Me, Myself & I

Not seeing the "good for business" angle here, is how Brian Beutler of TPM describes it, Whole Foods CEO Slams Health Reform, Angering Liberal Pro-Reform Whole Foods Customers:

Here's a thought: If you own a major supermarket chain that caters to a great deal of liberal-minded people with money, don't rail against the evils of health care reform in the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, that advice comes a few hours too late for Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who did just that.

Unbelievably, Whole Food's John Mackey penned an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal that dissed health care reform, with an 8-point free market counter proposal guaranteed to "fix" our health care woes. The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare. Revealing his true philosophy (who gives a hoot about the other guy), he argues:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.

The reaction was swift. As the LATimes notes, Whole Foods is in a whole lot of trouble:

I am torn between disgust with and admiration for John Mackey, the ceo of Whole Foods Market. In an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal, the organic food guru takes a swipe at universal health care as proposed by the Dems and gives his recommendations for reform.

* * * *

Translation: "We wouldn't be in this mess if you people would just shop at my stores!"

And how does Mackey suggest we pay for health care for those whiners without insurance who pretend they can't afford Whole Paycheck? This part is delicous:

Make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

That's right, pass the hat!

So where does my admiration come in? Well, if nothing else, he's a man of his convictions. He puts principles over profit. Because hordes of yoga mat-toting, wheatgrass drinking progressives -- you know, the ones who made him rich and keep Whole Foods afloat -- are livid.

See also, Ellis Weiner, Half-Assed From Whole Foods, for a point by point analysis of Mackey's piece.

Mackey reminds me of Richard Hayne, the owner of Philly-based Urban Outfitters, whose business is targeted toward trendy and liberal customers. Both then gleefully use that money to support conservative causes. I'm sure that these men get additional satisfaction, knowing that they are able to take the money from the pockets of liberals to advance goals that would be anathema to liberals.

Not surprisingly, the liberals who spend their money at Whole Foods have taken action, by proposing a boycott. As reported in All Spin Zone, Whole Foods Boycott Picks Up Steam:

Whole Foods has always marketed itself to a fairly educated and financially secure customer base. This is why they can successfully sell healthy (and primarily organic) foods, at a higher cost. The company has also fostered the image that it has an altruistic streak in supporting progressive causes.

With a single op-ed in an uber conservative national newspaper, this wholesome image has been blown to bits. In the course of writing 1,165 words, CEO Mackey has caused more potential damage to the Whole Foods corporate image than an e-coli outbreak in the meat room.

In fact, the company has already issued an apology of sorts. Whole Foods freaks out over CEO's anti-Obama health care op ed. However, weak as it is, I'm not sure that the explanation/apology will quell those liberal masses.

I would certainly support a boycott, but I already don't shop at that over-priced vanity store.

The Quitah From Wasilla

I realize that the topic of Sarah Palin's latest zany move -- quitting her job as Governor of Alaska -- has been covered almost as much as Michael Jackson's death, but I just have to put my spin on it (not that I have anything unique to add), of course. After all, despite my belief that she would pale out after the election, she has continued to live on -- in infamy, to the delight of her friends & foes alike. If nothing else, Sarah has staying power & excels at the Supreme Surprise!

For me personally, summer continues to be a whirlwind of social activity, so I had just finished Todd Purdum's devastating piece in Vanity Fair on Palin on Friday, It Came from Wasilla, and was out & about when I received a shocking AP News Alert on my iPhone, announcing that her Paleness had decided to start the 4th of July celebrations early, with the fireworks created by the news of her impending departure. I immediately called my Sarah Be Gone Wager pal to dish about the news.

As soon as arrived back home, I had to watch the video of her resignation. It was everything (and more) that I hoped it would be. A definite performance for the ages. She will forever be guided by the Rule: "only dead fish go with the flow." She may be vexing and perplexing, but one thing's for sure -- she's gone from Sassy Sarah to Sarah the Sad Sack.

All you need to know of her rambling, breathless, shaky, Sarah Be Gone Speech from Nowhere is:

(Click to enlarge)

Bottom line, as the Anchorage Daily News said, is that Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska's governor:

Gov. Sarah Palin stunned Alaska and the nation Friday by abruptly announcing her resignation from office. Palin, the governor of Alaska for two and a half years, said she will step down in three weeks and hand power over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. Palin made the announcement at a hastily called press conference held at her Wasilla home as the holiday weekend began. She complained about ethics complaints lodged against her, said the media isn't reporting her accomplishments, and struck conservative political themes like smaller government, resource development and national security.

In other words, woe is me so, so long suckers!!

As the shock sunk in, the opinions began to spew forth. As the NYT Caucus Blog notes, The Saturday Word: Palin Chatter:

All should have been quiet on the political front the Friday before the Fourth of July. But, then there was Sarah Palin — Alaska’s governor, who announced she was quitting her job after just two years.

* * * *

But what it all means is still a bit curious. Though her sometimes rambling address sounded much like a farewell-cruel-politics speech, the announcement stirred more speculation that she would use her newfound freedom from governing responsibility to try to position herself for a presidential bid in 2012. She has a book contract, and has demonstrated again this summer that she remains popular among voters.

The Alaska blogger who was there from the beginning, AKMuckraker of Mudflats, again asked the question: What Is Sarah Palin Thinking? One Alaskan's Perspective:

Palin's long, rambling, fretful speech had all the visible tension and clenched jaw muscles of her appearance when she returned back home to little old Alaska after her failed VP bid. She was interviewed by the press in her Anchorage office and said how glad she was to be back, and how much fun it was to run the state of Alaska. Nobody believed her. It's become more and more apparent that what she likes is the crowds, the attention, and the advocacy for her beliefs. But the day to day running of the state doesn't seem to have much appeal anymore. A common complaint among legislators and top state officials since Palin's return from the campaign trail is that nobody ever sees her. Getting face time with the governor is not an easy thing. Palin has discovered, through her travels, that you don't have to be a politician to get attention.

Today she stood by the shores of Lake Lucille and told us how she was leaving her position for our own good. It's for the best interest of the state, she said. There are too many distractions, too much being picked on, too little time to focus on the matters of state, too many jokes about her kids, and too much money fighting those ethics complaints against her.

* * * *

Speculation is rampant about a soon to be declared run for the presidency in 2012. If Palin listens to her core group of supporters, she has reason to believe this run at the White House would land her in the Oval Office. Her resignation speech was full of imagery about Alaska's resources helping the country, about how much we owe our military, about the economy; a wistful retrospective of all her administration had accomplished. . . . And while the rhetoric sounded national, the mood of the event was anything but celebratory. And Palin continues to stick with the talking points that those who are paying attention have debunked.

The time in front of the cameras was also used, many felt, to "play the victim card." Palin spent a considerable amount of time castigating the very media that was there covering the event, for being too critical. But the principle objects of Palin's venom were private citizens who had filed ethics complaints against her. . . . She seems unable, even when delivering a speech that is destined for national coverage, to rise above the fray, and refrain from sounding petty.

Like everyone else, Josh Marshall of TPM, wondered what was behind the stunning move (timed for the bad news Friday cycle, on a holiday week-end, no less), in Surreality Only Beginning:

Either Palin is resigning ahead of some titanic scandal (which should emerge in short order if it exists) or her resignation was triggered by an even more extreme mental instability than we'd previously suspected.

Then there's Greg Sargent's take (from which I cribbed my caption), Bailin’ Barracuda, Or The Quitah From Wasilla:

First, my quickie prediction: Though she probably does envision a role in national public life of some kind, I don’t believe she intends to run in 2012. She may end up doing that, but my bet is that’s not what is driving the resignation.

This is a woman who appears to crave dominance, and gets visibly frustrated and deeply rattled when it eludes her or when her self-mastery wavers. She can’t dominate or control the national media or her national image. This was borne out again with the flap over the Vanity Fair article. She quit in a huff, and doesn’t have any intention of coming back.

Booman agrees. See It's Not Goodbye for Sarah.

The Kenosha Kid's Blog sums things up perfectly, Why is Sarah Palin resigning?:

1. Willow is pregnant
2. 'Crossed the line' with Governor Sanford
3. Devastating Vanity Fair article
4. Putting good of nation over her own petty ambitions

Not surprisingly, whenever a politician resigns "to spend more time with the family," the euphemism usually means that trouble (i.e., most often, legal problems) will soon be announced. As expected, the speculation began shortly after the announcement. Palin's Move Raises Big Questions. As AKMuckraker put it:

In Alaska it's become known as "the iceberg." The iceberg is rumored to be a piece of news that's so damaging, and so big, it will sink the S.S. Palin. The rumors also exist that it's coming soon. Speculation about IRS problems, issues with other three-letter organizations, more ethics complaints, and embezzlement abound. Questions have been raised about the construction of Palin's house by a bunch of Todd's buddies, at the same time that a giant sports complex was being built just down the road in Wasilla, and right after building codes had been abolished by the then mayor of Wasilla, one Sarah Palin. Do we know anything for sure? No. But the recent claim that the breaking of this scandal is imminent seems coincidental to say the least. Alaskans hesitate to get too excited about rumored indictments, though. Despite the indictment and conviction of several state legislators, and the indictment-conviction and now un-conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens, the slow process has taught us patience. We still await rumored indictments of Congressman Don Young, and former State Senate President Ben Stevens (son of Ted Stevens.) You can't make this stuff up.

Like Leave It To Beaver, leave it to Sarah had to react to the gossip in her usual way -- whine, moan, groan, followed by stupendous attack. So Palin has threatened legal action against those writers and reporters who dared to suggest that there may be more to her resignation beyond the muddled words muttered by Sarah. Huffington Post Blogger in Palin's Cross Hairs. Claiming defamation isn't protected under the Alaska Constitution, her lawyer conveniently omits that other legal document -- the US Constitution, which just might contain a 1st Amendment free speech right that may be applicable here. Palin's Lawyer Threatens Bloggers, Media.

As we get into the dog days of summer, Sarah's antics will insure that the bad news of the economy and war won't get us down. We always have her to snicker over.

There are times that snarkiness is just what's called for & Maureen Dowd delivers, in Now, Sarah’s Folly:

As Alaskans settled in to enjoy holiday salmon bakes and the post-solstice thaw, their governor had a solipsistic meltdown so strange it made Sparky Sanford look like a model of stability.

On the shore of Lake Lucille, with wild fowl honking and the First Dude smiling, with Piper in the foreground and their Piper Cub in the background, the woman who took the Republican Party by storm only 10 months ago gave an incoherent, breathless and prickly stream of consciousness to a small group in her Wasilla yard. Gobsmacked Alaska politicians, Republican big shots, the national press, her brother, the D.C. lawyer who helped create her political action committee and yes, even Fox News, played catch-up.

What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.

She can hunt wolves from the air and field-dress a moose, but she fears being a lame duck? Some brickbats over her ethics and diva turns as John McCain’s running mate, and that dewy skin turns awfully thin.

Maybe there’s another red Naughty Monkey high heel to drop — there’s often a hidden twist in Sarah’s country-music melodramas. Or is this a reckless high-speed escape from small-pond Alaska, where her popularity is dropping, to the big time Below?

We may be befuddled about what motivated Palin at the moment, but as Paul Begala notes, we shall soon find out, but one thing about her will not change -- her intellectual capacity. What you see is what you get. As he explains, Sarah Palin Turns Pro:

I'm no latter-day Strunk & White, just a guy who was struck by Palin's spectacularly rambling and infantile prose. It bespeaks a rambling and infantile mind. But perhaps not. Perhaps this is all a ruse. Perhaps Gov. Palin wants us to believe she's an intellectual featherweight who is slightly shallower than an actor on High School Musical. Maybe she's trying to throw us off the trail.

Naah. A lot of people thought that about George W. Bush. He couldn't be so block-headed, they said. He couldn't be as childish and churlish as he came off. Oh yes he could. And so, too, might Ms. Palin be as vapid and puerile as her inane statement suggests.

We will know. In the fullness of time (and I predict, not much time) we will know. Again and again in her statement, Gov. Palin returned to the nettlesome ethics inquiries that have been visited upon her since she signed on to be John McCain's running mate. No doubt they are annoying. But does anyone believe that's why she's resigning? No, there's more to this story. And Ms. Palin's resignation only increases the chances that we will all know the rest of the story soon. Or, as she might put it:

We will all KNOW the "rest of the Story" *((SOON!))*

As I listened to the news on the radio, hearing that Sarah Palin held her press conference alongside Lake Lucille, the thought struck me that it was only fitting, since she's the Lucille Ball of our time. Wacky, zany Lucy -- always good for a laugh. And, she never disappoints.

(Word Cloud via Wordle - Sarah Palin's Resignation Speech)

Don't Know What to do About Yoo

As an update to my previous post about the Philadelphia Inquirer adding John "Mr. Torture" Yoo to its opinion pages -- The Conservative Corner -- there has been quite the reaction from near & far.

As the NYTimes notes, Ire Over a Columnist, an Author of Torture Memos:

When The Philadelphia Inquirer hired as its new opinion columnist John C. Yoo, an author of the Bush administration’s widely criticized legal memos on harsh interrogation techniques, it was probably inevitable that the decision would draw complaints.

The surprise was that it took months to provoke much reaction, in part because it took that long for readers to realize that Mr. Yoo, a Philadelphia native, was not an occasional contributor, as he had been for years, but a regular monthly fixture at the paper. The Inquirer hired him last fall for a year, but did not make a splashy public announcement, as it did in 2007, with former Senator Rick Santorum, who writes every two weeks.

As the Times added:

Harold Jackson, The Inquirer’s editorial page editor, said he was surprised by the sudden delayed anger directed his way over Mr. Yoo. He said the decision to hire a columnist was his, but that “Mr. Yoo was suggested by the publisher,” Brian Tierney.

“There was a conscious effort on our part to counter some of the criticism of The Inquirer as being a knee-jerk liberal publication,” Mr. Jackson said. “We made a conscious effort to add some conservative voices to our mix.”

A knee-jerk liberal publication? The only people who could possibly think that are those who stopped reading it long ago. The more recent people driven away did so because it was anything but. Will Bunch noted, in Definitely not a "knee-jerk liberal publication": "I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that 'knee-jerk liberal' thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, etc., but maybe that's just me."

As for Jackson being surprised about delayed anger? Gee, I don't suppose it might have had anything to do with the fact that no one knew. As Steve Benen says, YOO CAN'T BE SERIOUS:

This doesn't work at all. First, there was "delayed anger" because no one knew -- and the paper didn't announce -- that the Inquirer had actually hired Yoo until this past weekend. As a rule, people rarely complain about a development before learning about it.

And if that's not enough, the coup d'grace was:

Post Script: Tierney told the NYT few of his readers actually care about this: "I've gotten more mail recently on our making our comics smaller than I have on John Yoo." Here's hoping that changes fairly soon.

Blogger Philebrity proposes that we locals take action to express our displeasure through a boycott of the Inky so long as Yoo Know Who is part of the paper, Editorial: Boycott The Philadelphia Inquirer.:

But to give voice to one of the architects of one of America’s darkest moments ever is simply a bridge too far. As readers and colleagues in the media (however much some Inky folks might want to deny that simple fact), we are, to put it plainly, disgusted. This city has taken a lot of abuse from the Philadelphia Inquirer over the years, and via its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it stands to take more — who knows how much local businesses will get stiffed when all is said and done? This is more than insult to injury. To even have Yoo’s voice emanating from this city’s presupposed paper of record is a blight upon Philadelphia itself. And it’s here that we say, “Enough.” Please join us in boycotting the Philadelphia Inquirer from this point forward — both in physical form AND online — until the paper sees fit to remove John Yoo from its pages, and encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, Mary Shaw of Philadelphia Freedom Blog opposes the boycott, Why I oppose the Inquirer boycott:

In this country, John Yoo has the right to spew his vile nonsense, and the Inky has every right to publish his distasteful content. I don't have to read Yoo's columns if I don't want to. But I might want to. Because a key to defeating one's opponents in an argument is to understand the opponent's thought processes.

Hopefully Yoo's columns can provide us with some insights into the psyche of the torturer, and hopefully we can use those insights constructively to present better arguments to counter Yoo's talking points.

That is where we can be truly effective. Rather than boycotting the Inky, we should read each and every one of Yoo's columns. And we should respond to each column en masse with well-reasoned and well-written letters to the editor, in great enough numbers to ensure that some will get published.

I certainly agree with Mary Shaw's sentiments, but I know that there is no way that I would waste my time with the likes of Yoo (or Santorum). In my view, some ideas are so outside the realm of reason that they are worth responding to. In fact, I think part of the problem with our discourse today is that we have given a forum to people whose extremist views should never have received a platform.

I am definitely more in the boycott camp. I have chronicled the decline of the Inky since its purchase by PR mogul Brian Tierney in May of 2006. At various times, I have been annoyed enough to want to stop getting the paper -- like when Rick Santorum was hired. My husband was even willing to do so, even though he prefers to read the actual paper than the on-line version. The quality has also declined, much like the size of the paper itself, but there are still those reporters who manage to do a great job despite what has to be trying conditions. It is for that reason that I still hesitate to pull the plug. But I'm still thinking about it.

As for Tierney, I wish him nothing but the worst. And he is getting it from all over, since Inky's stance has earned it some delicious scorn. Gawker expresses it best, Philly Paper Has 'Only Despicable Republicans' Hiring Policy:

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a bankrupt paper run by a greedy Republican flack. They're going to save themselves by hiring America's most unpopular and/ or idiotic Republicans as columnists:

John Yoo, the Bush lawyer most famous for his Torture Memos, is now a bylined Inquirer columnist. Let's examine a list of the paper's recent high-profile Op-Ed page hirings:

• John Yoo.
• Rick Santorum.

See also, Did I Miss the Part Where John Yoo Actually Matters?

For more opinion on the issue, see:

Is Philly Inquirer also OK with Yoo's hypocrisy?

The Philadelphia Inquirer and John Yoo

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Yoo

What's the Matter With Yoo?

The fact that I had to read about it elsewhere is perhaps most telling of all.

The editorial/op-ed section used to be the first stop on my daily perusal of the paper, which I read front-to-back (other than the sports section). No more. In fact, I no longer read the opinion pages of the Inquirer -- what I now not-so-affectionately refer to as the "Conservative Corner" of the paper.

In a recent piece by Steven Reynolds on Why the Philadelphia Inquirer is in Bankruptcy and its hiring of Rick Santorum as a columnist (coincidence? I think not), I commented:

Not to mention that Philly is a strongly Democratic town & the editorial page is now a GOP rag (I stopped reading it a while ago). Santorum, Krauthammer & Smerconish on the same masthead makes one think of the Washington (”Moonie”) Times, not the Inky.

[Brian] Tierney is supposedly trying to appeal to the suburbanites who were turned off by the “liberal bent” of the Inky, but he misunderstands that most don’t hold his hard right views. What’s particularly ironic about the choice of Santorum is that he was mainly defeated because the republicans in SE PA rejected his brand of conservationism. And, of course, it doesn’t help that he can’t express a complete thought in a rational manner.

Despite that, I was still surprised by the most recent addition to the Conservative Corner -- none other than Mr. Torture himself, John Yoo.

As Will Bunch reveals in his AttyTood blog, Inquirer defends the indefensible: A monthly column by torture architect John Yoo:

By late last year, the world already knew a great deal about John Yoo, the Philadelphia native and conservative legal scholar whose tenure in the Bush administration as a top Justice Department lawyer lies at the root of the period of greatest peril to the U.S. Constitution in modern memory. It was widely known in 2008, for example, that Yoo had argued for presidential powers far beyond anything either real or implied in the Constitution -- that the commander-in-chief could trample the powers of Congress or a free press in an endless undeclared war, or that the 4th Amendment barring unreasonable search and seizure didn't apply in fighting what Yoo called domestic terrorism.

Most famously, Yoo was known as the author of the infamous "torture memos" that in 2002 and 2003 gave the Bush and Cheney the legal cover to violate the human rights of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, based on the now mostly ridiculed claim that international and U.S. laws against such torture practices did not apply. Working closely with Dick Cheney, Cheney's staff and others, Yoo set into motion the brutal actions that left a deep, indelible stain on the American soul.

Yet none of that was enough to prevent my colleagues upstairs at the Philadelphia Inquirer -- with none of the fanfare that might normally accompany such a move -- to sign a contract with Yoo in late 2008 to give him a regular monthly column.

* * * *

Because Yoo's working arrangement with the Inquirer was never formally announced, even people who work here at 400 North Broad Street, the home of the Daily News and Inquirer,weren't immediately aware (myself included)that Yoo was now a regular columnist, joining an increasingly rightward-tilting lineup that also includes the likes ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (at $1,750 a pop), Michael Smerconish, a moderate Republican who is also a forceful advocate for torture, Kevin Ferris and others.

I've already written about the what's the matter with Yoo many times in the past, including a riff on an earlier op-ed piece, Yoo What?, in which Yoo audaciously argued that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by deciding issues of constitutional import in a manner that did not give sufficient weight to the President -- or even Congress. Of course, I'm sure he'd concede the error of his ways, now that there's a President of a different color in the House (that is, blue rather than red, of course). See also, The Horror of Yoo and Yoo Who.

Yoo's latest dribble for the Inky is to echo the latest GOP talking point, that "empathy" is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. John Yoo Argues for Neutrality, Needs Empathy. According to Orin Hatch, empathy is Code for activist. I realize that empathy is not a word in the conservative vocabulary. Not surprisingly, the Republicans believe that you have to be cold, cruel and souless in order to serve on the Court (think Thomas, Scalia and Alito).

Jonathan Valania of Phawker also has a compendium of opinion on the Inquirer's hiring of Yoo, HECKUVA JOB TIERNEY: Why Is THIS Man Bloviating About Supreme Court Replacements In The Inquirer?. As he says:

First Santorum, now Yoo. Increasingly, the Inquirer’s editorial page has become the place where the last eight years go to die. What’s next? Replacing Craig LaBan with Dick Cheney? Tom DeLay’s pitbull movie reviews? Karl Rove reviving the Marley & Me franchise?

One good thing. Yoo doesn't need a law license to write his discredited opinions on the law, so if Pennsylvania were to disbar him, as has apparently been recommended by the report for the DOJ on torture, he could still pontificate to the readers of the Inky, who appear to be matching the numbers of the GOP itself -- an ever downward spiral.

I Shall Survive

Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.

This is the essential essence of Arlen. Arlen Specter, the newest member of the Democratic Party in the Senate. Sen. Arlen Specter To Switch Parties; Could Give Democrats Filibuster-Proof Congressional Majority.

As Glenn Greenwald (quoted above) says of Specter, What Specter's switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum:

The idea that Specter is a "liberal" Republican or even a "moderate" reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.

Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.

And let's not forget that Arlen Specter is the man who started the whole US Attorney mess by changing the statutory approval process, since was responsible for the change in the law that permitted the replacement of the US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. So, he's hardly Joseph of the Amazing Dreamcoat for Democrats.

When my husband called to tell me about Specter's switch, I told him that I may have been one of the first to predict it. In the beginning of January, during the contentious Holder confirmation hearings, I said, in Puff the Magic Dragon:

Of course, Specter will perform his dragon routine, creating a bunch of fake noise about Holder to please the conservatives, then end up doing nothing. If he follows his usual routine, he'll even end up voting to confirm him, when all is said & done [which he in fact did do].

Specter has long played the role of conservative toady in disguise as a moderate. I'm sure he began his career (long, long ago) as a moderate (fiscally conservative, social issues moderate), which played well with the Southeastern Pennsylvania electorate. With the rise of Reagan, then Bush, the GOP required fealty to its brand of conservative orthodoxy, and Specter complied. The result has been a mixed bag for him. He has alienated his true constituency, the moderate Republicans (and even some Democrats) who live in SE Pennsylvania, yet he is viewed with skepticism by the ultra conservatives, who don't believe for a minute that he's a true believer. And for them, merely following the party line is insufficient. You must be a true convert. So, as much as he scrapes and bows for the, Specter will always be another McCain to them -- someone you just can't trust.

He had a tough primary race during his last re-election campaign and this one may prove even harder.

This was shortly after Chris Matthews finally decided not to enter the race to challenge Arlen. After noting the number of potential Democrats who were voicing interest in the race, I then added:

Gee, maybe Specter will join that list, switching back to the Democratic Party, from whence he came. Now, that sure would make things interesting.

Of course, many others considered that option more recently, as it became increasingly clear that Specter would have a seemingly insurmountable primary contest, especially after the Pat Toomey jumped into the race against him on the GOP side. Dick Polman's piece on why Specter should switch teams in March was delightfully on target, in Arlen Specter's route to survival.

So, besides providing lots of fodder for the media (and bloggers), what does it all mean?

As Nate Silver of 538 put it, Specter's Switch More Insult Than Injury to GOP:

This strikes me as being bad news for the Republican Party more than it is good news for the Democrats.

Closer to home, Booman Tribune describes the Specter move, Thoughts on Specter:

We Democrats here in Pennsylvania know Arlen Specter's record better than anyone and you'll be hearing endless reiterations of his many sins over the next two years. I don't need to do that now. Suffice to say that most progressives in this state find Specter to be enormously frustrating. We do not dispute that he is what passes these days for a moderate Republican. We know that he has a good record on labor issues and that he is officially pro-choice. I know high level people in the teacher's unions that intended to re-register as Republicans to vote for him in the primary and then re-register as Democrats to vote against him in the general. Specter is not hated or despised by most people, but he isn't liked or respected either.

We were hoping to beat him in the 2010 election, not be asked to support him. I suspect most activists and progressives will simply refuse to work for his reelection and we'll probably get organized in the Netroots to do the best job we can financing an alternative in the primary."

On the other hand, Specter has been pretty popular in this state and I know many Democrats (and former Republicans) who are pretty happy about the change. As Steven Reynolds of All Spin Zone said, Snarlin’ Arlen Crossing From the Dark Side:

I understand Mr. Specter has promised to give back political contributions from supporters if they do not agree with his decision. Of the people I know who have given him money, I know of many who will be cheering this move. Yes, even some in my own household will be cheering.

In the end, I think he'll end up going back to being moderate Arlen, freed from the necessity of having to please the guns & Christ crowd. In that vein, I fully expect that, despite his protestations to the contrary, that he'll vote for the Employees Free Choice (Card Check), or at least vote for cloture. Please. This is Arlen Specter we are talking about. As I've noted many times before, he hasn't been called Chameleon, The Manchurian Senator, A Gutless Republican Worm and Wafflin' Arlen for nothing.

Quoting Booman Tribune's Quote of the Day:

Jonathan Chait:

"When a politician switches parties, it’s customary for the party he’s abandoned to denounce him as an unprincipled hack, and the party he’s joined to praise him as a brave convert who’s genuinely seen the light. But I think it’s pretty clear that Specter is an unprincipled hack."

But now he is our unprincipled hack.

And for the last word on this (at least for now), is Chris Matthews, who delivered a devastating analysis on Countdown:

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

That's Not the Way It's Supposed To Be

I'm sure mostly everyone has seen The Daily Show's interview of Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart by now, which had been hyped for some time and has been the "talk of the town" afterward.

As many people have noted, it was not at all what I expected. Based upon the build-up, I thought I might be a little like the Stewart-Colbert-Conan showdown from last year, with Cramer & Stewart tussling a little bit and then kissing & making up. Instead, it was a seriously pointed indictment of the genre, where the Cramers acted as cheerleaders for the market rather than providing the public an informative, watchdog role of Wall Street.

Here's the full interview:



The uncut version of the Cramer interview is a must see (rather than the Show's cut down version). Unfortunately, this interview may well be "Exhibit A" as to why journalism is fairing so poorly (even before the economic downturn). It takes a "comedian" like Jon Stewart to do the work of journalists -- print or otherwise. Newspapers have become scriveners, reprinting press releases, rather than providing independent reporting (calling out the prevaricators). And TV news? Pure entertainment. Not much difference between Meet the Press and Entertainment Tonight, other than the fact that one deals with Hollywood and the other DC.

Glenn Greenwald likewise remarks upon the fallacy of the financial reporting programs (which applies to straight reporting as well -- a la the lack of critical reporting in the run up to the War). When Cramer tries to justify his bad calls, saying he was misled by the CEOs of the companies, Stewart calls him on it, There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer:

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

As the LATimes observes in its aptly captioned piece, Jon Stewart can be funny -- until he's interviewing you:

Forgoing his typically caustic humor, a serious and at times angry Stewart eviscerated Cramer for jocularly discussing how to manipulate the stock market and slammed CNBC as an ineffective watchdog of Wall Street.

In the process, the host of "The Daily Show" provided one of those memorable television moments that distill the public mood -- in this case, angst about the economy's swift decline. Stewart also displayed the tough interviewing skills that belie his insistence that he's merely an entertainer.

* * * *

The much-hyped showdown between the two men grew out of a bit last week on "The Daily Show" in which Stewart satirized CNBC's coverage of the market as overly credulous. But by the end of Cramer's appearance on the late-night program Thursday, the episode was being cast as a triumph for Stewart and a public relations disaster for CNBC, which airs Cramer's show, "Mad Money."

James Fallows of the Atlantic declared that Stewart "has become Edward R. Murrow," while Rick Aristotle Munarriz of the investor website the Motley Fool concluded that "financial journalism's biggest celebrity looked defeated." Stewart even got a shout-out from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who praised him for asking "a lot of tough questions."

" 'The Daily Show' has delivered a reminder of the need for independent-minded journalism -- and in the process rendered CNBC a laughingstock to many casual viewers that might not have afforded the channel much thought previously," Brian Lowry wrote on Variety.com.

Stewart was certainly on target, as the Times noted:

Stewart, who pressed Cramer about comments he made during a 2006 interview with TheStreet .com in which he casually discussed how to manipulate stock prices.

"I understand you want to make finance entertaining," the comedian said. "But it's not a . . . game. And when I watch that, I can't tell you how angry that makes me."

Stewart acknowledged that his ire was aimed more broadly at CNBC and the financial press in general for not alerting the public to the market's highly leveraged structure.

"To pretend that this was some sort of crazy once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst," he said.

My husband, who has always considered my devotion to Stewart/Colbert to be odd, watched the Cramer interview yesterday and admitted that he had a new admiration for Stewart, as an intelligent, serious, compassionate journalist.

And thanks to Andrew Sullivan, he can peruse some of Stewart's other rants on the media, The Accidental Activist:

Jon Stewart has, of course, been on the warpath with his fellow media stars for many years now. A reader offers some helpful links: the Crossfire showdown, the Blitzer take-down, the worst interview in Chris Matthews' life, and the sinking of Jonah's whale. Good times.

I guess it just confirms why Jon Stewart has been considered one of the most trusted names in journalism. See Who You Gonna Trust?. He's earned it.

Dam Eagles R Screwed Up

As a lawyer who sometimes gets involved in employment law matters, a situation like that of Dan Leone could well end up on my desk. I mostly represent corporate clients, which includes counseling them about personnel issues. But I also do occasionally deal with issues on behalf of the terminated employee as well.

Dan Leone is the game-day employee who worked for the Eagles and was fired because he dissed the Eagles on his Facebook page for firing Brian Dawkins to the Broncos (along with the rest of Philly).

As was first reported by the Inky, Leone, a long time Eagles fan, had worked for the Eagles for 6 years as a game-day stadium employee at Lincoln Financial Field, despite his neurological disability that made his job as west gate chief difficult. However, as John Gonzalez notes, Cold Eagles sure are thin-skinned:

Last week, the Eagles fired Leone.

Like a lot of Philadelphians, Leone was upset when Dawkins became a Bronco. So he did what a 32-year-old does these days: He vented on Facebook. "Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver. . .Dam Eagles R Retarted!!"

It was a rash, stupid thing to do, and Leone regretted it almost instantly.

"I shouldn't have put it up there," Leone said. "I was ticked off, and I let my emotions go, but I didn't offend any one person or target a specific individual. I was just upset that we lost such a great guy. Dawkins was one of my favorite players. I made a mistake."

Less than two days after posting the Dawkins remarks, Leone said, he was contacted by Leonard Bonacci, the team's director of event operations. According to Leone, Bonacci said they needed to talk about Leone's Facebook page, and Leone agreed. Leone - who deleted the comment - figured that the two would sit down and that he could apologize to Bonacci in person. But Leone said Bonacci never got back to him after that.

Two days later, Leone said, he received a call from Rachel Vitagliano, the team's guest services manager. Leone said she fired him over the phone. The conversation lasted less than 10 minutes.

No warning. No suspension. No face-to-face meeting. Just a quick call to tell Leone he'd been terminated.

"I tried putting in my case to Rachel," Leone said. "I told her I worked there for six years. I did whatever they asked. I only missed one Eagles game the entire time I worked there, and that was because I'm a Mummer. I told her it was my dream to work for the Eagles and that I'd never do anything like that again."

Leone said Vitagliano didn't want to hear it. He said that she told him he couldn't be trusted, that the post made the team look bad, and that the only way to resolve the situation was to fire him.

Of course, the story has been picked by not only by the local news, but has been covered by ESPN and other sports outlets, like NFL FanHouse, making the Eagles look worse. They have been blasted for their heavy-handedness in dealing with this relatively minor matter. See, e.g., "I want Joe Banner and Jeff Lurie to fail" and You thought Brian Dawkins was treated rough?. Brendan Calling provides the most scathing take, in The Philadelphia Eagles Are Bums:

OK, let’s review the Philadelphia Eagles for a few minutes, shall we?

Here’s a team that last won the Super Bowl… oh, right. They’ve NEVER won a Super Bowl.

The head coach embarrasses our city with his “family in crisis”, his home characterized as a “drug emporium” by the judge handing down sentencing. Later, one of the kids, britt, was busted for violating his bail violation…wait for it…”after police said they found 33 pills, including the painkiller hydrocodone, on him.” The other, Garrett, got sent up to the state pokey for smuggling 81 pills into the county lockup.

We all know that Philadelphia loaned the Eagles $8 million bucks when their chips were down. But when it came time to pay back, the Eagles came up with all sorts of excuses.

* * * *

The Eagles are the team that doesn’t care. Thanks for the $8 million Philly, now go fuck off. Hey Dan, thanks for making us look good for six years and working your ass off even though your legs are messed up, now go fuck off. Thanks for the stadium taxpayers, too bad we can’t actually win anything, so fuck off.

Bums. Nothing but a bunch of bums.

The case has also been picked up by several employment law blogs, since it raises an issue that's addressed by more & more by lawyers. As noted by the Ohio Employment Law Blog, Employee disloyalty and Facebook:

All over the Internet, the Eagles are taking a beating for Leone’s. For example, according to an ESPN.com poll, 80.5% believe the Eagles were not justified in firing Leone.

Let me take the other side. It may seem heavy-handed for the Eagles to take a stand against a part-time seasonal employee. If an employer wants to effectively enforce policy, it has to do so across the board. The Eagles are sending the message that it will not tolerate its employees publicly making negative statements about the organization. While some will consider it unfair for this message to be sent at Leone’s expense, this employer will be better served the next time, when it is a high level front office employee instead of a part-time stadium employee. In employment law, consistency is key, and to be consistent, someone always has to be first.

See also, Eagles Employee Gets Benched for Comment on Facebook Page.

This may be true generally, but this case is a tough one from the perspective of what's off limits for an employee to be able to express an opinion about. Leone's comments, while referring to the Eagles, weren't really about the team in the employer-sense. He wasn't discussing the team in a work-related manner -- his comments related to the Eagles from the perspective of a fan.

Obviously, we don't have all of the information about the matter, since the only official word provided is: "Through a representative, the Eagles said, "The only information we can share is that Dan was a seasonal game-day employee and not a full-time member of the Eagles staff."

Yet, based upon what wasn't said here, I also wonder whether the Eagles had a clear policy delineating what is considered to be inappropriate work-related comment related to use of social networking sites -- as to content related to work vs. content related to personal life. See Lawful Mining of Blogs on Social Networks. That is, the representative did not say that Leone had violated clear company policies, instead they said he was a seasonal part time employee. In other words, he was an "at will employee" who could be terminated at any time -- and they did it because they didn't like what he said, not because he was violating any rule. Certainly permissible, but clearly it was an overreaction to the "offense." In some sense, it's poetic justice that they are now getting a public dissing -- which is precisely what they were trying to avoid.

And the over-the-phone termination? What school of personnel management ever let that one get by? The only thing that could have been worse would have been to do it via email. The HR person who allowed that to happen is the employee who should be terminated, not Leone.

Snark Attack

I'm all for sarcasm or snark, as its called on the blogs. Lord knows I've been known to indulge in a bit of snark myself on occasion (OK, maybe more than occasionally).

However, Maureen Dowd is swimming in it. Drowning, in fact. The problem is that its seem to have become the only stroke she knows. Her latest piece, Should Michelle Cover Up?, is a smorgasbord of snark. Starting from the mistaken premise that she is a "journalist" (lets try columnist or pundit), she jumps from a riff on Obama's treatment of the new British prime minister to a critique of Michele Obama's attire and physical appearance.

Although it is almost difficult to tell (if you can actually make it to the end of the column), Dowd in fact ends on a positive note regarding Michelle Obama. The problem is that it's buried in all the unnecessary snark:

She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flare is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.

Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it. Unlike Hillary, who chafed at the loathed job of first lady, and Laura, who for long stretches disappeared into the helpmeet role, Michelle has soared every day, expanding the job to show us what can be accomplished by a generous spirit, a confident nature and a well-disciplined body.

I also have no doubt she can talk cap-and-trade with ease and panache.

I think someone needs to buy her a copy of David Denby's book, Snark. He must have had Dowd in mind when he wrote the book, which describes Snark:

What is snark? You recognize it when you see it -- a tone of teasing, snide, undermining abuse, nasty and knowing, that is spreading like pinkeye through the media and threatening to take over how Americans converse with each other and what they can count on as true. Snark attempts to steal someone's mojo, erase her cool, annihilate her effectiveness.

Describing Dowd's column, Booman Tribune puts it so aptly: "I have no words."

And, I suppose I'm being snarky about the whole thing.

Let's Just Abolish It

Via Quaker Dave, I learned that today is Abolition Day (no we're post-racial now, remember, so I'm not talking about that). It's International Death Penalty Abolition Day, as observed by the Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty:

March 1, International Death Penalty Abolition Day, marks the anniversary of the date in 1847 in which the State of Michigan officially became the first English-speaking territory in the world to abolish capital punishment. It is a day to remember the victims of violent crime and their survivors; it is a day to remember those killed by state sanctioned violence - guilty or not- and their survivors; and it is a day for intensified education and action for alternatives to the death penalty.

A recent example of the need to eliminate the death penalty is the Troy Davis case, which I've written about before. In Hold On, I wrote about the Georgia man who has been on death row for 17 years for the murder of a police officer. With compelling questions raised about his guilt or innocence, after the US Supreme Court declined to issue a stay, the Court of Appeals stayed the case shortly before he was scheduled to be executed. The case was argued before a three judge panel of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 2008 and a decision whether to allow a new rounds of appeals on the question of Davis' innocence is still pending. Troy Davis Makes Case for New Round of Appeals.

Amnesty International has created a video in conjunction with Indie rock group State Radio about the case:



Unlike the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese, who is more interested in stifling dissent than promoting the Church's teachings (other than his pet projects), the Archbishop of Atlanta has been an outspoken advocate against the death penalty. Speaking before an audience at Emory University, Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory remarked:

“The Catholic moral tradition shows an unambiguous preference to preserve life even when the order of justice is threatened and the safety of innocent life is at stake. While acknowledging the moral and legal prerogative of the state to execute criminals in strictly limited circumstances, the church pleads for restraint in the exercise of that prerogative. The moral requirement to protect the innocent stands alongside the imperative to stem the cycle of violence that keeps individuals and communities enslaved to vengeance,” he told the rapt audience.

The archbishop noted that since the 1970s, when the death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. bishops have issued statements against the death penalty at least four times.

* * * *

The late pontiff [John Paul II] claimed that the death penalty is “morally permissible only in those rare instances where it would not be possible otherwise to incarcerate someone safely and keep them from harming society.”

And today “such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent,” Archbishop Gregory said.

Sounds pro-life to me.

The Intolerance Institute

Thankfully, I left the Catholic Church many years ago, so I don't have to witness first hand the sadness that is emanating from the destruction of the Church wroth by the likes of Bishop Martino of Scranton.

Having been born & raised in Scranton (accompanied by a Catholic School education from Kindergarten through Law School), I did think that there was one major advantage to my education. The benefit of spending grade school with the sisters would permit me to tell funny stories of having been taught by the nuns -- and Lord knows, there are many of those to tell. No More Patent Leather Shoes. In fact, my colleagues in the LLWL Gang, who are religiously diverse, got to hear the Catholic girls explain Pagan Babies at lunch the other day.

Yet, the Church of today, ruled by scolding dictators with vanity, intolerance and charity for none has superseded those fond memories, leaving a vile taste behind.

Once again, the Bishop of Scranton, Joseph Martino, has reared his ugly head to cause dissension, anger & pain among his flock. I have written of him many times of late, chronicling his dastardly deeds "in God's name." One of those dealt with his displeasure with a local Catholic University who permitted a civil rights activist, who happens to be gay, to speak at it's annual Black History event. See Sinful in Scranton. As the Scranton Times reports, Bishop Martino targets Misericordia University Diversity Institute:

Bishop Joseph F. Martino is calling on Misericordia University to “seriously consider discontinuing its Diversity Institute,” which hosted a gay-rights speaker earlier this month.

The bishop has publicly criticized the appearance of Keith Boykin, a best-selling author, television commentator and founder of the National Black Justice Coalition. Now Bishop Martino wants to ensure other speakers like Mr. Boykin do not receive a platform at Misericordia again.

Boykin, who is black as well as gay, was there as part of the school's Black History Month celebration and his focus was on black history, not on gay rights.

Lest there be any misunderstanding about Martino's intention, he wants it to be clear that he does not believe in diversity, if it does not comport with his view of the Church's teachings:

In a statement released by the Diocese of Scranton on Tuesday, the bishop conveyed that students should learn respect for all races and cultures, but viewpoints in opposition to Catholic teaching should not be presented “under the guise of ‘diversity.’ ”

“Doing so within a formal structure sanctioned by the institution gives the impression that these viewpoints are acceptable, or that all morality is relative,” the statement read.

The bishop is “asking Misericordia to seriously consider discontinuing its Diversity Institute” and also wants the school to prove its efforts in teaching Catholic morality regarding sexuality and homosexuality — including naming courses, content and catalog numbers.

Let the Inquisition begin! Martino also chose to issue his edict to the school by means of a press release, rather than by notifying the college first:

In a statement released by Misericordia on Tuesday afternoon, the university said it has “been committed deeply to its Catholic mission and the teachings of the Catholic Church for 85 years” and that it “welcomes the opportunity to discuss these matters with the bishop and his delegates at their convenience.” No further public comment was made.

Misericordia, located in Dallas, is a Catholic-affiliated school founded in 1924 by the Religious Sisters of Mercy. It is funded independently and not run by the diocese.

I have it on good authority (unlike me, I come from a religious family) that Martino never discussed any of his concerns with Misericordia or the Institute before he issued his attack through the media. Not a meeting. Not a letter. Not a call. No need, since Martino doesn't believe in discussion. He speaks, others obey.

And what about this radical Institute that obviously needs to be reigned in, according to the Bishop? What incendiary things has this organization done in the past? The Wilkes Barre paper describes the mission, Institute has long track record of promoting diversity:

Since 1993, the Diversity Institute at Misericordia University has provided programming and seminars for institutions in Northeastern Pennsylvania to encourage people in the region to be educated about diversity issues.

Its director, Linda Trompetter, Ph.D., had no comment Tuesday about the Diversity Institute at Misericordia University or Bishop Joseph F. Martino’s call to shut down the program. Through the years, though, the Diversity Institute has spurred larger initiatives that have addressed diversity issues throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The Diversity Institute has presented at area businesses, government agencies, schools, universities and hospitals on issues ranging from sexual harassment, prejudice reduction and culture competence.

They’ve also presented programs on gender, religion, sexual orientation and class.

Each summer, the Diversity Institute hosts a multicultural summer camp for kids who live in and out of the area. The camp always ends with a picnic co-sponsored by the Wilkes-Barre chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

I have mentioned before that my hometown, and the surrounding area, was not exactly a beacon for harmonious racial relations. See, e.g., Oh, Dear Me and Can't Be Topped. So, one would think that an Institute that works to overcome those sentiments might be just what the region could use.

Yet Martino wants to do away with it? I guess his credo is a faith based upon Intolerance. Which Commandment was that?

The Conversation

I don't think this was exactly what Eric Holder meant when he suggested that a conversation about race needed to happen more often. See The Cowardly Nation.

According to the Madison County Record, Visiting utility workers harassed:

A group of out-of-state electric company workers helping restore power to Madison County residents were subjected to racial epithets and other forms of harassment while in the area on Saturday.

* * * *

According to Madison County Sheriff Phillip Morgan, the Pennsylvania crew, which had split into about three groups, had between 30 or 40 African-American workers included in the 100.

"Some kids were driving around them, waving Rebel flags and mouthing to them," Morgan said. "They showed some weapons and were supposedly intoxicated.
"That's just not right for those people to treat them that way. Those people came down here from Pennsylvania to help us get electricity back on, leaving their families behind, and this is how they are treated. That's just wrong."

An editorial in The Arkansas Leader also chides the rugged mountain county, Icy reception for repairmen:

Some 100 workers from Pennsylvania, about a third of them African Americans, came down to help the local electric cooperative restore power after the devastating ice storm last month took down just about every power pole in the county. They worked tirelessly clearing trees and putting up poles and lines in the ice and freezing rain to try to speed power to people.

For their trouble, they were harassed and threatened by roving groups of young men shouting racial epithets and pointing guns at them. The county sheriff said the young men would drive around the work teams waving Rebel flags and cursing the blacks. The workers were frightened enough to contact the sheriff’s office in nearby Washington County.

Madison County is all white.

The last time Madison County made national news was the day after the general election in which Sen. Barack Obama was elected president by a landslide. The owners of the Faubus Motel at Huntsville, named after the Arkansas governor who sent the National Guard to Little Rock Central High School to block nine black children from attending classes in 1957, took down the American flag the morning after the election and put up a Confederate flag. The proprietor said the voters of the United States had abandoned the principles of the nation’s founders in electing Obama.

These people will remain in the dark even when the lights are turned back on.

The Cowardly Nation

AG Eric Holder addressed his new colleagues in the Justice Department during a celebration of Black History month, remarking that we are "essentially a nation of cowards" with respect to things racial. It certainly captured everyone's attention, Holder: US a "Nation of Cowards" on Race Discussions:

In a blunt assessment of race relations in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people "essentially a nation of cowards" in failing to openly discuss the issue of race.

In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated."

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.

* * * *

The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

"On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad," Holder said.

I guess he didn't get the memo that black is in. He obviously needs to check his in-box more often.

My first reaction was that this was quite a change from the office previously held by John Ashcroft, who preferred to cover up statutes, and Alberto Gonzales, who preferred to cover up illegal deeds, rather than address uncomfortable truths, as Holder is doing. Whatever else we may be, we are surely a nation that hates hearing the truth about ourselves.

Of course, many people have interpreted Holder's comments to mean that he believes that white people have a problem with race. See e.g., Holder 'nation of cowards' remarks blasted, praised and Defining 'Nation of Cowards' Down. I guess for these people, "the nation" still only belongs to whites.

However, I don't believe that Holder was talking about those, on either side of the great race divide, who are closed to the conversation, since they would only hear their own words anyway. The monologuers never allow for an opportunity to listen and learn any other point of view. Without that, nothing will change, which is Holder's point. A prime example is the very Hardball show discussing the issue of Holder's speech, with Pat Buchanan & Michael Eric Dyson. Lots of words exchanged, but no discussion there. They each engaged in a strident monologue, yelling past each other. Although, as FN said, you have no doubt where Buchanan stands on issues of race. To the extent that there is a problem with race, for him -- it's all black people's fault. As for Dyson, he spent a lot of time pontificating, without actually saying a whole lot.

Nor was Holder speaking about racists, since many of those individuals have removed the white sheets & are fairly open about expressing their bigoted views (you know, 1st Amendment rights & all). There's really no changing those entrenched views.

Instead, as he said, he was talking about "average Americans" who hold no great animus towards those of another race, but are reluctant to discuss racial issues and concerns out of a fear of being misunderstood (and labeled racist), or even worse, being lectured about the other's point of view (along the lines of we're now post-racial, so give us a break, or the man has kept us down for years, so give us a break).

It's unfortunate that the media focus always has to look for & create a "stir the pot" controversy, even when there isn't really a pot there. As rikyrah of Jack & Jill Politics said, Holder's speech "was thoughtful, smart, historical, honest and contemplative."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News

See also, Jack & Jill Politics for a transcript of the speech.

I remember when I was younger being taught the old Maxim -- you should never talk about politics or religion (as well as sex or money) in polite company. I don't know that we, as a society, have ever gotten much beyond that. You can also add race to that list, as well as issues dealing with the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine (which I suppose could fall under the category of politics and/or religion).

I realize that my world is very different that that of most people. I live in a very racially, ethnically & religiously (& let's not forget sexually) diverse environment. My weeks (and week-ends) are integrated on many levels & I do engage in discussions on those issues on a regular basis (and live to tell the tale). I live in Mount Airy after all -- the liberal, hippie, Birkenstock haven of the world & I know my experience does not equate with other parts of the City -- or country. Yet, I also do know that the conversation can happen -- even with some humor on occasion, as Lewis Black notes about Politics & Religion:




Apply that philosophy to race & voila, as Gawker said: "Problem: solved!"

What a Loser

Listening to the Right, the Left and the Media, it is clear that newbie President Obama has made a royal mess of things already and the stimulus package he's planning to sign into law is way "too" (much/little, depending on your bent) to ever save us. In other words, he's a loser & we're all screwed.

Of course, after all of the agita expressed by the various factions, that's one way to look at things. On the other hand, after I heard that the bill had finally passed on Friday night, I said to my husband, I sure hope that he can keep losing like that. As the Washington Post put it, Obama Scores Early Victory of Historic Proportions:

Twenty-four days into his presidency, Barack Obama recorded last night a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure.

Echoing that sentiment, Steve Benen observes, A 'Hostoric' Win:

Looking back over the last couple of weeks, I've complained a bit about aspects of the economic stimulus bill and the process in which it worked its way through Congress. It's not ambitious enough. There are too many tax cuts. President Obama overemphasized bipartisanship. The White House lost control of the message. House Democrats made too many concessions. Senate Democrats made far too many concessions.

You get the idea.

But the Washington Post has a good piece today that adds some perspective to what's transpired in recent weeks. It's a reminder that while the trees have been frustrating at times, the forest looks pretty impressive.

And then Frank Rich provides his usual witty and on-point analysis, in They Sure Showed That Obama:

Am I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”

Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.

But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.

We're certainly don't know how much it will help (or, if anything can do it at this point), but at least he's determined to try. And, if it doesn't work, I'm sure he'll try something else, if he can, before the naysayers try to declare total defeat.

Either way, I agree with Obama's words that doing nothing is not an option. Here's hoping he can change what the Bush Administration has otherwise made inevitable.

What a Juddhead

So, some guy I never heard of before, Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire (who was picked by Obama to be Commerce Secretary), has decided he's had enough of the play nice stuff with the Democrats already and has withdrawn his name from consideration. Gregg Ends Bid for Commerce Job.

Why, you may ask? Good question. The reasons appear to run the gamut. Gregg's stated reason is that he realized he wouldn't be a "good fit" with the Obama Administration. Of course, speculation covers everything from bad vetting process, to the fact that he objected to the stimulus bill to problems with census policies. Now, I wasn't involved in the process, but you mean to tell me that none of these matters were issues he might have been aware of before he agreed to the nomination?

The only excuse that hasn't been proffered, as far as I can tell, is that he wants to "spend more time with his family."

But, what do you expect from a man who demanded a promise from the Democratic Governor that his senate seat go to a Republican (which was agreed to) before he accepted? Gee, if this guy was a girl, you just know that she'd be labeled a prima dona for sure!

I tend to agree with the analysis of Steve Benen, who notes, in What Was Gregg Thinking?:

Indeed, the whole thing still seems quite odd a day later. Two weeks ago, Judd Gregg really wanted to be a U.S. senator. Last week, Gregg really wanted to be the Secretary of Commerce. And this week, Gregg really wants to be neither. Something doesn't add up here.

Really. Really! As Benen explains:

But what remains unclear is what prompted Gregg to back away from a job he'd asked for just last week. The various explanations don't stand up well to scrutiny.

* It was the stimulus package: Key among Gregg's "irresolvable conflicts" with President Obama was the White House's recovery initiative, which Gregg apparently can't support. But this doesn't make sense -- the stimulus package was already under consideration on the Hill when Gregg sought and accepted the cabinet invitation. Indeed, Gregg had publicly defended the president's policy. If the plan was a deal-breaker, he wouldn't have agreed to the job in the first place.

* It was the census policy: This isn't compelling either. Gregg told reporters yesterday that the census "was so insignificant that he would not even address it," calling it a "slight" matter. The census hullabaloo was something of a canard anyway.

* It was pressure from the GOP: Gregg was, to be sure, pressured by Republicans on the Hill not to help President Obama, and pressured even more from GOP activists in New Hampshire, who saw his cabinet move as a betrayal. But with Gregg retiring in 2010 anyway -- he said yesterday he would not seek re-election next year -- why would partisan pressure affect him so strongly?

* It was the result of bad vetting: Some in the media have begun blaming the White House for the breakdown, describing it as another problem with the vetting process. This also doesn't make sense -- there's no evidence that Gregg's departure has anything to do with new information that vetters had missed.

* * * *

It seems like there's part of this story we do not yet know.

Andrew Sullivan suggests that it's just more of the GOP being itself. Partisan to the bitter end. According to Sullivan, The GOP Has Declared War On Obama. However, I have to say, I disagree with him in one regard. With the dire financial situation the country is faced with (ignoring who caused it), I'd have to say -- they've declared war on America, not Obama.

Ron Chusid of Liberal Values concurs, The Republican War on Obama (and America). As he says in a follow up post, Andrew Sullivan’s War of Words Against The Republicans:

It is one thing to oppose specific acts by Obama on principle, but many of us believe that the Republicans are opposing Obama’s acts purely because they want Obama to fail for partisan reasons, regardless of the harm this might do to the country. They believe that voters have such a limited memory that if things are bad they will vote Republican in the future, forgetting that in so many cases it was Republican policies which got us into our current mess.

They just hate our country if they can't get their own way.

The Alternative Invocation

As part of the Inaugural services today for the swearing in of President Obama, Rick Warren will deliver the invocation. Warren is a conservative mega-minister who spreads a message of God that is too often unforgiving and hateful. Of course, he is not alone in his religious belief and vision that is mean-spirited. These clergy preach a version of faith for the soulless.

Quaker Dave at The Quaker Agitator has set up a blog for The Alternative Invocation, asking bloggers:

We ask that you post a message of compassion, empathy, tolerance, diversity, and true Christian (or other) love to America. Post a message that stands in opposition to the messages that Rick Warren and those of his particular political persuasion use to divide our country.

Truly, the best Alternative Invocation is that of the Prayer delivered by Reverend Gene Robinson at the Lincoln Memorial.

And then there is this:



As we all know, the times, they are a changin'. Thanks to Blue Gal.

______________________

Anyone who knows me, knows that I'm not very religious. With that caveat in mind, here are my thoughts:

Hope & Change.

Those were the words upon which President Obama premised his campaign. Hope and change is what he promised us if we entrusted him with our faith in him to lead us going forward. Hope for the future and change in our ways.

Of course, many of the grave problems that we face today are the result of us having lost our way. Greed, power and self-interest became the mantra by which we lived. It has led to war, economic distress and a national depression in spirit and in deed. As we now know, that is not the way.

My prayer today is one of hope and change for the country, its people and its faith in God.

As the country has lost its way, so have many of its Churches. Religion has all too often become a microcosm of Wall Street, with a cross replacing the dollar sign. Greed, power and self-interest have replaced charity, mercy and love of fellow man.

Sermons of priests and ministers preaching that we judge our fellow man is not what God -- or Jesus -- asked of us. Forgiveness requires mercy, not condemnation. Dogmatism in the name of religion has fostered divisiveness and hatred. Christianity is no longer Christ-like.

I hope that we once again separate Church and state. As the country has been divided politically, so has the Christian religion. The Church has become as partisan as the nation. Politics is God, according to the sermons. We need change in our Churches and hope in our hearts and souls instead.

What is religion if not a belief and hope that we have the power to change -- for the better? Let us remember the true foundation of faith in God.

Love thy neighbor as thyself. Turn the other cheek. The meek shall inherit the earth.

Let us hope, and pray, for change.

That's All Folks

One.More.Day.

The Countdown to the end is over.

Political writer Dick Polman, who blogs at the Inky's American Debate, aptly scribed the final words for George Bush at Obit Magazine, No Glow:

The George W. Bush administration is slated to die by constitutional fiat next Tuesday, at the age of 8, after a long and debilitating illness.

Most Americans will either rejoice or voice relief. Some might even wish they could hurl their shoes at Bush's retreating helicopter. The former president will be interred in a suburban Dallas home, where, politically speaking, he is hoping to have an afterlife better than Herbert Hoover's.

The public's current anathema toward Bush is rare in contemporary history. Americans typically mourn their perishing leaders, even those who were not particularly good at the job . . . .

* * * *

It will take time to precisely pinpoint the nature of Bush's fatal illness, but most presidential health experts believe that it was multi-faceted psychological malady, a toxic mixture of hubris, arrogance, denial, excess machismo, and terminal prevarication.

There were, of course, extended episodes of robust political health, particularly in the days and weeks after the nation was attacked by terrorists; during the final runup to war in Iraq, and in the weeks following the invasion, when it is traditional for Americans to stand behind their commander-in-chief; and on election night 2004, when the president won the popular vote, a goal that had eluded him four years earlier. But his chronic illness, which afflicted him from the neck up, and which he nurtured among his top advisers, ultimately overwhelmed him. He spent most of his final three years on the wane - all the while insisting that it was his critics who were sick, not him.

* * * *

It is arguably bad form to speak ill of the politically dead, but certain statistics, from the realm of factual reality, do seem appropriate at this time. At the birth of the Bush administration, the jobless rate was three points lower than it is today; the Dow Jones average was 2,300 points higher than today; the number of families living in poverty was 1.2 million lower than today; the number of Americans lacking health insurance was 5.9 million lower than today; and the federal budget was $236 billion in the black, whereas it's $1.2 trillion in the red today.

Bush's political survivors include the members of the Republican party (271 House and Senate members at the dawn of the Bush era; 219 today), and his brother, Jeb, who still may nurture presidential ambitions, but who may find it difficult to bring the Bush brand back from the dead. There is no indication yet whether George W.'s soul will be passed to another politician, although some observers suggest that his basic approach, particularly the certitudes and propensity for denial, will be reincarnated in the form of Sarah Palin.

That great conservative Jon Swift also pens his treatise in honor of President Bush's Legacy: One of Our Greatest Presidents:

As I recently predicted, in few months, with the benefit of hindsight, historians will look back on the Bush presidency as an unalloyed success and consider President Bush to be one of our greatest presidents. Although the White House has sent around its own talking points highlighting the President's accomplishments, I don't think they go far enough. So I have put together my own list of talking points, which should convince anyone why George W. Bush belongs on Mount Rushmore, along with Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the other guy.

Swift reviews not-to-be-missed highlights of the Reign, covering topics such as:

After Hurricane Katrina President Bush kept our cities safe.

After the October 2008 stock market correction there have been no Great Depressions.

After Iraq and Afghanistan took a turn for the worse, President Bush kept us from losing any wars.

After Iraq and Afghanistan took a turn for the worse, President Bush kept us from losing any wars.

After divisive elections President Bush united our country.

After Abu Ghraib, President Bush reaffirmed America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions and against torture.

After 9/11 President Bush kept America safe from terrorist attacks on American soil.

And finally -- and fittingly -- from Political Irony, he recalls that days before Bush took office in 2001, The Onion predicted:

Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

* * * *

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

Who said he didn't warn us about the economy:

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

I guess we can't say we weren't warned. The Onion knows.

(Cartoon via Cam Cardow at Syndicam)