The other day, I wrote about my concerns about the Mad Mob that has appeared on the political scene, with its vitriolic, violent tirades, see Mob Rule. The Daily Show's Larry Wilmore provides some insight into its origins and puts it all in perspective.
During the reign of George W. Bush, there was always the hope that, as bad as things were (and they were bad), things would improve with a new Administration, if a Democrat were elected. However, despite the hope that ushered in the era of Obama, I'm now concerned that there are forces out there that are bound and determined to bring him (and the Democratic Party) down, even if it means destroying the country itself in the process.
As much as liberals hated Bush, there was never this obsessive, violent element that pervaded the political atmosphere, as is the case now. In fact, it's the next step in what used to be called the Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, it's been elevated to a new level. The intensity of the destructive impulse is frightening.
There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.
That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.
Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.
And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.
Krugman then asks the question that keeps appearing over & over -- what's it all about -- what is making these people so ugly and angry? His view:
That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.
And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.
Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.
Responding to a reader's inquiry about the depth of anger that emanates from the wingnuts about an issue such as health care reform, Steve Benen provides his answer, in What are they so mad about:
So why are far-right activists so apoplectic? Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform literally take to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislation that will help them and their families? President Obama supports an approach to health care reform that emphasizes competition and choice, doesn't increase the deficit, and wouldn't raise middle class taxes ... and conservatives are comparing the plan to the Nazi Holocaust?
B.A.'s confusion is understandable. I don't get it, either.
It's probably a mistake to lump all opponents of reform in together; different groups are fighting with different motivations. I tend to see them in five different groups:
* The Greedy: There's a fairly small group of people who profit handsomely from the broken status quo. Regular Americans are getting screwed by the system, but The Greedy are getting rich. Reform puts their profits at risk, so they're fighting back to protect their livelihood.
* The Partisans: If President Obama does what many presidents have failed trying to do, it will likely make him more popular and make his presidency successful. The Partisans care more about Republican gains than the national well being, so they're fighting to prevent a major Democratic victory because it would be a major Democratic victory.
* The Tin-Foil Hats: If reform passes, the government will kill their grandparents, create "death panels," lavish benefits on illegal immigrants, and mandate that ACORN volunteers live in your basement. The Tin-Foil Hats have active imaginations, and believe their own ridiculous conspiracy theories. They'll benefit from reform, but the voices in their head discourage them from believing it.
* The Dupes: Probably the largest group in opposition to reform, The Dupes tend to believe what The Greedy, The Partisans, and The Tin-Foil Hats have told them. When confronted with accurate information, The Dupes suspect the media, Democrats, and their lying eyes aren't to be trusted. After all, Sean Hannity wouldn't lie to them, would he? Like The Tin-Foil hats, The Dupes stand to benefit from reform, but are skeptical because they don't know who's telling the truth and who isn't.
* The Wonks: The smallest of the groups, The Wonks are conservatives who actually care about substantive policy details, have read the proposals, and believe there are better ways to improve the system. The Greedy, The Partisans, The Tin-Foil Hats, and The Dupes tend to ignore The Wonks, which is a shame.
James Zogby also provides insight into the psyche of the mob and his view on its source, in Danger on the Right:
There is a social movement stirring on the far right of American politics and it bodes ill for our future.
It is, in the classic sense, a movement, not an organization, with no coherent structure, no creed or litmus test for membership. Rather, it represents disparate currents, born of transformative developments and traumatic events that have impacted the US in recent decades.
* * * *
If the individuals involved in these currents have anything in common, it is that they are angry and alienated and have identified "government" as a source of their problems and, therefore, as a target of their wrath.
Behind all of this discontent, of course, are real problems. The economic crisis in America did not just begin with the collapse of the financial sector in the fall of 2008. For years now, the US economy has undergone a steady transformation. The loss of our manufacturing base has resulted in dramatic social dislocation evidenced by the collapse of many once prosperous and stable communities. As factories closed, not only were jobs lost and economic security threatened, but people were forced to move, neighborhoods died and families were at risk.
* * * *
And so here we are in the midst of a hot summer, with "birthers" fulminating about Obama's "foreignness," angry mobs breaking up town meetings, and polling numbers showing a deepening partisan divide across the nation.
All the while these events are unfolding, analysts and commentators are spending endless hours of airtime observing and pointing accusing fingers, without making an effort to understand how this came to be and where it can go. Some conservatives are surely at fault for thinking they can simply exploit this anger, turning it on and then off, at will. And some liberals, too, are at fault for dismissing the anger they see, suggesting that it is simply manufactured and artificial and, therefore, can be ignored.
I am reminded of similar developments that occurred in 1919 at the beginning of the "Red Scare." Then too, a national movement, fueled by fears of immigration, economic dislocation and wartime anti-foreign bigotry was exploited by some, ignored by others, until it got out of control, with lethal consequences.
If we are not careful and understanding, and if we do not start now, both to address this troubling anger and alienation, and to hold accountable those who are stoking the embers of discontent, we could end up in the throes of a full-fledged nativist siege that could tear apart the fabric of our nation.
And finally, in a recent appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Frank Schaeffer provides a warning about the coded call for politically motivated violence:
As often as it's now being observed and commented on, the degree of concern that is being voiced is universally the same -- that we are on the verge of a violent outbreak that could have seriously destructive consequences for the country. And yet, the fringe element of the Republican Party cannot -- or will not -- take steps to stop the siren call.
The jury is still out on President Obama, as far as I'm concerned. I must say that I really feel sorry for him. He's certainly inherited a hell of a mess from he who shall go nameless, so I'm willing to give him some extra "honeymoon" time before I decide whether he's all that or not. So far, he's been doing a decent job, except for some important issues, such as giving the antics in the US Attorneys office go, as well as some of his positions, such as on signing statements and state secrets. Ultimately, he's smart and reasonable, so I remain hopeful that things will go well under his leadership.
Of course, he went a long way toward getting in my good graces by taking the time to stop in the White House Press Room to wish Helen Thomas birthday wishes on her 89th birthday, which she shares with Obama:
Helen Thomas is definitely my favorite journalist -- and not just because she's Lebanese. I've been lucky enough to meet her a few times and we even compared jewelry:
I think I've lost my ability to make fun of my friends who read the Hollywood gossip rags. At this point, the only reason to be "reporting" on the latest Sarah Palin news is prurient interest in gossip.
Gyphen of The Immoral Minority proffers his theory as to why Sarah Palin quit her job as Gov -- it was a prelude to quiting her husband Todd and the state of Alaska. As Gyphen reported over the week-end, Sarah and Todd Palin are Splitsville!:
According to my source Sarah is finished with Todd and has decided to end their marriage.
She has purchased land in Montana (I wonder whose donations paid for that?), and may be considering moving herself and the children as far away from Alaska as she can get.
Do you remember all of that talk about her missing wedding ring during the three part going away picnics? Well it turns out that ring now sleeps with the fishes. Apparently in a fit of anger Sarah stripped the ring from her finger and tossed it into a lake. . . .
So it appears that the reason Palin has been so quiet, and has given her tweeting fingers a rest, is NOT because of any master plan, or carefully orchestrated new direction, but simply the result of the emotional stress that prevents her from communicating with her fan base or making any public appearances.
The Alaskan blogosphere is abuzz with rumors that Sarah and Todd Palin are divorcing.
AlaskaReport claims that multiple sources are suggesting this may be the real reason she quit her job as governor of Alaska. What, and not that lucrative book deal?
The reports note that the Palins were noticeably not speaking to each other at her resignation speech. Sarah also left without him and reportedly removed her wedding ring a couple of weeks ago.
The bloggers also note that Sarah recently purchased land in Montana and is considering moving the family there. Hey, Sarah Palin is originally from Idaho. Hmm.
And Todd told Fox News recently that he was heading back to his job in the oil fields of Alaska. What about Sarah's book deal, reportedly worth $11 million? Surely he doesn't have to work that hard.
The Huffington Post notes that the Palin camp has issued it's denial of the rumors, Palin Camp Slams Divorce Rumors: They "Remain Married": "Sarah Palin's spokeswoman is shooting down reports that the former Alaska governor and her husband, Todd, are seeking divorce."
Of course, the denial is the usual non-denial, denial. That is, saying that the Palins "remain married" isn't saying a whole lot. Until they officially split or divorce, they remain married. And although a number of bloggers reported the rumors, it wasn't picked up by any news outlets. However, once the denial was issued, the press was free to report the fact of the rumors. As the Politico notes, Sarah Palin beats press to blog claim:
Sarah Palin’s spokeswoman Saturday took the unusual step of posting a statement on Facebook denying an anonymous blog report that the former Alaska governor was getting a divorce and moving to Montana.
* * * *
Actually, no journalists had reported the allegations. They were made on an Alaskan blog called “The Immoral Minority,” and then repeated on other blogs, including Gawker, a well-trafficked New York gossip site.
* * * *
By having her spokeswoman repeat the charges to rebut them in a public form, Palin effectively guaranteed coverage from the mainstream media that otherwise would not report claims attributed to unnamed sources on an anonymous blog.
And, because it's Sarah the P who's involved, it has to go all the way. Her lawyer then proceeded to send a threatening cease & desist letter to the blogger who first wrote about the rumors, Palin lawyer threatens to serve papers at kindergarten, then balks, thus insuring that the story will get even more press.
Summing all of the swirling Palin rumors up, AKMuckraker observes, Palins to Divorce?:
In addition to the divorce allegations, which state that Palin's wedding ring, conspicuously missing from her finger recently, now resides at the bottom of an unnamed Alaskan lake, IM reports that 'explosive' news in the form of a recent Levi Johnston interview with Vanity Fair, is due out in October. Also reported is that Levi Johnston's mother Sherry Johnston, who stands accused of drug charges in Wasilla, had her sentencing moved forward from yesterday's scheduled date to August 19. Although attorney Rex Butler stated the delay was requested to allow for specialized medical treatment plan to manage Johnston's chronic pain from back surgery, the blogger claims the delay will allow negotiations which were not possible under the Palin administration. IM's sources say that Palin as governor was pushing for the maximum possible sentence, and that the new Parnell administration is not.
This is but the latest chapter in a contentious relationship between Palin and local bloggers. Within hours of the first blog post, the rapidly spreading story prompted a harsh response on Facebook from Palin's spokeswoman Meg Stapleton of SarahPAC denying at least some of the allegations in the story.
After Palin's resignation, the Politico wrote a piece on the bloggers who covered her every move, wondering what would become of them now that she's gone from the scene. Exiting the Sarahsphere. Like me, they were sorely mistaken on the longevity of Sarah, the No-Be-Gone.
The continual saga of Sarah the P gives me an excuse to post this gem from The Daily Show:
On a lighter note, the Sotomayer hearings weren't all the stuff of old white men wearing their victimhood on their sleeves. There were a few memorable moments.
Remember that scene in Annie Hall where the Alvy and Annie are waiting in line at the movie and Alvy is going nuts listening to the pontificating blowhard going on about Marshall McLuhan and then Alvy pulls McLuhan himself out from behind the movie poster to tell the guy he's an idiot. Not quite identical and Sotomayor could have driven the point a bit harder but Judge Sotomayor managed to pull off something like that.
I'm sure it's no surprise that the subject matter of my first return post is Sarah Palin. Like me -- she's back! A few friends & blogging buddies have emailed me, wondering why I haven't written about her Palinness.
I have to admit that I can't believe I'm still writing about Sarah Palin. It's amazing to me that she still manages to make the news with her royal rants on nothing. In fact, if our Palin-Be-Gone Wager hadn't ended in mid-March, I would have surely lost. Rather than a Palin Barbie, they should have made a Sarah Energizer Bunny.
Her Royal Governor, Sarah Palin, first made the news last week over her comments accusing the Obama Administration of trying to "control the people."
In a speech introducing Michael Reagan — the son of former President Ronald Reagan — to an audience in Anchorage, Palin warned that the government is planning to "bail out debt ridden states" so it can "get in there and control the people."
"Since when can you get out of huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt?" Palin asked. "It all really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this economic policy is explained."
"We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she said. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people."
"Some in Washington would approach our economic woes in ways that absolutely defy Economics 101, and they fly in the face of principles, providing opportunity for industrious Americans to succeed or to fail on their own accord," she said. "Those principles it makes you wonder what the heck some in Washington are trying to accomplish here."
As Crooks & Liars notes, "[t]here's something pretty weird hearing the term 'Economics 101,' being uttered by Sarah because she showed little knowledge of economics on the campaign trail." Even stranger is the thought that the Democrats are out to "control the people." Really? Does the Obama Administration want to dictate who people can legally marry? Are the Democrats the party interested in restricting contraceptives? Banning abortion? And remind me -- which political party has been wiretapping citizens? Infiltrating the ranks of war protesters to spy on legitimate activities? Let's talk control. Really.
Palin's Anchorage speech has provided much fodder, well beyond the usual Malaprops. She also applauded Michael Regan, son of Ronny, for his ability to "screw political correctness." See "Screw Political Correctness" -- Sarah Palin in Her Own Words.
And then, of course, was the kerfuffle over the fact that she plagerized several remarks in the speech. As Geoffrey Dunn at Huffington Post notes, Palin Lifts From Gingrich in Anchorage Speech, along with a side-by-side comparison of the offending lines:
Sarah Palin's speech delivered in Anchorage on Wednesday -- the one in which she declared "screw political correctness" and wondered why "we have to pussyfoot around our troublesome foes" -- repeatedly lifted from an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley without attribution.
While Palin twice mentioned Gingrich in the speech (she never acknowledged Shirley), she frequently mixed her own remarks about Reagan with passages that appear to be pulled directly from the Gingrich-Shirley article.
And finally, in one of her famous "will she or won't she" moves, last night Sarah Palin deigned to put in an appearance at a GOP fundraiser after playing coy for a while. Dana Milbank reports, in Keynoter or Not, Palin Steals Spotlight at GOP Fundraiser:
First the Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee was invited to be the keynote speaker at the party's annual congressional fundraising dinner.
Then she was not the keynoter, replaced by former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
Then she was invited to speak, again. Then that invitation was rescinded.
Then she let word slip out that she was unhappy about the whole state of events and was thinking of not attending at all.
Then -- after much public bickering between Palin loyalists and party officials -- she finally agreed to come, speaking slot or no.
As with everything Sarah, even her mere appearance at the event is the subject of controversy. Milbank says she was the center of attention at the event, while Politico says she was hardly noticed, Sarah Palin makes little splash at dinner:
Ending weeks of she-said, they-said drama, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin turned in a cameo appearance at the gala fundraising dinner for her party's House and Senate candidates in Washington Monday night.
But in spite of all the back-and-forth between her camp and dinner organizers leading up to the event, Palin's presence went little-noticed.
* * * *
If she hadn't walked quickly across the stage the outset and if her presence hadn’t been mentioned briefly in the remarks of some of the evening's speakers, it would have been hard to know that she had, in fact, shown up.
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.
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?
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.
"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:
This year, my essay focuses on a topic that I have been writing about quite a bit recently -- the "Pay, Pray & Obey" conservative contingent of the Catholic Church.
Most of my musings have been about the deistic doings of Bishop Martino of (my hometown) Scranton, who has single-handedly tried to make the Church a Division of the GOP by refusing communion to Scranton native VP Joe Biden and chastising Senator Bob Casey for paling around with Obama & Biden. He also threatened to lock the doors of the Catheral on St. Patrick's day if a pro-lifer (read that: Biden) was part of the parade, which is a huge event in the Electic City. And then, of course, he challenged a local Catholic college because it dared allow a gay man to speak at a forum (sponsored by the Diversity Institute, of all things) as part of its Black History celebration. See Diversity Defined and The Intolerance Institute.
Martino's views are not just a plague on the city of Scranton, but they speak to the issue of separation of Church & State. When religion requires strict adherence to its beliefs, how can members of a religion govern without conflicts between faith & law? Speaking of Martino's objections to Senator Casey, I observed in The Evil Lurks Within:
I also suppose Martino forgets that the main opposition to JFK as the first Catholic to run for President was that he would put his religious beliefs ahead of those duly enacted laws of the land. Notwithstanding his personal/religious beliefs, abortion is still legal in this country and as a Senator, Casey is obligated to respect those laws. And as for the Bishop, if Martino was so concerned about "life," where was he on the issue of the unjust war in Iraq? Is he working to end it? How about the death penalty? Nothing extinguishes life like the death penalty. And, let's not forget he is the Bishop in the Scranton Diocese, an area rife with gun lovers. Where does he stand on gun control? Does he preach to his flock to put down the guns? And finally, this is the Catholic Church we're talking about. How did he respond to the pedophiles in the ministry? I'm sure I don't need to answer these hypothetical questions, since the answers are obvious.
Conservative Catholics like Bishop Martino are more prevelant within the Church than at any other time in recent history. As such, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church personifies the importance of the Separation of Church & State.
Of course, the most recent example on a national level is the recent "controversy" over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama's to speak at its commencement. As I noted last week:
Religious extremism is flourishing and the inability to think critically seems to be a requirement for those religions.
In other words, according to this conservative Catholic contingent, no voice that does not comport with the orthodoxy of the Church should be permitted to be heard at all. Debate? Dissent? Not permitted. Rather, they dictate and the flock obeys. To hear other opinions might cause the faithful to question the rules. For this reason, thinking -- never mind critical thinking -- is heresy.
Pat Buchanan & Lawrence O'Donnell discuss (or, should I say scream about) the issue on Hardball:
Like evangelical Christians, the views of the Catholic Church have become intolerant to ideas that are not part of the dogma of the Church. On the one hand, I respect another's right to believe (even if I believe it is wrong). However, I do object to the insistence that I must abide by those opinions. And that is why religion needs to be kept out of the state. Unless, of course, I'm required to eat chocolate bunnies.
I know that this video is everywhere, but I had to add my own copy. Stewart at his best:
Yes, tyranny. A.K.A. our democratically elected President. You know what guys....I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you because ah...I've been there. A few times. In fact one of them was a bit of a nail biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes on the wealthy. Remove government's oversight capability. Invade a country that you thought should not be invaded but that's not tyranny. That's democracy.
See now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a s#%t taco. And by the way, if I remember correctly when a disagreement was expressed about that President's actions when ya'll were in power I believe the response was "Why do you hate America?" "Watch what you say." "Love it or leave it." "Suck on my truck nuts."
* * * *
For god's sake guys. You've been out of power for ten f*%#ng weeks. You've got a mid-term election in twenty months. Pace your rage!
When I first read this post, captioned "What a Twit" via How Appealing, my initial thought was that Twitter had invaded the jury room and had compromised deliberations.
The linked AP story made it sound like a juror had been twittering about the case during the jury's deliberations:
A building materials company and its owner have appealed a $12.6 million verdict against them, alleging that a juror posted messages on Twitter.com during the trial that show he's biased against them.
The motion seeking a new trial was filed Thursday on behalf of Russell Wright and his company, Stoam Holdings. It claims juror Johnathan Powell sent eight messages - or 'tweets' - to the micro-blogging Web site via his cellular phone.
According to the motion, one posting listed the company's Web address and read in part: 'oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.'
Another described what "Juror Jonathan" did today: "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money."
In his motion, filed in Washington County Circuit Court in Fayetteville, lawyer Drew Ledbetter wrote that the messages show Powell "was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience."
However, based upon later reports, it appears that the juror in question, Johnathan Powell, did his "tweeting" before and after the trial, not during. First of all, he sent out a tweet saying he had been picked for jury duty and had spent some time researching what's involved. Sounds like he was trying to do his civic duty, not compromise it. Afterward, he posted about the verdict. See Twittering Juror Explains Posts and An interview with the juror “who tweets”.
"Juror Jonathan" sent the following eight tweets out through Twitter before, during and after the case, according to the motion for a new trial.
Those messages were:
• "Well, I finally got called for jury duty. It is kinda exciting"
• "trying to learn about Jury duty for tomorrow, but all searches lead me to Suggestions for getting out if it, instead of rocking it"
• "I guess Im early. Two Angry Men just wont do"
• "Im the only one who brought toys: my laptop and a book"
• "I got selected!"
• "And the verdict is ... Penguin Eds can not make fries"
• "So Jonathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money"
• "oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter. http://www.stoam.com"
The fact that his ruminations about jury duty and the case itself came before and after the case makes all the twitter to be much ado about nothing. Just a bunch of twitter-twatter.
As Anne Reed, who blogs about juries and jury trials at Deliberation concludes, The One Simple Rule When Jurors Go Online, Powell's conduct didn't violate any rules:
He's right. There's nothing wrong with his 'tweets'. If we weren't so busy making the issue of jurors on the Internet more difficult than it needs to be, this story would never have gotten any play and Johnathan would be sleeping just fine.
One simple rule
Little band of people who read this blog, we can resolve this issue once and for all if we just tell every lawyer and judge we know that there is One Simple Rule for handling every case in which jurors access the Internet. One Simple Rule. Here it is:
If the juror had done the same thing off line, what would we do?
She reviews the circumstances of each tweet & concludes he's OK, since "after the verdict, he can say anything he wants to. It is, as they say, a free country."
And this gives me an excuse to post Jon Stewart's Twitter skit:
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.
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.
It's another Friday the 13th. Second in a row, no less. I don't think I'm even leaving the house today, just in case.
I've already had my share of bad tech karma yet again (with a dose of bad karma generally, for good measure). First off, my work computer died earlier this week (after my back-up program went on the fritz not too long ago). That same day, my iPhone was not working due to some technical problems AT&T was having in Maryland & Pennsylvania. I experienced intermittent service on a few other days as well.
To take my mind off things, I figured I'd turn my attention to one of my favorite topics -- my wager with one of the LLWL on the fickle fate of Sarah Palin. See Out of the Spotlight. At least on that front, my luck seems to be going my way.
Of course, as I mentioned the other day, the Bristol Break-up is all the news. One of the LLWL gang sent me a link to a gossip website, Crazy Days and Nights, which had its own take on the split, Levi & Bristol Break Up:
Come on. All of you thought Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were going to last forever didn't you? From what I have read today it didn't even last until the birth of their baby. It seems to have ended right about the time that Levi's mom was arrested for drugs. Since then, depending on who you believe, Levi and Bristol have been model parents and Levi has seen his son everyday, or you could choose to believe that the Palin family considers Levi's family to be white trash and so Levi is not allowed to have his son at his house. Or, you could go to the other extreme which is that Levi's family are a bunch of money hungry pigs cashing in on the Palin name.
* * * *
I think we all know they probably stayed together longer then they would have if it wasn't for being in the spotlight. I bet they had already broken up prior to the Vice President announcement because there are just too many stories about both of them cheating to not be believed. When it comes down to it they are just two teenagers who had a kid and broke up. Happens everyday. It just so happens one grandparent is facing serious time in jail for drugs and the other grandparent wants to run for President in 2012.
Now this little dust-up would ordinarily be of no concern to anyone other than the involved families, if not because of who she is. Since she comes from a "family values" conservative family, it has caused no end of glee in the liberal community, because it highlights the hypocrisy of the conservatives, who would have been all over Bristol if she were the daughter of a Democratic politico.
To temper that view, the great conservative, Jon Swift, counters that this is irrelevant, Why Bristol Palin Is Different, noting:
Why is Bristol Palin different? She is different because she is a conservative.
It's different when unmarried teenage mothers come from conservative, wealthy Christian families. Although it would be preferable if her child had a father, even a white trash one, she will still be able to raise her child with the kinds of values that liberals, poor people, gays and non-Christians would not be able to give to their little bastard children who are destined to become our future criminals. Why are conservatives so reluctant to point out this obvious fact?
* * * *
Why can't we unequivocally state there should be different standards for liberals and conservatives? One of the problems with liberalism is that they believe everyone is the same and that all morality is relative. But if there is anything that conservatives reject it is the idea of moral equivalency. When America tortures a terrorist suspect that is not the same as when a terrorist tortures someone. Killing civilians in a war or accidentally executing the innocent is not the same as abortion. Denying gays the right to marry is not the same as outlawing miscegenation. Giving corporations tax cuts is not the same as welfare. David Vitter and Larry Craig are not the same as Bill Clinton. Liberals are always trying to confuse us by making false analogies but conservative ideology is based on rejecting false equivalencies and making important distinctions. So we shouldn't be reluctant to say that indeed it is different when a conservative teenager has a child out of wedlock and an inner-city liberal teenager does. We should have the courage of our convictions and not play the liberal game of moral equivalency. Instead of trying to explain away Bristol's pregnancy we should be defending it, holding her up as an example of the difference between liberal teenage unwed mothers and conservative teenage unwed mothers. Because just as it is true that, as Richard Nixon once said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." when a good Christian conservative has a child out of wedlock, that means it's not immoral.
Certainly sums up the philopophy of the GOP correctly.
However, Palin the mother isn't looking so good right about now to the "family values" crowd, so she's nowhere to be found. That, to me, is the best part of the story, since it forces Sarah Palin to hide out -- just in time for our wager to be decided.
Finally, what really made my day was the Countdown piece on the Palin split up. Keith Olbermann may have clinched it for me, in this segment by saying that Sarah Palin has been off the radar lately:
I didn't want to let Black History Month go by without a mention. In honor of the month, who better than the Senior Black Correspondent for the Daily Show, Larry Wilmore (especially since I've looked to him before).
In his interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Wilmore discusses black history month, changing the name to which blacks are referred to yet again & his new book, "I'd Rather We Got Casinos and other Black Thoughts."
The Daily Beast also has an excerpt from the book, which looks at the issue of whether Jesus was black, In Search of Black Jesus. For many, the passage in the Bible that refers to Christ’s olive skin and wool-like hair is evidence. Wilmore has gathered a few additional clues. Among my favorite:
Clue #1: From the moment of the immaculate conception, the question of “who the baby daddy” was already an issue.
I’m not saying this makes Jesus black, but without DNA testing in his time and no existence of a Maury Povich show, this open question brothafies him in my book.
Clue #2: He was born in a manger because his parents weren’t allowed to stay in any inn.
Weren’t allowed because they were . . . you can finish it.
Clue #3: His cousin had the first hip-hop name: John the Baptist.
This is a good 2,000 years before Cedric the Entertainer.
Clue #4: He walked on water.
There’s only one reason he would choose to walk on water: Brothas can’t swim.
Clue #5: He spoke in pre-Ebonics.
Blessed be the poor, blessed be the meek, etc., etc. These were even called the beatitudes. That’s a double bonus. It takes the black familiar use of “be” and couples it with “attitude.” And this doesn’t even take into account all the begats.
Clue #6: He had a large posse.
Even by today’s standards a 12-man posse is pretty big. In fact, some suggest the word “posse” is derived from “apostle.”
Clue #7: He turned water into wine.
On the surface, this may not seem black but the original texts suggest he actually turned water into wine cooler. Obviously a brotha move. To further prove the point, “Blessed is he who wants to get this party started” was deleted from the Gospel of John at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D.
Clue #11: He didn’t have a job.
We all know Jesus was a carpenter but there’s no historical evidence to suggest that he ever had a job. Keep in mind, this was back in the day when everything was either wood or stone. It would seem to me that if you were a carpenter, you’d be turning down work pretty much your whole life. The fact that there’s no evidence Jesus ever had a job in 33 years can be attributed only to racism. No one wanted to hire a brotha carpenter.
Clue #12: He may have been involved with a white girl.
There’s a very large following of believers who insist Jesus and Mary Magdalene may have been married and at the least might’ve had an affair. Here’s my take. You’re the son of God, the prince of peace, the most important person to ever walk the earth and you’re black. Of course, you’re going to have a white girl.
Clue #14: Like Tupac, he became more famous after he died.
And also like Tupac, years after his death, fresh material is still being unearthed.
Clue #15: He didn’t get a fair trial.
Nuff said.
Clue #17: He rose from the dead in three days.
Why not two, or one, or instantly? Obviously, he was on cp time.
Clue #18: People wear bling around their necks in honor of him.
Even people you would not qualify as being particularly brotha-friendly honor a black Jesus in this way.
Clue #19: No one knows where he is.
He said he’d be back but no one’s seen him for 2,000 years. If this isn’t like a brother, then I don’t know what.
And for more Larry, there's his Talk of the Nation interview at NPR.
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.
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."
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!"
Senators McCain & Graham have been complaining that Obama hasn't lived up to his promise of bipartisanship, since he passed a stimulus bill that they didn't like, GOP senators say Obama off to bad start. Of course, the reality is that "he" didn't pass anything, Congress did, and major concessions were made to the GOP, which didn't make a damn bit of difference in the final vote. But, as we know, that doesn't matter to the Republican Party.
Instead, SNL's so-called parody of the GOP sounds a little too real -- that the Republicans are the party of opposition and nothing else.
I realize Bill O'Reilly's shtick is to mouth off, with as many vile and hateful thoughts as possible, but his gratuitous nastiness towards journalist Helen Thomas was truly despicable. Is there no minimum level of respect for anyone from these people? O'Reilly called reporter Helen Thomas the "wicked witch of the east" Monday night after Obama's press conference.
And then there was "Helen Thomas' fifteen minutes were up during the Lincoln administration," from Bernie Goldberg (whoever he is), who added: "It's time for Helen to find something else to do during press conferences."
As Bonnie Erbe of US News & World Reports describes O'Reilly, "an angry homunculus who's outlived his useful life span."
O'Reilly: The White House press corps looked intimidated to me... Except for that, what's her name? The old lady, Helen Thomas. [squawking sound]
Colmes: Is that your Helen Thomas impression?
O'Reilly: Yea! [squawking sound]
Colmes: I didn't know you did impersonations.
O'Reilly: It's like the wicked witch of the east! If I were Obama, I would've poured water on her, and she would dissolve!
Colmes: It's not nice to make fun of an old woman, Bill.
My on-line version of posting articles and cartoons on the fridge at the office, where I hang out, eat lunch (& sometimes work) with the LLWL Gang (Lady Lawyers Who Lunch, a/k/a my officemates).
Musings on politics, law, life & literature. Mixed with a little humor in between.
