I don’t have a Nobel Prize in economics, but this guy does. If I haven’t made myself clear over the last few days, along comes Paul Krugman in The New York Times to reiterate exactly what I’ve been saying in both my posts and my comments on the posts.
Only plainer.
Few political gambits have made me angrier than that pulled off by Republicans Friday night, so I wasn’t too receptive to President Obama’s words of praise for bipartisan accomplishment. And frankly, with so much at stake for so many Americans, all that BS about the Washington Monument turned me off.
As "Frodo" said in his last comment here, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. So, let me shut up. Let a Nobel laureate say it:
“The President Is Missing,” Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 10 April 2011: LINK
4.11.2011
4.09.2011
Don't call Boehner 'stupid'
When John Boehner and House Republicans pushed through a last-minute bill demanding cuts to Planned Parenthood and stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to control greenhouse emissions – as discussed in DemWit’s last post – they knew exactly what they were doing.
This was ideological trickery at its best. In addition to titillating his base, Boehner’s “social issues” scheme had America holding its collective breath, but, hey, a group of eighth-graders will now get to visit the Washington Monument.
The front page of The New York Times (LINK) sums it up nicely:
“Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.”
In his 11th hour comments to the nation, Obama continued to express his desire for both parties to work together for America’s future, calling spending cuts “painful” to many Americans and saying WE must begin to “live within our means.”
Now, whether the president means an editorial “we” referring to the government or to me as a citizen is unclear. (The New York Times article interprets the "we" as meaning Americans.) I have always lived within my means. My problem is, like so many Americans, my means ain't keeping up with the times.
I am not yet clear on how “painful” the historic $38 billion spending cuts deal will be. That requires further reading on my part, but I am clear on one thing.
Don’t call Boehner "stupid."
***
Read or view President Obama’s late-night remarks on the budget deal HERE.
This was ideological trickery at its best. In addition to titillating his base, Boehner’s “social issues” scheme had America holding its collective breath, but, hey, a group of eighth-graders will now get to visit the Washington Monument.
The front page of The New York Times (LINK) sums it up nicely:
“Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.”
In his 11th hour comments to the nation, Obama continued to express his desire for both parties to work together for America’s future, calling spending cuts “painful” to many Americans and saying WE must begin to “live within our means.”
Now, whether the president means an editorial “we” referring to the government or to me as a citizen is unclear. (The New York Times article interprets the "we" as meaning Americans.) I have always lived within my means. My problem is, like so many Americans, my means ain't keeping up with the times.
I am not yet clear on how “painful” the historic $38 billion spending cuts deal will be. That requires further reading on my part, but I am clear on one thing.
Don’t call Boehner "stupid."
***
Read or view President Obama’s late-night remarks on the budget deal HERE.
4.07.2011
NO COMPROMISE!
It’s not enough that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan introduced a highly controversial spending proposal during budget negotiations - one that would compromise healthcare needs for 100 million Americans - but now House Republicans have pushed through a bill which makes it look to the less-than-informed as if the GOP wants to keep the government running.
But, in the bill which passed the House today by a vote of 247 to 181, the GOP doubled down with a couple of tried-and-true measures to rile the low-end of their base and satiate the high-end.
When all else fails throw in the hot-button issue of abortion and, by all means, let business know the environment will never trump profits.
In what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid correctly deems “ideological,” Republicans “are no longer on how much savings we will get on government spending."
Today, they have thrown in provisions that would strip all funding from Planned Parenthood as well as prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
President Obama, won't you use your bully pulpit, look into the cameras and tell the American people just how lowdown and dirty this ideological trickery is? Don’t let the Republicans come out smelling like a rose while the naïve blame a government shutdown on Democrats.
Enough, already!
NO COMPROMISE!
But, in the bill which passed the House today by a vote of 247 to 181, the GOP doubled down with a couple of tried-and-true measures to rile the low-end of their base and satiate the high-end.
When all else fails throw in the hot-button issue of abortion and, by all means, let business know the environment will never trump profits.
In what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid correctly deems “ideological,” Republicans “are no longer on how much savings we will get on government spending."
Today, they have thrown in provisions that would strip all funding from Planned Parenthood as well as prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
President Obama, won't you use your bully pulpit, look into the cameras and tell the American people just how lowdown and dirty this ideological trickery is? Don’t let the Republicans come out smelling like a rose while the naïve blame a government shutdown on Democrats.
Enough, already!
NO COMPROMISE!
4.06.2011
Messing it up!
My son Michael entered first grade about the time this country began to be aware of the environment. The word “ecology” had just entered the lexicon.
Michael came home from school one day with an assignment to make a poster about the environment, and I left him to his own devices. The finished poster had drawings of a few stars, the moon, the sun surround by rays, a fish, a bird in flight, a cat and a banana. All this resulted in a colorful work of art, but it was the words of a six-year-old, meticulously printed, which hit home:
“God created Heaven and Earth. Don’t you mess it up.”
Massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dying honeybees.
More and more animals on the endangered species list.
Depleted rain forests.
Natural habitats destroyed.
Global warming.
A glut of medical waste, nuclear waste and unrecycled garbage.
Deadly chemicals in our lakes, rivers, streams and aquifers.
Acid rain.
And now this:
“Water gushing into the Pacific Ocean from Japan's damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has radiation levels millions of times above the regulatory limit.”
In 1976, my biology professor was comparing our environmental challenges to a stack of cans at the grocery. One by one, he said, the cans would be removed until the whole stack crumbled.
I raised my hand and asked, “When will the last can be removed?”
“Fifty years ago,” he answered.
Earth isn’t going away. Our hermitage was here eons ago and will be here eons more.
How long before Homo sapiens are added to the endangered species list?
Now, it’s time for some smart ass Republican to call me a “tree hugger.”
PHOTO: NASA's "Blue Marble Earth"
***
Earth Day is coming on April 22. This year's theme is "A Billion Acts of Green." Go HERE to find out how YOU can help.
4.04.2011
To a friend on Monday morning
My buddy Chris and I didn't let up all weekend, most of the time spent cooking my 16-quart boiler full of stuff for the freezer. Plus lots of little chores he helps me with. When his folks picked him up at 7:30 Sunday night, I opted to sit and relax and listen to my book, then slept from midnight until 8 this morning.
For that reason, I didn't get a chance to read the news articles I had saved to Word until this morning, including the ones about the killings over the Quran burning. While what Terry Jones did is despicable, there is no excuse for passion that leads to the deaths of innocent people. I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from President Obama:
"The desecration of any holy text ... is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."
You and I, my friend, would not go out and kill a bunch of innocent people if we witnessed the Holy Bible being burned. These killings are the result of fanaticism on both sides - Terry Jones' church and Muslim protesters. Looks like the "Crusades" are going to last forever. Terry Jones has had his "15 minutes of fame," but Americans will see these killings as one more excuse to condemn Islam. I swear ignorance just seems to prevail, doesn't it?
Just thought I would get back to you on this. When you initially emailed me about the killings at the UN compound, I had not been able to keep up with what's happening in the world. Many days now I don't get much in the way of news at all, other than scanning headlines. I am just so limited now in what I can read, because it just takes me so long to do so.
Last week I spent most days reading all those comments (76, so far) about Obama on Parsley’s Pics (because I was interested both in what the "hard left" Obama-bashers and his defenders were saying) AND reading Obama's address to the nation on Libya as well as reactions - pro and con. For that reason I didn't get around to the news. I wish I could find a Web site which would email a daily briefing on all the IMPORTANT news stories of the day, rather than insignificant crap and the latest antics of Sarah Palin!
I get a lot from the Center for American Progress' daily Progress Report, but quite often at the end of the week, I find myself deleting all of them without even opening them. I sure hate that.
I did manage to read the CNN article about Ryan's proposed Medicare, Medicaid cuts and decided to put it on DemWit. I swear I believe Republican leaders would be happy if all poor folks just died and got out of the way. I will never understand their lack of empathy and sympathy for the poor. Then, they claim they love Jesus. Can’t make that work in my head. Haven’t they read The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes?
I am babbling, aren't I? I hope you have a good week, Ever think about taking a week off from the computer? Believe me, I have!
Love you, BJ
***
In the post that follows, Ryan’s proposals to cut Medicare, Medicaid while continuing to push permanent benefits for the wealthy are discussed. Full text and audio of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount containing the Beatitudes HERE.
For that reason, I didn't get a chance to read the news articles I had saved to Word until this morning, including the ones about the killings over the Quran burning. While what Terry Jones did is despicable, there is no excuse for passion that leads to the deaths of innocent people. I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from President Obama:
"The desecration of any holy text ... is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."
You and I, my friend, would not go out and kill a bunch of innocent people if we witnessed the Holy Bible being burned. These killings are the result of fanaticism on both sides - Terry Jones' church and Muslim protesters. Looks like the "Crusades" are going to last forever. Terry Jones has had his "15 minutes of fame," but Americans will see these killings as one more excuse to condemn Islam. I swear ignorance just seems to prevail, doesn't it?
Just thought I would get back to you on this. When you initially emailed me about the killings at the UN compound, I had not been able to keep up with what's happening in the world. Many days now I don't get much in the way of news at all, other than scanning headlines. I am just so limited now in what I can read, because it just takes me so long to do so.
Last week I spent most days reading all those comments (76, so far) about Obama on Parsley’s Pics (because I was interested both in what the "hard left" Obama-bashers and his defenders were saying) AND reading Obama's address to the nation on Libya as well as reactions - pro and con. For that reason I didn't get around to the news. I wish I could find a Web site which would email a daily briefing on all the IMPORTANT news stories of the day, rather than insignificant crap and the latest antics of Sarah Palin!
I get a lot from the Center for American Progress' daily Progress Report, but quite often at the end of the week, I find myself deleting all of them without even opening them. I sure hate that.
I did manage to read the CNN article about Ryan's proposed Medicare, Medicaid cuts and decided to put it on DemWit. I swear I believe Republican leaders would be happy if all poor folks just died and got out of the way. I will never understand their lack of empathy and sympathy for the poor. Then, they claim they love Jesus. Can’t make that work in my head. Haven’t they read The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes?
I am babbling, aren't I? I hope you have a good week, Ever think about taking a week off from the computer? Believe me, I have!
Love you, BJ
***
In the post that follows, Ryan’s proposals to cut Medicare, Medicaid while continuing to push permanent benefits for the wealthy are discussed. Full text and audio of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount containing the Beatitudes HERE.
4.03.2011
The known unknowns of Ryan's plan
DemWit shares the following CNN.com article in the hopes of educating readers to the known unknowns of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan, to be announced Tuesday.
In preparing GOP leaders for his very controversial proposals, Ryan uses fear, pointing out that without his plan:
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget."
Despite claims that no one over the age of 55 will be affected by Paul’s healthcare entitlement cuts, take a close look at $1 trilion in Medicaid cuts, which will eviscerate assistance for low-income American families.
SOURCE: CNN
House GOP budget to call for big changes to Medicare, Medicaid
by Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh
April 2, 2011
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's spending plan is to be unveiled Tuesday
Washington (CNN) - House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, will unveil a highly anticipated 2012 Republican budget next week that proposes dramatic changes to political lightning rods: entitlements.
The plan, to be released Tuesday, calls for a controversial overhaul of Medicare, the health care program for seniors, and imposes deep cuts in Medicaid, which provides health benefits to low-income Americans, according to House Republican sources with knowledge of the proposal.
Starting 10 years from now, in 2021, Americans would no longer enroll in the Medicare program, but instead receive vouchers for private insurance, according to the GOP sources, who stressed anyone 55 or older now would not be affected by the change.
The plan is modeled after one Ryan proposed last year with Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Bill Clinton.
Details of how Ryan's Medicare voucher program would work are still unclear, but the Ryan-Rivlin plan said the amount of the voucher -- a lump sum payment from the government -- would be calculated in part by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee.
The GOP aims to save billions of dollars in revamping Medicare, a large contributor to the massive federal deficit and debt.
Sources said they did not yet know how much savings Ryan would project by drastically changing the Medicare program.
On Medicaid, Ryan's plan calls for deep cuts, as much as $1 trillion. The program would also fundamentally change -- the federal share of the Medicaid system would become block grants to the states.
CNN has been told that the House GOP budget plan does not call for significant change to the Social Security program. Republicans argue that while Social Security is a factor in the nation's fiscal crisis, it doesn't contribute as much to the soaring debt as Medicare.
Two House GOP lawmakers briefed on the proposal told CNN they and others on the House Budget Committee believe it's a mistake not to tackle Social Security.
As for so-called discretionary spending, one of the sources -- who would not speak on the record before the plan is publicly announced -- said Ryan's proposal promises to roll back spending to 2006 levels.
It's unclear how much that would slash, but it is expected to be far more than the roughly $61 billion in spending cuts House Republicans passed in February.
Ryan is expected to give specifics on how much savings the plan would create when it is unveiled Tuesday.
One GOP source said even with the major cuts and changes in Ryan's proposal -- essentially a blueprint that guides spending decisions and does not go to the president for his signature -- it would not bring the budget into balance for many years.
Still, GOP sources briefed on the plan said it would save hundreds of billions of dollars more than the president's proposed 2012 budget, and trillions over the next 10 years.
The budget would also cut the corporate tax rate, but at the same time do away with tax loopholes for corporations.
Ryan's plan also provides for a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, which under a compromise with President Barack Obama were extended last year through 2012.
House Republican leaders have been signaling for some time that they plan dramatic and controversial changes to entitlement programs in order to rein in the budget deficit and debt.
Knowing that the proposed changes will be politically risky and elicit an onslaught of criticism, Ryan and Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy have been holding sessions two or three times a week with House Republicans to try to arm them with information about the gravity of the debt problem and why it needs to be fixed.
CNN was allowed into one of these meetings last month, and heard Ryan lay out for his GOP colleagues in stark terms what he calls the "tidal wave" of debt the country is facing.
"The Congressional Budget Office has this economic model where they measure the economy going forward, and they are telling us that the entire economy crashes in the year 2037 because their computer simulation can't conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue," Ryan told the GOP group.
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs -- Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare --will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget," Ryan said.
When Ryan proposed a version of his Medicare overhaul idea last year, known as his "road map," Democrats skewered it and tried to use it as a campaign weapon against Republicans across the country.
Obama has often said it is important for Washington to address entitlement spending. But the president has not offered any specific proposals, and Republicans suggest he wants them to take the first risky steps.
Multiple GOP sources admit the timing of Ryan's 2012 budget proposal is tricky. It will be released in the middle of down-to-the-wire, contentious negotiations with Democrats about a spending measure to keep the government running for the rest of this 2011 fiscal year.
CNN has been told that GOP leaders considered delaying the release of Ryan's budget until this year's spending differences are resolved. However, they decided to go ahead with it in hopes showing major cuts and reforms planned for next year will calm rank-and-file conservatives who feel the leadership is too compromising on spending cuts.
***
This is another GOP effort to privatize entitlement programs, putting the private business sector ahead of the healthcare of Americans. I cannot put it any clearer.
Low-income Americans - indeed, all Americans - should listen closely to the echo of Ryan’s announcement Tuesday. His words to the poor and to anyone with the heart to care will reverberate across this nation: If you can't afford medical care without this help, "Just die!”
In preparing GOP leaders for his very controversial proposals, Ryan uses fear, pointing out that without his plan:
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget."
Despite claims that no one over the age of 55 will be affected by Paul’s healthcare entitlement cuts, take a close look at $1 trilion in Medicaid cuts, which will eviscerate assistance for low-income American families.
SOURCE: CNN
House GOP budget to call for big changes to Medicare, Medicaid
by Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh
April 2, 2011
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's spending plan is to be unveiled Tuesday
Washington (CNN) - House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, will unveil a highly anticipated 2012 Republican budget next week that proposes dramatic changes to political lightning rods: entitlements.
The plan, to be released Tuesday, calls for a controversial overhaul of Medicare, the health care program for seniors, and imposes deep cuts in Medicaid, which provides health benefits to low-income Americans, according to House Republican sources with knowledge of the proposal.
Starting 10 years from now, in 2021, Americans would no longer enroll in the Medicare program, but instead receive vouchers for private insurance, according to the GOP sources, who stressed anyone 55 or older now would not be affected by the change.
The plan is modeled after one Ryan proposed last year with Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Bill Clinton.
Details of how Ryan's Medicare voucher program would work are still unclear, but the Ryan-Rivlin plan said the amount of the voucher -- a lump sum payment from the government -- would be calculated in part by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee.
The GOP aims to save billions of dollars in revamping Medicare, a large contributor to the massive federal deficit and debt.
Sources said they did not yet know how much savings Ryan would project by drastically changing the Medicare program.
On Medicaid, Ryan's plan calls for deep cuts, as much as $1 trillion. The program would also fundamentally change -- the federal share of the Medicaid system would become block grants to the states.
CNN has been told that the House GOP budget plan does not call for significant change to the Social Security program. Republicans argue that while Social Security is a factor in the nation's fiscal crisis, it doesn't contribute as much to the soaring debt as Medicare.
Two House GOP lawmakers briefed on the proposal told CNN they and others on the House Budget Committee believe it's a mistake not to tackle Social Security.
As for so-called discretionary spending, one of the sources -- who would not speak on the record before the plan is publicly announced -- said Ryan's proposal promises to roll back spending to 2006 levels.
It's unclear how much that would slash, but it is expected to be far more than the roughly $61 billion in spending cuts House Republicans passed in February.
Ryan is expected to give specifics on how much savings the plan would create when it is unveiled Tuesday.
One GOP source said even with the major cuts and changes in Ryan's proposal -- essentially a blueprint that guides spending decisions and does not go to the president for his signature -- it would not bring the budget into balance for many years.
Still, GOP sources briefed on the plan said it would save hundreds of billions of dollars more than the president's proposed 2012 budget, and trillions over the next 10 years.
The budget would also cut the corporate tax rate, but at the same time do away with tax loopholes for corporations.
Ryan's plan also provides for a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, which under a compromise with President Barack Obama were extended last year through 2012.
House Republican leaders have been signaling for some time that they plan dramatic and controversial changes to entitlement programs in order to rein in the budget deficit and debt.
Knowing that the proposed changes will be politically risky and elicit an onslaught of criticism, Ryan and Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy have been holding sessions two or three times a week with House Republicans to try to arm them with information about the gravity of the debt problem and why it needs to be fixed.
CNN was allowed into one of these meetings last month, and heard Ryan lay out for his GOP colleagues in stark terms what he calls the "tidal wave" of debt the country is facing.
"The Congressional Budget Office has this economic model where they measure the economy going forward, and they are telling us that the entire economy crashes in the year 2037 because their computer simulation can't conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue," Ryan told the GOP group.
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs -- Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare --will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget," Ryan said.
When Ryan proposed a version of his Medicare overhaul idea last year, known as his "road map," Democrats skewered it and tried to use it as a campaign weapon against Republicans across the country.
Obama has often said it is important for Washington to address entitlement spending. But the president has not offered any specific proposals, and Republicans suggest he wants them to take the first risky steps.
Multiple GOP sources admit the timing of Ryan's 2012 budget proposal is tricky. It will be released in the middle of down-to-the-wire, contentious negotiations with Democrats about a spending measure to keep the government running for the rest of this 2011 fiscal year.
CNN has been told that GOP leaders considered delaying the release of Ryan's budget until this year's spending differences are resolved. However, they decided to go ahead with it in hopes showing major cuts and reforms planned for next year will calm rank-and-file conservatives who feel the leadership is too compromising on spending cuts.
***
This is another GOP effort to privatize entitlement programs, putting the private business sector ahead of the healthcare of Americans. I cannot put it any clearer.
Low-income Americans - indeed, all Americans - should listen closely to the echo of Ryan’s announcement Tuesday. His words to the poor and to anyone with the heart to care will reverberate across this nation: If you can't afford medical care without this help, "Just die!”
3.31.2011
The right place at the right time
“I’m good enough. I’m smart enough. And, doggone it, people like me.”
That mantra was the title of Al Franken’s first book. It became a favorite saying of David Letterman. Al Gore even read it on The Late Show as one of the “Top 10 Rejected Al Gore-Joe Lieberman Campaign Slogans.”
According to a USA Today/Gallup survey released today, that oft-repeated slogan could apply to a woman I admire and respect:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and just one percentage point below her all-time high from December 1998. She continues to get higher ratings than Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and she scores better with women than men, 72% vs. 59%.”
Hillary has topped Gallup’s end-of-the-year “Most Admired Woman” list 13 years since 1999 and has won that distinction for the last nine consecutive years.
I mention this for two reason:
First, a blogging buddy who keeps abreast of the liberal-progressive blogging world assures me that Hillary supporters are a strong element of the Obama-bashing coming from the hard left. (The left has done its share of Hillary-bashing as well.)
Second, since I supported Hillary for president, did not hesitate to vote for Barack Obama and do not now find myself part of the bashing, I’ve thought a lot about this capable – and popular - woman over the last few days.
We live in a time of amazing communications technology where news and opinion can be flashed around the globe as it happens. The world stage, tumultuous with natural disasters and civil unrest, is at our fingertips. Perhaps never before in the history of the world has reasoned diplomacy been so important.
In her memoir “Living History,” Mrs. Clinton recalls meetings with leaders around the world. With great courage and tact, the former first lady spoke out for women’s and children’s rights in countries where they do not exist.
Many across the U.S. Senate aisle found her likeable and said so. During her presidential campaign she charmed her archrival, Richard Mellon Scaife, into endorsing her. Diplomacy seems to be her long suit.
For these reasons, I have concluded that Hillary is exactly where she needs to be. And, President Obama is pretty damn smart to know it. Reading Obama’s address to the nation on Libya convinces me that this leadership combination is in the right place at the right time.
Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” (2007):
“Hillary is neither the demon of the right’s perception, nor a feminist saint. Here is a story of strength and vulnerability, a woman’s story. She is an intelligent woman endowed with energy, enthusiasm, humor, tempestuousness, inner strength, spontaneity in private, lethal (almost) powers of retribution, real-life lines that come from deep wounds, and the language skills of a sailor and of a minister, all evidence of her passion—which, deep down, is perhaps her most enduring and even endearing trait.”
God forbid if her legacy includes disrespect for the American president.
Sixty-eight years of life experiences have taught me there are people who love to hate. These people, whether on the left or the right, can, in blogosphere terms, “piss and moan” all they like. I am content that our country is in the very best of hands.
Best to stop all the bitching and make sure it stays that way.
That mantra was the title of Al Franken’s first book. It became a favorite saying of David Letterman. Al Gore even read it on The Late Show as one of the “Top 10 Rejected Al Gore-Joe Lieberman Campaign Slogans.”
According to a USA Today/Gallup survey released today, that oft-repeated slogan could apply to a woman I admire and respect:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and just one percentage point below her all-time high from December 1998. She continues to get higher ratings than Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and she scores better with women than men, 72% vs. 59%.”
Hillary has topped Gallup’s end-of-the-year “Most Admired Woman” list 13 years since 1999 and has won that distinction for the last nine consecutive years.
I mention this for two reason:
First, a blogging buddy who keeps abreast of the liberal-progressive blogging world assures me that Hillary supporters are a strong element of the Obama-bashing coming from the hard left. (The left has done its share of Hillary-bashing as well.)
Second, since I supported Hillary for president, did not hesitate to vote for Barack Obama and do not now find myself part of the bashing, I’ve thought a lot about this capable – and popular - woman over the last few days.
We live in a time of amazing communications technology where news and opinion can be flashed around the globe as it happens. The world stage, tumultuous with natural disasters and civil unrest, is at our fingertips. Perhaps never before in the history of the world has reasoned diplomacy been so important.
In her memoir “Living History,” Mrs. Clinton recalls meetings with leaders around the world. With great courage and tact, the former first lady spoke out for women’s and children’s rights in countries where they do not exist.
Many across the U.S. Senate aisle found her likeable and said so. During her presidential campaign she charmed her archrival, Richard Mellon Scaife, into endorsing her. Diplomacy seems to be her long suit.
For these reasons, I have concluded that Hillary is exactly where she needs to be. And, President Obama is pretty damn smart to know it. Reading Obama’s address to the nation on Libya convinces me that this leadership combination is in the right place at the right time.
Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” (2007):
“Hillary is neither the demon of the right’s perception, nor a feminist saint. Here is a story of strength and vulnerability, a woman’s story. She is an intelligent woman endowed with energy, enthusiasm, humor, tempestuousness, inner strength, spontaneity in private, lethal (almost) powers of retribution, real-life lines that come from deep wounds, and the language skills of a sailor and of a minister, all evidence of her passion—which, deep down, is perhaps her most enduring and even endearing trait.”
God forbid if her legacy includes disrespect for the American president.
Sixty-eight years of life experiences have taught me there are people who love to hate. These people, whether on the left or the right, can, in blogosphere terms, “piss and moan” all they like. I am content that our country is in the very best of hands.
Best to stop all the bitching and make sure it stays that way.
3.26.2011
Daphne du Maurier's 'Rebecca'
“Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” Despite being caught up in its spell, I wasn’t dreaming. I went again to Manderley, not in Hitchcock’s classic film, but, for the first time, in Daphne du Maurier’s 1938 novel.
Literature has given us many complex female characters – Blanche DuBois, Elizabeth Bennet, Scarlett O’Hara, Emma Bovary, Milly Theale. The reader is often outside the character, observing, examining, but in “Rebecca,” you are inside and at one with the female narrator.
I cannot give this woman a name, because Dame du Maurier said simply she "could not think of one to give her." She is known to readers (and movie buffs) worldwide only as “the second Mrs. de Winter.”
Movies have never been a substitute for the books on which they are based, but Hitchcock came close. In one very important aspect, he failed. It is only through the words of du Maurier that one learns the narrator’s most fearful antagonist is neither the inescapable presence of Rebecca (the first Mrs. de Winter) nor the demented obsession of the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. What most troubles our narrator, we find, is that she is a martyr to her own inferiority complex.
My Talking Books version is based on a special edition which features a wonderful Author’s Note and the original epilogue to the book.
At the time of Dame du Maurier’s death in 1989 at the age of 82, there were 3 million copies of her "unsurpassed masterpiece" in print, translated into 25 languages.
As she reveals in her “Author’s Note,” Dame du Maurier, upon finishing her novel, cleverly made changes. She added two vital characters. She moved the epilogue, rewritten, to the beginning of the story and rewrote the ending. She changed the master of Manderley’s name from the “too plain” Henry to Maximillian or Maxim. No spoiler to reveal that in the original epilogue Manderley eventually becomes a country club where the morning room is converted to a billiards room and “The Happy Valley” becomes a golf course. Those who have experienced “Rebecca” will know, then, how this must have altered the book’s concluding scene.
Those who have not read it are missing a Gothic mystery and romance which sweeps the reader along like “the salt wind from the sea.”
Literature has given us many complex female characters – Blanche DuBois, Elizabeth Bennet, Scarlett O’Hara, Emma Bovary, Milly Theale. The reader is often outside the character, observing, examining, but in “Rebecca,” you are inside and at one with the female narrator.
I cannot give this woman a name, because Dame du Maurier said simply she "could not think of one to give her." She is known to readers (and movie buffs) worldwide only as “the second Mrs. de Winter.”
Movies have never been a substitute for the books on which they are based, but Hitchcock came close. In one very important aspect, he failed. It is only through the words of du Maurier that one learns the narrator’s most fearful antagonist is neither the inescapable presence of Rebecca (the first Mrs. de Winter) nor the demented obsession of the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. What most troubles our narrator, we find, is that she is a martyr to her own inferiority complex.
My Talking Books version is based on a special edition which features a wonderful Author’s Note and the original epilogue to the book.
At the time of Dame du Maurier’s death in 1989 at the age of 82, there were 3 million copies of her "unsurpassed masterpiece" in print, translated into 25 languages.
As she reveals in her “Author’s Note,” Dame du Maurier, upon finishing her novel, cleverly made changes. She added two vital characters. She moved the epilogue, rewritten, to the beginning of the story and rewrote the ending. She changed the master of Manderley’s name from the “too plain” Henry to Maximillian or Maxim. No spoiler to reveal that in the original epilogue Manderley eventually becomes a country club where the morning room is converted to a billiards room and “The Happy Valley” becomes a golf course. Those who have experienced “Rebecca” will know, then, how this must have altered the book’s concluding scene.
Those who have not read it are missing a Gothic mystery and romance which sweeps the reader along like “the salt wind from the sea.”
3.22.2011
Examining Kucinich's claim
In the great Rob Reiner-Aaron Sorkin film, “The American President,” President Andrew Shepherd (played by Michael Douglas) decides to retaliate after Libya bombs a U.S.-manned missile installation in Israel. In a conference room meeting with his White House staff and military leaders to discuss the possible air strike against Libya, the following dialogue occurs:
A. J. MacInerney, Chief of Staff: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk and it's a proportional response.
President Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.
(…)
President Shepherd (after ordering the air strike): What I did tonight was not about political gain.
Leon Kodak, Deputy Chief of Staff: Yes. sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
President Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job, because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.
At no point in this scene does the president pick up the phone and consult with a Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich, Democratic congressman from Ohio, has claimed that President Obama committed an “impeachable offense” by joining allies in air strikes on Libya.
The intent of this post, then, is not to argue the merits of the military action, but to ask whether it is, indeed, constitutional.
First, I am not a fan of the fiery, hard-left political views of Kucinich. Time and again he has voted against Democratic proposals in the U.S. House, then justified his vote on his Web site. He votes “no” because the bills don’t go far enough. Kucinich wants it all, and he wants it now, overlooking the fact that sweeping policy changes often come in increments.
Is Kucinich right that Obama should have gotten Congressional approval before ordering U.S. military strikes on Libya?
In 1986 when Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque, he consulted with bipartisan members of Congress, but I can find no record that Congress voted to give him authority to do so.
The Department of Justice has this to say:
“(T)he President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”
Using these criteria, if we are to exclude Ghadafi’s abuse against his own people, then Congress should never have given sanction to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Read the Department of Justice’s report, “The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them” HERE.
How would one interpret the president’s “broad” and “inherent” Constitutional powers in this action?
According to Kucinich, "Such an action - that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy - is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
That is not a true statement according to the powers granted the executive after 9/11.
"In a statement on his Web site Friday, Kucinich made clear he thinks Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war."
But, Obama has no more declared war on Libya than Reagan did in 1986.
Perhaps I need to do a little more digging – where is constitutional authority Jonathan Turley when I need him?
Or, perhaps this is a matter which should be clarified by both Congress and the courts.
POSTSCRIPT
There's a lot of hellraising about this issue, a squaring off on the left of anti-war advocates and folks like me who believe force is sometimes necessary. There also seems to be a confusion, IMO, in distinguishing retaliatory air strikes and a "declaration of war." This post has been strengthened by readers' comments, which you can access by clicking on the post title above or on "comments" below. Thanks!
A. J. MacInerney, Chief of Staff: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk and it's a proportional response.
President Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.
(…)
President Shepherd (after ordering the air strike): What I did tonight was not about political gain.
Leon Kodak, Deputy Chief of Staff: Yes. sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
President Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job, because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.
At no point in this scene does the president pick up the phone and consult with a Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich, Democratic congressman from Ohio, has claimed that President Obama committed an “impeachable offense” by joining allies in air strikes on Libya.
The intent of this post, then, is not to argue the merits of the military action, but to ask whether it is, indeed, constitutional.
First, I am not a fan of the fiery, hard-left political views of Kucinich. Time and again he has voted against Democratic proposals in the U.S. House, then justified his vote on his Web site. He votes “no” because the bills don’t go far enough. Kucinich wants it all, and he wants it now, overlooking the fact that sweeping policy changes often come in increments.
Is Kucinich right that Obama should have gotten Congressional approval before ordering U.S. military strikes on Libya?
In 1986 when Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque, he consulted with bipartisan members of Congress, but I can find no record that Congress voted to give him authority to do so.
The Department of Justice has this to say:
“(T)he President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”
Using these criteria, if we are to exclude Ghadafi’s abuse against his own people, then Congress should never have given sanction to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Read the Department of Justice’s report, “The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them” HERE.
How would one interpret the president’s “broad” and “inherent” Constitutional powers in this action?
According to Kucinich, "Such an action - that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy - is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
That is not a true statement according to the powers granted the executive after 9/11.
"In a statement on his Web site Friday, Kucinich made clear he thinks Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war."
But, Obama has no more declared war on Libya than Reagan did in 1986.
Perhaps I need to do a little more digging – where is constitutional authority Jonathan Turley when I need him?
Or, perhaps this is a matter which should be clarified by both Congress and the courts.
POSTSCRIPT
There's a lot of hellraising about this issue, a squaring off on the left of anti-war advocates and folks like me who believe force is sometimes necessary. There also seems to be a confusion, IMO, in distinguishing retaliatory air strikes and a "declaration of war." This post has been strengthened by readers' comments, which you can access by clicking on the post title above or on "comments" below. Thanks!
3.17.2011
Planet Me
You know that little bos in the upper righthand corner of envelopes which says, “Postal Service requires first-class stamp” or “Place stamp here”? That’s for Fox News viewers. Or, at least the ones who can read.
I’ve been too busy, with no TV, reading straight news articles about the disasters in Japan to pay attention to the vocal yokels on the right. (Vocal Yokels was the name of my first blog.)
But, when a friend emailed me that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (as well as Rush Limbaugh) are taking this “opportunity” to downplay Japan’s peril and to bash Obama, I thought, “Enough is enough!”
A Google romp through the comments being made by these cretins leads me to ask: why would anyone with a conscience and an IQ above room temperature pay attention to them?
This kind of unconscionable talk in the face of human misery is unacceptable.
I believe I’ve coined a new term for such egocentric people who reside in their own little world: “Planet Me.”
Leslie at Parsley’s Pics features an appropriate quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
I am certain my Republican readers will take umbrage with this statement, but sadly it’s what your Party – and its propaganda arm, Fox News – now represent.
Earth’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is nearing 7 billion. Methink is an illusion.
I’ve been too busy, with no TV, reading straight news articles about the disasters in Japan to pay attention to the vocal yokels on the right. (Vocal Yokels was the name of my first blog.)
But, when a friend emailed me that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (as well as Rush Limbaugh) are taking this “opportunity” to downplay Japan’s peril and to bash Obama, I thought, “Enough is enough!”
A Google romp through the comments being made by these cretins leads me to ask: why would anyone with a conscience and an IQ above room temperature pay attention to them?
This kind of unconscionable talk in the face of human misery is unacceptable.
I believe I’ve coined a new term for such egocentric people who reside in their own little world: “Planet Me.”
Leslie at Parsley’s Pics features an appropriate quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
I am certain my Republican readers will take umbrage with this statement, but sadly it’s what your Party – and its propaganda arm, Fox News – now represent.
Earth’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is nearing 7 billion. Methink is an illusion.
3.15.2011
Three to get ready
August of 2012 will be here before we know it. That’s when Republicans will convene to select their presidential ticket, so DemWit, from time to time, will be taking a close look at so-called GOP “hopefuls.”
Here’s three to get ready:
TIM PAWLENTY
With little name recognition and fundraising ability, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants to be Everyman:
“At a recent Tea Party Patriots rally, he pronounced, ‘The government’s too damn big!’ To an evangelical audience, he declared, ‘The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith.’ And to Republicans in New Hampshire, he closed with a gentle plea: ‘Please leave with hope and optimism.’”
For more on Pawlenty as Everyman:
“Campaigning as All Things to All Republicans,” Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, 13 March 2011: LINK
NEWT GINGRICH
With a pretty poor track record on fidelity and like a sobbing Jimmy Swaggart, Newt Gingrich blames his propensity for hanky-panky (read: adultery) on WHAT?
As New York Times columnist Gail Collins reads it, Newt’s tragic flaw is the result of hard work and patriotism. In his own words in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview:
“There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
Read Ms. Collins' amusing suggestions for Newt: “Eye of the Newt”, The New York Times, 11 March 2011: LINK
SARAH PALIN
In their continuing fixation with former Alaskan governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the folks at CNN’s “Political Ticker” didn’t quite get the headline right. (They never do!) The “win” refers to her party's nomination, not the White House, and that has some mainline Republicans scared senseless.
Republican Judd Gregg, former New Hampshire senator and governor, is one.
Gregg warns (the key word in the headline) that Palin’s “base” could coalesce to give her the Republican nomination and warns (there’s that word again) that a run by Palin would “lead to President Barack Obama’s clear re-election.”
Well, duh.
“(Gregg) says the muddled GOP presidential field means it's more likely than ever there won't be a clear consensus candidate before the party's nominating convention in August of 2012. If that happens, says Gregg, Palin and her army of supporters might have the upper hand when it comes to settling on a presidential candidate.”
From “Palin has path to win, Republican warns,” CNN Political Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney, 14 March 2011: LINK
Here’s three to get ready:
TIM PAWLENTY
With little name recognition and fundraising ability, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants to be Everyman:
“At a recent Tea Party Patriots rally, he pronounced, ‘The government’s too damn big!’ To an evangelical audience, he declared, ‘The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith.’ And to Republicans in New Hampshire, he closed with a gentle plea: ‘Please leave with hope and optimism.’”
For more on Pawlenty as Everyman:
“Campaigning as All Things to All Republicans,” Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, 13 March 2011: LINK
NEWT GINGRICH
With a pretty poor track record on fidelity and like a sobbing Jimmy Swaggart, Newt Gingrich blames his propensity for hanky-panky (read: adultery) on WHAT?
As New York Times columnist Gail Collins reads it, Newt’s tragic flaw is the result of hard work and patriotism. In his own words in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview:
“There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
Read Ms. Collins' amusing suggestions for Newt: “Eye of the Newt”, The New York Times, 11 March 2011: LINK
SARAH PALIN
In their continuing fixation with former Alaskan governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the folks at CNN’s “Political Ticker” didn’t quite get the headline right. (They never do!) The “win” refers to her party's nomination, not the White House, and that has some mainline Republicans scared senseless.
Republican Judd Gregg, former New Hampshire senator and governor, is one.
Gregg warns (the key word in the headline) that Palin’s “base” could coalesce to give her the Republican nomination and warns (there’s that word again) that a run by Palin would “lead to President Barack Obama’s clear re-election.”
Well, duh.
“(Gregg) says the muddled GOP presidential field means it's more likely than ever there won't be a clear consensus candidate before the party's nominating convention in August of 2012. If that happens, says Gregg, Palin and her army of supporters might have the upper hand when it comes to settling on a presidential candidate.”
From “Palin has path to win, Republican warns,” CNN Political Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney, 14 March 2011: LINK
3.13.2011
A simple reminder
Across the political spectrum – from the far left to the far right – there’s a lot of unhappiness in the United States of America over how things are going.
From the depths of tragedy come these simple words of faith from Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan:
“If the nation works together, we will overcome.”
A simple reminder.
From the depths of tragedy come these simple words of faith from Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan:
“If the nation works together, we will overcome.”
A simple reminder.
3.08.2011
Stop bitching about gas prices!
"We don't want to be totally reactive so that when the price goes up, everybody panics, and when it goes back down, everybody goes back to sleep."
Amen! These wise words from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu came in response to the Obama administration’s mulling over “tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to rapidly rising prices due to the turmoil in the Middle East.”
GOP leaders, including Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (LINK), are brazenly opportunistic and ignorantly oversimplify when they blame the current rise in gasoline prices on President Barack Obama. They are appealing to The Sleeping American – persons who are ignorant of recent history - and to young people who depend on a minimum wage, to old folks getting by on Social Security and to the unemployed who currently have no wages.
Wanna bet the old folks get it?
So, let’s call this a Crash Course for the Unenlightened.
CAUSES OF OIL-PRICE HIKES
First, I don’t drive because of vision problems, but I’ve got enough sense to know the rise in gasoline prices affects all prices and that this is not just a U.S. problem – it will affect economies worldwide. Oil prices are unstable, and there are many causes of hikes, including “sudden, unexpected political volatility,” “excessive speculation in the commodities market” and climate disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (LINK). Persons unwilling to grasp these causes, while bitching about their pocketbooks, can accept the more succinct Republican version: “Obama did it!”
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Readers know I have always been quick to point out consumer responsibility, whether it’s in an energy crunch or the current sport of corporation-bashing.
The United States holds 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses one-quarter of the world's oil production. Aside from the fact that this makes the Republican cry of “drill, baby, drill” absurd, it also means we are downright greedy.
Americans are no longer willing to make sacrifices when our nation is in trouble – sacrifices like cutting back and planning ahead to reduce personal consumption of energy. Why car pool or use public transportation? Why make one monthly trip for shopping instead of running here and there daily? Why turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater? Why reduce Interstate speed limits?
Our current economic crunch might just be the catalyst to force Americans - finally - to think about their energy consumption and the need for alternative sources of energy. God knows, we’ve had enough time to prepare.
THE TOCSIN
The tocsin came in 1973, then again in the summer of 1979, when 79-cents-a-gallon gasoline soared over the dollar-mark at the pumps. Little did we know. And, little, it seems, do people remember the history of periodic spikes in oil prices.
In 1973, the Arab nations in OPEC – Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and pronounced OH-pec - joined by Syria, Tunisia and Egypt, got ticked off at the United States for providing supplies to Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The Arab nations of OPEC formed a subgroup and retaliated by imposing an oil embargo on the United States and Western Europe.
That should have been the day the United States began a “Manhattan Project” effort to develop alternative energy sources. But as soon as the crises was over, Americans went back to sleep.
We had a second chance for action in 1979 when the deposing of the Shah of Iran created a second energy crisis in one decade.
THE PHALANX
So, we’ve had 38 years to fix the problem and to free ourselves from what President George W. Bush called our addiction to oil. Yet, every attempt by Democrats to introduce sensible energy policies has been met by a phalanx of oil-industry funds and Congressional front men, who, unhappily, convince Republican voters that this is just some anti-American, socialistic, tree-hugging idiocy on the part of their political opponents.
In other words, “Obama did it!”
HEAR ME
I recently read a quote from a battered woman accused of murder in the death of her husband: “If I’d killed him when I met him, I’d be out of prison by now.” There’s a missed-opportunity principle somewhere in that tragic statement which could apply to our dependency on foreign oil.
So, stop your bitching about the high price of gasoline. Stop paying attention to propaganda and to politicians fueled by big-oil money. Start supporting energy policies which will release America from the whims of outside forces.
Or, just blame it on Obama and go back to sleep.
***
I highly recommend:
“Energy: Rising Gas Prices,” THE PROGRESS REPORT, Center for American Progress, 7 March 2011 (LINK).
For historical perspective:
OPEC
THE 1973 OIL CRISIS
THE 1979 ENERGY CRISIS
And ...
Pay close attention to developments in Saudi Arabia, which produces one-fifth of the planet’s oil.
Amen! These wise words from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu came in response to the Obama administration’s mulling over “tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to rapidly rising prices due to the turmoil in the Middle East.”
GOP leaders, including Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (LINK), are brazenly opportunistic and ignorantly oversimplify when they blame the current rise in gasoline prices on President Barack Obama. They are appealing to The Sleeping American – persons who are ignorant of recent history - and to young people who depend on a minimum wage, to old folks getting by on Social Security and to the unemployed who currently have no wages.
Wanna bet the old folks get it?
So, let’s call this a Crash Course for the Unenlightened.
CAUSES OF OIL-PRICE HIKES
First, I don’t drive because of vision problems, but I’ve got enough sense to know the rise in gasoline prices affects all prices and that this is not just a U.S. problem – it will affect economies worldwide. Oil prices are unstable, and there are many causes of hikes, including “sudden, unexpected political volatility,” “excessive speculation in the commodities market” and climate disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (LINK). Persons unwilling to grasp these causes, while bitching about their pocketbooks, can accept the more succinct Republican version: “Obama did it!”
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Readers know I have always been quick to point out consumer responsibility, whether it’s in an energy crunch or the current sport of corporation-bashing.
The United States holds 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses one-quarter of the world's oil production. Aside from the fact that this makes the Republican cry of “drill, baby, drill” absurd, it also means we are downright greedy.
Americans are no longer willing to make sacrifices when our nation is in trouble – sacrifices like cutting back and planning ahead to reduce personal consumption of energy. Why car pool or use public transportation? Why make one monthly trip for shopping instead of running here and there daily? Why turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater? Why reduce Interstate speed limits?
Our current economic crunch might just be the catalyst to force Americans - finally - to think about their energy consumption and the need for alternative sources of energy. God knows, we’ve had enough time to prepare.
THE TOCSIN
The tocsin came in 1973, then again in the summer of 1979, when 79-cents-a-gallon gasoline soared over the dollar-mark at the pumps. Little did we know. And, little, it seems, do people remember the history of periodic spikes in oil prices.
In 1973, the Arab nations in OPEC – Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and pronounced OH-pec - joined by Syria, Tunisia and Egypt, got ticked off at the United States for providing supplies to Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The Arab nations of OPEC formed a subgroup and retaliated by imposing an oil embargo on the United States and Western Europe.
That should have been the day the United States began a “Manhattan Project” effort to develop alternative energy sources. But as soon as the crises was over, Americans went back to sleep.
We had a second chance for action in 1979 when the deposing of the Shah of Iran created a second energy crisis in one decade.
THE PHALANX
So, we’ve had 38 years to fix the problem and to free ourselves from what President George W. Bush called our addiction to oil. Yet, every attempt by Democrats to introduce sensible energy policies has been met by a phalanx of oil-industry funds and Congressional front men, who, unhappily, convince Republican voters that this is just some anti-American, socialistic, tree-hugging idiocy on the part of their political opponents.
In other words, “Obama did it!”
HEAR ME
I recently read a quote from a battered woman accused of murder in the death of her husband: “If I’d killed him when I met him, I’d be out of prison by now.” There’s a missed-opportunity principle somewhere in that tragic statement which could apply to our dependency on foreign oil.
So, stop your bitching about the high price of gasoline. Stop paying attention to propaganda and to politicians fueled by big-oil money. Start supporting energy policies which will release America from the whims of outside forces.
Or, just blame it on Obama and go back to sleep.
***
I highly recommend:
“Energy: Rising Gas Prices,” THE PROGRESS REPORT, Center for American Progress, 7 March 2011 (LINK).
For historical perspective:
OPEC
THE 1973 OIL CRISIS
THE 1979 ENERGY CRISIS
And ...
Pay close attention to developments in Saudi Arabia, which produces one-fifth of the planet’s oil.
3.04.2011
'Moamar, the Movie'
Casting call! Frodo, Keeper of the Ring, has a movie for you:
There Must Be 50 Ways To Lose Your Lover
Mood: party time!
Topic: "Moamar:The Movie"
It matters not that the guy spells his name with a G, a K, or a Q, especially when he can best be identified by his lookalike cartoon character "Goofy." He proved that beyond all doubt Thursday evening when he sent one of his sons to cajole Anderson Cooper with definitive proof that "al Qaeda was smuggling hallucinogenics into Libya and putting them into the Nescafe of the young people" (or words to that effect).
The discussion took place in front of a truck full of packaged medication (which was probably the same vehicle exposed by Colin Powell to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Goofy's son was there to introduce the capsules into evidence for all the world to see. Unfortunately, the pills turned out to be a mild painkiller, as opposed to something cooked up in the hills of East Tennessee. Rather than producing psychedelic results, this medication warns the patient that residual effects may include only headaches, or constipation.
Perhaps that says much, much more than even the wordy Frodo can proffer.
Frodo ends his commentary this eve with a suggestion for the casting of the movie which is bound to hit the malls of America before this volatile year concludes. Who other better to star in "Moamar, The Movie," than Charlie Sheen? Frodo would watch those Oscars (and that is really news).
***
Please leave comments for Frodo HERE. For more of the Hobbit’s pennings, go HERE.
There Must Be 50 Ways To Lose Your Lover
Mood: party time!
Topic: "Moamar:The Movie"
It matters not that the guy spells his name with a G, a K, or a Q, especially when he can best be identified by his lookalike cartoon character "Goofy." He proved that beyond all doubt Thursday evening when he sent one of his sons to cajole Anderson Cooper with definitive proof that "al Qaeda was smuggling hallucinogenics into Libya and putting them into the Nescafe of the young people" (or words to that effect).
The discussion took place in front of a truck full of packaged medication (which was probably the same vehicle exposed by Colin Powell to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Goofy's son was there to introduce the capsules into evidence for all the world to see. Unfortunately, the pills turned out to be a mild painkiller, as opposed to something cooked up in the hills of East Tennessee. Rather than producing psychedelic results, this medication warns the patient that residual effects may include only headaches, or constipation.
Perhaps that says much, much more than even the wordy Frodo can proffer.
Frodo ends his commentary this eve with a suggestion for the casting of the movie which is bound to hit the malls of America before this volatile year concludes. Who other better to star in "Moamar, The Movie," than Charlie Sheen? Frodo would watch those Oscars (and that is really news).
***
Please leave comments for Frodo HERE. For more of the Hobbit’s pennings, go HERE.
3.02.2011
CYA quote out-stupids Huckabee
Mike Huckabee: “I’ll tell you what I do know …” And, now, hopefully, everyone in America knows. But, this gets even better.
Huckabee spokesman Hogan Gidley told CNN’s “Political Ticker” that the former Arkansas governor, presidential hopeful and current Fox News host meant to say Obama grew up in Indonesia, not Kenya.
As the CNN report points out, the Mau Mau uprising Huckabee mentined did not take place in Indonesia.
But, here’s the pièce de résistance:
Spokesman Gidley went on to say, “The governor would, however, like to know more about where President Obama's liberal policies come from and what else the president plans to do to this country – as do most Americans."
Gidley might just be a little giddy from all the brouhaha and hahas but he has managed with that last quote to out-stupid his boss.
For the record, I got my liberal views growing up in Mississippi.
Huckabee spokesman Hogan Gidley told CNN’s “Political Ticker” that the former Arkansas governor, presidential hopeful and current Fox News host meant to say Obama grew up in Indonesia, not Kenya.
As the CNN report points out, the Mau Mau uprising Huckabee mentined did not take place in Indonesia.
But, here’s the pièce de résistance:
Spokesman Gidley went on to say, “The governor would, however, like to know more about where President Obama's liberal policies come from and what else the president plans to do to this country – as do most Americans."
Gidley might just be a little giddy from all the brouhaha and hahas but he has managed with that last quote to out-stupid his boss.
For the record, I got my liberal views growing up in Mississippi.
2.27.2011
Death of a childhood hero
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and I are taking a moment today to reflect on our growing-up years when we ate, drank and dreamed about “next year” and the Messrs. Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, Carl Furillo, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe and Duke Snider.
Those of us who remember the years of broken hearts and cursing the Damn Yankees are taking time today to mourn the passing of one of our childhood heroes:
“Duke Snider, Brookyn Dodgers Great, Dies at 84,” The New York Times, 27 February 2011 (LINK).
In Snider's words, "It was a great time for baseball." Heaven's center field is covered.
***
A second post follows.
Those of us who remember the years of broken hearts and cursing the Damn Yankees are taking time today to mourn the passing of one of our childhood heroes:
“Duke Snider, Brookyn Dodgers Great, Dies at 84,” The New York Times, 27 February 2011 (LINK).
In Snider's words, "It was a great time for baseball." Heaven's center field is covered.
***
A second post follows.
Sex, lies and Ailes on tape
A former high school classmate, now living in NYC, sent me a copy of the New York Daily News front page with its blaring headline, “Deadly Voodoo Sex Romp.” The friend opined, “Voodoo candles sex ceremony sparks deadly Brooklyn fire. I can’t make this stuff up.”
The next article in my inbox queue, sent by another friend, falls in the “I can’t make this stuff up” category as well.
Turning back time to when Dubya named Rudy Giuliani’s buddy, former NYC police commissioner Bernard "Bernie" Kerik, to head homeland security - and the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan:
There was the matter of Kerik’s extramarital affair and the love tryst in an apartment donated for use by Ground Zero recovery and rescue workers. A lot of dirty little secrets came to light.
And now, a new one.
It is no secret that Fox News has no qualms about lying. “In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.” (LINK) Yep, Fox News' defense was lying is protected by the First Amendment because there is no specific law against it!
But, when the cable “news” network’s head honcho advises an employee to lie to federal investigators, he’s on tape, and his actions could constitute a federal crime, things are getting serious for Rupert Murdoch’s flagship money-maker. Well, actually, they would be serious for any other media outlet, but seemingly Fox News has a business-as-usual immunity.
Read on.
“Fox News Chief, Roger Ailes, Urged Employee to Lie, Records Show,” Russ Buettner, The New York Times, 24 February 2011 (LINK).
Since David Corn (biography) is a favorite journalist and author, I was particularly interested in his take – emailed by my friend – on all the dirty little secrets which have emerged from this story that won’t go away. Read his column, “Roger Ailes' Sex-and-Lies Tale: There Is Something Different About Fox.” (LINK)
Oh, what tangled webs ...
The lady is $10.75 million richer. A president, a presidential candidate and former NYC mayor, a former NYC police commissioner and, now, a powerful media executive ended up with pie on their faces.
The next article in my inbox queue, sent by another friend, falls in the “I can’t make this stuff up” category as well.
Turning back time to when Dubya named Rudy Giuliani’s buddy, former NYC police commissioner Bernard "Bernie" Kerik, to head homeland security - and the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan:
There was the matter of Kerik’s extramarital affair and the love tryst in an apartment donated for use by Ground Zero recovery and rescue workers. A lot of dirty little secrets came to light.
And now, a new one.
It is no secret that Fox News has no qualms about lying. “In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.” (LINK) Yep, Fox News' defense was lying is protected by the First Amendment because there is no specific law against it!
But, when the cable “news” network’s head honcho advises an employee to lie to federal investigators, he’s on tape, and his actions could constitute a federal crime, things are getting serious for Rupert Murdoch’s flagship money-maker. Well, actually, they would be serious for any other media outlet, but seemingly Fox News has a business-as-usual immunity.
Read on.
“Fox News Chief, Roger Ailes, Urged Employee to Lie, Records Show,” Russ Buettner, The New York Times, 24 February 2011 (LINK).
Since David Corn (biography) is a favorite journalist and author, I was particularly interested in his take – emailed by my friend – on all the dirty little secrets which have emerged from this story that won’t go away. Read his column, “Roger Ailes' Sex-and-Lies Tale: There Is Something Different About Fox.” (LINK)
Oh, what tangled webs ...
The lady is $10.75 million richer. A president, a presidential candidate and former NYC mayor, a former NYC police commissioner and, now, a powerful media executive ended up with pie on their faces.
2.22.2011
Highwaymen, burglars and book abridgers
Viewing the Mona Lisa from La Gioconda’s nose up or stopping the music before Ravel’s “Bolero” reaches its fullest crescendo compares, in my opinion, to reading an abridged book.
Like Meg Ryan in “You’ve Got Mail,” I get “lost in the language” of Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Imagine reading an abridged version of that book. There’s a reason such books becomes immortal. So, why take a chainsaw to them?
Katharine Hepburn’s memoir, “Me,” had long graced my bookshelves when a friend gave me an audio copy of the book. Since it is read by the actress herself I gave it a listen, only to find it ended before Miss Hepburn's heartfelt recollections of Spencer Tracy.
Abridged audiobooks are a natural progression from Illustrated Classics comic books, CliffsNotes and Reader’s Digest Condensed Books.
I chafe at the omission of skillfully drawn word pictures – none so breathtaking as Mr. Dickens' in my favorite, “Barnaby Rudge.” Take away the ghostly appartition in the burnt castle, the massacre at the roadside tavern or the fire at Newgate Prison, and you might as well read a gum wrapper or a cereal box.
Imagine some book editor whacking away at the psychological impact of a single footprint on a stranded Robinson Crusoe.
I found a comrade in Daniel Defoe’s Preface to “The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe," part two of the trilogy:
“The just application of every incident; the religious and useful inferences drawn from every part are so many testimonies to the good design of making it public and must legitimate all the part that may be called invention or parable in the story.
“The second part, if the editor’s opinion may pass, is, contrary to the usage of second parts, every way as entertaining as the first, contains as strange and surprising incidents and as great a variety of them. Nor is the application less serious or suitable, and doubtless will to the sober or ingenious reader be every way as profitable and diverting, and this makes the abridging of this work as scandalous as it is knavish and ridiculous.
“Seeing, while to shorten the book, that they may seem to reduce the value, they strip it of all those reflections as well religious as moral which are not only the greatest beauties of the work, but are calculated for the infinite advantage of the reader.
“By this, they leave the work naked of its brightest ornaments. And, if they would, at the time, pretend the author has supplied the story out of his invention, they take from it the improvement which alone recommends that invention to wise and good men.
“The injury these men do the proprietor of this work is a practice all honest men abhor, and he believes he may challenge them to show the difference between that and robbing on the highway or breaking open a house. If they can’t show any difference in the crime, they will find it hard to show why there should be any difference in the punishment, and he will answer for it, that nothing shall be wanting on his part to do them justice.”
***
Trust me:
In addition to pamphlets and poetry, Daniel Defoe wrote some 500 books on every conceivable subject. (My favorite is "Moll Flanders.") A tribute to his writing genius is that no editor has been tempted to clean up his grammar and spelling errors!
Like Meg Ryan in “You’ve Got Mail,” I get “lost in the language” of Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Imagine reading an abridged version of that book. There’s a reason such books becomes immortal. So, why take a chainsaw to them?
Katharine Hepburn’s memoir, “Me,” had long graced my bookshelves when a friend gave me an audio copy of the book. Since it is read by the actress herself I gave it a listen, only to find it ended before Miss Hepburn's heartfelt recollections of Spencer Tracy.
Abridged audiobooks are a natural progression from Illustrated Classics comic books, CliffsNotes and Reader’s Digest Condensed Books.
I chafe at the omission of skillfully drawn word pictures – none so breathtaking as Mr. Dickens' in my favorite, “Barnaby Rudge.” Take away the ghostly appartition in the burnt castle, the massacre at the roadside tavern or the fire at Newgate Prison, and you might as well read a gum wrapper or a cereal box.
Imagine some book editor whacking away at the psychological impact of a single footprint on a stranded Robinson Crusoe.
I found a comrade in Daniel Defoe’s Preface to “The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe," part two of the trilogy:
“The just application of every incident; the religious and useful inferences drawn from every part are so many testimonies to the good design of making it public and must legitimate all the part that may be called invention or parable in the story.
“The second part, if the editor’s opinion may pass, is, contrary to the usage of second parts, every way as entertaining as the first, contains as strange and surprising incidents and as great a variety of them. Nor is the application less serious or suitable, and doubtless will to the sober or ingenious reader be every way as profitable and diverting, and this makes the abridging of this work as scandalous as it is knavish and ridiculous.
“Seeing, while to shorten the book, that they may seem to reduce the value, they strip it of all those reflections as well religious as moral which are not only the greatest beauties of the work, but are calculated for the infinite advantage of the reader.
“By this, they leave the work naked of its brightest ornaments. And, if they would, at the time, pretend the author has supplied the story out of his invention, they take from it the improvement which alone recommends that invention to wise and good men.
“The injury these men do the proprietor of this work is a practice all honest men abhor, and he believes he may challenge them to show the difference between that and robbing on the highway or breaking open a house. If they can’t show any difference in the crime, they will find it hard to show why there should be any difference in the punishment, and he will answer for it, that nothing shall be wanting on his part to do them justice.”
***
Trust me:
In addition to pamphlets and poetry, Daniel Defoe wrote some 500 books on every conceivable subject. (My favorite is "Moll Flanders.") A tribute to his writing genius is that no editor has been tempted to clean up his grammar and spelling errors!
2.18.2011
STAMP: Support this anti-violence mail project
As part of an ongoing effort to pressure Fox News into pulling the plug on the Glenn Beck Show, here is a standard petition letter addressed to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Please feel free to copy the text of this letter and paste it into your letterhead - adjusting type size and font style as needed:
(Date)
Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO, Fox News Channel
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and 13 injured, you offered this appeal for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. Glenn Beck has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck means any citizen - Democrat, Independent or Republican - can be defamed in public and targeted for persecution. Beck’s messages provoke unstable persons to act on impulse, and news headlines have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts:
Prison Term for Man Who Threatened Speaker Pelosi
Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News
Renowned Professor Terrorized After Glenn Beck Broadcasts
League of Women Voters Targeted by Glenn Beck Fans
Two California Highway Patrolmen Shot by Glenn Beck Fan
Three Pittsburgh Policemen Killed by Glenn Beck Follower
There is no plausible deniability that can wipe the blood off Beck’s hands or absolve the Fox News Channel of responsibility for reckless incitement. Shooting sprees, murder, malicious defamations and infamous provocations: these have no place in a free society. When toxic television threatens public safety, all citizens of all persuasions have grounds for alarm.
Glenn Beck has crossed boundaries that should never be crossed. It is time to pull the plug on the Glenn Beck Show before more people are terrorized, injured and killed.
Sincerely,
(Name and Signature)
Just copy and paste the letter into your document format and print. Within a few days, please look for another petition letter addressed to Fox News advertisers (i.e. the boycott letter). A startup list of advertisers will be included with that post.
Five minutes and a STAMP can make a difference. Thanks!
(Date)
Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO, Fox News Channel
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and 13 injured, you offered this appeal for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. Glenn Beck has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck means any citizen - Democrat, Independent or Republican - can be defamed in public and targeted for persecution. Beck’s messages provoke unstable persons to act on impulse, and news headlines have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts:
Prison Term for Man Who Threatened Speaker Pelosi
Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News
Renowned Professor Terrorized After Glenn Beck Broadcasts
League of Women Voters Targeted by Glenn Beck Fans
Two California Highway Patrolmen Shot by Glenn Beck Fan
Three Pittsburgh Policemen Killed by Glenn Beck Follower
There is no plausible deniability that can wipe the blood off Beck’s hands or absolve the Fox News Channel of responsibility for reckless incitement. Shooting sprees, murder, malicious defamations and infamous provocations: these have no place in a free society. When toxic television threatens public safety, all citizens of all persuasions have grounds for alarm.
Glenn Beck has crossed boundaries that should never be crossed. It is time to pull the plug on the Glenn Beck Show before more people are terrorized, injured and killed.
Sincerely,
(Name and Signature)
Just copy and paste the letter into your document format and print. Within a few days, please look for another petition letter addressed to Fox News advertisers (i.e. the boycott letter). A startup list of advertisers will be included with that post.
Five minutes and a STAMP can make a difference. Thanks!
2.17.2011
Been grabbed on the breast lately?
Like Egypt, the United States has a lot of problems to be solved, but women here can walk down the street without the EXPECTATION of being grabbed on the breast.
DemWit, for the sole purpose of sharing information under the “Fair Use Notice” in my sidebar, calls readers’ attention to the following commentary:
Egypt's harassed women need their own revolution
By Mary Rogers, CNN
February 17, 2011 4:58 a.m. EST
CNN Editor's note: CNN producer and camerawoman Mary Rogers has lived and worked in Egypt since 1994. She joined CNN in 1981 and has covered conflicts in Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Congo, Iraq, Chechnya, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Recently she filmed the uprising in Tunisia.
Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- Several months before the revolution, I wrote a piece for CNN.com on the sexual harassment of women in Cairo.
News of the chilling attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan, as well as other sexual assaults against women during Egypt's uprising, show that attacks against women have not gone away.
I speak from experience. While most of my days covering Tahrir Square during the last few weeks were free from harassment, there was one day when I was groped. Another colleague almost had her pants ripped off by a gang of thugs.
According to a 2008 survey of 1,010 women conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights, 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women have been sexually harassed.
It happens on the streets, on crowded buses, in the workplace, in schools, and even in a doctor's office.
I was walking home from dinner recently when a carload of young men raced by me and screamed out "Sharmouta" (whore in Arabic.)
Before I could respond, they were gone, but I noticed policemen nearby bursting with laughter. I am old enough to be those boys' mother, I thought.
This incident was minor compared to what happened in 1994, shortly after I moved here. It was winter, and I was walking home from the office, dressed in a big, baggy sweater, and jacket. A man walked up to me, reached out, and casually grabbed my breast.
In a flash, I understood what the expression to "see red" meant. I grabbed him by the collar and punched him hard in the face. I held on to him, and let out a stream of expletives. His face grew pale, and he started to shake. "I'm sorry. I'm sorry," he whispered.
But the satisfaction of striking back quickly dissipated. By the time I walked away, I was feeling dirty and humiliated. After a couple of years enduring this kind of harassment, I pretty much stopped walking to and from work.
Of course, harassment comes in many forms. It can be nasty words, groping, being followed or stalked, lewd, lascivious looks, and indecent exposure.
At times it can be dangerous. This is what a friend told me happened to her: "I remember I was walking on the street, when a car came hurtling towards me. Aiming for me! At the last minute he swerved, then stopped, and finally laughed at me. I learned later that it was a form of flirting."
Why is sexual harassment in Egypt so rampant? There could be any number of reasons, but many point to disregard for human rights.
Before the uprising, Nehad Abu el Komsan, the Director for the Center for Women's Rights, told me that Egypt was more interested in political than public security. She said that often meant that officials focused more on preventing political unrest than addressing social ills.
Some also blame the spread of more conservative interpretations of Islam from the Gulf over the past 30 years. They say such interpretations demand more restrictive roles for women and condemn women who step outside of those prescribed roles.
***
“Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment.”
- Mary Rogers
***
"Four million Egyptians went to the Gulf," el Komsan said. "They returned with oil money, and oil culture, which is not very open, related to the status of women. All of this changed the original culture of the Egyptian," she adds, "which included high respect for women."
Sara, a young Egyptian activist, told me that the concept of respect for some reason doesn't exist any more. "I think Egypt has lived a very long time in denial. Something happened in Egyptian society in the last 30 or 40 years. It feels like the whole social diagram has collapsed.
What is being done to raise awareness and combat such behavior? A law regarding sexual harassment will have to wait. The country has greater concerns now -- forming a new government; writing a new constitution; getting Egypt's economy going again and dealing massive unemployment, among other things.
The military is in charge now, and who knows when Egypt will get a new president, or parliament.
In the past, women who have been sexually harassed here have been too afraid or ashamed to speak up. That is changing slowly. In 2008, in a landmark court case, a man was sentenced to three years of hard labor for grabbing the breast of Noha Rushdi Saleh, a brave woman determined to seek justice.
The trial was covered extensively in the Egyptian press, and brought the problem of sexual harassment out in the open.
A group of young idealists are taking a personal initiative in trying to combat sexual harassment.
They are handing out pamphlets now saying: "Don't take bribes, don't drive the wrong way on a one way street, and don't sexually harass women." Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment.
But the only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change.
BJ NOTE: CNN.com ran this at the end of the commentary:
"The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mary Rogers."
And maybe a whole lot of women.
UPDATE: I've been snowed under with inbox activity and wrote a friend last night that I had not checked news headlines in three days. That's why I missed the story sent by that same friend and read immediately AFTER publishing this post. I would be remiss not to include it here:
"Lawsuit Says Military Rife with Sexual Abuse," The New York Times, 15 February 2011
While I stand by my premise that most women can walk down the street here in the U.S. without expecting to be sexually molested, this lawsuit filed against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld claims the U.S. military created a climate of permissiveness by ignoring military rapes.
As my mother used to say, maybe we had better "clean up around our own doorstep."
DemWit, for the sole purpose of sharing information under the “Fair Use Notice” in my sidebar, calls readers’ attention to the following commentary:
Egypt's harassed women need their own revolution
By Mary Rogers, CNN
February 17, 2011 4:58 a.m. EST
CNN Editor's note: CNN producer and camerawoman Mary Rogers has lived and worked in Egypt since 1994. She joined CNN in 1981 and has covered conflicts in Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Congo, Iraq, Chechnya, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Recently she filmed the uprising in Tunisia.
Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- Several months before the revolution, I wrote a piece for CNN.com on the sexual harassment of women in Cairo.
News of the chilling attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan, as well as other sexual assaults against women during Egypt's uprising, show that attacks against women have not gone away.
I speak from experience. While most of my days covering Tahrir Square during the last few weeks were free from harassment, there was one day when I was groped. Another colleague almost had her pants ripped off by a gang of thugs.
According to a 2008 survey of 1,010 women conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights, 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women have been sexually harassed.
It happens on the streets, on crowded buses, in the workplace, in schools, and even in a doctor's office.
I was walking home from dinner recently when a carload of young men raced by me and screamed out "Sharmouta" (whore in Arabic.)
Before I could respond, they were gone, but I noticed policemen nearby bursting with laughter. I am old enough to be those boys' mother, I thought.
This incident was minor compared to what happened in 1994, shortly after I moved here. It was winter, and I was walking home from the office, dressed in a big, baggy sweater, and jacket. A man walked up to me, reached out, and casually grabbed my breast.
In a flash, I understood what the expression to "see red" meant. I grabbed him by the collar and punched him hard in the face. I held on to him, and let out a stream of expletives. His face grew pale, and he started to shake. "I'm sorry. I'm sorry," he whispered.
But the satisfaction of striking back quickly dissipated. By the time I walked away, I was feeling dirty and humiliated. After a couple of years enduring this kind of harassment, I pretty much stopped walking to and from work.
Of course, harassment comes in many forms. It can be nasty words, groping, being followed or stalked, lewd, lascivious looks, and indecent exposure.
At times it can be dangerous. This is what a friend told me happened to her: "I remember I was walking on the street, when a car came hurtling towards me. Aiming for me! At the last minute he swerved, then stopped, and finally laughed at me. I learned later that it was a form of flirting."
Why is sexual harassment in Egypt so rampant? There could be any number of reasons, but many point to disregard for human rights.
Before the uprising, Nehad Abu el Komsan, the Director for the Center for Women's Rights, told me that Egypt was more interested in political than public security. She said that often meant that officials focused more on preventing political unrest than addressing social ills.
Some also blame the spread of more conservative interpretations of Islam from the Gulf over the past 30 years. They say such interpretations demand more restrictive roles for women and condemn women who step outside of those prescribed roles.
***
“Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment.”
- Mary Rogers
***
"Four million Egyptians went to the Gulf," el Komsan said. "They returned with oil money, and oil culture, which is not very open, related to the status of women. All of this changed the original culture of the Egyptian," she adds, "which included high respect for women."
Sara, a young Egyptian activist, told me that the concept of respect for some reason doesn't exist any more. "I think Egypt has lived a very long time in denial. Something happened in Egyptian society in the last 30 or 40 years. It feels like the whole social diagram has collapsed.
What is being done to raise awareness and combat such behavior? A law regarding sexual harassment will have to wait. The country has greater concerns now -- forming a new government; writing a new constitution; getting Egypt's economy going again and dealing massive unemployment, among other things.
The military is in charge now, and who knows when Egypt will get a new president, or parliament.
In the past, women who have been sexually harassed here have been too afraid or ashamed to speak up. That is changing slowly. In 2008, in a landmark court case, a man was sentenced to three years of hard labor for grabbing the breast of Noha Rushdi Saleh, a brave woman determined to seek justice.
The trial was covered extensively in the Egyptian press, and brought the problem of sexual harassment out in the open.
A group of young idealists are taking a personal initiative in trying to combat sexual harassment.
They are handing out pamphlets now saying: "Don't take bribes, don't drive the wrong way on a one way street, and don't sexually harass women." Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment.
But the only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change.
BJ NOTE: CNN.com ran this at the end of the commentary:
"The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mary Rogers."
And maybe a whole lot of women.
UPDATE: I've been snowed under with inbox activity and wrote a friend last night that I had not checked news headlines in three days. That's why I missed the story sent by that same friend and read immediately AFTER publishing this post. I would be remiss not to include it here:
"Lawsuit Says Military Rife with Sexual Abuse," The New York Times, 15 February 2011
While I stand by my premise that most women can walk down the street here in the U.S. without expecting to be sexually molested, this lawsuit filed against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld claims the U.S. military created a climate of permissiveness by ignoring military rapes.
As my mother used to say, maybe we had better "clean up around our own doorstep."
2.15.2011
Beck: Before hate turns to horror
To the chagrin of liberals and conservatives alike, the “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” rhetoric of Fox News’ Glenn Beck, fully documented, is fanning flames of hate across our country. The Supreme Court of the United States takes exception to so-called “free speech” which has the potential to do great harm.
Glenn Beck's hate speech, therefore, should be no exception to SCOTUS’ exception.
DemWit today is joining a team of bloggers, organized by friend “Octopus” at The Swash Zone and invites readers and bloggers to participate in this and future efforts to tell Beck’s advertisers “enough is enough!” Octopus’ first entry, dated 2/14/11:
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and thirteen injured, including Congresswoman Giffords, Fox News President Roger Ailes appealed for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. If anything, Fox News has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. Fevered hysteria and conspiratorial fear mongering on national television are not harmless.
How quickly we forget the lessons of history. The bogeymen of 1930s anti-Semitism that morphed into the bogeymen of 1950s McCarthyism has morphed again into the mainstreaming of Glenn Beck Militia Theater. The message is clear: Glenn Beck wants to extort your silence, and anyone who refuses to capitulate will be targeted and stalked:
The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck and Fox News means any citizen - Democrat, Centrist, or Republican - can be slandered in public and targeted for persecution. Beck pitches his messages at unhinged misfits who are most likely to act on impulse, and events have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. There is no plausible deniability that can remove this blood from Beck’s hands:
Murders, shooting sprees, domestic terrorism, private citizens hiding in fear, infamous intimidations and provocations broadcast on national television - all linked to Glenn Beck - enough is enough! When toxic television threatens public safety, it concerns everyone. Even prominent Republicans are becoming alarmed:
National correspondent for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg:
Glenn Beck's hate speech, therefore, should be no exception to SCOTUS’ exception.
DemWit today is joining a team of bloggers, organized by friend “Octopus” at The Swash Zone and invites readers and bloggers to participate in this and future efforts to tell Beck’s advertisers “enough is enough!” Octopus’ first entry, dated 2/14/11:
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and thirteen injured, including Congresswoman Giffords, Fox News President Roger Ailes appealed for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. If anything, Fox News has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. Fevered hysteria and conspiratorial fear mongering on national television are not harmless.
How quickly we forget the lessons of history. The bogeymen of 1930s anti-Semitism that morphed into the bogeymen of 1950s McCarthyism has morphed again into the mainstreaming of Glenn Beck Militia Theater. The message is clear: Glenn Beck wants to extort your silence, and anyone who refuses to capitulate will be targeted and stalked:
Glenn Beck, Self-Appointed "Progressive Hunter"
The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck and Fox News means any citizen - Democrat, Centrist, or Republican - can be slandered in public and targeted for persecution. Beck pitches his messages at unhinged misfits who are most likely to act on impulse, and events have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. There is no plausible deniability that can remove this blood from Beck’s hands:
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum:
Former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner:
National correspondent for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg:
It is time to pull the plug on Glenn Beck and serve notice to Fox News that partisan hate speech has no place in a free society. The strongest message you can send is to vote your pocketbook. Write letters to Fox News advertisers; tell them you will no longer patronize their products and services; and keep boycotting sponsors of Fox News until these outrageous partisan witch-hunts have stopped. Removing Glenn Beck from the airwaves will save lives.
Resources:
Visit the Drop Fox Website Here
Visit the Stop Beck Website Here
Endorsements:
Captain Fogg, Sheria, BJ, Octopus, Squatlo, Sue, Nance, TnLib, TomCat, Truth 101, Maleeper, Green Eagle, Kay.
Resources:
Visit the Drop Fox Website Here
Visit the Stop Beck Website Here
Endorsements:
Captain Fogg, Sheria, BJ, Octopus, Squatlo, Sue, Nance, TnLib, TomCat, Truth 101, Maleeper, Green Eagle, Kay.
2.11.2011
Agitated!
Access to the World Wide Web can:
1) Scare you senseless.
2) Make you sick.
3) Empower you.
4) All of the above.
I’m in the market for a new clothes washer and am getting an education. Caveat Emptor 101.
One can assume if a person buys a product which turns out to be a lemon, one way to vent is to hop on the WWW and write a product review.
But, when the best review you run across is from a woman who is overjoyed her clothes washer lasted six years before it conked out, you begin to get a picture of product quality today, and it’s not pretty.
According to the GE-certified repairman who paid a visit Wednesday, my GE washer was made in 1986. I bought it, second-hand, 11 years ago for $130. I’m told it looks brand new. After 25 years, it sprung a leak and cannot be repaired.
25 years!
I got my money’s worth. Which is more than today’s consumer can say if review after review is any sign.
Examining a number of washers in various price ranges - short of a king's ransom - one can expect, from reviews, a product life span of about two years.
Remember the one word of advice Benjamin gets in “The Graduate:” “Plastics.” Well, welcome to the world of washer tubs and gears made of plastic – instead of porcelain-coated metal. Imagine a load of clothes and 30 gallons of water being jostled by plastic parts!
I am a firm believer in the old axiom, "You get what you pay for." Essentially, you need to calculate the average per month of what is spent before a plastic gear tooth breaks, a motor burns out or your floor is flooded. Factor in the cost of a repair visit before learning your “new” washer can’t be fixed. Because, basically, your purchase is nothing more thn "Rent a Wreck."
Answer to the WWW question: all of the above.
I don’t drive, so laundromats are not an option.
Anyone got an old washer, halfway through its prime, for sale?
1) Scare you senseless.
2) Make you sick.
3) Empower you.
4) All of the above.
I’m in the market for a new clothes washer and am getting an education. Caveat Emptor 101.
One can assume if a person buys a product which turns out to be a lemon, one way to vent is to hop on the WWW and write a product review.
But, when the best review you run across is from a woman who is overjoyed her clothes washer lasted six years before it conked out, you begin to get a picture of product quality today, and it’s not pretty.
According to the GE-certified repairman who paid a visit Wednesday, my GE washer was made in 1986. I bought it, second-hand, 11 years ago for $130. I’m told it looks brand new. After 25 years, it sprung a leak and cannot be repaired.
25 years!
I got my money’s worth. Which is more than today’s consumer can say if review after review is any sign.
Examining a number of washers in various price ranges - short of a king's ransom - one can expect, from reviews, a product life span of about two years.
Remember the one word of advice Benjamin gets in “The Graduate:” “Plastics.” Well, welcome to the world of washer tubs and gears made of plastic – instead of porcelain-coated metal. Imagine a load of clothes and 30 gallons of water being jostled by plastic parts!
I am a firm believer in the old axiom, "You get what you pay for." Essentially, you need to calculate the average per month of what is spent before a plastic gear tooth breaks, a motor burns out or your floor is flooded. Factor in the cost of a repair visit before learning your “new” washer can’t be fixed. Because, basically, your purchase is nothing more thn "Rent a Wreck."
Answer to the WWW question: all of the above.
I don’t drive, so laundromats are not an option.
Anyone got an old washer, halfway through its prime, for sale?
2.08.2011
Deification of the Dead 2
“Facts are stupid things.” – President Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, misquoting John Adams’ “Facts are stubborn things.”
During the full week of Ronald Reagan’s funeral on TV and the celebration of his Centennial, my objections have centered not on remembering a former U.S. president, but on the revisionist aspects of The Media Myth and the exploitation of the poor man for political purposes.
We will never forget “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” although communism had already begun to self-destruct, and Reagan did not singlehandedly bring it down as some now believe.
We will never forget a beautiful and frail Nancy Reagan rubbing her hand across the flag-draped coffin, then laying her cheek on it in a final gesture of love.
We must not, then, forget history or alter its facts.
I’ve pulled a couple of interesting items from my old computer files. The first is a brief 1998 article by David Corn of The Nation. When I dared, about three days into TV coverage of Reagan's death, to feature the article, I received the response shared here from a relatively young relative.
THE ARTICLE:
66 (Unflattering) Things About Ronald Reagan
Source Editor's Note: This list of "66 Things to Think about When Flying in to Reagan National Airport" appeared in The Nation on March 2, 1998 after the renaming of Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. As David Corn says, "The piece remains relevant today – particularly as a cheat sheet for those who dare to point out the Reagan presidency was not all that glorious and was more nightmare in America than morning in America."
By David Corn
The Nation
The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.
Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.
Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the Savings and Loan scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."
Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.
"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than 80 civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. "Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.
David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.
SOURCE: Information Clearinghouse
THE RESPONSE:
BJ - ENOUGH.
The man is dead. Whether you liked him or not is irrelevant. Whether ANYONE liked him is irrelevant.
Whatever harm or good he did for the country is sixteen years gone, and is also irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things. Not mentioning the "bad" things for one week out of the YEARS and YEARS of history is NOT going to do irreparable harm to the kids who don't pay attention in history class in the first place. Two hundred years from now, which will they mention in the history books? The Iran-contra affair or one state funeral of who knows how many?
Let the dead rest. Give the man his week of respect by keeping your mouth shut, if nothing else. And don't whine at me about censorship. It's called manners, which I thought we HAD in the South.
Don't discuss sex, religion or politics at the dinner table, and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
***
“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Sadly, this seems to be the media’s new approach to U.S. history. I refuse to condone it.
During the full week of Ronald Reagan’s funeral on TV and the celebration of his Centennial, my objections have centered not on remembering a former U.S. president, but on the revisionist aspects of The Media Myth and the exploitation of the poor man for political purposes.
We will never forget “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” although communism had already begun to self-destruct, and Reagan did not singlehandedly bring it down as some now believe.
We will never forget a beautiful and frail Nancy Reagan rubbing her hand across the flag-draped coffin, then laying her cheek on it in a final gesture of love.
We must not, then, forget history or alter its facts.
I’ve pulled a couple of interesting items from my old computer files. The first is a brief 1998 article by David Corn of The Nation. When I dared, about three days into TV coverage of Reagan's death, to feature the article, I received the response shared here from a relatively young relative.
THE ARTICLE:
66 (Unflattering) Things About Ronald Reagan
Source Editor's Note: This list of "66 Things to Think about When Flying in to Reagan National Airport" appeared in The Nation on March 2, 1998 after the renaming of Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. As David Corn says, "The piece remains relevant today – particularly as a cheat sheet for those who dare to point out the Reagan presidency was not all that glorious and was more nightmare in America than morning in America."
By David Corn
The Nation
The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.
Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.
Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the Savings and Loan scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."
Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.
"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than 80 civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. "Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.
David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.
SOURCE: Information Clearinghouse
THE RESPONSE:
BJ - ENOUGH.
The man is dead. Whether you liked him or not is irrelevant. Whether ANYONE liked him is irrelevant.
Whatever harm or good he did for the country is sixteen years gone, and is also irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things. Not mentioning the "bad" things for one week out of the YEARS and YEARS of history is NOT going to do irreparable harm to the kids who don't pay attention in history class in the first place. Two hundred years from now, which will they mention in the history books? The Iran-contra affair or one state funeral of who knows how many?
Let the dead rest. Give the man his week of respect by keeping your mouth shut, if nothing else. And don't whine at me about censorship. It's called manners, which I thought we HAD in the South.
Don't discuss sex, religion or politics at the dinner table, and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
***
“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Sadly, this seems to be the media’s new approach to U.S. history. I refuse to condone it.
2.05.2011
The Fox version
Words of inspiration spoken by the president of the United States at the recent National Prayer Breakfast received this comment on Fox News:
"President Obama misquoted a familiar Bible verse during a faith-based address at the National Prayer Breakfast."
- Fox Nation, 2/03/11
VERSUS
"Obama was quoting from the New International Version [of the Bible], while Fox Nation was pointing to the King James Version to 'debunk' him."
- Media Matters, 2/04/11
SOURCE: The Progress Report
***
Propaganda works: According to Gallup tracking, an average of only 13 percent of registered Republicans approved of the job President Obama did during his second year in office.
***
Vérité!
"President Obama misquoted a familiar Bible verse during a faith-based address at the National Prayer Breakfast."
- Fox Nation, 2/03/11
VERSUS
"Obama was quoting from the New International Version [of the Bible], while Fox Nation was pointing to the King James Version to 'debunk' him."
- Media Matters, 2/04/11
SOURCE: The Progress Report
***
Propaganda works: According to Gallup tracking, an average of only 13 percent of registered Republicans approved of the job President Obama did during his second year in office.
***
Vérité!
2.03.2011
'Deification of the Dead'
I have an acquaintance who is a very talented organist and is very much in demand to play at weddings and funerals. What he doesn’t like about being engaged to play at funerals, he once told me, is the “deification of the dead.” He said the deceased could have been the worst sort of scoundrel, but is always elevated to sainthood in the service.
In thinking about the “deification of the dead,” I would like to reflect on my early days in the workplace when employees were treated as an integral and worthy part of what made a business successful. It was a time when esprit de corps existed and workers were very proud of the company’s delivered products or services.
All that changed, and one can pinpoint when the change occurred. The balance shifted, employees became replaceable “cogs in the wheel” of production and, being so marginalized, began to lose heart – no longer taking pride in being a part of the whole and working only in weary anticipation of payday.
The change came hard and fast. When I was in management in 1983, I was initiated into “Management by Objectives,” one feature of which was “Attrition by Absorption.” One goal of management, I was told, was to make an employee so miserable he or she would resign, resulting in reduction of personnel. Management was taught ways to achieve this. Then, another employee could “absorb” the departing worker’s duties, with no increase in pay. My conscience rejected such dirty tricks.
I lived it. I know when the change began. But, let me share a well-written disclosure of the moment. And, when you have read it, I want you to think a lot in the days ahead about my friend’s “deification of the dead.”
Ronald Reagan, Enemy of the American Worker
by Dick Meister, t r u t h o u t
Op-Ed (LINK), 2 February 2011
The 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth is coming up in February, and before the inevitable gushing over what a wonderful leader he was begins, let me get in a few words about what sort of a leader he really was.
Ronald Reagan was, above all, one of the most viciously anti-labor presidents in American history, one of the worst enemies the country's working people ever faced.
Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, but until Reagan, no Republican president had dared challenge the firm legal standing labor gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930's.
Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress - at times, as adversaries to be fought with, and, at others, as people to be bargained with. Reagan, however, engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor and the country's workers from the time he assumed office in 1980 until leaving the presidency in 1988.
Reagan had little apparent reason to fear labor politically. Opinion polls at the time showed that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans, and that nearly half of those who belonged to unions had voted for Reagan in both of his presidential campaigns.
Reagan, at any rate, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management in that position. He led the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union. Under heavy membership pressure, he finally resigned as union president before his term ended.
Reagan's war on labor as US president began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union.
As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted in 2004, the firing was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear - illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were originally designed to protect and further the rights of workers and their unions. Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five- member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The appointees included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who declared that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
A House committee found that under Dotson, the NLRB abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints about employers' illegal actions as it had during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter. Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that, under Reagan, the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints - and that, in any case, the board did no more than order that discharged unionists be reinstated with back pay, which was much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
The board stalled equally as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and generally stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Also, under Reagan employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-Labor Department, virtually ignoring, for example, the union-busting consultants that many employers hired to help them fend off unionization.
Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements that the law demands, yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them, and that imbalance could be used to advantage by their opponents. Although the Labor Department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
Among Reagan's many other outrages, there were his attempts to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, weaken the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits and cut back programs to train unemployed workers for available jobs. He also tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protection.
Reagan all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and he seriously undermined job safety programs. He closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) field offices, trimmed the agency's staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against offending employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the laws, Reagan appointees sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. Reagan had so tilted the safety laws in favor of employers that safety experts declared them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the leaders of several major unions concluded that it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return to "the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
The suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged the nation's labor-management relations deep into the jungle.
Yet Reagan will nevertheless be honored in centennial celebrations throughout the United States, in Europe and elsewhere in coming days. He's become a much beloved mythical figure, and nothing will change that - certainly not the unheard or unacknowledged facts of his presidency and its disastrous effects on America's working people, many of whom, ironically, will be among the celebrants.
Dick Meister is a San Francisco-based writer who has covered labor and politics for a half-century as a reporter, editor, author and commentator. You can contact him through his website, http://www.dickmeister.com/.
***
POSTSCRIPT (EMPHASIS MINE)
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, speaking in 1983 on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, noted (LINK):
“Perhaps the most important, and then highly controversial, domestic initiative was the firing of the air traffic controllers in August 1981. The president invoked the law that striking government employees forfeit their jobs, an action that unsettled those who cynically believed no president would ever uphold that law. President Reagan prevailed, as you know, but far more importantly his action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers.”
In thinking about the “deification of the dead,” I would like to reflect on my early days in the workplace when employees were treated as an integral and worthy part of what made a business successful. It was a time when esprit de corps existed and workers were very proud of the company’s delivered products or services.
All that changed, and one can pinpoint when the change occurred. The balance shifted, employees became replaceable “cogs in the wheel” of production and, being so marginalized, began to lose heart – no longer taking pride in being a part of the whole and working only in weary anticipation of payday.
The change came hard and fast. When I was in management in 1983, I was initiated into “Management by Objectives,” one feature of which was “Attrition by Absorption.” One goal of management, I was told, was to make an employee so miserable he or she would resign, resulting in reduction of personnel. Management was taught ways to achieve this. Then, another employee could “absorb” the departing worker’s duties, with no increase in pay. My conscience rejected such dirty tricks.
I lived it. I know when the change began. But, let me share a well-written disclosure of the moment. And, when you have read it, I want you to think a lot in the days ahead about my friend’s “deification of the dead.”
Ronald Reagan, Enemy of the American Worker
by Dick Meister, t r u t h o u t
Op-Ed (LINK), 2 February 2011
The 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth is coming up in February, and before the inevitable gushing over what a wonderful leader he was begins, let me get in a few words about what sort of a leader he really was.
Ronald Reagan was, above all, one of the most viciously anti-labor presidents in American history, one of the worst enemies the country's working people ever faced.
Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, but until Reagan, no Republican president had dared challenge the firm legal standing labor gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930's.
Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress - at times, as adversaries to be fought with, and, at others, as people to be bargained with. Reagan, however, engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor and the country's workers from the time he assumed office in 1980 until leaving the presidency in 1988.
Reagan had little apparent reason to fear labor politically. Opinion polls at the time showed that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans, and that nearly half of those who belonged to unions had voted for Reagan in both of his presidential campaigns.
Reagan, at any rate, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management in that position. He led the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union. Under heavy membership pressure, he finally resigned as union president before his term ended.
Reagan's war on labor as US president began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union.
As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted in 2004, the firing was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear - illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were originally designed to protect and further the rights of workers and their unions. Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five- member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The appointees included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who declared that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
A House committee found that under Dotson, the NLRB abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints about employers' illegal actions as it had during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter. Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that, under Reagan, the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints - and that, in any case, the board did no more than order that discharged unionists be reinstated with back pay, which was much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
The board stalled equally as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and generally stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Also, under Reagan employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-Labor Department, virtually ignoring, for example, the union-busting consultants that many employers hired to help them fend off unionization.
Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements that the law demands, yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them, and that imbalance could be used to advantage by their opponents. Although the Labor Department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
Among Reagan's many other outrages, there were his attempts to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, weaken the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits and cut back programs to train unemployed workers for available jobs. He also tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protection.
Reagan all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and he seriously undermined job safety programs. He closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) field offices, trimmed the agency's staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against offending employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the laws, Reagan appointees sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. Reagan had so tilted the safety laws in favor of employers that safety experts declared them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the leaders of several major unions concluded that it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return to "the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
The suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged the nation's labor-management relations deep into the jungle.
Yet Reagan will nevertheless be honored in centennial celebrations throughout the United States, in Europe and elsewhere in coming days. He's become a much beloved mythical figure, and nothing will change that - certainly not the unheard or unacknowledged facts of his presidency and its disastrous effects on America's working people, many of whom, ironically, will be among the celebrants.
Dick Meister is a San Francisco-based writer who has covered labor and politics for a half-century as a reporter, editor, author and commentator. You can contact him through his website, http://www.dickmeister.com/.
***
POSTSCRIPT (EMPHASIS MINE)
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, speaking in 1983 on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, noted (LINK):
“Perhaps the most important, and then highly controversial, domestic initiative was the firing of the air traffic controllers in August 1981. The president invoked the law that striking government employees forfeit their jobs, an action that unsettled those who cynically believed no president would ever uphold that law. President Reagan prevailed, as you know, but far more importantly his action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
