| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Arizona Shootings Reaction | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Panda pajamas
John Stewart handles the Arizona shootings better than anyone else, as only he could handle it.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The aftermath of the Giffords shooting
When I first heard the news that a congresswoman in Arizona had been shot in the head at an event in Arizona, my first reaction was that this was likely an attempt by some crazed individual to influence legislation through violence.
Then as I read postings from my friends on Facebook, a more sinister possibility surfaced, the Sarah Palin ad, which I now repost:
What this ad shows was Sarah Palin's target list for the 2010 election. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the U.S. Reps on the list, with a gun sight targeted over her district. Giffords herself talks about the consequences of violence creeping into the political process in this video, and in particular about the Palin ad at about 2:20:
But as we have learned more about the suspected shooter, we get a picture of him from Internet postings and YouTube that he was an incoherent and deeply troubled individual. He included both "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" as his favorite books. Think about that. One is an example of extreme right, fascist thinking and the other is the ultimate blueprint for the extreme left. Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies during World War II, remember?
More importantly, there is no evidence that this suspect was a supporter of Sarah Palin, did not seem to advocate for her political platform and does not seem to have been motivated by her ad or by any particular vote by Giffords as a congresswoman. (At least not as far as we know now.)
And yet, Palin should be ashamed of how she has conducted herself. "Violent rhetoric, when legitimized, will always trickle down to someone who is unstable enough to take the literal message to heart," as Derrick Stamos posted on Facebook. I don't know Derrick, but it rings with truth, especially when you remember how Glenn Beck's rhetoric presumably led to a shoot-out in Oakland:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html
We have the right to free speech, but violent rhetoric abuses that right. We can say what we want, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it will get someone killed. It seems to me that Palin and Beck have been getting closer to crossing that line. It is a line that no sane American wants to see crossed.
On the day that politicians in this country are shot and killed because of their political views, that will be the day America dies. And the more this brand of rhetoric is used, the closer we get to that day.
In any event, if Palin has any conscience, decency or at least basic smarts, it will be a long time before she uses the phrase "Don't retreat, reload," or use guns and gun sights in her ads.
My hope is that we have reached a high-water mark for violent rhetoric in American politics. My hope is that most Americans have felt enough disgust over the shooting in Tuscon that we will no longer welcome such inflammatory and divisive politics.
Then as I read postings from my friends on Facebook, a more sinister possibility surfaced, the Sarah Palin ad, which I now repost:
What this ad shows was Sarah Palin's target list for the 2010 election. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the U.S. Reps on the list, with a gun sight targeted over her district. Giffords herself talks about the consequences of violence creeping into the political process in this video, and in particular about the Palin ad at about 2:20:
But as we have learned more about the suspected shooter, we get a picture of him from Internet postings and YouTube that he was an incoherent and deeply troubled individual. He included both "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" as his favorite books. Think about that. One is an example of extreme right, fascist thinking and the other is the ultimate blueprint for the extreme left. Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies during World War II, remember?
More importantly, there is no evidence that this suspect was a supporter of Sarah Palin, did not seem to advocate for her political platform and does not seem to have been motivated by her ad or by any particular vote by Giffords as a congresswoman. (At least not as far as we know now.)
And yet, Palin should be ashamed of how she has conducted herself. "Violent rhetoric, when legitimized, will always trickle down to someone who is unstable enough to take the literal message to heart," as Derrick Stamos posted on Facebook. I don't know Derrick, but it rings with truth, especially when you remember how Glenn Beck's rhetoric presumably led to a shoot-out in Oakland:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html
We have the right to free speech, but violent rhetoric abuses that right. We can say what we want, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it will get someone killed. It seems to me that Palin and Beck have been getting closer to crossing that line. It is a line that no sane American wants to see crossed.
On the day that politicians in this country are shot and killed because of their political views, that will be the day America dies. And the more this brand of rhetoric is used, the closer we get to that day.
In any event, if Palin has any conscience, decency or at least basic smarts, it will be a long time before she uses the phrase "Don't retreat, reload," or use guns and gun sights in her ads.
My hope is that we have reached a high-water mark for violent rhetoric in American politics. My hope is that most Americans have felt enough disgust over the shooting in Tuscon that we will no longer welcome such inflammatory and divisive politics.
Using the N-word
Recently on Facebook a group of my friends were debating the new edition of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," which had been edited to change the n-word into "slave."
Overwhelmingly, we hated the idea. There were a lot of great points about it. The best point was that Twain's work gives us a window into a shameful period of American history, and we need to be able to confront that honestly.
I wrote: "You can definitely oversanitize history. The problem is that by sanitizing history, later generations don't even realize how offensive the words can be. They don't realize the history, meaning and pain behind words, symbols and actions. Twa...in's use of the n-word is an opportunity for a teaching moment with the kids, and it can be handled in a way that is not offensive or hurtful.
Editors: Put down that red pen and move away from the literature!"
But I have one additional point to make. When I read the full story about the new edition, the editor explained that he wanted to make the change because he had to deal with negative reactions from audiences when he read the book aloud.
I get it. I understand. I have to say I would have a great deal of trouble saying that word out loud to a group of people, even if it was in the context of one of the greatest works of American literature. It is a word that carries so much pain that I do not think anyone can give me sanction to say it out loud, even if Mark Twain were to rise from his grave and tell me so himself. (And he wouldn't have far to walk. He's buried in the next town over from me.)
Anyway, the debate is pointless. The sanitized edition is being published. It will be out next month. But it does not mean that this edition will replace, supercede or be superior to earlier editions. It is an option that is now available for audiences that had not been able to read this work before. It can go on library bookshelves and read in middle schools, where it had often been banned.
But it should be read with the understanding that the full, original version is out there and if someone wanted to have a complete experience and have a unsanitized version of this work, they should go out and find it. Perhaps it is not a book for middle schoolers (ironic because Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher and Huckleberry Finn were roughly middle school aged) but readers who are at least high school age should read the unchanged work.
Overwhelmingly, we hated the idea. There were a lot of great points about it. The best point was that Twain's work gives us a window into a shameful period of American history, and we need to be able to confront that honestly.
I wrote: "You can definitely oversanitize history. The problem is that by sanitizing history, later generations don't even realize how offensive the words can be. They don't realize the history, meaning and pain behind words, symbols and actions. Twa...in's use of the n-word is an opportunity for a teaching moment with the kids, and it can be handled in a way that is not offensive or hurtful.
Editors: Put down that red pen and move away from the literature!"
But I have one additional point to make. When I read the full story about the new edition, the editor explained that he wanted to make the change because he had to deal with negative reactions from audiences when he read the book aloud.
I get it. I understand. I have to say I would have a great deal of trouble saying that word out loud to a group of people, even if it was in the context of one of the greatest works of American literature. It is a word that carries so much pain that I do not think anyone can give me sanction to say it out loud, even if Mark Twain were to rise from his grave and tell me so himself. (And he wouldn't have far to walk. He's buried in the next town over from me.)
Anyway, the debate is pointless. The sanitized edition is being published. It will be out next month. But it does not mean that this edition will replace, supercede or be superior to earlier editions. It is an option that is now available for audiences that had not been able to read this work before. It can go on library bookshelves and read in middle schools, where it had often been banned.
But it should be read with the understanding that the full, original version is out there and if someone wanted to have a complete experience and have a unsanitized version of this work, they should go out and find it. Perhaps it is not a book for middle schoolers (ironic because Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher and Huckleberry Finn were roughly middle school aged) but readers who are at least high school age should read the unchanged work.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Surviving the disaster
Blood bath. Tidal Wave. Tsunami. Earthquake.
These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.
But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.
And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.
But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.
I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.
My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.
In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.
But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.
The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.
We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.
So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.
Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html
Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.
These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.
But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.
And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.
But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.
I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.
My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.
In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.
But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.
The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.
We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.
So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.
Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html
Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2010 - David Frum | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Where did Obama go?
I'm watching the early results on the election, and of course it is not going well for the Democrats. Holding the Senate will be the big victory if the Dems can pull it off.
As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.
After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?
Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.
The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.
Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.
It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.
The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.
Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.
But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.
As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.
After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?
Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.
The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.
Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.
It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.
The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.
Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.
But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)