Take on Robert Dallek’s An Unfinished Life

I finally finished Robert Dallek’s John F. Kennedy biography, An Unfinished Life (on Amazon, or your local bookstore). Took me a number of months to get through the 711 pages, but it was well worth the time.  For faster readers, it’s certainly not a burdensome book to read.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading this story, and Dallek did a marvelous job of taking me from the beginning of JFK’s life, through his early years in government, to the intricate details of his presidency.  I was lucky to read it at this point in history, where obvious parallels jump out between President Kennedy and President Obama, Vietnam and Iraq, and civil rights demands for equality.

An Unfinished Life is teeming with masterful use of the English language, by JFK, JFK quoting others, and Dallek himself.

Quoting Daniel Webster, Kennedy concluded, “Our aim should not be ‘States dissevered, discordant [or] belligerent’; but ‘one country, one constitution, one destiny’.”

First is a JFK quote of an earlier American politician, Daniel Webster.  Kennedy’s point is an important one:  even though the states are separate, we all share a destiny.  And that destiny is important to the strength of the United States.  In practical matters, the “powers not delegates to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  States can do things differently, but should still consider the interest of the country.

One critical journalist wrote:  “This man seeks the highest elective office in the world not primarily as a politician, but as a celebrity.  He’s the only politician a woman would read about while sitting under the hair dryer, the subject of more human-interest articles than all his rivals combined.”

This “critical” journalist’s comment is the first of many timely remarks with the 2008 presidential campaign and election just months ago.  As we all know, President Obama and his family were a sensation in the popular media.  He was the only candidate this time around to match JFK’s popular appeal.  In the end, his celebrity status probably helped more than it hurt (those few celebrity ads didn’t seem to inflict any damage).  Without debating Kennedy’s success as president, let’s accept that JFK inspired a nation and, at a minimum, governed and maintained order in the midst of many difficult situations and unexpected crisis, and set the nation on a path to important changes.  JFK used his celebrity status to win an election, and to maintain public support for his administration.  President Obama seems to be on the same path, and hopefully in the future we’ll see his celebrity status as an additional excitement factor to his presidency, and not the only thing to remember of the Obama Administration.

Chicago Daily News reporter Peter Lisagor and other journalists met with Jack in 1958:  They “looked at him walking out of the room, thin, slender, almost boyish really,” and one of them said, “‘Can you imagine that young fellow thinking he could be President of the United States any time soon?’  I must say the thought occurred to me, too,” Lisagor recalled.

Lisagor and his fellow journalists were, for JFK, in doubt of Kennedy’s abilities because of his “lack of experience.”  Again,  I hope President Obama can too prove early critics wrong, perhaps even more forcefully than JFK.

The Berlin Crisis as it evolved during the summer of 1961 was arguably the most dangerous moment for a nuclear conflict since the onset of the Cold War.  It tested Kennedy an effective balance between intimidating the Soviets and giving them a way out of their dilemma.

I found Dallek’s statement here quite powerful.  Of course this was important at the time because Kennedy’s struck the balance on the issue of nuclear conflict, a key issue for the continuation of the human race.  And more broadly, Kennedy’s mastery of maintaining a strong negotiation position without ceding ground while giving the Soviet’s a chance to change course without a shattered ego as a consequence is a lesson for all of us when facing any important issue.  Kennedy’s model demonstrates the effectiveness of giving your opponent an easy way out when accepting defeat.  It makes it more likely your opponent will concede.

All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyways  – Harry S Truman

Not JFK, or even quoted by JFK.  Dallek included this quote at the beginning of a chapter about called “The Limits of Power,” in which he addressed Kennedy’s trouble areas of health, womanizing, foreign relations, civil rights, “taxing and spending” accusations, among others.  As an avid outside observer interested in political and government communications, I find this quote exceptionally amusing.

“Civilization,” Kennedy said, quoting H. G. Wells, “is a race between education and catastrophe.  It is up to you in this Congress to determine the winner of that race.”

The argument for education couldn’t be stronger than to avert catastrophe.  One appropriate example for our time is global warming, and our need to better understand which of our actions cause the most damage and what we can do to repair current problems and reduce destruction in the future.

“The mere absence of recession is not growth.”

Again, timely for JKF and timely for us in 2009.  When we emerge on the economic charts from this technical resecession, we must be careful with policies and actions to ensure continued growth.  Obama’s choices to invest in new, green technologies are a great example of investing now with immediate returns of new jobs and more money flowing in the economy and later returns as higher efficiency and renewable sources save energy costs and the planet.

The speech was one of the great state papers of any twentieth-century American presidency.  Kennedy’s topic was the “most important…on earth:  world peace.  What kind of peace do I mean?  What kind of peace do we seek?  Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” he said, with the Soviets and China particular in mind.  “Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.”  In that one brief sentence, he dismissed both the kind of peace that would follow a cataclysmic nuclear war, which “hard-liners” in Moscow, Peking, and Washington seemed ready to fight, and the sort of peace a generation reared on memores of appeasement feared might come out of negotiations limiting American armaments.  This was to be “not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time”–the realization of Woodrow Wilson’s ideal, announced in response to the century’s first great war.

We’re not fighting Moscow like we were in JFK’s time, but we’re still concerned with Russian, China, and newer issues in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and much of the middle east region.  And Washington “hard-liners” still seem keen on more American fighting power across the world on some type of crusade (even if the hard-liners don’t do the fighting, or even send their own children, spouses, or friends).  From this, I see the importance of earning peace, not bashing it in.

“When the possibilities of reconciliations appear, we in the West will make it clear that we are not hostile to any people or system providing they choose their own destiny without interfering with the free choice of others.”

In describing Moscow and Peking, JFK might as well be describing Iran, China, and others in 2009.  While I generally agree with Obama’s response so far to the sham elections in Iran (I consider them a sham because some cities had more votes than voters…), I think JFK’s thought below must be our guiding principles.  So far, it doesn’t appear that the people of Iran chose their own destiny, but more information is needed.  (The fact that the Iranian government doesn’t allow journalists in or reports out doesn’t bode well for the regime.)

Of all the quotes, this is the last one I flagged in the book, and the one I think is the most timeless and important.

It was not that Kennedy was without larger hopes and goals–better race relations and less poverty in America and improved East-West relations, with diminished likelihood of nuclear war, were never far from his mind.  But it was the practical daily challenges standing in the way of larger designs that held his attention and seemed to him the principal stuff of being president.

This is an important lesson, that applies every step of the way.  From an animated entreprenour starting a new small business, to the President of the United States of America, one must have the knowledge in place, ability to learn, and the right supporting staff to even start to consider significant reforms.  Our most successful leaders in the next two centuries of America, like Kennedy, keep everything moving, but more than JFK, they will fully master the daily challenges and free their mind for the epic task of meaningful changes where they are most needed.

An “Experiment in Liberty” by Barack Obama and Representative Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty

I wonder how many people in America are still subscribed to Barack Obama’s email updates and Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty newsletter.  Seems like these two organizations should have checked with each other before sending out their Independence Day messages.  I guess at some point, we run out of standard political speak for certain events, and end up with two individuals, with very different views using the same stuff.

President Obama:

“Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, our nation was born when a courageous group of patriots pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the proposition that all of us were created equal.”

Representative Paul:

“On this day 233 years ago, our Founding Fathers stood up to the most powerful nation on earth and declared to the world that all men are created with rights that cannot justifiably be taken away by any government.”

Paul doesn’t waste any time getting to his political agenda.  The President is more subtle.

But the best part is their identical use of one phrase.

President Obama:

“Our country began as a unique experiment in liberty…”

Representative Paul:

“…they persevered in a hard-fought Revolution to create an experiment in liberty…”

As expected, the two diverge in the rest of their messages.  Paul states confidently that the founding fathers “would be outraged by how far the federal government has drifted from their vision,” and “ would be proud of our growing movement to reclaim the Republic they sacrificed so much to leave us.”  The president is vague in his message, sharing only the sentiment “As free people, we must each take the challenges and opportunities that face this nation as our own.”  He also uses the holiday to promote www.serve.gov.

These similarities are expected, but it was especially amusing to read them from Obama and Paul in the same fashion on the same day.
Happy Fourth of July!  233 years, and going strong.

Political offseason desperation means anything for a dollar

Lot’s of important issues out there, but perhaps America is a bit tired of fundraising and politics.  I can’t get enough of this stuff, but judging by the tactics of both political parties, it’s a different game than during the presidential election.

The Democrats offered dinner with Hillary Clinton, dinner with President Obama, and even a trip to the American Idol finale!  Mitt Romney sent an email requesting submissions to his “mini-essay” contest on “what a free and strong American means to you.”  Oh, and be sure to send a contribution to his Free and Strong America PAC with your 250 word essay submission (don’t bother counting:  it’s about the length of this post).

Is the need to fundraise so strong that it can’t wait just a few months?    Clearly our politics and money are wound too closely together if we can’t take sometime to focus on governing after an election before funding the next round.  This is a subtle but important reason why we need some changes in the way we fund our campaigns.  The best solution is still to be determined.  Balancing fairness in elections for an impartial government (the telecoms don’t just happen to donate to the members of congress who sit on the committees with FCC jurisdiction) with our first amendment rights to free speech, including the use of our money.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama taps major donors as diplomats (msnbc.msn.com)
• Gingrich’s First Advice for GOP: Fight for Nation’s Religious Heritage (usnews.com)
• Mitt Romney Announces Essay Contest, Which Will Be A “Game Changer” (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

Daily Show TV Thrash

Image via Wikipedia

The Daily Show on Monday was an equal-opportunity-media-thrasher.

First, Stewart went after Fox News and Sean Hannity for literally playing a clip of President Obama’s recent speech in Cairo and cutting off the president in mid-sentence.  Hannity tried to show what only he could have possibly perceived as Obama giving “a voice to 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage.”  The Daily Show simply ran the the rest of the clip to show the President’s true intentions.

This is the worst of the worst when it comes to biased and fear-driven reporting.  It’s not Hannity taking an action or a policy and offering his opinion.  Instead, it’s one man blatantly lying to the American people.  It’s a free country, and Fox News can play any clips it likes.  But we should demand better, and Fox should do better.

Fox News isn’t alone in biased coverage, and I’m the first to admit that there is a dearth of objective news coverage out there.  If anything, MSNBC is on the other side of the political spectrum, with equally ludicrous news coverage, and Stewart pummels Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed, and the rest of the MSNBC news crew for their incessant coverage of Rush Limbaugh (and his own ludicrous antics).

Let’s get the rest of the facts out there.  TV like this can be entertaining.  I watch MSNBC often during the week because I get to know some of the important issues out there.  But I realize that shows, especially those like “Countdown” are political entertainment–a show meant to inform and entertain–and not purely factually based.  The clips are meticulously selected to push an agenda, and the guests are treated based on their views.  And Jon Stewart is no middle-of-the-road journalist dedicated to the facts alone, but this clip is must see Internet TV.  It’s slightly ironic that a great reminder that Fox “News” and MSNBC often show entertainment rather than objective news comes in the form of a Comedy Central TV show billed as “fake news” that doesn’t dispute for a second that it’s main purpose is entertainment.  That said, it’s an important reminder, and a fun bit to watch.

Please enjoy the video below (apologies for the ads, but it’s free, and embedded–I’ll take what I can get).  If the embedded Hulu doesn’t work, click here for the dailyshow.com direct link.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

more about “Hulu – The Daily Show with Jon Stewar…“, posted with vodpod

Related articles by Zemanta

• Anchor Defends Limbaugh Coverage: “Do Not Try to Call Out This Network for Doing Our Job” (mediabistro.com)
• “Daily Show” On Coverage Of Obama: Fox News Stocking Up On Holy Water And Garlic (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• “Fox Uses Insinuation, MSNBC Uses Misrepresentation, and CNN, Desperation” (mediabistro.com)
• Jon Stewart Continues To Hammer Fox News For Obama Coverage: Calls Out Hannity For Unfair Editing, The Rest for Irresponsible Insinuation (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

“If God intended for us to eat creatures of the land, he would have made it bigger than the sea.”

“If God intended for us to eat creatures of the land, he would have made it bigger than the sea.”

The quote above was the first of many theories shared by a nameless gentleman I met today at the St. Anthony’s dining room in the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco.  The Tenderloin gets it’s name from the extra pay San Francisco police officers used to receive to take the patrol routes in the ever-dangerous neighborhood, which let them eat great cuts of meat for dinner every night.  The Tenderloin has a storied history of immigrant waves to the United States, rich with culture, but it’s also been the regular home of the under-class and the poorest of the poor in the city.

I followed the idea about the sea, but it got obscure after that.  The theories to follow today at lunch went from the “the time of female rule is now after 13,000 years of masculine rule” to “it’s the time of lightness as the head and tail of the earth coincide.”  The mind behind these theories belonged to an individual you might expect to find in free lunch dining hall in a charitable church in the middle of a neighborhood abounding with homelessness.  And this man was what you might expect:  kind, aware of his surroundings, but keenly focused on his astrological theories.

Needless to say, it was an eye opening experience to eat (free) lunch with him.  As the St. Anthony’s staff member explained, my generation is used to homeless individuals in cities across the country.  (To the staff member in his sixties, this was something still relatively new.)  But it’s obviously a different perspective when you wait in line with the folks carrying all of their possessions, and then dine with them in the middle of a basement dining room in a neighborhood you usually avoid.

What was most striking was not the astrological believer, or the men who grabbed food, quickly sat down at our table, and silently and quickly ate their meal without a word to the rest of us, or the elderly individuals who rolled in by wheelchair, but the men who made up the rest of our table for the entirety of our stay.  One man attended college in San Jose and used to work in technology before he retired recently.  Now he dines with the “poorest of the poor” in St. Anthony’s.  Who knows where he lives?  Another came from Boston to San Francisco years ago when his company relocated, and yet another college attendee (never mentioned whether or not he graduated) joined our conversation to swap San Jose stories with us.

These men had no theories from astrology books.  My conversations with them were like those I have with my family and friends.  We talked politics, sports, and San Francisco.  I expected nothing different from these men, but seeing and living it in person was a completely different experience.  I knew that not all homeless people in America were drunk or high all the time (especially in a time of recession), but the real conversations still changed my perspective.

Talk about the budget problems for California with both the guests and staff of St. Anthony’s strongly reminded me of our moral responsibility to our brothers and sisters, and of the awesome potential for their more direct involvement in their own larger community, from neighborhood, to city, to state, to country.  President Obama’s incredible life story from his childhood through his experience in low-income areas of Chicago to the presidency brought community organizing to the forefront.  (It even got play at the Republican National Convention, when Rudy Giuliani foolishly made fun of his work.)

Budget shortfalls in California are likely to close four senior drop in medical clinics and the only walk-in pharmacy in the Tenderloin.  If these closures go through, we all lose.  Morally and economically, these loses are dangerous.  But they hurt the people in that neighborhood the most.  And it seems like these people have many barriers to break through to get exert their influence on policy at all levels of government.

Most important, they don’t have the money that big corporations and even rich individuals have to support candidates and causes, and then request favors down the line.  Money is a tricky issue because of the conflict of our first amendment right to share our opinions, even if it means using our money, and the obvious perverse incentives that campaign contributions bring (see the relationship between donations and committee positions, but all of this is a topic for another day in the near future).

Furthermore, the individuals with the most to lose, are likely to be homeless and have difficulty even registering to vote.  Even working class Americans who have a home and are registered voters are hampered by the need to work long hours with no chance to stand in line.  Herein lies the potential for community organizing.  In his time in Chicago, Obama addressed important issues, such as low-income housing and job training in the neediest neighborhoods.  A similar approach in San Francisco, and other cities, could give a first-person, passionate voice to a cause that, even with strong advocates, is lacking influence.

I don’t know much about community organizing in the Tenderloin or San Francisco.  And I don’t think I’ll be leaving my job tomorrow to take up the cause directly.  From my six hour experience, and many hours of thought afterward, I have been reminded of the plight of homelessness in many of our great cities, and learned first hand, for the first time in a long time, that I can make a positive difference in the lives of many–including my own–with a small contribution of time, energy, and care.  I plan on going back to St. Anthony’s, and I encourage you to seek out a similar place to help.  Clearly, as you can see, a thought-provoking day.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Liberal San Fran Makes Social Service Cuts (abcnews.go.com)
• San Quentin Prison Sale? Inmates Say They Want To Stay (huffingtonpost.com)
• The right finds its new talking point (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Looking forward to San Jose in June (cloudofdata.com)

It’s torture!

Republicans went on the offense with Nancy Pelosi’s flap over briefings on CIA interrogation techniques.  Her explanation is certainly suspect, and it seems like she may not have acted in the optimal manner at the time to oppose torture as it was presented.  The Republican attacks on her are justified, and instead of denying, distributing specific talking points to make her case, and shifting the blame to the CIA, going as far as calling them liars, Speaker Pelosi should simply apologize for missing the opportunity to oppose torture, relay her thoughts at the time surrounding the classified nature of the briefing, and refocus the debate on the need to investigate torture and prosecute those involved.

But why the sudden interest from Karl Rove and others?  Rove wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal and stated “Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to ‘torture.’”  I can’t quite tell, are the single quotes around the word “torture” supposed to suggest a level of sarcasm?  Or is Rove serious in his accusation that Pelosi is an “accomplice to torture”?

I think Rove and the GOP’s plan is to connect Pelosi to “enhanced interrogation techniques” or torture so that if Democrats continue to press for prosecutions and strict limits on torture in the future, then Nancy Pelosi goes down with the Bush Administration.  Sounds like a trap so Democrats can’t win either way.  And given the Congressional Democrats’ devotion to their Speaker, the logic of the plan makes sense.

Hopefully we can keep the focus on the actual forces behind American torture, and skip the petty arguments over who-knew-what-when, or at least figure them out after we decide how high the torture authorization went with Bush and his team.  More important, it sounds like Rove and the GOP are ready to sacrifice their “ideals” for political expediency.  They seem ready to admit that “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture, as soon as they can be sure Pelosi is at fault (in addition to themselves).

Republicans played a risky hand.  If it works, we might slowly see torture discussions fade into the background.  But if Democrats don’t back down, as they shouldn’t, torture-supporters lost credibility.  The debate about “enhanced interrogation techniques” just ended.  Seems like we all now agree that inflicting pain on an individual where the pain isn’t punishment but rather designed to coerce cooperation–whether by water-boarding, forced standing, or pulling fingernails–is torture, to the “t”.

Bike to work, then zip around

Nice NYT article to follow-up the last entry here about cycling and other sustainable transportation options.  This article specifically focuses on car sharing at work, which allows employees to take public transportation, shuttles, bike, or carpool to work, and still travel the area with the flexibility of an individual car.  This works great for doctors appointments, last-minute trips, and errands in the area.

Car sharing systems at work also include two of the most important elements of all car sharing:  environmentally friendly options, such as the Prius or Ford Escape Hybrid, and many vehicle options, including vans, trucks, and fun cars.  Car sharing at work is a big step towards changing the paradigm of a society where a personal car for every person is the only way to go.

Awesome global cycling progress

Looking first overseas, the New York Times today covered an interesting “niche” community, and their car-free suburb. Vauban, Germany, is a new model community for those looking to live healthy lives for their bodies, their families, and our earth.  Cities cannot simply banish cars.  Rather, Vauban built it’s community around the concept, locating stores, schools, community centers, and other popular destinations within residential areas.  Read the full article for all the details about living in a car-free zone, and all of the relevant environmental impact issues, including global warming from our automobile emissions.

The article mentions a trial run of this concept in America.  One settlement in California might work well, but I’m not optimistic about wide-spread adoption in the near future.  But we can still learn something from the car-free philosophy and borrow some workable elements to integrate into our society.

For example, many cities, San Francisco included, hold car-free days on main roadways.  In San Francisco, “Sunday Streets” happens about once a month in the summer months, and rotates through numerous locations in the city.  In our world where most take cars for granted, streets full of bikes, joggers, walkers, skate boarders, roller bladers, kids playing, and people from all walks of life enjoying the outdoors together on our roads is a beautiful and welcomed site.  Other cities hold similar events, and we should work to expand the distance, time, and frequency across the country.

City living has many benefits, including public transportation and walkable distances that don’t need a car.  In fact, in many cities such as San Francisco, traffic and parking costs are strong disincentives to vehicle ownership.  Many people, including myself, get by easily with membership in car sharing programs, like Zipcar.  I miss having a car to call my own, one that I’m used to.  But the benefits far outweigh the costs.  My transportation budget for cabs, buses, and the occasional Zipcar is tiny fraction of what it would be to own a car.  On top of that, I rarely worry about parking, and when I do drive, I drive a Mini Cooper or BMW 325i.  To take my bike into the shop or pickup furniture I zip around in a CRV or pickup truck.  The flexibility for less money can’t be beat.

Again, Zipcar and other companies serve many cities, and we can expand the availability.  Government at the local, state, and federal level should encourage use by designating more reserved spots nad providing some level of financial incentives.  In smaller towns, where it’s difficult to place cars near mass living areas, cities should work with car sharing companies to locate fleets near universities, downtown areas, and transit hubs.

Closer to home, Colorado seems poised to enact new legislation that puts cyclists rights in the law books.  The Colordao Springs Gazette reported yesterday that Governor Bill Ritter plans to sign Senate Bill 148, aimed at “protecting cyclists.”  Specifically, the law drivers give cyclists at least three feet of space when passing or risk a $110 ticket.  Anyone who throws an object at a cyclist could be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor. That carries a fine of between $250 and $1,000 and a possible sentence of three to 12 months in jail.” (Colorado Springs Gazette)

It’s sad that we need new laws like this, because we should treat cyclists with the same respect we treat other car drivers, and laws like this should already be enacted nation-wide.  But, every step forward helps.  Sharing the road is something no one wants.  When driving, I don’t want to watch for cyclists shooting out in front of me or out of driveways, and more important, when cycling, I don’t want to deal with cars.  While on the street, I always ride with some level of fear that diminishes the fun of the bike.

Nevertheless, sharing is something we have to do.  We can build more bike paths and bike lanes on existing roads, but in many cases, the best practical improvement is sharing.  To get better sharing, we will need better signage and better laws.  The Colorado law is essential because it explicitly states that cyclists have rights on the road, and infringements of those rights are not taken lightly.  And they shouldn’t be; following another car too close can certainly cause damage, but it’s nothing compared to an Escalade-cyclist crash.

Improving cycling around the world is great progress towards a more healthy, sustainable, and safer world.  And a reminder:  Thursday is “Bike to Work Day.”  Dust off the bike, fill up the tires, and enjoy the beautiful outdoors on your normal commute.  No complaining; I doubt you have to ride father than I do.

Slate Magazine does Obama’s 100 days right

This is old news (100 days was April 29, 2009), but if you didn’t see “100 days of Barack Obama’s Facebook news feed” by Slate, you need to.  Some of my favorites:

“Michael Steele created the group R to the N to the C.”

“Joe Biden completed the quiz Which sexy man are you? with the result ‘Joe Biden.’”Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal:  “Why hello! Didn’t see ya there. So what’s the deal with volcano spending??
Say, wanna ride in my ice cream truck?”

The 100 days metric is a nice number to look at and talk about, but seems a bit silly.  Even after a full 100 days, some cabinet positions are still open.  Many more lower, but still senior roles are unfilled.  How can you really judge an administration that doesn’t even have all the pieces yet?  To compare, what would we say now about Bush’s first 100 days?  (Say, CNN for example.)

In any case, Slate did it right, and had some fun.  Click the image for the entire 100 days as a Facebook news feed.

Click image for full feed on Slate.com

Amusing confusion

Found this amusing user-submitted observation on Talking Points Memo:

Can’t have it both ways.  This contradiction, and the rest of the “anti-logic” propagated by Fox News, conservative commentators, and leading Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, show that opposition to Obama isn’t to protect America from fascism or socialism, but rather chaotic mess of complaints from folks hoping the president fails no matter what he does.

The opposition forces are taking extreme liberties with proposed policies and using terms like “socialism” and “fascism” to scare Americans.  This “plan for failure” is the new politics of fear.

Obama, Un-levened

Great Daily Show clip here about Obama and religion, specifically about Judaism and the Pesach seder.  This is a serious topic; many folks in America are likely upset that Obama said we are “not a Christian nation.”  I think it’s important that we are a nation of believers, but we all believe in different things, and we are in fact far from a Christian nation.  It is also nice to have a few laughs, even at a serious topic.  Be sure to watch Aasif explain the President’s questions on some “basic stuff” about the holiday meal starting at the 3:50 mark.

Respect.

I just caught up on the Daily Show from last week, and really enjoyed this clip.  Here, Jon plays the usual hand-picked snippets from right-wing shows (mostly or all on Fox) discussing America’s shift towards “fascism” and the need for us to fight the “tyranny.”

The original content of the Fox shows is frustrating.  This is the opposite type of discourse that will help us change for the better.  This is exactly the type of discourse that fuels personal attacks, instills fear into Americans, and derails any productive debate.  Instead of hounding Obama with, what I sincerely hope must be propaganda (listen to Representative Bachmann reference re-education camps to learn what the government wants you to learn and the crazy-haired gentleman’s complains about “potato day”), these people should state their objections to his policies, offer a different solution, and move on.

For example:  “I believe President Obama’s plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq will destabilize the country.” Or, “I disagree with the President’s plans to eliminate non-torture enhanced interrogation techniques because I think that will reduce our chances of finding terrorists.”

Even in that second example, where there is significant evidence that torture didn’t help find any terrorists or provide any other useful information, and where the comments have a hint of the politics of fear, they are at least true policy discussion.  But no where do you find a reference to a government that seeks to oppress any criticism or opposition or a leader who places his own interests ahead of the people’s.  The rants of Bachmann and others are the ultimate divisive tool.  Bachmann in particular seems to thrive on radio and TV coverage of her pulling America apart like ripping a shirt down the seam.

Like everyone else, I view this commentary through a biased prism.  And I admit, that during the Bush Administration, I was on board with some serious criticism of President Bush’s abuses of power and what I saw as irrational policies.  But, from the beginning through the end, I tried to stay respectful and keep in mind that George W. Bush was a person, but he was also our President.  The office of the President was bigger than Bush, is bigger than Obama, and will always stay larger than the man or woman who holds the title.  On his last day in office, the excitement I felt at Inauguration was tempered only by the disrespect of citizens in attendance at the ceremony who jeered and booed former President Bush as he flew away in a helicopter known as Marine One when the president is on board.  I was glad to see him go, but it was inappropriate.

You should also watch this clip because, if you share my thoughts, Jon’s brief and controlled rant will bring some comfort.  Many of us, and we grew in number over time, disagreed with policies over the last eight years, while most of the folks who are now calling for a revolution soldiered on spreading the Bush White House talking points day after day.  Now, they see the other side.  It’s fine to disagree, but let’s all show a little more respect for our government leaders.  There are plenty of avenues to choose to make a strong argument, and while it’s tempting to take the extreme positions, let’s give the citizens a bit of the truth.  Tell them what you think, and why you think it.  Most of us will appreciate the honesty and the honorable discourse.

Bachmann bill would prohibit global currency

At this moment, there is no mention of Representative Michelle Bachmann’s newest legislation on her website, but her plan for a constitutional ammendment to ban the president from making currency issued by any other government legal tender in the United States is briefly noted on CBS and CNN.

The bill is all of 39 words long, in the form of a constitutional amendment:

“The President may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.”  (Library of Congress).

What’s most interesting about this bill is not the contents, but rather the timing of their delivery.  On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, Bachmann asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake,

“Would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested this morning by China and also by Russia, Mr Secretary?” (Reuters)

To which both men responded yes, as in they would renounce the idea.

Then, on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, Bachmann introduced H. J. RES. 41 to ban the president from accepting foreign currency as legal tender.

This leads me to only two questions:  why does Bachmann keep this news off of her website?  And possibly answering the first question, why in the world is this necessary?  Is Bachmann’s idea of smart legislation and time management in this time of economic crisis introducing bills that are wasteful in nature?  For a member of the party that accused President Obama of “distracting” us from the economy by removing Bush-era extreme bans on stem cell research (see our Take on the Republican Reaction Distraction), this seems like a silly diversion.

Bachmann already seems a bit unhinded, based on her comments on Hardball (see the Huffington Post coverage) about “un-American” members of Congress.  Now she wants a constitutional amendment to ban something no one wants to do?  How about Representative Bachmann and her staff start thinking about things that matter right now to the Congress and to the country.  If not, stop wasting our time and get a radio show or something for these lunatic rants and accusations.

chicagotribune.com: Louisiana ranked more corrupt than Illinois

Even with the Blagojevich, Illinois is ranked 19th?  That makes me happy about Illinois, but sad about the country.  According to Jon Stewart, Illinois governors are more likely to go to jail than murderers:

“50% of all Illinois governors end up in jail. For God’s sakes, did you know, this is true, that only 48% of people who commit murder end up in jail for their crime?  You are more likely to end up in jail if you become the governor of Illinois than if you become a murderer.”  The Daily Show, December 10, 2008

The fact that Illinois, where 1 out of every 2 governors is in jail, is less corrupt than 18 states doesn’t bode well for corruption nation-wide.

This article also notes some interesting facts about Louisiana.  Apparently, it took a natural disaster to change the corrupt culture.  It’s important to note that in Louisiana, and the rest of the country, the individuals charged with creating our ethics laws are the same people who are most affected by those same laws.  For example, the article mentions Louisiana legislatures voting against a bill that would terminate state pension funds convicted public officials.  I guess those legislators worried they might be next.  Separation of powers in our government was a great idea, but does it break down right here?

Take Back the Flag’s Take on the Republican Reaction Distraction to Obama and stem cell research

House Min. Leader John Boehner, on Obama’s stem-cell announcement:

“His decision runs counter to President Obama’s promise to be a president for all Americans. For a third time in his young presidency, the President has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us. I fully support stem cell research, but I draw the line at taxpayer-funded research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and millions of Americans feel similarly. As we move forward, I am hopeful that the President will re-evaluate this and other controversial decisions that put government at odds with the sanctity of human life” (release, 3/9).

Representative Boehner’s comment is the first among many from Republicans with skewed logic.  President Obama is the president for all Americans.  That’s what it means when you’re elected to the office.  Believe it or not, George W. Bush was the president of all Americans for some time.  Also, in case you missed it, President Obama won a majority of votes in the last presidential election, which is why he is the president for all Americans and can make changes such as this one.  We knew it was coming, and we voted for it.  Everyone can’t be happy (example:  a growing majority in the last eight years).

In addition, while I concede that all of us will never agree on the “definition of life,” it’s irresponsible for Boehner and others to decry Obama’s action as having “rolled back important protections for innocent life” when in fact these changes–supported by scientists–are needed to continue research to save and protect lives in the future, from young to old.

Finally, it takes a oblivious Republican to accuse Obama of “dividing our nation” when the Republican plan is, through the words of Rush Limbaugh himself because no one can say it better, failure.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN):

“Sadly, the president’s action ignores the miracles found in adult stem cell research…and uses taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos. … It’s unfortunate” (release, 3/9).

What’s sad here is Representative Pence does not recognize the scientific facts and the miracles found only in embryonic stem cells.  Only embryonic cells can morph into any type of cell, and adult stem cell research isn’t at the same level yet.  Maybe someday it will be, and we should keep using adult stem cells for research.  Who knows, they might turn out to be the better of the two after all.  But for now, in our state of uncertainty and curiosity, we should listen to scientists and continue research on both embryonic and adult cells.

House Min. Whip Eric Cantor:

“Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job number one; let’s focus on what needs to be done. But as far as the issue of stem cell research, I don’t know anybody who is not supportive of that. What we’re talking about here, though, is embryonic stem cell research and the question of federal funding of that. And, frankly, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning that occurs. We don’t want that. That shouldn’t be done. That’s wrong. Let’s put the federal dollars … with the stem cell research that has produced results, which is the adult stem cell research, and let’s get on with business here.”

Cantor, asked if there are enough votes in Congress to block it: “We’ve got a new Congress now. And certainly that is something that we ought to be talking about, but let’s take care of business first. People are out of jobs” (”State of the Union,” CNN, 3/8).

Representative Cantor’s remarks are the most devoid of logic. We’re “distracting ourselves” from the economy to remove foolish policies George W. Bush put in place eight years ago.  Perhaps if Bush didn’t distract himself (and I don’t think that took much) from the simple goal of not running American’s economy into a recession with “moral” and “ethical” crusades against stem cells and other issues we wouldn’t be here in the first place.

Cantor seems to agree with Boehner’s unfounded conclusion that American’s don’t want more stem cell research.  Was I the only one who knew President Obama’s position on stem cell research before he won a clear victory on November 4, 2008?  Of course some people voted for Obama in spite of his support for stem cell research, but again, we knew it was coming, and we voted for it.  That’s the way American democracy works.

“Huddled masses yearning to breathe free”

The immigration debate took a backseat a while ago and hasn’t returned since.  Still, found this interactive map from the New York Times very interesting.  Be sure to explore by country of origin, and then by decade.

My grand parents emigrated from Russia and Czechoslovakia during WWII, and I found the changing immigrant population from those countries over time very interesting.

Navigating the map is thought-provoking.  Hopefully simple and informative informational tools such as this one will remind policy makers and Americans alike of our great immigrant past.  We don’t need to provide comprehensive and free social services for everyone who ends up in America, but we do need new comprehensive immigration policies that include a legal path to citizenship and bring the millions of people in our country out of the shadows.

We owe it to them to make America a place where the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” can call home.  Selfishly, we owe it to ourselves to live in a country from no one fears calling emergency services or visiting a hospital for fear of deportation.  And that’s for our own good.

Came across this map via Twitter from @jaredpolis.  Starting to like Twitter more as it keeps me updated on people’s lives, gives me the inside story on some politicians (see @clairecmc as an example, although it’s debatable that this is really her all the time), and most important, delivers the news (Twitter seems first on the scene for all plane crashes) and highlights the most interesting material in the sea of information out there on the web.  Also, this map led me to find other interactive tools on the NYT site.  See this one for the “Geography of a Recession.”

NYT Interactive Immigration Map

Heard on Hardball: Representative David Dreier (R-CA) and “esoteric” ideas

Heard on Hardball last Friday, March 6, 2009, from guest Representative David Dreier:

“Well, Chris and Chris, we know that it is going down because we are seeing the market predict what is down the road six months.  And it is clearly not optimistic.  The American people are hurting.

The other day, I heard of a tragedy.  A friend of mine told me of a suicide of a father who has three young children.  We have homes being lost.  We have businesses closing down.  It is very, very painful.

So you‘re saying what is it that caused this?  Well, I think that what we need to do is we need to focus on where we‘re going right now.  And while it may sound esoteric, we need bold, robust, strong economic growth policies like John F. Kennedy put into place in 1961 and Ronald Reagan in 1981.  Now, that may sound esoteric, but what it means is, it means allowing families to keep their homes and being able to pay their bills, allowing kids to have college funds necessary…”

Can Representative Dreier or anyone else explain how the market is predicting what is going to happen in the next six months?  It seems like it’s more of a reaction to the last 8 years of Bush policies, with a specific focus on the last few months of the Administration.

Peggy Noonan’s column last week focused on responsibility in the economic crisis, which seems lost on government officials such as Representative Dreier.  “So you’re saying what is that caused this?  Well I think what we need to is we need to focus on where we’re going right now” is not exactly an analysis of the problems leading to the crisis, led alone any assignment of blame.

Finally, I don’t find the ideas of “allowing families to keep their homes and being able to pay their bills, allowing kids to have college funds…” esoteric at all.  These seem overly simplified and a mere shiny mask on actual policies.  Republican policies to give tax cuts to the richest Americans and to keep health care as it is won’t bring about new economic prosperity.

Let’s get some people in Congress that want to understand the root causes of the economic problems, fairly place the accountability for those failures as well as future failures on the right people, and support policies that will allow us to emerge from this recession in the short term and grow our country for the future.

We need your support: send Rush to the National Archives

Rush Limbaugh is only a disturbance to America.  Either, he’s stupid and doesn’t understand the facts, or, he refuses to acknowledge them.  Politics, ideological debate, and partisan actions will continue for the years to come.  And they’re all important as we work to pass new legislation and ensure our safety and prosperity.  Rush doesn’t want any part of the intelligent discourse about this country; he only wants to attack, lie, and smear.

Watch the Colbert Report coverage of Rush’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC).  First, Rush called Bush’s plans Obama’s plans. Then, he misquoted the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America with words from the Declaration of Independence and even included an extra word.

These blunders are bad.  In my lifetime, much of which was spent in public school, we’ve seen a decline in civics and government course requirements.  We need to emphasize this information for our younger generations.  And it looks like Rush could use a refresher course.

Colbert identified these historical errors, but missed something else.

Did you hear the crowd reaction throughout the clip?  When Rush calls “Obama’s plans” unconstitutional, the crowd cheers.  The plan was Bush’s plan, not Obama’s.  Worse, when Rush misquotes our most fundamental documents, the crowd cheers again!  These are the Republicans and Conservatives that think they’re the true patriots?

Let’s start a new movement.  Let’s send Rush to DC to visit the National Archives.