American Exceptionalism

What is "American Exceptionalism"? How does it work? How has it been used historically? Who is promoting it today, and why?

Exceptionalism laid bare is essentially a ploy religious and political leaders as well as nations have always used to amass power and to justify otherwise unjustifiable and immoral actions.

Under Hitler, a belief in the "superiority of the so-called Aryan, master-race" justified the invasion neighboring countries to start a world war. Earlier in America, it was called "manifest destiny" and used to justify a policy of genocide against the indigenous people and the forced relocation of the survivors onto reservations.

More recently, George W. Bush used it to grant cover for the ill-conceived and illegal invasion of Iraq. When it became clear that there were no WMDs, American exceptionalism served as his ace in the hole. A gullible American public swallowed his amended claim that we really invaded Iraq to rid the world of a cruel tyrant and to free the Iraqi people - because that's what America is all about.

Bullshit!

Today, so many Americans believe Christianity to be an "exceptional" faith that evangelical preachers can condone homophobia, racism, and murder in the name of the Prince of Peace with no fear of backlash or censure.

Anyone with a knowledge of history and a brain capable of questioning the cherished myths of his or her culture can come up with a host of additional examples where exceptionalisn served to justify inflicting harm on a supposed enemy while claiming the moral high-ground.

Politically, it is a powerful tool for those who wish to seize control of an issue. Don the cloak of exceptionalism for your group as if it were an unquestionable truth, and you force your opponents to disprove the negative.

In the 1950s, Joe McCarthy used it as a trap to outflank opponents of his extreme right-wing ideology by claiming that they were anti-American and Communist sympathizers.

Now the disinformation machine that serves the political right-wing in today's America is setting that same trap, and President Obama appears to be walking right into it.

Shame on anyone, including the President, who publicly promotes or accepts the myth of "American Exceptionalism" in the hope of avoiding the hard work of telling the truth to a a citizenry which is unwilling to listen to anything but feel-good, populist bullshit.

The article below illustrates how this dangerous charade is playing out in America today.

===

from the November 30, 2010 Columbus Dispatch:

Obama's vision of America is not exceptional, foes say
By Karen Tumulty THE WASHINGTON POST

Is this a great country or what?

American exceptionalism is a phrase that, until recently, was rarely heard outside the confines of research groups, opinion journals and university history departments.

But with Republicans and tea party activists accusing President Barack Obama and the Democrats of turning the country toward socialism, the idea that the United States is inherently superior to the world's other nations seems to be on the lips of just about every Republican who is giving any thought to running for president in 2012.

For former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the concept is a frequent theme in her speeches, Facebook postings, tweets and appearances on Fox News Channel. Her just-published book, America by Heart, has a chapter titled "America the Exceptional."

An argument over American exceptionalism "is a respectable way of raising the question of whether Obama is one of us," said William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Much of this issue hearkens back to a single comment that Obama made a year and a half ago in Strasbourg, France, during his first trip overseas as president.

Obama was asked by Financial Times correspondent Ed Luce whether he subscribes, as his predecessors did, "to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world."

The president's answer began: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

That may have been a nod to the fact that many abroad hear talk of American exceptionalism as worrisome jingoism. But it provided ammunition for Palin and other Republican critics.

"Maybe President Obama grew up around coaches who insisted that all the players receive participation 'trophies' at the end of the season and where no score was kept in youth soccer games for fear of offending someone," she wrote in her book. " . . . when President Obama insists that all countries are exceptional, he's saying that none is, least of all the country he leads."

But the president's full statement was indeed an affirmation of American exceptionalism.

In addition to the world's largest economy and its mightiest military, Obama said, "We have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional."

He added: "I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world toward peace and prosperity and recognizing that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Obama fails to understand that "American exceptionalism refers directly to the grant of rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence," and that it is a term "which relates directly to our unique assertion of an unprecedented set of rights granted by God."

But White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said Obama has declared exactly that on many occasions.

Take Your Medicine

What follows is the reply I sent to a friend who voted for President Obama but who now says she's lost all trust in the government and isn't going to vote in November.

===

You may not be happy with what the Democrats have done in the two years they’ve been in power, but you need to remember a few things:

1. What the Democrats have managed to accomplish has been done in the face of near-100% opposition from the Republicans, who back in 2008 openly declared bringing down President Obama to be their goal.

2. Unlike the GOP, which is primarily concerned with preserving and expanding the special privileges enjoyed by the wealthy, the Democratic party is a coalition of people with diverse views. It’s primary concern is addressing the needs of the citizenry in general.

3. The monolithic, minority GOP can and does present a united front against any and all attempts to level the economic playing field for all Americans. In order to effect such legislation, the big-tent Democratic party must go the route of compromise. The Founding Fathers saw compromise as preferable to both despotism and anarchy and made it pivotal to the governmental process established in the Constitution.

4. If you don’t stick with Obama and the Democrats in November, the Republicans WILL regain control of Congress, and they WILL return our country to the very policies which turned a record surplus into a record debt and created the economic disaster the Democrats have been working to address with no support from the "Party of No” for only two years.

When your kids were sick and didn’t want to take their medicine because it tasted yucky, I’m pretty sure you made them take it anyway because you knew they wouldn’t get better without it.

Well, America is sick, and the only medicine available is coming from the one party which cares about curing the patient. That medicine may taste yucky, but it’s working.

Remember! It has to battle GOP germs which pumped poison into America’s economic system for eight years, and they will continue to work hard to give America more of the same until they are brought under control.

I strongly urge you to look beyond your specific dissatisfactions with the Democrats and avoid doing something that ends up making things worse for you, and America in general, because you are angry or upset.

Thar She Breaches!

We went whale-watching off the coast of Washington in the San Juan Islands yesterday. I got lucky and caught 82-year-old orca matriarch, Ocean Sun, showing off for the cameras.

We're visiting our middle son, David, in Seattle. Yesterday the three of us went on a whale-watching tour to the San Juan Islands. Orcas have unique saddle markings, which can be used like fingerprints to identify individuals. One of the crew members ID'd the whale as Ocean Sun from a still photo someone else had taken.

I have tons of pictures and movies of dorsal fins coming up above the surface and disappearing again. There were some other jumps, but they were too far away for my little, ol' Canon S5IS to get a good shot. I just got lucky and was able to swing my camera and catch the one which jumped close to our boat.

It's The Economy, Stupid!

Everyone has heard that phrase. It rose to prominence in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency, and it's being tossed around again this year.

But, what exactly does "The Economy" mean? And who is this "Stupid" character?

I'll explain in three steps and even include a bonus picture for those who are visual learners.

1. The Economy:

The best way to understand the U.S. economy is by looking at Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the statistic used to measure the economy. In other words, the U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the U.S. In the first quarter 2010, it was $14.6 trillion. <http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/GDP.htm>

Looked at from a slightly different perspective, "The Economy" is simply a measurement of how much money is moving from one bank account to another as a result of all the business dealings in the country. The more money moving, the better "The Economy."

Where the money is moving is not taken into account in this measurement, nor is any consideration given as to whether the flow is helping or hurting the average citizen.

2. Stupid:

Most Americans fit that description. They've been brainwashed to believe the "free market" myth and therefore don't realize that the stock market is a rigged game. They think they're players because they have funds invested in the market.

As in Las Vegas, however, "the house" (in this case, the top 5% of all investors) always wins because it takes its cut off the top as vigorish. Those who make up the other 95% risk their savings to help "the house" make money.

Thus, in 2010 the super-rich are becoming even super-richer while the rest of us are losing our homes, our jobs, and our retirement savings.

In short, we're losing our assets.

3. How it works:

You lose your house, because you lost your job, because "the house" outsourced it to enhance its bottom line or because it sold your mortgage in a derivatives bundle that was essentially worthless. "The house" uses its reserves to buy your house at below market value. It has plenty of money in reserve to ride out the economic disaster it caused. It even gets you to subsidize its chicanery by convincing Congress that it's too big to fail. When things settle down, "the house" will sell your house to someone else at a profit.

In "The Economy," all the wealth created by those who do actual work is constantly being redistributed upward to "the house," which has to do nothing more strenuous than to pick up a pen and write checks to a few members of Congress to keep the money flowing upward. Meanwhile a host of stooges preach the gospel of trickle down economics to "Stupid."

===

Now for that cartoon I promised. I like to call it, "Here they let you smoke; there you get smoked."

Link to source: http://www.gocomics.com/wizardofid/2010/09/07/

Are We Really This Stupid?

The founding fathers created a Constitution which gives Americans the right to make stupid decisions. I wonder why we seem to need to prove we have that right over and over again.

Link to source: http://politicalirony.com/2010/09/06/wtf/

To those who believe electing Republicans in November is a good idea, I offe the following observation:

If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong!

Bad Taste/Good Taste

Does Glen Beck's attempt to rebrand himself as the reincarnation of Martin Luther King leave a bad taste in your mouth?

Perhaps this will help. ;-)

A picture slideshow by Smilebox

Leaving a Stain on American Politics

As a followup to yesterday's post, I offer today's Mike Luckovich editorial cartoon.

Glenn Beck, the self-proclaimed leader of the Tea Party "Patriots," is a hero and exemplar for those who worship a very small God and who use fear and hatred to promote a regressive and morally bankrupt political agenda.

How Big Is Your God?

Here's another Q & A from Bishop John Shelby Spong followed by some thoughts it evoked.

John Arvey, from Sunnyvale, CA asks:

You have discussed the influence of astronomy on our God view. What do you think will happen when life on other planets is discovered? Will this expand or contract your image of God?

Dear John:

In a word, I believe nothing will happen. I assume it's inevitable already. Our image of God is always too small. Our problem is that we cannot think in God categories. God is the same. Our image of God expands every time we discover something more about life, the universe or our own humanity.

– John Shelby Spong

===

To subscribe to Bishop Spong's Weekly Q & A newsletter go to this link, scroll to the bottom, and enter your email address: http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/publicsite/index.aspx

===

According to Bishop Spong, we humans gain greater insight into the nature of God through the process of learning - exploring all areas of human knowledge and then changing our beliefs when an ever expanding understanding of reality demands that we do so. That process, however, with its inherent challenge to our cherished beliefs, is anathema to both conservative Christian and conservative political philosophy as embodied in the Tea Party Movement and championed by the braying of Rush Limbaugh and FOX News.

Christian Conservatism of this type offers its followers a very small God. In fact and in practice, it holds that knowledge of God is completely and perfectly revealed in a rigid, sect-specific interpretation of the Bible, and learning is sinful whenever it calls into question any aspect of that interpretation.

Political Conservatism of this type also offers its followers a very small God - the status quo. It holds that American values are completely and perfectly revealed in the rigid, ideology-specific interpretation the Constitution known as strict constructionism, and learning which calls this interpretation into question is unpatriotic.

Thus, both groups strive to maintain the status quo in which special privilege is granted to those with great wealth. Both the Bible and the Constitution are wielded as brooms to sweep reports of the escalating economic inequality in America under a carpet of willful ignorance.

Instead of delighting in and celebrating the prospect of a deepening relationship to and understanding of the divine, these conservatives live in a world filled with fear. They fear change. They fear knowledge which clearly shows that observed reality is quite different from what their rigid beliefs declare it to be.

Deep down, they know that any philosophy which offers a guarantee of unassailable rectitude is a sham, and they are afraid that a just God will hold them accountable for the intolerance, selfishness, bigotry, homophobia, greed, self-righteousness, and ignorance their beliefs foster.

Is it any wonder that they resort to fear-mongering and intimidation when they engage in the political process?

It would appear that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was decades ahead of his time when he said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Responding to Bigots Who Hide Behind the Bible

This is an email I sent to a bunch of friends earlier today. The text below my signature is a reply by Bishop John Shelby Spong to a letter he received. It presents a most eloquent and useful guide on how to respond to those who hide behind religion to push a political ideology which promotes hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.

George

PS: To subscribe to Bishop Spong's Weekly Q&A newsletter go to the link below, scroll to the bottom, and enter your email address.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/publicsite/index.aspx

===

Anne Harrison from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, writes
How does one respectfully answer or relate to dear friends who want to debate an issue (such as the "sin" of homosexuality)? I know they are trying to "convert" me!

Dear Anne,

You need first to separate religious conviction from hostility. One does not allow hostility to be expressed toward oneself that is demeaning and destructive, even when people package their hostility in the rhetoric of religion. Religious hostility is no less hostile than non-religious hostility! You must see it and call it for what it is. You simply tell these friends that you do not want to discuss these subjects, that their persistent attempts to do so are not acceptable, that you do not welcome it and that if they continue in this behavior, even though they are "dear friends," they will be putting your friendship at risk. That should get their attention.

Once you have gotten their attention, you then explain that there are some subjects on which your mind, based on your best study, are <sic> settled and thus are no longer up for consideration or further debate even though you are aware that they do not agree with you. This will certainly put them on notice, and then it is up to them to act in such a way as to continue their friendship with you.

What I think all people need to understand is that the pious rhetoric of religion, including quotations from the Bible, do not make hostility acceptable. Religious rudeness is still rude, religious anger is still anger and boorish people who are religious are still boorish. No one is required to absorb anger even when it is perfumed with a religious scent.

I hope this helps.

– John Shelby Spong

Judicial Responsibility

As you watch the video below, note how FOX reporter Chris Wallace attempts to frame the subject of Judge Vaughn Walker's recent Proposition 8 ruling as controversial with leading questions dripping with unsupported opinion. Note also how Ted Olsen sticks to the subject, backs up his statements, and refuses to grant Wallace's diversions the status of fact, let alone credibility.

Near the four minute mark of the video, Wallace asks Olsen to define judicial activism and reminds him that he has opposed it in the past. This is an obvious setup designed to tag the Proposition 8 ruling with a favorite right-wing epithet.

In response, Olsen begins, "Well, most people use the term judicial activism to explain decisions that they don't like," and Wallace gleefully interrupts him, saying, "Exactly!"

To Wallace's interruption, however, Olsen says, "I'm sorry if I interrupted you." He then continues to explain the difference between judicial activism and judicial responsibility. His response decimates the credibility of any attempt on the part of Wallace to portray Judge Vaughn Walker's decision as judicial activism. It also lays the foundation for refuting any future attempts to do so by others who oppose the decision on those specious grounds.

Hypocrisy Un-Mosqued

Sam Seder pulls no punches. He calls out bullshit wherever it lands to foul America, and he identifies the purveyors thereof irrespective of their pedigree.

This time, Seder, who is a Jew, calls bullshit on all, including the Jewish Anti Defamation League, who have come out in opposition to the building of a Muslim community center in New York a block away from ground zero.

2010 GOP Primary

This image reveals the process the GOP is using in 2010 to choose candidates capable of passing the Tea Party litmus test.

Race War! : That's Bullshit

Q. Why all the race baiting from the folks on the right?

A. Because facts and reason don't support their core beliefs but hatred and fear do.

Q. Where can one go to clear away the FOX News bullshit and get the facts?

A. The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC at 9 PM.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Seeing Red and Feeling Blue

Earlier today I received the message quoted below from ColorOfChange.org, which detailed the firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after she was maliciously portrayed as being racist by right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart and FOX News. I responded by clicking the link and adding my name to those calling for the Obama administration to reinstate Shirley Sherrod.

Besides adding my name, I included the following personal comment:

Not only should Ms. Sherrod get her job back, with back pay, but the situation begs for an investigation to determine whether criminal intent was behind Andrew Breibert's posting of the highly edited and misleading video which cost her her job.

There is a difference between free speech and slander. One would hope that a former editor of the Harvard Law Review would understand that and have the courage to take on those who would use slander to foment racial hatred in America while claiming to exercise free speech rights. The pattern of Mr. Breitbart's racially-biased attacks is clear and well-documented.

The man who said "there is no red America, no blue America, there is the United States of America!" as a candidate would do well as president to openly confront those who use a single brush to color public perception, be it loaded with red or blue paint.

Should he choose to live up to his promise of uniting America through honest communication with the American people, he has Harry Truman as an exemplar.

Give 'em hell, Mr. President!

===

If you agree that Ms. Sherrod deserves to be reinstated, click the link in the message below and add your name to the list of folks who expect those in the Obama administration to own up to and correct errors when they make them, unlike the minions of his predecessor, who believed such honesty was a sign of weakness.

George

The original message:

Dear friends,

The Obama administration just caved in to the right-wing smear machine, firing a Black USDA official after she was smeared by far-right blogger Andrew Breitbart and his friends at Fox News Channel.

Sherrod's dismissal was based on a selectively edited video that made it appear she was confessing to discriminating against a White farming couple. In reality she was telling the story of how working with that family to save their farm helped her to lose her racial preconceptions.

It took less than 24 hours for the lies to be debunked. But by that time, it was too late -- Sherrod was forced to quit. And even now that the truth is known, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is refusing to reinstate her. Worse, Vilsack has President Obama's support. This kind of political cowardice is beyond shameful.

That's why I've joined the people at ColorOfChange.org in calling on the White House to immediately give Shirley Sherrod her job back, and to stop bowing to the will of right-wing propaganda artists. Will you join me?

http://colorofchange.org/shirley/?id=2070-948039

On Monday, Andrew Breitbart (a blogger who works closely with FOX News and has a long history of launching deceptive, racially charged smear campaigns) posted a deceptively edited video of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod speaking at an NAACP function. The video shows Sherrod telling a story about how she once was asked for help from a White farmer, and how she didn't "give him the full force of what I could do" to help him, because of his race.

Breitbart used the video as evidence that the NAACP and the Obama administration tolerated racial discrimination against White people, saying that it showed Sherrod's "federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions." Breitbart's doctored video and false storyline moved quickly to FOX News, where on-air personalities called for Sherrod's firing.

The truth is that Sherrod was telling a 25-year old story about her work for a non-profit organization whose mission was to help Black farmers. Discrimination against Black farmers was rampant, and she described how she was first reluctant when approached by a White farmer named Roger Spooner for help (Sherrod also says that her father was killed by a White farmer 45 years ago). But after seeing that no one wanted to help Spooner she worked to save his farm, and eventually became good friends with his family.

Yesterday, Roger Spooner said that Sherrod saved their farm and kept them out of bankruptcy. He told CNN, "I don't know what brought up the racist mess. They just want to stir up some trouble, it sounds to me in my opinion."

A disturbing pattern

Sadly, the truth didn't matter at all. Soon after Breitbart's fake video surfaced, Sherrod was pressured by the White House to resign. Sherrod was never given a chance to tell her side of the story, and says that the Obama administration was "not interested in hearing the truth."

Once the truth became known, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a statement saying that whether or not the smear campaign against Sherrod was based in lies, it was necessary to fire her because the "controversy" would make it hard for her to do her job. The Obama administration is essentially saying that they will always back down in the face of dishonest, race-baiting smear campaigns launched by right-wing propagandists. They've ended the career of someone who did nothing wrong, and by handing a victory to the people who launched this deception, the administration is encouraging them to launch even more smears. All to avoid "controversy." It's pathetic, it's shameful, and it has to stop.

It's not the first time this has happened. Several members of the Obama administration have lost their jobs or been demoted, and nominees to cabinet positions have either stepped down or withdrawn their nominations after becoming the target of smear campaigns launched by FOX News and Breitbart.

It's bad enough that we have to fight the constant smear campaigns and appeals to racial paranoia from FOX and the right-wing media. But it's completely shameful and outrageous for the Obama administration to throw innocent public servants under the bus just to avoid having to fight back against the lies. It's not the first time it's happened -- but if enough of us call out the White House and tell them to stop running scared from FOX News, it might be the last.

Please join me and others in the ColorOfChange.org community in standing up for Shirley Sherrod, and demanding that the White House do the right thing now.

http://colorofchange.org/shirley/?id=2070-948039

Thanks.

Key Links:

"Fox smears Sherrod as racist, Sherrod cancels Fox interview," Media Matters for America, 7-20-2010 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200060

"NAACP 'snookered' over video of former USDA employee," CNN, 7-20-2010 

http://bit.ly/95Us9u

"Official: No WH pressure on Sherrod," Politico, 7-20-2010 

http://politi.co/cC4ndd

"Obama briefed after Sherrod incident," CNN Politics, 7-20-2010 

http://bit.ly/9ZuIWI

Crisis? What Crisis?

Sam Seder tells it like it is.

The Difference

The June 23, 2010 columns of Eugene Robinson and Thomas Sowell provide a case study in the difference between how those on the left (AKA elitist, pinko, nazi, socialist, bleeding-heart liberals) and those on the right (AKA patriotic, freedom-loving, tea-partying, take-our-government-back, just plain folks conservatives) view our country and its duly-elected President.

Both discuss events which followed President Obama's move to ensure that BP would pay for the damage done to the gulf coast by the disastrous oil spill it caused. But the similarity stops there.

Robinson's column discusses Congressman Joe Barton's (R-Texas) apology to BP for what he called a "shakedown" by President Obama. It also addresses the position of the GOP vis a vis the "proper" relationship between business and the interests of the American public. 

Despite his subsequent apology for that apology, 

Barton's remarks were no spontaneous gaffe. They came in a prepared statement and represent his genuine view of the situation: that the rights of a private company are absolute even when weighed against the clear interests of the public.

He points out and documents the following:

...Barton was only echoing a statement that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) had issued a day earlier in the name of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of House conservatives whose Web site claims 115 members. The statement groused that there is "no legal authority for the president to compel a private company to set up or contribute to an escrow account" and accused the Obama administration of "Chicago-style shakedown politics."

And he dares to use the C-word, which the right-wing echo chamber lambastes as a sign of weakness, but which Robinson uses to illustrate the moral depravity of today's GOP:

A group constituting roughly two-thirds of all Republicans in the House takes the position that President Obama was wrong to demand that BP set aside money to guarantee that those whose livelihoods are being ruined by the oil spill will be compensated. In other words, it's more important to kneel at the altar of radical conservative ideology than to feel any sense of compassion for one's fellow Americans.

Robinson's treatment of the story is (to borrow the misused terminology of FOX Noise) fair and balanced as well as intellectually honest.

Sowell's column, in contrast, is a study in abject duplicity. Don't think so? Consider the following:

His screed is 100% unsupported bull-pucky. There are no links to articles which might lend even a modicum of credence to his assertions.

He begins with an inuendo, designed to invoke the Tea-Party imagery of President Obama as the reincarnation of Hitler:

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions

Yet he conveniently overlooks the fact that it is the GOP, which is fomenting fear to solicit the support of its ignorant and pliable, keep your government hands off my medicare Tea-Party faction.

He follows with this blatant example of bait-and-switch:

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.  

He makes no attempt to justify his assertion that that "democracy is being dismantled." We are, I suppose, to take it on faith that he has the proof but that he has chosen not to clutter up his column with unnecessary supporting links to what is undoubtedly self-evident to any "right-thinking" American.

Instead, he devotes ten paragraphs to repeating the standard litany Republican talking points to: decry the policies of the Obama administration, pimp for the right of big business to do whatever it wants without government interference, remind Americans that our decline started with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and substitute bald-faced lies and distortions for historical fact.

In a final tour de force of yellow-journalism, Sowell invokes the "czar" bogeyman, which was not to be feared when George W. Bush was appointing one after another of them.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Finally, he pretends that he is sounding a warning against "arbitrary power." Yet, his entire column shows him to be nothing more than a shill for the arbitrary rights of powerful business and political interests and an opponent of the rights of the powerless whose livelihoods face extinction in a rising tide of oil.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power-- versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom-- are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

Allow me to answer your question, Mr. Sowell. Those "useful idiots" are indispensable  to you and to those for whom you flack. You count on those "useful idiots' to blindly accept the assumptions of your ideology and to overlook your lack of journalistic integrity.

The Difference between the two columns can be summed up thusly:

Whereas Eugene Robinson's well-documented, thorough, and intellectually honest article should be required reading for every thinking American, print copies of Thomas Sowell's effort would be perfect for use as toilet paper in the heads of the trawlers deploying oil containment boom in the Gulf of Mexico.

Education in Hot Water

When we stopped expecting kids to master content in order to feel good about themselves and instead tried to "give them self esteem," the handwriting was on the teabag.

Angry at the GOVERNMENT?

Angry at the GOVERNMENT? I have a suggestion.

Instead of relying on the biased, simplistic, sound bites regurgitated by FOX "News" and then railing against the government at "Tea Parties," why not actually learn the facts about the problems which face our nation, support political leaders who are working to solve them, and work to defeat those opposing everything President Obama tries to do for the country in order to save their own political skins? 


Responsible behavior like that would go a long way to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" as a result of willful ignorance.

Or is that just too much to ask of Americans with so many "more important" things to do?

Happy Tax Day

The Columbus Dispatch buried the article below on page B3 and surrounded it with advertising.

Apparently, news of a government-run health-care initiative that works, and works well, is just too controversial for the conservative-leaning Dispatch. After all, if they're exposed to information like this, the voters might begin to question the right-wing's unsubstantiated claim that government is the problem.

    On Feb. 1, the state created a single, statewide drug formulary for all Medicaid programs, replacing eight different managed-care pharmacy plans. The change was included in the two-year state budget approved last summer.

I'm waiting for the "teabaggers" to call it socialism.

===

State, patients, doctors like new Medicaid drug plan
By Catherine Candisky

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

  When the state took back control of Medicaid's prescription-drug program last year, there was a lot of talk about how the move would save millions.

    It has.
    But it's also making it easier for patients to get the medications they need.
    An analysis by the Ohio Coalition for Patient Rights found that Medicaid patients have improved access to "quality and appropriate" treatments and medications.
    The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has succeeded in reducing the roadblocks to patients getting the drugs prescribed by their doctors without potentially costly delays, said Cheri L. Walter, coalition chairwoman and head of the Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities.
    On Feb. 1, the state created a single, statewide drug formulary for all Medicaid programs, replacing eight different managed-care pharmacy plans. The change was included in the two-year state budget approved last summer.
    At the time, state officials said the so-called carve-out would save money because the state is eligible for savings programs such as drugcompany rebates.
    "The most recent savings estimate that we have related to the pharmacy carve-out is $243.6 million, the vast majority of which will be realized in (fiscal year 2011) due to the timing of claims and manufacturers' rebates," said Brian Harter, spokesman for the Department of Job and Family Services, which oversees the state Medicaid program. 
    The Coalition for Patient Rights' analysis compared access to 122 drugs for health conditions including asthma, heart disease, diabetes and mental illness. It found that the state formulary, in many instances, placed fewer restrictions on patients' ability to obtain medications prescribed by their doctor.
    Such restrictions include the need for prior authorization from the insurer before a drug can be obtained and requiring patients to try different drugs before medications prescribed by their doctors can be made available.
    Physicians also are applauding the change.
    "We supported the idea of the carve-out because each managed-care company had its own formulary, and from an administrative perspective, it was a nightmare," said Ann Spicer of the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians.
    "It's much simpler dealing with a single formulary, and the number of prior authorizations have been drastically reduced."
    Harter said the positive feedback was welcome news.
    "We have received positive feedback from many doctors and pharmacists since the carve-out became effective in February," he said.
    ccandisky@dispatch.com

Shame on the Columbus Dispatch

This cartoon appeared on the editorial page of the March 26 Columbus Dispatch.

In response, I sent the following letter to the editor.

Editor,

I strongly object to Jeff Stahler's editorial cartoon which appeared in the March 26 Dispatch. It shows a rock labeled "CHANGE" lying on the floor of the Oval Office, a broken window through which it had been thrown, and a man telling President Obama, "Another message for you, sir."

With this cartoon, Mr. Stahler, who also draws the "Moderately Confused" panel which appears on the comics page, has shown that he is quite a bit more than moderately confused.

The call for change in America is coming from the political left. The rocks, bricks, and other items which have been thrown through windows since the passage of health care reform legislation have come exclusively from members of the political right. Their representatives have voted 100% against change, and they have been inciting and endorsing violence since last August and then disingenuously denying any responsibility when it occurs.

By running this cartoon, you have cast your lot with a group of bullies who are very good at spreading misinformation and quite willing to abandon the rule of law whenever they don't get their way. 

Shame on you.

George A. Denino 

I'm not expecting my letter to be published. After all, the editorial board of the Dispatch dances to the tune played by the Ohio Republican party bosses. 

Compare the shallow and misleading Stahler cartoon with the same day's insightful and factually accurate effort from Stuart Carlson.

Hoist With Their Own Petard

It's been a while since I posted anything. 

Truth be told, I have found it almost impossible to find words which adequately express my revulsion at seeing the members of the once-proud Party of Lincoln beat the drum of simplistic populism in an odious attempt to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama through a campaign of thinly-veiled bigotry parading as patriotism.

But the passage of health care reform legislation suggests that the use of such tactics offers no guarantee of either political or popular success.

To be sure, the legislation is imperfect, and the process was messy. However, that is a testament to the strength, not the weakness, of a country whose population is so diverse as to merit being called The Melting Pot.

Americans may be dumb, but they're not stupid. Like all humans, they want the assurance of permanent ease promised in the simplistic myths spun by their self-serving leaders. Eventually, however, they recognize that the path to truth and genuine freedom demands not their blind adherence to the norms of the past but a leap of faith to the promise of a better though uncertain future.

Those who have learned this lesson are speaking out on behalf of that promise, and their voices offer a clear, eloquent, and intelligent contrast to the words of derision and divisiveness embraced by the fear and hate-mongers of the radical right.

Who is Big Brother?

Big Brother's Minister of Truth

Frank Luntz - conservative political consultant and pollster

Much as he did to help the "Party of No" fight health care reform, Republican strategist Frank Luntz has penned a memo outlining a strategy to defeat the financial reform efforts of the Obama administration.

His plan? Lie!

Say that the proposed legislation is not reform, but that it is a bailout for big banks and lobbyists which you oppose.

Framing positive legislation as a negative in this way allows those who oppose reform to gain the unwitting support of the people who most desire it.

As the self-proclaimed opponents of big government, Republicans are both in fact and in deed the embodiment of George Orwell's Big Brother. Following Luntz's advice, they worked tirelessly to convince the American people that health care reform was socialism and to sidetrack meaningful debate on the issue by encouraging tirades by teabaggers against "death panels," rationing, and coverage for undocumented immigrants, none of which are in the proposed legislation.

Republicans do this in an attempt to regain political power, which they have openly stated they would use to reinstitute the failed and pernicious policies of the previous administration. Those policies turned surplus into debt, patriotism into profiteering, and international good will into an excuse for launching an unnecessary war. All this and more the Republicans did while claiming to be morally and patriotically superior to those who attempted to speak truth to their lies.

Big Brother cannot survive where lies can be openly refuted by an educated populace. Thus it becomes necessary for the GOP to foster ignorance and to attack educated opponents as subversive, arrogant elitists who are out of touch with "the real world." Of course, it is nearly impossible for any political party to implement such an ambitious and malevolent agenda without help from the media.

Enter FOX News, the GOP's partner in fostering and promoting the dumbing down of America.

FOX airs a steady diet of the same verbal subterfuge outlined by Luntz round-the-clock and calls it journalism.

On January 29, President Obama spoke and then answered questions at the House Republicans Caucus in Baltimore. During the question and answer session, FOX cut away from the live coverage when it became apparent that the President was delivering an ass-whuppin' to 140 sound-bite spouting legislators playing fast and loose with the facts. This allowed the FOX "reporters" to spin the story into one more in keeping with the network's ideologically driven agenda.



To emphasize that point, it is worth noting that after the question and answer session ended, FOX went live to broadcast the entire Republican response without interruption. So much for "fair and balanced" news.

"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Long live Big Brother!

That's the bad news.

But there's good news as well.

For more than a decade, the constant barrage of misleading statements and outright lies made by Big Brother  through his Ministry of Truth went unchallenged. Today, folks appear to be realizing how they were duped, and moderates like Jerry Remmers are speaking out against such duplicity in articles like this: An Easy Expose of GOP Strategy

George Orwell would be happy. After all, his purpose in writing "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was to warn us about men like Frank Luntz, not to praise them.

Freedom of Speech

On the day after President Obama's first State of the Union address, I offer you two assessments of the content and importance of his speech, both of which I received in email messages from friends.

The speech was aimed not only at Americans who are concerned about what appears to be an unraveling of the fabric of our national unity but also at those who sat on their hands and appeared to be completely unconcerned about anything beyond their personal political fortunes.

Disclaimer: Both of these articles contain rough and possibly offensive language.

That having been said, I believe they are incisive, accurate, and well worth reading.

Click the titles, and enjoy:

1. Last Night, Barack Obama Became President

Here’s a teaser excerpt:

You don't do what he did unless you know — calling out not only the political opposition for its opportunistic nihilism, and not only the United States Senate for its structural inertia and for the remarkable number of venal gobshites among its membership, but the Supreme Goddamn Court of the United States, sitting right there in front of him, for handing down a recent decision that guarantees that every election for the foreseeable future will have all the essential integrity and nobility of a Moroccan bazaar. You don't do that, getting Justice Sam Alito mumbling under his breath like a drunk on a subway, unless you know you're the only president in the room.


2. The Bobblespeak Translations - What Obama really said.

As a former English teacher, I feel compelled to point out that this article contains a significant number of grammatical and spelling errors. Nevertheless, the writer has, in my opinion, captured the essence of the President's message to America.

There's no teaser. You'll just have to read the whole thing.

The Clueless Media

Today's Doonesbury is a perfect metaphor for the cluelessness of the American mass media, which finds it more profitable to report on superficiality rather than substance and to draw conclusion based on ideology instead of facts.

Oh, and if you don't understand how this cartoon inspired my commentary, you are part of the problem.

Solution: Take one tablet tomorrow. ;-)

Not In Kansas Anymore

Whether you lean to the left or to the right politically and even if you stand squarely in the moderate middle, the following observation rings true.

is 70 years old.

Today, if Dorothy were to encounter

men with no brains, no hearts, and no courage,

she wouldn't be in Oz.

She'd be in Washington!

Satan to Pat Robertson

I just got this from a friend and had to share it.

Talk about an appropriate response to Pat Robertson's asinine remarks!

===

This hilarious letter to the editor, written by Lily Coyle of Minneapolis, appeared recently in the Minnesota Star-Tribune:

Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake.

Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings — just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best,

Satan
Link to source

No Joke

There's an old joke which goes like this:

They say that ignorance and apathy are the two biggest problems in America today. Well, I don't know anything about that, and I don't care.

Watch the video clip below of John McCain responding to Matt Lauer's question on NBC's Today show about allegations in the new book, Game Change, that Sarah Palin was not properly vetted prior to his naming her as his running mate.

Be very thankful that this man was not elected president in 2008.

">

You Have a Choice

President Obama discusses Health Care Reform in his Weekly Address - January 9, 2010.

Click on the image to view the video.

Actually, you have several choices. You can choose to:

1. ignore this week's message from President Obama and opt for a continuation of the status quo.

2. watch the message and reject it solely because you've been told not to trust the President by folks who stand to gain personally and politically by undermining his efforts to address the problems facing America.

3. watch the message and accept it solely because the President makes you feel good when he speaks.

4. watch the message and either accept or reject it based on a clear understanding of the differences between liberal and conservative political ideologies and the pros and cons inherent in solutions to problems offered by each camp.

5. watch the message and envision the larger picture the President is painting. It's a picture which challenges the listener to recognize and accept as fact

• that in America no single person shapes policy,
• that the American legislative process is messy by design but predicated and dependent on honest deliberation and debate,
• that divisiveness rooted in ideology and greed poses as great a danger for America as do the threats from external enemies,
• and that uniting in a common purpose has always been the American way.

The Party of No Substance

In its quest to regain power, spokespersons for the Republican party have been bombarding the media with one of the GOP's favorite myths, its smug claim of a superior ability to defend America.

Given the fact that the deadliest attack on our country took place on their watch, that claim is laughable to any thinking American. After all, George W. Bush and a Republican majority in Congress were running the country on September 11, 2001.

On January 6, Chris Matthews called bullshit on that GOP myth and asked Republican strategist Todd Harris to name one thing the GOP had done in the past decade to help America. Harris was unable to do so. Instead, he avoided the question, lamely stating that his job was not to discuss history but to win elections for Republicans in 2010.


Enjoy!

What's in a Name?

The "immutable value system" which conservatives trumpet as their raison d'être is embodied in the definition of a single word. Conveniently, that word also happens to be the surname of the one known as "The Architect" of the current version of the conservative movement.

That word is...

rove 1 |rōv|
noun [in sing. ]
a journey, esp. one with no specific destination; an act of wandering

ORIGIN late 15th cent. (originally a term in archery in the sense [shoot at a casual mark of undetermined range] ): perhaps from dialect rave [to stray,] probably of Scandinavian origin.

Click here to view original image.

Running on Empty

Be very thankful that you're not among the 25% of Americans who don't, won't, or can't understand this and who, like the former governor of Alaska, are running on empty.