.
The disparity between public distaste toward meetings and private affection is likely due to the stigma attached to admitting you like them. It's declaring yourself either a show-off or a sheep -- and definitely a time-waster. "If you say that you dislike meetings, you're able to latch on to this rugged individualism," Prof. Rogelberg says.
* * * *
"The drive for social connection is a very strong one," says Nicholas Epley, an assistant professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business. Sitting in a cubicle is "stupefying" and isolating, only intensifying a social need.
David Mazel, a research analyst, thinks people like meetings because "you can stay busy without accomplishing a thing." He says "having gone to the meeting is the work."
I tend to agree that email is often overused and has it's own downside as a form of communication. Nuances that are easily understood with human communication can be lost in email translation, causing confusion or even worse, misunderstandings of motives or intentions. I may be a techie, but it drives my crazy when the person in the office next door emails me with a question rather than getting up and coming to my office to ask me. I will often respond in person rather than hit reply. Besides the fact that it's good to get a little exercise by getting up and walking around the office on occasion, the in-person interaction also has its value.
Email doesn't necessarily save time either. As an attorney, I believe that any written communication needs to be composed in a professional manner, email or otherwise. So, I draft and edit an email the same way that I would a memo, which means that it can take time to compose a response. If I think it will be quicker to respond verbally, I pick up the phone. Sometimes I do that because I feel that what I need to say is sensitive enough that I don't want to commit it to writing that could be seen by others.
Although I don't have a lot of meetings, in part because my clients are scattered geographically, I do still communicate a lot via telephone. Some days, I feel like I'm on the phone at the office non-stop. On balance, I do think it is a more productive way to convey information. For me, as a lawyer, I think it's important to do more than just answer a question that may be posed. Talking through the problem allows more of a give and take to discuss the issue posed and explore other alternatives and options. express
Once again, Scranton manages to make the news, with The Electric City being the first stop in Pennsylvania on the campaign trail by Hillary Clinton.
Of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton has history in Scranton, the home town of her father and his family. Actually, the Rodhams lived a few blocks from where I grew up (and my parents still live). Like many people from Scranton, we spend a lot of time over the summer at Lake Winola, where the Rodhams still have a summer place.
The NYTimes discusses Scranton in Pennsylvania Ties Could Help Clinton:
When Mrs. Clinton comes to Pennsylvania on Monday, her first visit to the state after winning Ohio and Texas last week, her first stop will be Scranton, where her familial ties extend deeper than they do in Park Ridge, Ill., the Chicago suburb where she grew up. Look for the image shapers to link the values of this gritty region — where her grandfather, descended from Welsh coal miners, raised his family — to her character and especially her perseverance.Hearing about this visit brought back my own memories of a memorable presidential visit. I remember meeting John Kennedy when I was a little kid when he came to Scranton during the 1960 election.“She’s tough,” Christopher Doherty, Scranton’s mayor, said in an interview. “That’s a real Scranton trait. That’s an anthracite trait.”
And look for the politicos to do everything they can to pump up enthusiasm here over the local girl made good — and perhaps displace “The Office,” at least temporarily, as Scranton’s claim to cultural fame (the television show’s fictional office is located in Scranton). Steve Corbett, a local radio personality, says the area is more “All in the Family” than “The Office” anyway.
The region is a major Democratic stronghold. Ed Mitchell, a Democratic consultant in nearby Wilkes-Barre, said it is central to the Clinton strategy for winning the state. “They need a big, big turnout here to offset the turnout for Obama in Philly and the upscale suburbs,” Mr. Mitchell said.
This is for my mother-in-law, who is a major John Legend fan. Stephen Colbert interviews Legend about his music and his support for Barack Obama. Discussing the Yes We Can video with Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, Colbert asks what does it all mean -- Yes We Can, what? Anything? Legend does a good job responding to Colbert and the Colbert persona. A very entertaining interview.
And there's the Duet Duel over who loves the country more:
It's only natural to think of a Presidential Library as being a repository for books and records. However, as we all know -- 9/11 changed everything. That, combined with the fact that George Bush doesn't read books, requires that we look at a presidential library in a whole different way.
From The Liberal Doomsayer:
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages.And of course, his biggest accomplishment -- a place of honor for his award for Worst.President.Ever.
You'll want to be the first at your corporation to make a contribution to this great man's legacy.
The Library will include:The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.And my personal favorite: the Don Siegelman room, where you get convicted even though you didn't do anything wrong.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you can't remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't have to even show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room (which no one has been able to find).
The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with shooting gallery.
The K-Street Project Gift Shop, where you can buy (or just steal) an election.
The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
Last, but not least, there will be an entire floor devoted to a 7/8 scale model of the President's ego.
To highlight the President's accomplishments, the museum will have an electron microscope to help you locate them.
Also...
An empty kindergarten classroom with no child left behind.
A Texas phonics studio complete with guides on pronouncing Newkulear.
Just yesterday, my on/off-line friend Susan and I had lunch & spent the (rainy) day hanging out, talking about Work & Life, Served with Food. Naturally, there was a dash of politics mixed in as well.
Then I ran across this piece by Carrie Budoff Brown, riffing on PA Governor Ed Rendell, Clinton supporter is armed and dangerous, which summed up part of our conversation. As Brown noted:
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell make an odd pair. Clinton is the model of message discipline, a politician whose steely demeanor and unerring ways cause voters to question her authenticity. Rendell, a strong Clinton supporter, is the exact opposite — a loose-lipped, gregarious backslapper whose gaffe-prone ways only underscore his genuineness.However, it was this line that went to the heart of our discussion:
In the six-week run-up to Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, the two will test the limits of their relationship. Clinton is likely to discover that few Democratic politicians can deliver as much to her campaign — or inadvertently inflict as much damage — as Rendell.
Bill Clinton and Rendell are like political twins separated at birth, two Democrats sharing a love of cheese steaks, sports and glad-handing. Rendell’s wife, Midge, owes her seat on the federal appeals court in Philadelphia to Bill Clinton.Over the past several years, I have observed the similarity between the political landscape in DC and Philly. As I explained the phenomenon to Susan, I have often seen the reflection of Washington in Philly political scene. For example, Ed Rendell as Mayor mirrored Bill Clinton, as described by Carrie of Politico. In addition to the likeness in their personalities, the country and Philly prospered under the leadership of Clinton and Rendell, respectively. Both were -- and are -- hugely popular, despite various political (and personal) gaffs they have exhibited on occasion.
A Cal State East Bay math teacher and practicing Quaker who was fired for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath got her job back this week, with an apology from the university and a clarification that the oath does not require employees to take up arms in violation of their religious beliefs.
"It's the best possible outcome," said Marianne Kearney-Brown, 50, a graduate student in mathematics who was teaching a remedial class for undergraduates. "My concerns have been addressed."
See Pacifist Cal State teacher gets job back.
I wrote about this case last week, God is on My Side, after the Quaker math teacher lost her job, saying that the school's position on the loyalty oath would clearly not prevail, since the teacher's objections were reasonably based upon her religious beliefs.
Luckily, the university saw the error of its ways sooner, rather than later. Of course, the fact that the university received a tremendous amount of bad press over the incident no doubt helped. As the LATimes reported, Instructor fired over loyalty oath reinstated:
I guess I could stop swearing about it now.The idea that someone could be fired for refusing to sign a loyalty oath came as a surprise to many Californians who were unaware that public employees are still required to sign it. The pledge was added to the state Constitution in 1952 at the height of anti-Communist hysteria and has remained a prerequisite for public employment ever since. All state, city, county, public school, community college and public university employees are required to sign the 86-word oath. Noncitizens are exempt.
* * * *
The firing of Kearney-Brown, who also is a graduate student at the campus, brought widespread criticism from faculty members, students, Quakers and civil-liberties advocates. Some faculty members began circulating a petition objecting to it. The United Auto Workers, which represents teaching assistants, pursued a grievance on Kearney-Brown's behalf.
"People were outraged," said Henry Reichman, a Cal State East Bay history professor and chairman of the Academic Senate. "I was very vocal on the campus that this was an outrageous thing."
(Via How Appealing)
As a follow up to my musings on the state of the primary as it barrels into Pennsylvania, see The Tipping Point, I came across the thoughts of a few others on current events that I had to share.
My favorite quote on the upcoming race in Pennsylvania comes from Done With Mirrors:
"Meet Pennsylvania, the new Florida. Also known as 'Pennsyl-tucky,' 'Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other, and Alabama in between.' Sometimes along around next month, our Eagles fans and Amish will choose your next president."In my earlier post, I mentioned that I was concerned that if Clinton bullies her way into the nomination for the Democratic ticket, that the fans of Obama might sit out the main show or, even worse, vote for McCain.
"Not that anyone listens to me, but if the person who becomes the nominee fails to win the general election then he/she will become a reviled figure in Democratic politics."
Reflecting on a NYTimes piece, News Coverage Changes, and So Does Tone of the Campaign, which observes the change in tone by the media after the recent mocking SNL skit that suggested that the press has given Obama more favorable coverage than Clinton, see And Then There Were More and The Last Great Debate, the New Republic's The Plank, Media weenies, queries:
Seriously? Can this possibly be true? I fear it is, and it makes me wonder why journalists are such pathetic dogs. Scold us, and we immediately go into a shame-faced crouch, start lashing ourselves like medieval monks, and become desperate to win back your approval. You are absolutely right: we were too soft on Bush in 2000; we got suckered into backing the Iraq war; we fixate on the horse-race aspects of elections instead of delivering you hours and hours and pages and pages of insightful policy analysis; every last one of us is a card-caring liberal; we care nothing for the truth and will repeat any old rumor that comes down the pipeline without regard to whether there's any reason to believe it's true; and, given our druthers, we would print nothing but naked pictures of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, preferably wrestling one another in a pit of chocolate pudding. For all this and much, much more, we are so very very sorry. Just please stop being mean to us. We'll do anything. Seriously. We only want to be loved.I'm afraid the press has a severe case of "it's all about me" syndrome.* * * *Forget snuggling up to Obama. If the media can't take some gentle late-night ribbing without going all to pieces, that is the real embarrassment.
A few musings on the election front.
Up until now, I've said that I'd be OK with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. See Can Do. In fact, have vacillated over who I would support (after John Edwards dropped out), Do I Follow My Sex or My Heart?.
However, I think we've reached the point where the Democratic candidates are doing the work of trashing each other for the benefit of neither -- the only one who benefits is He Who is the Anointed One as the Heir to the Throne. Bush endorses John McCain for president. While the Democrats battle it out, McCain can sit back, rest up, collect money and ammunition to use against the winner in the fall.
The fact that Clinton has begun campaigning in a more negative manner, is also beginning to contribute to deep divisions within the party. I don't see her necessarily benefiting from these attacks, since the likelihood is that she still won't be able to prevail at the end of the day. So, all it ends up doing is creating further riffs within the party, which we don't need for what is sure to be a gruesome general election.
The "celebration" over her victory in Ohio and Texas is disingenuous to me, since she was always favored in those states. The reality is that the margin of victory is substantially less than it was expected to be (especially in Texas). So what's so great about winning something you were always supposed to win anyway -- that you didn't end up letting it slip away?
Finally, my biggest fear is that at this point, if Hillary Clinton were to pull it off and win the primary, it would be such a devastating result for the Obama contingent, that they will be bitter enough to either stay home in the general election or vote for McCain, thereby handing McCain the Presidency.
As much as I looked forward to having a say in the primary in Pennsylvania, at this point, I'd rather do without.
(Cartoon: Jack Ohman)
As Feministing notes, the Washington Post had a dumb piece about dumb women in yesterday's Outlook section of the paper. Of course, the dumb paper can't decide how best to slam women, so they keep trying, by changing the piece's caption.
Question: As a woman, which way do you prefer to be called stupid?
Answer: Neither. However, the only dumb thing was the article (and the paper for publishing it).
P.S. To the extent that there are stupid women, I guess that they are the ones who are dumb enough to read the Washington Post.
UPDATE: Just kidding, says the Post's Outlook editor. According to Michael Calderone of the Politico, Wash Post editor says controversial piece was 'tongue-in-cheek'. Right. I guess the WP really does think women are too stupid to understand what the article meant when they read it. He needed to 'xplain it to us.
See also, WaPo Writer Proves Own Thesis With Inane Op-Ed.
From Yes We Can to We Are the Ones.
Will.i.am, the Black Eyed Peas member whose “Yes We Can” song for Barack Obama was a YouTube hit, came out with another video a few days ago.
Via The Caucus, Send in the Celebrities, is the latest effort: “We Are the Ones” uses the rhythm of a crowd chanting Mr. Obama’s name and features actors and musicians, including Jessica Alba, Ryan Phillipe, Macy Gray, John Leguizamo and George Lopez.
With the chanting of "Obama" throughout -- for those calling the Obama fans a cult, The Trouble With Too Much Charisma, this song will certainly become the theme song for Cultism.
On the other hand, as Will.i.am says:
people say Obama’s words are just words...See Dipdive. See also, The Charisma Mandate.
but...
when was the last time "words" weren’t important...???...
when was the last time a great leader didn’t use words to lead...??...
when was the last time a person didn’t use words to describe how they felt...?...
when was the last time "words" weren’t empowering...?...
It was bound to happen. Once we as a nation began to condone torture, it was only a matter of time when it turned inward, and torture could be seen as an acceptable feature of our lives.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports on a lawsuit arising out of a workplace team building retreat, Employee's suit: Company used waterboarding to motivate workers, which allegedly involved a version of waterboarding: A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.
Of course, the company has responded by saying that whatever occurred was voluntary -- and all in good fun, as part of team-building efforts. Some fun!
In a lawsuit filed last month, former Prosper, Inc. salesman Chad Hudgens alleges his managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees' faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle "because it resulted in increased revenues for the company."* * * * The suit claims that Hudgens' team leader, Joshua Christopherson, asked for volunteers in May for "a new motivational exercise," which he did not describe. Hudgens, who was 26 at the time, volunteered in order to "prove his loyalty and determination," the suit claims.
Christopherson led the sales team to the top of a hill near the office and told Hudgens to lie down with his head downhill, the suit claims. Christopherson then told the rest of the team to hold Hudgens by the arms and legs.
Christopherson poured water from a gallon jug over Hudgens' mouth and nostrils - like the interrogation strategy known as "waterboarding" - and told the team members to hold Hudgens down as he struggled, the suit alleges.
"At the conclusion of his abusive demonstration, Christopherson told the team that he wanted them to work as hard on making sales as Chad had worked to breathe while he was being waterboarded," the suit alleges.
Last week may have been the last debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in real life, but the beat goes on on Saturday Night Live. Following the SNL version last Saturday, The Last Great Debate, the debate continues, this week with "Brian Williams" and "Tim Russert."
The best was "Hillary's" riff on how an aggressive, relentless and demanding individual is needed to fight big business. Someone so grating, annoying and shrill, that the special interests will have to say: Enough -- we give up. Just give her what she wants so she'll shut up and leave us in peace. I cracked up, because I've been told that that's the secret of my success in negotiating for my clients -- I wear my opponent down by being relentless, until they finally say "enough."
The skit also ends with an "Editorial Response" to last week's Week-end Update, Bitch is the New Black, with an appearance by Hillary Clinton.
(Via onegoodmove)
Last night was a dinner meeting of my book group, an eclectic collection of women who range from doctors and lawyers, to educators and research scientists. We usually meet on Sunday mornings, so last night was a rare treat -- dinner and wine, enjoyed while we discussed our selection of the month. Of course, I use the term "discussed" rather loosely, since it sometimes seems that we spend more time discussing our next selection to read than the merits of the current book itself. This month's book was Sara Gruen's Water for Elephants.
Water for Elephants was one of those books that I was sure would not be my taste, so I avoided reading it for as long as possible. I didn't even begin reading it until last week-end.
Once I did, I couldn't put it down. It was a fascinating look at a time period (depression era) and lifestyle (circus) that I was mostly unfamiliar with. In a well written tale, Gruen tells the story of:
Jacob Jankowski is pushing 90 and wallowing in a nursing home, abandoned by his family and surrounded by aged octogenarians who irk him with their senility. He has few pleasures in life --- an astute and friendly nurse named Rosemary and his vibrant memories. As Jacob lies in his bed, drifting in and out of sleep, lucidness and dreams, the compelling story of his experiences as a young man unfolds in Sara Gruen's mesmerizing new novel, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS.See Bookreporter.com. I especially liked the weaving of the time periods in Jacob's life and the entertaining stories of the circus and its exotic creatures -- both the people and the animals. Certainly, the growing attraction between Jacob and Marlena is central to the novel, but I truly enjoyed the various antics of the animals and the circuses many odd characters (despite its dark and sometimes cruel side of life as well). As the NYTimes book review by Elizabeth Judd, Trunk Show, observes:
The year is 1932. Jacob is 23 and just shy of getting his degree in veterinary medicine from Cornell when he learns that his parents have been killed in a horrific accident. Emotionally and monetarily stranded, unmoored and with nothing to lose, Jacob jumps a train and finds himself traveling with the Benzini Brothers Most Spectacular Show on Earth. Starting at the bottom rung of the strict caste system within the ranks of the Circus employees, Jacob's veterinary knowledge quickly garners him a place near the top of the hierarchy, among the company of the hot-headed ringmaster August and his beautiful wife Marlena --- the all-purpose female star of the show.
The troupe crisscrosses the country cannibalizing acts that have gone bankrupt in the Depression-era economy. After Uncle Al, the autocratic ringmaster, purchases Rosie, an elephant with an unquenchable thirst for lemonade and the inability to follow the simplest command, Benzini Brothers looks doomed. How Jacob coaxes Rosie to perform — thereby saving the circus — lies at the heart of the novel.
Gruen, whose first novel was "Riding Lessons," turns horses and other creatures into sympathetic characters. According to an author's note, she studied elephant body language and behavior with a former handler at the Kansas City Zoo. The research pays off. August's mistreatment of Marlena pales beside the visceral wallop of his nonchalant cruelty toward Rosie: "I look up just as he flicks the cigarette. It arcs through the air and lands in Rosie's open mouth, sizzling as it hits her tongue. She roars, panicked, throwing her head and fishing inside her mouth with her trunk. August marches off. I turn back to Rosie. She stares at me, a look of unspeakable sadness on her face. Her amber eyes are filled with tears."
Second-rate and seedy, Benzini Brothers suffers a collective inferiority complex (no one is permitted to utter the word "Ringling" in Uncle Al's presence). When Lovely Lucinda, the 400-pound fat lady, dies suddenly, Uncle Al orchestrates a funeral procession led by 24 black Percherons and an army of mourners competing for the three dollars and bottle of Canadian whiskey promised to whoever puts on the best show. "You've never seen such grief — even the dogs are howling."
An interview with the author that was included with the novel mentioned that Gruen had never even been to a circus growing up. The idea for the novel came after she saw an article on a circus photographer, Author Profile: Sara Gruen, and she intersperses circus photos between chapters of the book. Many of the animal tales were based upon snippets of real incidents that she discovered in her research on circuses. Jennifer Krieger of Bookreporter.com, likewise adds:
Gruen spent years researching Depression-era circuses, and the breadth of her knowledge is revealed in all the tiny details that pepper Jacob's memories, but she also has a finely-tuned radar for the magic and mysteries of the human heart. The meat and madness of this novel may appear to lie in Jacob's memories of his younger self, but in her subtle exploration of Jacob as an old man, Gruen finds an equally compelling story.I think the other appealing part of the story for me was that Rosie the elephant reminded me of an elephant from my own childhood, Tillie the Elephant. Despite its size, the city of Scranton had a zoo at Nay Aug Park, complete with an elephant. Tillie the Elephant was a huge draw. In fact, the zoo had elephants almost from its first days in operation in the early 1920s. As the Scranton Times notes, after the first elephant, Queenie, died in 1935:
Looking to quickly fill that void, the Times conducted another elephant drive. Schoolchildren again responded with buckets of coins. By the end of the month, Tillie the elephant and her companion, Joshua the donkey, were welcomed by a weekend crowd of 55,000.See Electric City has history of attachment to elephants. Like Rosie, Tillie certainly was able to express herself. She may be long gone, but Tillie the Elephant is still a major part of the lore of Scranton's history.
The inseparable pair, who came from a New Hampshire animal farm, were soon headlining parades. Tillie gained 668 pounds in her first year at the cramped zoo, tipping the scale at more than 3,350 pounds in April 1936.
Her dust baths in a dirt padlock entertained thousands. Tillie would scoop up dirt with her trunk, then toss it over her shoulders and back. The baths ended in 1951 when officials poured concrete on the 30-by- 50-foot paddock.
Tillie was euthanized in February 1966. Tillie, at 42, suffered from a variety of ailments, including gangrene in her rear feet. Days earlier, she sent park superintendent George Lowry to the hospital — where he stayed eight days — after flailing her trunk, knocking the man through a doorway and against a concrete wall.
As the ABC'ers (Anything But Christians) battle it out over whose side God is on (I vote for none of the above) in the upcoming presidential election, another issue related to religious freedom has me greatly bothered. California State University East Bay has fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word "nonviolently" in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form. Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees. Each time, when asked to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote "nonviolently" in front of the word "support," crossed out "swear," and circled "affirm." All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said. The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said. But Cal State East Bay wouldn't, and she was fired on Thursday. Modifying the oath "is very clearly not permissible," the university's attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. "It's an unfortunate situation. If she'd just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment." Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that "as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values." For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don't have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy. Kearney-Brown said she could not sign an oath that, to her, suggested she was agreeing to take up arms in defense of the country. "I honor the Constitution, and I support the Constitution," she said. "But I want it on record that I defend it nonviolently." For anyone familiar with Quakers (or, the Religious Society of Friends), this is not a surprise. Based upon their religious beliefs, Quakers do not take oaths or "swear" on the bible, pledge allegiance or salute the flag, See e.g., An Introduction to Quakers. And a basic tenet of their belief system is that of non-violence and passivism. The Quakers refusal to participate in active duty during time of war for religious reasons was the origin of contentious objectors. The university's lawyer most certainly has provided the school with bad advice and the law will eventually be stricken, after much time and expense litigating the matter. We are talking about religious freedom -- which does not impinge or impact her ability to perform her job. There should be no issue here. In fact, I recall a few years ago in the fervor after 9/11 that Pennsylvania adopted a mandatory pledge of allegiance and hanging of the American flag in all schools. Prior to passage of the final bill, after strenuous objections were raised, an exception was made for religious institutions. I was on the Board at my daughter's Quaker school and the time and was involved in the protests of the statute. Of course, the onerous exceptions were still challenged and the law was struck down as unconstitutional. See The Pennsylvania Mandatory School Pledge of Allegiance Law. Unfortunately, this does not touch upon an area that the extremists in the religious right care about, so they have no interest in supporting religious freedom -- unless it suits their needs. As Judge Sloviter of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals put it in the Pennsylvania case: That's why it's good to Keep the Church out of the State. The "state" shouldn't be taking sides, just like God.
At the same time that pharmacists are permitted to refuse to fill prescriptions for legally prescribed drugs or contraceptives based upon their religious beliefs and physicians are permitted to refuse to perform certain procedures on the same basis, Martyrs and pestles, despite the fact that it pertains to areas that are essential parts of their jobs, the line is drawn when it comes to expressions of faux patriotism.
An article in the San Fransisco Chronicle reports on the firing of a math teacher who refused to sign a required loyalty oath. What's up with this un-patriotic person? Is she a terrorist in disguise? Not quite. As was noted in Quaker teacher fired for changing loyalty oath:
And what was her problem? She wanted to add the word "nonviolently" in front of support the Constitution and changed the word "swear" to "affirm." A true radical, she. As the piece explains: It may be useful to note our belief that most citizens of the United States willingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proudly sing the national anthem. But the rights embodied in the Constitution, most particularly in the First Amendment, protect the minority – those persons who march to their own drummers. It is they who need the protection afforded by the Constitution and it is the responsibility of federal judges to ensure that protection.
The Circle School vs. Pappert, No. 03-3285 (3rd Cir. Aug. 19, 2004).
