Nightmare before Christmas

This post has nothing to do with a flooded apartment or a roaring toothache (circa Christmas 2009), just four brief news items to set your spine a'tingling.

Nightmare before Christmas

The headline caught my eye this morning: “Another GOPer wants to defeat Obama.” I clicked on the link and felt a chill. Remember neoconservative war hawk John Bolton, who, when undersecretary of state, was appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations by Dubya? Bolton, who very undiplomatically announced he was going to the UN to kick ass and straighten that whole bunch out, now thinks he’s what this country needs. The American Enterprise Institute fellow and Fox News contributor basically says Obama is a wimp on foreign policy and national security, so he is considering a run for the White House in 2012. God forbid! Read Bolton’s remarks about the president HERE. (BTW, DemWit readers know I cannot see photos, and I hope I have the right one with this item. If it’s really, really scary, that’s the one.)

The winter of our discontent?

From USAToday/Gallup, 24 November 2010 (LINK): “Americans are as likely to want Tea Party-backed Republican members of Congress to have the most influence over federal policies as they are to prefer President Barack Obama, although no more than 28% choose either. They name Republican leaders in Congress next, at 23%, and Democratic leaders last, at 16%.”

Murdoch’s iNsatiable hunger

I confess I didn’t know what an iPad is until my friend Jenny said her granddaughter is giving her one for Christmas. Now comes word (HERE) that Rupert Murdoch is going to furnish the world another outlet for his propaganda: a daily digital newspaper, cleverly named “The Daily,” which iPad owners can read for a subscription price of 99 cents a week. Jenny’s not buying: she’s too iNtelligent.

Sarah’s syntax

After all that “gloom and doom” how about a good laugh? Go HERE to read advice from Sarah Palin and Fox News’ Sean Hannity on what constitutes good, ethical  journalism. Sarah, really ticked off at Katie Couric for asking her relevant questions during her veep campaign, tells Hannity: “I have a communications degree. I studied journalism, who, what, where, when, and why of reporting," Which, of course, equips her to construct such sentences as: "I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism.”

Bringing hope to Uganda's orphans

Children at Nyaka AIDS Orphans School in Nyaka, Uganda, in Africa, pray as they begin their school day. Father Tim Farrell's parish joined forces with Jackson Kaguri to found the school. All children, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim, are welcomed here if they are orphaned by the AIDS pandemic.

***

On September 18, I received the following note from my longtime friend Father Tim Farrell, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Farmington, New Mexico:

“I head for Uganda and Rwanda, Africa, next Sunday. Pray for all of us. It is me along with five parishioners, five women. A thorn among the roses! We have a 22-hour flight (including an overnight stop in Dubai), and after a night in Kampala, we will drive nine hours by safari van to Nyaka, Uganda, where the AIDS Orphans' School is. It is a tiny village near the Inpenetrable Forest with gorillas and tree-climbing lions. There is no electricity there and luckily, due to the great generosity of my parishioners, the town now has running water. So, it will be unique. I will let you know how all of it goes in my update in late October when I return.”

To commemorate the Thanksgiving holiday, here is Father Tim’s report, dateline Uganda:

NYAKA, Uganda -- Many children who attend Nyaka AIDS Orphans' School rise and leave before dawn and get home from school after the sun has set. They live miles away and make the great effort to attend the school because it gives them hope for life itself, Stephen Kagaba, headmaster, explained.

These children, he says, are orphans due to the scourge of AIDS, which has killed thousands and thousands of Ugandans. In a real sense, Nyaka School is the 250 children’s only light.

My parish of Sacred Heart has supported Nyaka School for almost a decade, and I was privileged recently to see what the school is doing to change the lives of these children. Though we raise several thousand dollars a year in a special collection for the school, I did not understand how this could help so many children. Mr. Kagaba, though, said that "with the money you send, we are able to educate and feed all these children." My question, as pastor, was, what would happen to these children if our parish did not support the school?

Mr. Kagaba shook his head sadly: "You have seen the children along the sides of the roads? That would be our children who are going to Nyaka School. They would be worse than slaves. Many of them would die at an early age. These children who are orphans become street children. They work for the rich people herding their goats and cows, and their lives are full of stress and hopelessness. They are mistreated. They die very young, overwhelmed by life. But because you support Nyaka School, all these children get breakfast and lunch each day and they get a good education. In our district with 250 schools, Nyaka is a miracle. We are in the top three schools. The children who come here come free of charge, due to the kindness of Sacred Heart and other people who care. They have real futures. The other schools in the district do not supply meals. The children come to school hungry and go home hungry. Not the children of Nyaka School."

I was privileged to attend classes with the children and was so encouraged by the strong education they are receiving. These children in Grades P1 through P7 are learning so much. These children who would be forgotten on the sides of the roads of Uganda without the school have futures not only in Secondary School but in colleges.

While I was visiting along with five parishioners (Rosie Gomez, Margaret Zamora, Becky Schritter, Jayme Childers and Katie Pettigrew) , we all were able to interact with the children and see the educational and emotional foundations being laid in these children who have known so much tragedy in their young lives. Early each morning the children gather in the school courtyard for prayer, singing and reports from the school and from around the country. They are fed porridge for breakfast and then the day begins, a day filled with classes, physical education, a full lunch, camraderie with each other and lots of playtime.

As one teacher said, "It is hard to make them go home when school lets out at 5 p.m. This is their family here, and when they go home many do not get to eat. They are too poor. Many go home to dark houses with grannies who are sick and old. They go home far away from the school."

And they go home to places often with no lights, not even candlelight.

Nyaka School has become the pride of the community as well. The school, through Sacred Heart Parish contributions, has been able to build a water system which is now used for the entire village area. Because of the success of Nyaka, the parish and others have helped to open another school at Katumba, about an hour or so away by car. As well, the Nyaka Foundation is building little homes for the "grannies" who are taking care of the orphan children or who live out so far and in such poverty that they are literally dying from neglect.

Jackson Kaguri, whose vision brought about the two schools and the "granny program" says that the grannies are presently living in small huts with leaking roofs and housing not only themselves but the goat and the chickens. “These women are dying from neglect, and so the Foundation is presently planning to build new homes for these elders of the surrounding areas," he explained.

He said that amazingly the homes can be built for around $700 each. "That amount of money saves an elderly person and gives them dignity in their twilight years," he said.

Our visit to Nyaka reinforced our belief that with a little money and a lot of heart, we can help bring hope into a place devastated by the AIDS crisis. The children and the grannies are that hope. At both ends of the age spectrum, I saw hope shining forth.

I was able to visit the children in their homes along with the grannies who are about to enter their homes. They are so proud of who they are and what they have in their futures.

One evening as I and the group from Sacred Heart were driving back from a far distant granny's new home, the sun was setting around 7 p.m. and I saw a small girl in her purple Nyaka uniform still walking home in the dying light. She smiled and waved at us, and I thought, "What a heart this child has! She walks all this way in the darkness of morning and in the fading light of dusk. Why? Because Nyaka School is not only her hope, it is her life. She'll get up tomorrow morning and walk back to school."

As one of my group said, "They walk to school in the darkness, they walk home in the dark. Nyaka school is their only light."

(To find out more about the Nyaka Foundation, visit its site on Facebook.)

Fed up with stupid!

Paul Krugman knows a little more about the economy than DemWit. With each new op-ed column, Krugman’s warnings about our economy grow stronger. His crystal ball conjures things most of us cannot foresee.

So, when I saw the headline on his column yesterday, my back stiffened as I sat up and took notice.

Now, the right would have you believe Paul Krugman is not to be believed. After all, he appears in (gasp!) The New York Times. He holds a Ph.D from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. That would make him, according to right-wing TV pundits, one of “the liberal elite.” And, he was awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics for setting up a unique new model to measure such things. Oh, but the right would have you believe the Nobel committee is anti-American. Or, so they’ve been told.

Come on, people, aren’t you fed up with stupid?

What’s it going to take for Americans to listen to an informed and  reasonable argument about where our economy is headed? A good place to start is reading Krugman’s current column:

There Will Be Blood

By PAUL KRUGMAN

New York Times Op-Ed, 22 November 2010

Former Senator Alan Simpson is a Very Serious Person. He must be — after all, President Obama appointed him as co-chairman of a special commission on deficit reduction.

So here’s what the very serious Mr. Simpson said on Friday: “I can’t wait for the blood bath in April. ... When debt limit time comes, they’re going to look around and say, ‘What in the hell do we do now? We’ve got guys who will not approve the debt limit extension unless we give ’em a piece of meat, real meat,’ ” meaning spending cuts. “And boy, the blood bath will be extraordinary,” he continued.

Think of Mr. Simpson’s blood lust as one more piece of evidence that our nation is in much worse shape, much closer to a political breakdown, than most people realize.

Some explanation: There’s a legal limit to federal debt, which must be raised periodically if the government keeps running deficits; the limit will be reached again this spring. And since nobody, not even the hawkiest of deficit hawks, thinks the budget can be balanced immediately, the debt limit must be raised to avoid a government shutdown. But Republicans will probably try to blackmail the president into policy concessions by, in effect, holding the government hostage; they’ve done it before.

Now, you might think that the prospect of this kind of standoff, which might deny many Americans essential services, wreak havoc in financial markets and undermine America’s role in the world, would worry all men of good will. But no, Mr. Simpson “can’t wait.” And he’s what passes, these days, for a reasonable Republican.

The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing. And that party now controls one house of Congress, which means that the country will not, in fact, be governable without that party’s cooperation — cooperation that won’t be forthcoming.

Elite opinion has been slow to recognize this reality. Thus on the same day that Mr. Simpson rejoiced in the prospect of chaos, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, appealed for help in confronting mass unemployment. He asked for “a fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits.

My immediate thought was, why not ask for a pony, too? After all, the G.O.P. isn’t interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House. Indeed, far from being willing to help Mr. Bernanke’s efforts, Republicans are trying to bully the Fed itself into giving up completely on trying to reduce unemployment.

And on matters fiscal, the G.O.P. program is to do almost exactly the opposite of what Mr. Bernanke called for. On one side, Republicans oppose just about everything that might reduce structural deficits: they demand that the Bush tax cuts be made permanent while demagoguing efforts to limit the rise in Medicare costs, which are essential to any attempts to get the budget under control. On the other, the G.O.P. opposes anything that might help sustain demand in a depressed economy — even aid to small businesses, which the party claims to love.

Right now, in particular, Republicans are blocking an extension of unemployment benefits — an action that will both cause immense hardship and drain purchasing power from an already sputtering economy. But there’s no point appealing to the better angels of their nature; America just doesn’t work that way anymore.

And opposition for the sake of opposition isn’t limited to economic policy. Politics, they used to tell us, stops at the water’s edge — but that was then.

These days, national security experts are tearing their hair out over the decision of Senate Republicans to block a desperately needed new strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that these Republicans oppose the treaty, not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it’s an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it.

How does this end? Mr. Obama is still talking about bipartisan outreach, and maybe if he caves in sufficiently he can avoid a federal shutdown this spring. But any respite would be only temporary; again, the G.O.P. is just not interested in helping a Democrat govern.

My sense is that most Americans still don’t understand this reality. They still imagine that when push comes to shove, our politicians will come together to do what’s necessary. But that was another country.

It’s hard to see how this situation is resolved without a major crisis of some kind. Mr. Simpson may or may not get the blood bath he craves this April, but there will be blood sooner or later. And we can only hope that the nation that emerges from that blood bath is still one we recognize.

***

The above column is reprinted for the sole purpose of sharing information, which, of course, doeesn’t mean a damn if the people who need to read it don’t.

But, “one day a lemming will fly!”

A reminder

I was a 21-year-old secretary eating lunch at “Nick” Nicapopadopalous’ Greek restaurant. Two blocks away in the newsroom of the Clarion-Ledger and Jackson (Miss.) Daily News, bells were going off on the teletype machine to mark a “bulletin” – the newswire service’s designation for its most significant breaking news.

Twenty years later I would be working as an editor in that newsroom.

One day as I left work I spotted in a trash bin a rolled up length of old yellow teletype paper . Fishing it out, I tucked it under my arm. Relaxing after work with a cup of coffee, I reached across my dining table for the 20-foot scroll of paper, unrolled it and began to read:

Bulletin … Bulletin … Bulletin

President shot

Bulletin … Bulletin … Bulletin

President Kennedy shot in Dallas

Bulletin … Bulletin … Bulletin

President Kenndy shot in Dallas motorcade

Words poured forth down the yellow paper in staccato phrases.

I’ve kept the bulletin as a reminder to never forget.

On considering atheists

Anne Perry’s fictional detective Thomas Pitt, when asked to define “blasphemy,” says, “I think it is jeering at other people’s beliefs, making them doubt the possibility of good and making reverence appear ridiculous. Whose God it is doesn’t matter. It isn’t a question of doctrine, it’s a matter of trying to destroy the innate idea of diety, of something better and holier than we are.” (Half Moon Street, 2000)

***

I neither question the beliefs of atheists nor label their beliefs as disbelief.

What I question is their need to attack the beliefs of others.

Millions of people around this world find solace and strength and peace in their religious beliefs and great comfort in the power of prayer. Why would any reasonable human being deny them this?

Granted, throughout history religion has been both a catalyst for war and persecution and a suppressor of advanced knowledge. Anyone versed in history could never deny this. On the other hand, religion also has at its foundation moral precepts, and like many atheists, many who adhere to faith are both moral and pursuers of wisdom.

The search for knowledge has not been limited to those who deny the existence of a supreme being. And to deny that no knowledge has been advanced by adherents to religion is prejudice.

To quote Miss Perry in “Brunswick Gardens:” “Calmness and reason should always prevail over emotion, self-indulgence or any kind of indiscipline.”

Why then the need of atheists to be militantly opposed to organized religion? Why then must religious persons be militantly opposed to atheism?

I recently quoted famous lawyer Clarence Darrow who said he was not an atheist, because he could no more prove there is not a God, than he could prove there is. Darrow, who, according to his biographer Irving Stone, believe in God, was one of this country’s greatest crusaders for human rights and equality, and, reading the transcript of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, no one could ever accuse him of stifling knowledge.

I am a Christian, an adherent to the true teachings of Jesus Christ. I am both aware of and heartbroken that His teachings have been so misconstrued and distorted. I find fanaticism and fundamentalism in any religion deeply disturbing, for therein lie both the suppression of wisdom and disdain for others' beliefs.

Through the Internet I have had the good fortune to meet many atheists who are both moral and diligent workers for the betterment of society. I also have the insight gained from in-depth discussions with a beloved relative about his atheism. The only demand we have made on each other is that we expect respect.

Speaking for myself – and not for any religion which has greatly distorted and maligned its own teachings - I am offended by terms like “Christianistas” and “Jesusistanis” and by such statements as “Prayer doesn't work in elections any better than elsewhere.” I don’t care to read any Web site which says of Christians: “The core of their faith being based on an un-dead Jewish Zombie.” Such attacks are not just myopic, they are downright meanspirited.

How can one person determine what inspires another person? How can one person define another person's spirituality?

Like Darrow, I cannot prove there is a God. I cannot prove there is no God. It is equally difficult to convey the meaning of “faith.”

Perhaps this quote, again from “Brunswick Gardens,” comes close: “The essence of faith is courage and trust without knowledge.”

I have always been a strong supporter of separation of church and state, and I believe it is best not to bring religion or athesim into the political arena.

I am willing to respect any person’s convictions. I just demand respect in return. And the common decency of refraining from mockery.

As Ms. Perry opines: “It is all very well to preach what you believe to be the truth, but when it shatters the foundations of someone else’s world, it isn’t very clever. It doesn’t help. It only destroys.”

Woman up! She's a-comin'

I have just read the most delightful commentary on the future of American politics if females have anything to do with it.

The writer, Donna Trussell, is a poet, fiction writer and former film critic. She’s a fifth-generation Texan who knows the “Steel Magnolias” wiles of women as well as their increasing impact as stand-alone warriors against gender suppression.

Donna throws out facts right and left. Here’s one: last year, for the first time in U.S. history, more women than men earned doctorates.

There are delicious quotes, such as this one from the late Ann Richards, who governed Texas and delivered the keynote address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention:

"Twelve years ago Barbara Jordan, another Texas woman, made the keynote address to this convention, and two women in 160 years is about par for the course. But if you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels."

Donna debunks Sarah Palin’s “Mama Grizzly” anti-feminist feminism claim, saying, “You can't play the sweet, deferential Christian grandmother while you sharpen your claws on programs benefiting women, children and the elderly.”

This article sounds a tocsin for the “parade of rural white men” responsible for the fact that “You have to go back to 1966 to find the same number of state legislature switches. You have to go back to 1928 to find this many state legislature seats filled with Republicans.”

Females are about to make a positive impact on the politics of this land, Donna asserts. She makes a powerful argument in “GOP’s Rural White Guys: The Night They Drove New Dixie Down.” Read it HERE and enjoy!

Beck outdoes anti-Sorosism freaks

Satan, thy name is Soros, so say some of the craziest, most self-serving right-wing propagandists and politicians of our day.

DemWit, leaning heavily on the “fair use notice,” presents the following commentary in its entirety, because

1) It’s just so darn clever, and
2) Blog readers recoil at the idea of actually clicking on a link.

***

Beck's bizarre, dangerous hit at Soros

By Michael Wolraich, Special to CNN
November 14, 2010

CNN editor's note: Michael Wolraich is a founder of the political blog dagblog.com and the author of "Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual.

New York -- Creepy medieval puppets hung from the ceiling on the set of the "Glenn Beck Program" -- a conquistador, a squire, a witch, and a bearded guy who looked like a cross between Santa Claus and the Fiddler on the Roof.

"Make no mistake, we are watching a show," Beck gravely told his audience. That much was obvious enough, but Beck did not mean his own television program. "You have to see who's behind the puppets," he continued, "Who is choosing the puppets and the players? Who's the puppetmaster? George Soros."

George Soros is an 80-year-old Jewish billionaire. Born in Hungary in 1930, he survived the Holocaust and eventually immigrated to the United States, where he made a fortune as a currency speculator and became an international philanthropist. After the Iron Curtain collapsed, Soros donated generously to Hungary and other Eastern Bloc countries, funding scholarships, university endowments, and science grants.

In return for his generosity, anti-Semites in the new Hungarian parliament accused him of participating in an international Jewish conspiracy to bankrupt Hungary in order to restore communist rule -- despite the fact that Soros had been an ardent opponent of Hungary's communist regime.

Anti-Sorosism first arrived in the United States in the late 1990s, courtesy of renowned crackpot Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche has published a number of articles in his comically misnamed journal, the Executive Intelligence Review, accusing Soros of devious manipulations ranging from an attempt to start World War III to running drugs for Queen Elizabeth II's drug cartel.

But LaRouche's audience is small, and most Americans paid little attention to George Soros. In 2003, everything changed. Infuriated by the policies of George W. Bush, Soros sent his philanthropy homeward, donating $23 million to political action groups during the 2004 election. Suddenly, George Soros became the most powerful, evil mastermind in the world.

First, the influential conservative magazine NewsMax ran a story that cribbed LaRouche's conspiracy theories and accused Soros of secretly plotting a "regime change" in the United States. Then Fox News host Bill O'Reilly discovered that Soros' foundation had donated to the ACLU and therefore reasoned that the billionaire and the civil liberties organization were conspiring to destroy Christmas.

When former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay ran into trouble for ethics violations, he blamed Soros for masterminding critical coverage by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time magazine, and Newsweek. And former speaker of the House Dennis Hastert insinuated to an incredulous Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that Soros got his money from drug operations. (Hastert did not mention Queen Elizabeth II, however.)

Glenn Beck, as usual, trumped them all. He told his audience that Soros has a five-step plan:

1. Create a "shadow government" under the guise of humanitarian aid.
2. Take control of the media.
3. Destabilize the state by building anti-government sentiment. (Yes, Beck attacked his opponent for building anti-government sentiment.)
4. Subvert the American electoral system.
5. Take over the world, of course.

Glenn Beck's conspiracy theories are no less bizarre and inflammatory than those of LaRouche, but his nightly audience numbers in the millions. Earlier this year, Americans voted Beck their second favorite television personality after Oprah Winfrey.

In consequence, he is far more dangerous. It must be a great sorrow to George Soros, who having survived the Holocaust now finds himself the subject of the same kind of conspiracy theories that the Nazis used to demonize the Jews.

The big bad "Jewish masterminds" of Hitler's day were the Rothschilds, a family of bankers who have featured prominently in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories since the 1800s. Like Soros, they have been accused of controlling the media, instigating war, overthrowing governments, and of course, taking over the world.

But in 21st Century America, a popular television host cannot outright espouse anti-Semitic ideas. Thus, Glenn Beck took pains to present himself as a friend of the Jews. According to Beck, it was George Soros who was the anti-Semite.

Soros had survived the Holocaust by, at 14, pretending to be the godson of a non-Jewish Hungarian official. Since the official's responsibilities included confiscating Jewish properties, Beck implied that Soros had cooperated with the Nazis. This accusation too echoes Lyndon LaRouche, who has published articles calling Soros "a small cog in Adolf Eichmann's killing machine" and "a Nazi beast-man seizing Jewish properties."

Welcome to the "Glenn Beck Program," where Jews are Nazis and those who exploit ancient anti-Semitic conspiracy narratives are friends of the Jews.

Beck himself said it best,

"There are a few working parts to a puppet show. There is the puppet master. Here. There is a stage. There's the audience. There are the strings to each puppet. And then there's the story. There is also why? Why is the story? Why is the show happening? What is the puppet master? What is his motivation? Is it for the money? Is it for entertainment? Is it personal gain? What is it?"

What is it, Mr. Beck?

CNN editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Wolraich.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Issa damn shame!

I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, scream, throw up or bang my head against a brick wall.

False accusations and hypocrisy affect me that way.

I call your attention to the two items atop “fyi” in DemWit’s sidebar.

The second item is just rhetoric from a self-aggrandizing blowhard.

The top item merits the attention of every DemWit reader, regardless of political persuasion, Its contents take false accusations and hypocrisy to new heights and, in my opinion, constitute a very real threat to America’s future.

And, America asked for it.

I think I’ll throw up.

BJ UPDATE: I have moved the two articles from the sidebar to this post:

The first is an item from CNN’s “Political Ticker” about Newt Gingrich’s 10-Year Plan for America, in which he says, “We must REPLACE the left.” LINK

The main article DemWit calls to your attention is one from the right-wing site, NewsMax:

"White House Braces for Hundreds of GOP Probes of Fraud, Waste," 9 November 2010: LINK

A little girl's pride in military

‘ROY
 AND
 SIS’






Front: Elowease (cousin), 16; Betty Jean (‘B.J.’), 3; Martha (sister), 15; middle row: Sarah (aunt), 18; Ruth (friend), Mary (sister), 17; back row: Leroy (‘Roy’ - brother), 19, in his Navy uniform; and Gilbert (cousin’s husband). Younger brother Isaac was born shortly after this family portrait. Photo: 1945.

This column was published in the Anderson (S.C.) Independent-Mail, 29 August 1987:

A little girl grew up with pride in the military

By B. J. Trotter

Recently I made what our boys in white would call “one helluva mistake.”

I identified a group of sailors in a photograph pertaining to the USS Stark incident as marines.

I received a friendly note from a chief petty officer, retired, U.S. Navy, advising me, “Marines would never dress like sailors, nor would sailors permit them.”

The feedback from my boss, an ex-Navy man, was somewhat sterner.

I regret the error. I know a sailor when I see one.

My appreciation of our men in service goes back as long as I can remember. An early photograph, a favorite, was made the day my brother Roy came home from the Navy. In it I am a happy, cotton-topped, 3-year-old, posing with Roy and family and wearing one of his white sailor hats.

Roy had been stateside and was being shipped out for combat duty when WWII ended. He experienced the horrors of war in Corpus Christi, Texas, when two PVMs – sea planes – collided, and Roy was a rescue team member who helped retrieve 25 bodies and rescue four survivors.

My mother gave Roy a lucky silver dollar when he left to join the Navy. He brought it home to his “Sis,” and I have it still as a reminder of his service to his country.

I have other reminders. Two brothers-in-law have shared their memories of that war and long ago cemented my appreciation for things military.

Paul sailed aboard aircraft carriers, the USS Hornet (commissioned after the first Hornet was sunk) and the USS Tarawa, and on what he calls a “tin can,” the destroyer USS O’Hare.

A Kamikaze pilot changed Paul’s looks. His suicidal strike came in too close for comfort under the ship, and my brother-in-law claims his hair turned gray overnight.

Along with gray hairs, Paul brought back another souvenir, a kaleidoscope made from a spent shell’s casing. Despite its lovely changing colors, it left an unpleasant metallic smell on my fingers. But, the little girl could see no contrast of patriotism’s beauty and war’s ugliness in the toy.

Brother-in-law Harold was a paratrooper with the 101st Airborne, Rainbow Division. Harold met America’s enemy coming over a hilltop in western Germany. He was among the first Americans to enter Germany just prior to Hitler’s suicide and the fall of the Third Reich. The 101st parachuted into Germany, marched 50 miles and took the first town.

Shot in the eye with a wooden bullet – with supply routes cut off, the Germans were out of ammunition - Harold’s souvenir of the war was a Purple Heart. The German soldier who shot Harold was killed by his buddy, who retrieve a watch and a wife's or sweetheart's photo from his body and handed them to Harold, sad souvenirs.

I learned early that “War is hell” from sneaking looks at his Rainbow Division albums with photo after photo of boxcars filled with emaciated and naked dead men – victims of the Holocaust.

I also learned early that this country must be pretty special for men to endure so much to protect it.

Their tales of war served me well in later years. When I entered college at age 34, I opted to take ROTC. This choice was not some patriotic gesture on my part: I wanted to get out of Tennis and Badminton 101. I could never see the ball or birdie!

Despite my pointed questions – “Why doesn’t this military textbook include the air raid on Dresden, Germany?” – I won the Military History Award.

One thing has impressed me most in the four decades since those guys went off to war: their memories of their military days have remained with them – living not in protest, but in pride.

I grew up with their pride, and it didn’t take a chief petty officer, retired, or a boss to remind me of that.

***

2010 UPDATE:

Brother-in-law Paul died in 2008 at age 86. He was a retired postal worker and National Guardsman, recepient of the three highest honors bestowed by the Mississippi National Guard. Paul was the very definition of a good man and always did for others. He was a skilled baker of beautiful cakes and made wedding cakes as gifts for the young brides in his church. He spent his last couple of years having the time of his life with friends in an assisted living facility.

Brother-in-law Harold was a dynamic salesman – a Buick Salesmaster – who died of complications from Alzheimer’s. I could always count on Harold for help.

My brother Roy, now 84, was a car salesman, civic leader, ski club president and Grenada (Miss.) Reservoir water rescue team founder. A deadringer for Frank Sinatra, Roy is ever jolly and fun-loving. We have wonderful phone chats, trips down memory lane, and he still calls me “Sis.”

Good fathers all.

The little girl, now a retired newspaper editor, is 68 and today fully understands the expression, “Hate the war; love the warrior.”

One woman

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is still alive as of this posting.

In 2006, in her hometown of Tabriz, Iran, the now 43-year-old mother of two received 99 lashes after being sentenced as an “adulteress.”

Sakineh received international attention early this year when she was sentenced to death by stoning.

According to AVAAZ, Iran “accused her of adultery and sentenced her to stoning despite the fact that the alleged adultery took place after her husband’s death. They sentenced her to death for the murder of her husband even though she had already been acquitted, and another man convicted and sentenced for the murder. They even arrested her son and lawyer and forced the rest of the legal team into exile.”

Sakineh’s stoning sentence was a “subjective judicial ruling allowed where no conclusive evidence is present.”

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and AVAAZ collected more than a million signatures, which forced Iran to change the stoning sentence to death by hanging.

Sakineh still sits in jail awaiting hanging. Human rights groups are claiming that Iran now wants a way out of this case, a way to save face, and are raising funds to assemble “an elite legal team” toward this end.

Should the fate of one woman matter? When that woman has become the symbol of injustices around the world, yes, it does.

Beyond the brouhaha

If there’s anyone out there who still cares about ethics in journalism and who doesn’t break out in a rash when reading anything longer than a tweet, this one’s for you.

In 11 years of fighting online for truth, justice and the American way, the subject I’ve written most about is journalism ethics.

Late Sunday night, masked by a headline about Keith Olbermann’s return to the air Tuesday, David Bauder of the Associated Press delivered the clearest analysis on the subject I’ve read in some time.

Along the way I’ve probably offended some by stating, “MSNBC is the left’s Fox News.” One could argue that MSNBC, unlike Fox, delivers truth. But, that’s not my point.

As Mr. Bauder points out, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish objective reporting, aka news, from opinion – in this age of so-called “advocacy journalism."

Advocacy journalism is an oxymoron. The blurring of the line between news and opinion should be unacceptable to professional journalists, and it should be unacceptable to consumers of news.

Let me point out here that I believe one of the problems to be the advent of specialized reporting where, quite naturally, persons are hired with degrees in certain fields, Thus, you have "journalists" who have never had a course in journalism ethics, journalism history, journalism law or, for that matter, journalism 101.

My argument is and has always been: if the news organization you choose supports your points of view, you are not interested in news; you are looking for validation.

For this reason I gave up TV a year ago and am very grateful that most major newspapers have online sites where news and opinion are still clearly delineated.

DemWit recommends that you read Mr. Bauder’s analysis HERE. If anything good came out of the whole “What’s up with Olbermann?” brouhaha, it might just be this one article.

Otherwise, go tweet!

The death of democracy?

DemWit sadly notes that two honest champions of both Wall Street reform and campaign finance reform - Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) – targets of attack ads, lost their bids for re-election Tuesday.

***

Here’s a word the far-right – and conservatives who went along with them on November 2 - might want to learn: plutocracy.

plu•toc•ra•cy (n.)
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

The big joke of the week is that some Americans think a grassroots movement has swept candidates into office. You know, those salt-of-the-earth patriots who contributed their nickels and dimes to fight big government.

What these candidates really represent is a group of malleable buffoons bought by big bucks from big business. Millions of bucks funneled through their campaigns – as Patton said, “like grease through a goose” – to other big businesses – the corporate media.

So, with vicious attack ads across America, Americans got the worst representatives money could buy.

All this was made possible, of course, by the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). This decision is, in a nutshell, “a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.”

This “free speech” ruling opened the floodgates for corporations – foreign and domestic – to pour millions of campaign dollars into innocuously named front groups.

In the first general election since SCOTUS’ ruling, American voters were sold a bill of goods – and our democracy is on its way to becoming a plutocracy.

If you don’t know what leader manipulated wealthy businessmen on his rise to power, you had damned well better brush up on your history.

FOR FURTHER STUDY:

“Tea Party Vows to Block Campaign Finance Reform,” a news analysis by Zach Carter of The Media Consortium, an independent media group, 4 November 2010: LINK

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), wikipedia: LINK

Plutocracy, wikipedia: LINK

Mo, baby, you're brilliant!

You know, Mo, I once read somewhere that when the Communist Party uses a word it should be interpreted as “meaning the opposite.”

I thought of this as I read your New York Times column, “Republican Party Time” (11/2/10) and the words of the Speaker-to-be.

Disbelief turned to anger, and anger turned to tears as I read his words about the “liberal media elite” and the immorality in the Democratic Party and how “the elites in the White House were snuffing out the America of his boyhood.”

Then I got to the end of you column where you revealed your “dirty little secret,” and I gave out a hearty Chris Matthews “Ha!”

Brilliant!

You made me realize that America has been through bad times before and no doubt will go through them again. But, there are good times, too. This country does go through periods of sanity, and the great programs and policies which have actually benefited Americans, by and large, have come in times when there was a Democrat in the White House.

I needed the reminder, Mo. “God help the Republic,” indeed!

Read Maureen Dowd’s little bit of genius HERE, then read it again. You’ll love it!

Post-Halloween traumatic stress syndrome

We tried, and that's a good feeling, I thought. Then, another thought jarred me.

After Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. John Boehner will become next in line of succession for the presidency.

***

DemWit has three brief posts today. Keep reading, it gets better …

Wishing her name were Jones

Out in “The Last Frontier” Senate race results will be slow coming, and a race to test Tea Party strength also tested the smarts of Alaskans.

The three-way race between Democratic Mayor Scott McAdams and Republicans, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Tea Party favorite Joe Miller, yielded an interesting little challenge.

Murkowski has been in the U.S. Senate for eight years and her father was both Alaska’s governor and senator before her.

Because Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate, there was much concern as to whether Alaskans could spell her name correctly!

Wonder how much the big money guys behind the Tea Party candidates paid for bumper stickers and yard signs reading "Vote for Mercowsky"?

Remember, this is a state that elected Sarah Palin.

***

In the next post, DemWit makes a House call …

Is there a possum in the House?

Tagore's prayer

The following poem has become an Election Eve tradition on my blogs: Vocal Yokels (no longer exists), I See My Dreams (archived HERE) and now DemWit.

The poet is Rabindranath Tagore of India, Nobel Laureate in Literature, 1913. Here is the English translation of his beautiful prayer:

Where the Mind Is without Fear

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,
Where knowledge is free,
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls,
Where words come out from the depth of truth,
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection,
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit,
Where the mind is led forward by Thee
Into ever-widening thought and action,
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father,
Let my country  awake!

***

FROM DEMWIT, Election Eve 2008

USA TODAY/GALUPP, 2 November 2008:

As the 2008 presidential campaign draws to an end, the final USA Today/Gallup pre-election poll shows Barack Obama with a 55% to 44% advantage over John McCain in the allocated estimate of the 2008 presidential vote.

USAToday/Gallup: 2 November 2008:

Gallup’s final pre-election allocated estimate of the national 2008 vote for Congress gives the Democrats a 12 percentage-point lead over the Republicans among traditional likely voters, 53% to 41%.

***

ELECTION EVE, 2010:

USAToday/Gallup, 31 October 2010:

The final USA Today/Gallup measure of Americans' voting intentions for Congress shows Republicans continuing to hold a substantial lead over Democrats among likely voters, large enough to suggest that regardless of turnout, the Republicans will win more than the 40 seats needed to give them the majority in the U.S. House.

USAToday/Gallup, 31 October 2010:

Likely voters are more apt to be using their vote to send a message that they oppose the president than support him. Also, voters backing GOP candidates are more likely than those backing Democrats to be casting their vote against the opposing candidate. These and other patterns conform with prior midterms in which power changed hands.

***

“Let my country awake.”

A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative

A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative
by Anonymous

Joe Conservative gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffee pot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take. because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan, because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it, too.

He prepares his breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much his shampoo contains.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees – not to mention fuel costs - because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe Conservative begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacations, because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays for these standards, because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check, because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It’s noontime, and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC, because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his below-market federal student loan, because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state-funded university.

5:30 p.m. and Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world, because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer-funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house, financed by the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension, because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes people should take care of themselves, just like I have."

***

BJ Update:

Joe equates taxation with socialism and is being told his government is too big.

But, Joe sleeps soundly at night. He expects his government to protect him, but be damned if those far-left, bleeding-heart liberals are going to raise his taxes!

Joe fully supported the pre-emptive, unilateral invasion of Iraq, while the U.S. was already engaged in Afghanistan. Wars can be pretty expensive, but Joe prefers that someone else’s taxes pay the tab.

Joe probably doesn’t know that the Bush administration and rubber-stamp Republican Congress worked very hard for years to overturn many of the benefits he enjoys every day.

Should Joe's health fail, is he aware that new policies are in place to help him get the care he would need?

Joe has no clue that President Barack Obama gave 95 percent of Americans a tax cut.

That radio (or TV) host keeps his mind occupied with those ever-present red herrings: “God, guns and gays,” “the liberal media elite” and, of course, “Democrats want to raise your taxes.”

Joe’s conscience is clear. He knows he’s not one of those “piglets at the nipple” of government benefits his pal Rush Limbaugh warns about.

Joe Conservative calls it a night, telephone by his bedside, secure in the knowledge three little numbers will put him in touch with government-provided emergency services.

He says his prayers, thanking the Almighty he lives the American Dream. He just doesn’t want to help pay for it.

Lily-livered Chicken Littles

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1933

***

On a beautiful September morning a few years ago I listened as Katie Couric was signing off Today on NBC when suddenly her tone changed and she said, “We have breaking news …”

As I sat that day and on the days that followed as one of the saddest events of my lifetime unfolded on the screen, the words from “Apocalypse Now” kept a steady beat in my head.

“The horror. The horror.”

Almost 3,000 persons of many nationalities and faiths lost their lives that day. We mourn them still. Will the legacy be the loss or will it be the incalculable acts of bravery that day?

Bravery is not what we are seeing as each new report of threatened terrorism makes us tremble in fear. And makes the terrorists winners.

To date, 5,783 American souls have been lost in wars fought for what? Revenge? Protection?

There are other wars to be fought in this country, numerous wars against life-snuffing diseases, illiteracy, poverty, environmental disaster, bigotry, corruption, crime and so many more ailments which threaten quality of life and the very existence of our democracy.

Can we fight these wars if we are a bunch of lily-livered Chicken Littles who cower under the thumbs of a relatively few religious fanatics who would just as soon see us frightened as to see us dead?

Or, can't we honor the legacy of Todd Beamer or Mark Bingham or Rick Rescorla or Louis Arena or Salvatore Papasso or hundreds of others who sacrificed themselves that day for the safety of others? They knew they faced death.

The 5,783 Americans lost in war knew they faced death.

So, what will it be? The home of the brave or a nation brought down by fear itself?

Trash-talking a liberal forum to death

If DemWit readers find the following comments offensive, that is my point.

tnlib at Parsley’s Pics comments on the report and video of right-wing violence against a female moveon.org member at a Rand Paul rally in Kentucky. Read her post and view the video HERE.

i have many conservative family members and friends, none of whom would foster such behavior, but they need to know what's happening to their party.

The thuggery of the right-wing, now being manifested in physical violence, has been festering for years.

The following are comments I saved from the year 2003 – just months after the U.S. invaded Iraq - personal attacks on moveon.org participants in its “Great Goals” forum. The purpose of that forum, as the name implies, was for members to discuss great goals for America. The tragedy is that these interlopers finally managed to shut the forum down, which, of course, was their own goal.

A selection of right-wing comments – not for the weak of heart:

The first comment is a response to my analysis of Ann Coulter's jargon and techniques:

3. Ann is famous, rich, beautiful & intelligent, no wonder you envy and hate her, B.J.! She is everything you are not! It's rough getting old and knowing your dreams didn't come true, I guess. I feel sorry for you, B.J., like I do for hobos, winos, junkies, degenerates, jailbirds, pedophiles, aging hippies and other losers in the "game of life". Don't be so jealous of those of us who have made it, B.J., we just wanted it more!
- Alan Srout, Manager/Veteran (December 03, 2003; Des Moines, IA)

This comment about Hillary Clinton just went on forever, but you get the idea:

8. CLINTONISTA=RACISM CLINTONISTA=RACISM CLINTONISTA=RACISM CLINTONISTA=RACISM CLINTONISTA=RACISM CLINTONISTA=RACISM …

The following is a “manifesto” from a really scary person:

10. To all the Democrat Basterds of this Forum and to all Democrat Forums:

To all here, you have not served your country in any sense of the word, to hell with you and your entire family. You only serve yourserlves.

To the men and woman of this forum and throughout my beloved United States who have never faced the enemy, to hell with you and your entire family.

Stay in your homes and continue to masturbate. Stay in your homes and hope for a job, for I hope it never comes to you.

The enemy is near and since you willing to do nothing to support our brave men and woman in uniform, I hope and pray for the most painful death upon you and your entire stinking family.

To the unemployed and software designers and consultants and most especially to newspaper editors who have never fought for their country and fought for their family's, god forgive you but I will not, and I pray for your destruction from the hands of the enemy.

You do NOT support this country and you do not deserve the freedom that has been so gracefully bestowed upon you.

To Hell with you all and your righteous lies. Continue to read and believe in the neo-libs of the press and I pray for a painful death to you and those of the media and their familiy's who no not what freedom is, and what it stands for.

To the politicians of this Administration and further Administrations who will not fight for their country and for freedom and not take care of our fighting men and woman in the military. I hope and pray the next terrorist act is committed upon you and your family. For you most certainly should be the first to go.

To the names I am about to present, I hope and pray to almighty god, the most painful death to you and your filthy family's for not supporting our god forsaken men and woman of the Armed Forces.

1. Barbara Streisand. She hopes and prays every day for another American and Israeli to die at the hands of the enemy.

2. James Brolin-Streisand

3. George Clooney. He believes in nothing but the destruction of our Miltiary fighting men and woman.

4. The entire Kennedy (so called) family. Thank the lord there are not many of them left. When the last one dies, I will celebrate.

5. Susan Surandan and her whore based philosophy.

6. Dick Gephardt who supports American failure.

7. John Kerry who supports American failure.

8. Tim Robbins and his fake military garb that he wears so proudly.

9. Michael Moore who hopes that all miltary personel suffer and die. He wants to disarm the American people. A gun shot from a sniper would be only too good for him. He is the evil that is the Democratic Party.

10. Tom Dachele who specically supports the enemy.

11. Katie Couric for whom I am thankful that her filthy husband suffered a painful death. She deserves no better.

12. Tom Dachelle who has never felt the pain of American fighting men and woman who are fighting for our country Freedom means nothing to this basterd.

13. Martin Sheen and his entire drug induced family.

14. Bill and Hillery Rodman Clinton. I can only hope they fall from 102 stories and it is caught on videotape for all to watch. These two god damn son of a bitches made us the laughing stock of the planet and put us where we are now.

15 Al Franken. This son of a bitch doesn't even know what he is saying and has no guts to face the music. Just like Michael Moore. He prays every day for another American death just to get a Democrat in the White House.

16. Finally to this forum to which no member has ever fought for freedom. May hell be upon you and your entire filthy family.
- Scott, Montana (October 25, 2003; Wayne, Mi)

Just an example of a personal attack on one forum member:

1. Vicky, you are a frustrated sex kitten... It seems that you "get off" on this forum. I think you have nothing else to do, and this is your sexual outlet. When you are posting a message, your eyes roll back into your head, and you shake all over from delight. The solution is to dress up in something kinky, short skirt, fishnet stockings, pointed toe shoes. Rat up your wig real high and put on some provocative fragrance and light out for your favorite hangout. Oh, and one more thing, be sure to keep your mouth shut, because when someone get's a load of what comes out of it, they will surely run for the door.
- linda stewart, pennzoil (November 11, 2003; houston, tx)

And finally:

1. Rich, are you, Dennis, Michael, Tom and B.J. "cumming together"? Please use protection!
- Alan Srout, Manager/Veteran (December 02, 2003; Des Moines, IA)

***

I have visited many liberal Web sites, forums and blogs and not once have I ever encountered a liberal who would resort to such vile absurdities.

But, these people - “freepers” egged on by Bill O’Reilly and freerepublic.com - came on moveon.org’s forum to disrupt legitimate discourse and shut the forum down, and the result was “mission accomplished.”

Is it any wonder then that people like this are now resorting to physical attacks?

Hitting rock bottom with GOP win

This post is for anyone - Republican, Democrat or Independent - who is concerned about the U.S. economy.

Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics, tells it like it is in this very succinct warning about what will happen if the GOP regains control of Congress.

Krugman's wake-up call:

SOURCE: The New York Times

Falling Into the Chasm

By PAUL KRUGMAN
October 24, 2010

This is what happens when you need to leap over an economic chasm — but either can’t or won’t jump far enough, so that you only get part of the way across.

If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program — a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states — was more conservative than his election platform.

A few commentators will point out, with much more justice, that Mr. Obama never made a full-throated case for progressive policies, that he consistently stepped on his own message, that he was so worried about making bankers nervous that he ended up ceding populist anger to the right.

But the truth is that if the economic situation were better — if unemployment had fallen substantially over the past year — we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would, instead, be talking about modest Democratic losses, no more than is usual in midterm elections.

The real story of this election, then, is that of an economic policy that failed to deliver. Why? Because it was greatly inadequate to the task.

When Mr. Obama took office, he inherited an economy in dire straits — more dire, it seems, than he or his top economic advisers realized. They knew that America was in the midst of a severe financial crisis. But they don’t seem to have taken on board the lesson of history, which is that major financial crises are normally followed by a protracted period of very high unemployment.

If you look back now at the economic forecast originally used to justify the Obama economic plan, what’s striking is that forecast’s optimism about the economy’s ability to heal itself. Even without their plan, Obama economists predicted, the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent, then fall rapidly. Fiscal stimulus was needed only to mitigate the worst — as an “insurance package against catastrophic failure,” as Lawrence Summers, later the administration’s top economist, reportedly said in a memo to the president-elect.

But economies that have experienced a severe financial crisis generally don’t heal quickly. From the Panic of 1893, to the Swedish crisis of 1992, to Japan’s lost decade, financial crises have consistently been followed by long periods of economic distress. And that has been true even when, as in the case of Sweden, the government moved quickly and decisively to fix the banking system.

To avoid this fate, America needed a much stronger program than what it actually got — a modest rise in federal spending that was barely enough to offset cutbacks at the state and local level. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: the inadequacy of the stimulus was obvious from the beginning.

Could the administration have gotten a bigger stimulus through Congress? Even if it couldn’t, would it have been better off making the case for a bigger plan, rather than pretending that what it got was just right? We’ll never know.

What we do know is that the inadequacy of the stimulus has been a political catastrophe. Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan. But voters respond to facts, not counterfactuals, and the perception is that the administration’s policies have failed.

The tragedy here is that if voters do turn on Democrats, they will in effect be voting to make things even worse.

The resurgent Republicans have learned nothing from the economic crisis, except that doing everything they can to undermine Mr. Obama is a winning political strategy. Tax cuts and deregulation are still the alpha and omega of their economic vision.

And if they take one or both houses of Congress, complete policy paralysis — which will mean, among other things, a cutoff of desperately needed aid to the unemployed and a freeze on further help for state and local governments — is a given. The only question is whether we’ll have political chaos as well, with Republicans’ shutting down the government at some point over the next two years. And the odds are that we will.

Is there any hope for a better outcome? Maybe, just maybe, voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.

But right now it looks as if the too-cautious attempt to jump across that economic chasm has fallen short — and we’re about to hit rock bottom.

***

Go ahead, vote Republican. I'll be here when you want to ask "what happened?" - as long as I can keep my $9.99 a month dial-up connection.

'Obama vs. the loonies'

“The public is a savage animal when you disturb its deeper beliefs and awaken its fears. There is no purpose whatever in trying to reason with it, explain what you can do and what you cannot, tell them how difficult it is. All they want is results. They do not care how you obtain them. They don’t want to know the details or the costs.” – Farrier’s Lane, Anne Perry, 1993.

***

“I’m all for idealism, but only to a point, When it becomes divorced from reality, it ceases to be any use and becomes an incumbrance.” – Traitor’s Gate, Anne Perry, 1995

I believe these two quotes. I am a realist, who at times, I’m sure, has pissed off the idealists in my Party.

I am watching the pre-election polls and am often met with the mantra, “I don’t pay attention to polls.” Well, why not? They check the political pulse of the nation, and right now the pulse of the Democratic Party is pretty weak.

Three days ago, I read an assessment of all the important races across the U.S., written by Mark Preston, CNN’s senior political editor. Its doomsday headline: “Democrats prepare for the worst.” Whether his predicted looming Democratic defeat is a media-generated reality will soon become clear.

This morning in a semi-serendipity moment I stumbled across an analysis on the liberal Reader Supported News, written by POLITICO’s chief political columnist, Roger Simon. Its title, “Obama vs. the loonies” caught my eye. Is this really what it’s come down to in one of the most important mid-term elections facing our country?

As a realist I agree with Mr. Simon’s analysis of “what went wrong?” if the Republicans once more gain control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Stay with it.

Obama vs. the loonies

By: Roger Simon, POLITICO
October 19, 2010

First fix the problem, and then fix the blame. So say the Japanese. But you know what? This ain’t Japan.

We play the blame game here, and we play it early and often. It is now generally recognized that two weeks from now, Democrats will suffer a disaster at the polls.

I know no member of Team Obama who truly believes Democrats will hold onto the House of Representatives. The only question is whether the defeat will be moderate and manageable or a calamity of biblical proportions.

So far, the smart money is on biblical. But why? Upon whom do we fix the blame?

There is President Barack Obama, of course. While his name will not be on the ballot, it is on everybody’s lips. He should have done more and better things in his first two years, Democrats say. Or at least he should have sold his accomplishments better.

The president does not entirely disagree. He told Peter Baker of The New York Times that it is not enough to do good things for the country; you also “can’t be neglecting ... marketing and PR and public opinion.”

He knew he was going to have trouble with this. Everyone close to him knew he was going to have trouble. I have described it before. In February 2007, about a week before he announced for the presidency, he attended a “cattle call” in a suburban hotel outside Washington for potential Democratic candidates. The room was packed to bursting with pols and press, and those locked out by the fire marshal pounded on the doors. Back then, Democrats had the enthusiasm and Republicans had the gap.

When Obama’s turn to speak came, he looked out at the room and said: “You know, if you look at all the cameras gathered around and the clicking of the photographers, the pundits who are collected, sometimes you feel like you are part of a reality TV show. I feel like this is ‘American Idol’ or ‘Survivor,’ and you’ve got to figure out if you’re going to go to Hollywood or you’re going to be voted off the island. But that’s not why I’m here.”

He has not changed. He has little patience with the “inevitable theatrics of Washington,” says Valerie Jarrett, his senior adviser.

But theatrics are how a president sells himself and his policies, and if he fails to master those theatrics, or finds those theatrics too demeaning, then he and his party really will be voted off the island. And quickly.

The issue is not just how Obama has stage-managed his achievements, however. Some in his party’s left wing have abandoned him because he would not fight for the public health care option and has not closed Guantanamo Bay.

And then there are the mainstream Democrats who are merely weary. Velma Hart, a solid, middle-class Democratic voter, stood up at a town hall in September and said she was “exhausted” by defending Obama and his administration. A few weeks later, Gov. Ed Rendell, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said, “A tepid vote counts the same as a wildly enthusiastic vote.” Which is true, but it is a whole lot easier to get a wildly enthusiastic voter than a tepid voter to the polling place.

But even if Obama had pleased his entire party, that still would have left Republicans, the tea partiers and the wackos.

How can one blame Obama for the shocking numbers of people who erroneously believe he is a Muslim or was not born in the United States or is a socialist-communist-fascist (take your pick or take all three)?

Nobody in the White House, including Obama, expected the degree of sheer hatred that has been directed against him. They knew Obama’s approval ratings would fall — how could they not when, in his first 100 days in office, he hit 69 percent, the highest approval rating for any president at that point in 20 years?

But tensions, fears and suspicions bubbled just beneath the surface. Certain facts had been overlooked in the wave of pride and good feeling that followed Obama’s election. While Obama had won the popular vote by a solid 7 percentage points, he had lost the white vote by a landslide, 12 percentage points. And when he made a world tour, in which his messianic image got amplified and his halo got polished by huge and adoring crowds, the clouds back home began to gather.

He cannot be blamed for the demons who demonize him. In a fine story by Sandhya Somashekhar in The Washington Post on Sunday, under the headline “Hope Isn’t What It Used to Be,” a little doozy appeared in the 25th paragraph about how a volunteer was manning the Democratic Party table at the Arkansas State Fair “when a man walks over wearing a green T-shirt that says, ‘Either he dies, or the country dies.’”

Either he dies, or the country dies? Do we really live in a country where a man would go out on the street wearing such a thing? If I had seen it, I think I would have called the Secret Service. (I Googled the phrase to see if I could find the manufacturer of the T-shirt, but I found no hits. Does the person print them up in a basement?)

If Democrats get swamped on Nov. 2, sure, some of it will be the fault of the enthusiasm gap and some of it will be the fault of the president, but some of it will be the fault of those loonies who have crept into American politics like bedbugs and grown bloated on their own hatreds.

***

If this worst case scenario become reality, can we really blame it on the loonies, or is it not more realistic to blame it on those voters - or non-voters - who do not choose to inform themselves of what’s happening right under their noses? I suspect the latter.

Madness cloaked in credentials

OMG! An editor’s nightmare! Join me, dear reader, on this journey to the nadir of journalism.

In response to the promo I emailed for my previous post, “Fox News puts its money where its mouth is,” an acquaintance wrote that he “always” watches Fox News. On top of that email came another with an article, and the suggestion that I “take a few minutes to read this.”

To be fair his note did not make clear whether he agreed or disagreed with the veracity of the article, but he said it came from “a normally reliable source.”

I spent two hours in the middle of the night reading the article. It’s not that long – just 10 pages in Mircrosoft Word – it’s just that I’m a notoriously slow reader. Frankly, I could not stop reading this train wreck of a report by a so-called “investigative journalist,” who apparently has himself derailed.

A search of the article’s headline and writer yielded 577,000 hits on Google. Apparently every right-wing Web site and blog has reproduced it over the last two weeks – and now it’s on a trip around the world via email.

I can only conclude the writer is an opportunist as I recall similar absurd attacks on others, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Of all the circulated emails, right-wing opinion pieces and Fox News talking points that have turned my stomach, this attack on the Obamas hits a new low, a worst case scenario of unethical reporting which will leave a reasonable reader reeling.

DemWit readers, please take time during the next few days to read this article, which I have placed in The Reading Room.

This is not some scary Halloween hoax.

It’s what our country is up against.

Fox News puts its money where its mouth is

“The Fox News political and money machine is hard to even categorize. Few reasonable people would call it a journalistic outfit.”

SOURCE: The Progress Report, Center for American Progress, October 20, 2010 (NOTE: Links to sources can be found in the original text.)

MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY
The Fox News Factor

At a strategy meeting earlier this month, Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell reportedly told party insiders skeptical about her campaign that she had Fox News' "Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys." The fact that Fox News and its right-wing news personalities favor conservative candidates is not a secret to many people with a cable box, but amidst the current discussion over how big money is influencing this election cycle, Rupert Murdoch's highly rated "news" channel is rarely placed in the discussion. It should be: Fox News, part of the multi-billion dollar News Corporation, uses its $1.21 billion budget to provide a 24-hour propaganda and fundraising outlet for conservative candidates, many of whom confess the channel is their preferred method of "getting their voice out."

The channel hosts or straight-out employs more conservative politicians than any other outlet, and provides a constant stream for their misinformation, which is often abetted by Fox News personalities, many of whom campaign for or advise GOP candidates off the air. The right-wing billionaires who are the financial backbone of the Tea Party movement have a partner in Fox News, which has been instrumental in propagating its message, even hosting live Tea Party rallies from outdoor Fox News studios.

And in recent months, News Corp. has simply handed over millions of dollars to conservative campaign outfits like the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

GETTING THEIR VOICE OUT: O'Donnell received instruction on how to use Fox News to her political advantage from the master: paid Fox News contributor Sarah Palin. "[O'Donnell] is gonna have to dismiss that, go with her gut, get out there, speak to the American people, speak through Fox News, and let the independents who are tuning into you, let them know what it is that she stands for, the principles behind her positions," Palin explained. Palin herself turned to Fox News during the 2008 campaign after embarrassing interviews with other mainstream outlets, and in the time since, retained Fox News personality Greta Van Susteren's husband as a political adviser.

In fact, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination that's not currently in office is on the Fox News payroll, with the exception of Mitt Romney, and all but one speak only on that network. According to Media Matters research, these potential candidates made a whopping 269 appearances on Fox News through the end of September. So far this year, none of the potential contenders on the Fox News payroll have appeared on any other television news outlet with the exception of Newt Gingrich. "We have tried to book many of them, but they have always refused, saying they are exclusive to Fox," one rival network staffer told Politico.

This election cycle, numerous Republican congressional candidates have also chosen to "speak through Fox News." For example, Washington Senate candidate Dino Rossi has given at least five interviews to Fox News just in the past month, including having Fox News cameras on the campaign trail with him twice, while giving no interviews to any other national cable news outlet. During these interviews, Rossi has stood up to questioning that can generously described as "helpful" - like this probing question from Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum: "That's a lot of pressure on you, Mr. Rossi. How [are] you holding up under that?" Or this one from Hannity: "So what story is it that you want to tell in this election that's going to make the difference and push you over the top?"

MISLEADING CONTENT: Fox News coverage of this election cycle is no more balanced than its guest list. The list of falsehoods and bogus story lines advanced by the network is too long to catalogue entirely, but just a few examples from recent weeks:

Bill O'Reilly said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "may have come out of the closet" in support of "socialistic philosophy."

The hosts of Fox & Friends later wondered if a Pelosi speech struck a "socialist tone."

Hannity also opined that House Democrats passed health care reform "with, basically, what I consider to be the moral equivalency of a bribe."

Neil Cavuto asked Republicans to promise to "destroy" health care reform on the campaign trail.

Even ostensible straight news reporters like Carl Cameron assert things like Obama's "liberal agenda caused" an "uproar" in Indiana.

The Fox effect has a real impact on the nation's business, extending beyond elections to the passing of legislation. When Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was negotiating to join Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in their attempt to craft an energy bill, the Republican warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill "before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process," one of the people involved in the negotiations said to The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.

SHOWING THEM THE MONEY: When conservative politicians appear on Fox News, they don't just get softball questions - they also get money. During his frequent appearances, Rossi was sure to note several times that viewers could visit his website, and that he "needed the help." Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, another politician who gives interviews almost exclusively to Fox News, explained that she doesn't do interviews with other mainstream outlets because "Well, in that audience, will they let me say I need $25 dollars from a million people go to SharronAngle.com send money?" But on Fox News, when she made a fundraising pitch on Hannity's show, she made $40,000 "before we even got out of the studio in New York."

Fox News has provided tremendous help towards organizing and fundraising for the Tea Party movement as well - Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren and other Fox News personalities actually hosted the first tax day Tea Party rallies, in 2009, and just this week have been relentlessly promoting the Tea Party Express campaign bus.

When candidates aren't raising money on Fox airwaves, the parent company is often just forking it over to conservative causes: News Corp. has given repeated donations to the Republican Governors Association and has also given $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is running an aggressive ad campaign against Democratic candidates.

There's a benefit for Fox News in this too - it made $534.8 million in pure profit last year. The Fox News political and money machine is hard to even categorize. Few reasonable people would call it a journalistic outfit. As Center for American Progress senior fellow Eric Alterman wrote, "Fox is something new - something for which we do not yet have a word. It provides almost no actual journalism. Instead it gives ideological guidance to the Republican Party and millions of its supporters, attacking its opponents and keeping its supporters in line. And it does so at a hefty profit, thereby turning itself into the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine."

***

I have a word for Fox News, Mr. Alterman, It’s “Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda.”

It’s worked before.

Darwin and Darrow

Creationism v. evolution. I’ve been thinking about this argument a lot lately due to my reading matter.

I accept the Genesis account of creation as a skillful literary device depicting the unfolding of eons.

I believe in a master designer who, through intelligence far beyond my comprehension, knew that one day a nose would be needed to hold eyeglasses and that mankind would learn to make cream cheese and bagels and some sweet soul would one day bring them together.

I do not wish to be labeled a “creationist.” I know Earth is more than 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs once roamed the planet and trilobite fossils can be found on rocks.

I realize that some Demwit readers adamantly disagree with my belief and my faith and recognize that as their right.

About that reading matter: of the thousands of books I’ve read, one has finally toppled Cervantes’ “Don Quixote” as the most boring book I’ve managed to survive, which, according to its premise, makes me among the “fittest.”

I do not make this assessment to refute Charles Darwin’s theories in “The Origin of Species,” but I do wonder how many adherents actually made it through the book without becoming catatonic.

A theory does not have to be proved; it has to be disproved, and Darwin’s theories on how species evolved are irrefutable.

The next book up was Irving Stone’s “Clarence Darrow for the Defense: A Biography” (1941). It is merely coincidence that I listened to these two books back to back.

These brief passages from the famous lawyer’s arguments at the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, July 1925, convey eloquently my own sentiments. (If you don’t know the history of this trial, stop monkeying around and click on the link.)

“The State of Tennessee, under an honest and fair interpretation of the Constitution, has no more right to teach the Bible as the divine book than that the Koran is or the Book of Mormons or the Book of Confucius or the Buddha or the essays of Emerson or any one of ten thousand books to which human souls have gone for consolation and aid in times of trouble. I know there are millions of people in the world who derive consolation in times of trouble and solace in times of distress from the Bible. I would be pretty near the last one in the world to do anything to take it away.

“ I feel just exactly the same toward every religious creed of every human being who lives. If anybody finds anything in this life that brings them consolation and health and happiness, I think they ought to have it. I haven’t any fault to find with them at all.

“But the Bible is not one book. The Bible is made up of sixty-six books written over a period of about one thousand years – some of them very early and some of them comparatively late. It is a book primarily of religion and morals. It is NOT a book of science, never was and was never meant to be.”

(…)

“They say I’m an atheist. I am NOT an atheist. It is no more possible to prove there is not a God than to prove there is a God.”

(…)

“They (Tennesse lawmakers) make it a crime to know more than I know. They publish a law to inhibit learning. This law says that it shall be a criminal offense to teach in the public schools any account of the origin of man that is in direct conflict with the divine account that is in the Bible. It makes the Bible the yardstick to measure every man’s intelligence and to measure every man’s learning.

“Are your mathematics good? Turn to I Elijah 2 (sic). Is your philosophy good? See II Samuel 3. Is your chemistry good? See Deuteronomy 3:6 or anything that tells about brimstone. Every bit of knowledge that the mind has must be submitted to a religious test.”

The argument goes on. Not much has changed since those hot, muggy, summer days in a little town in Tennessee – except an honest enforcement of the laws of this land.