Life In A Time Of Madness

I had the sad misfortune yeserday to read an essay penned by the daughter of a one-time school chum which was utterly dumbfounding.

These are some fairly smart folks, college-educated, they work hard to provide for their families and yet the essay in question was a stunning display of intellect strangled by a deadening diet of lies and distortions fabricated by the relentless machinery of talk radio and the one major cable news outlet mostly owned by a Middle Eastern tycoon.

I'm not linking to nor quoting the essay - I don't wish to either repeat the nonsense or further embarass the writer.

The writer's apocalyptic lamentations were due to the mere fact that Barack Obama is president and is seeking re-election. A cascade of illusory woes then followed - seems that every evil and myriads of sin-laden plagues were apparently created at the very moment in January 2009 when President Obama was sworn into office. The essay ended with a 'call to arms'.

I pondered and marveled at what I had read - a voluminous litany of horrors were presented addressing so many areas of life: history, economics, religion, and the basic elements of life in our nation, all now somehow exist absent any context or fact. The roll call of fear was the beating heart of this essay. For a few moments, I considered some reply, for none of us wishes to witness a person in writhing agony and pass them by as quickly as possible. But I reluctantly realized there was no salve nor poultice nor any surcease of pain for this person I might offer. Their agony was entirely imaginary, founded on nothingness. The enormity of their fantasy was an unscalable fortress. 

Doubtless there are those who hold views in opposition to the writer who likewise cling to perspectives absent any context or history or understanding and are merely the products of xenophobic rage. For too many people, histrionics has replaced reason - and such misalignment is not dependent on national geography or religious orientation.

I do have some remorse that I have no words or thoughts to share with such folk which might reorient them to rational, thought-provoking ruminations and discoveries. It is truly a sad loss, a bizarre madness which exists within the confines of certain political climates.

And such problems are not simply the loss of recent history, it is the loss of connection to all of history. It is as if all history, facts and truths are now a goopy unshaped mass which can be momentarily shaped into whatever might be expedient or utilitarian and which easily returns to its shapelessness.

Local Left Wingers Talk Politics, So Why Do I Think Eisenhower?

I had the opportunity to discuss a wide range of political ideas among a pretty diverse group of friends, most of said group would be labeled Left-Wing, or Progressive, or Liberal or other words used to describe folks not on the Right or Conservative end of the spectrum.

I found most of them had a very poor opinion of the first year of President Obama's presidency. The top complaint was that the crimes and misdeeds of the previous administration had not been pursued, the guilty remain unpunished, and warfare in the middle east continued despite the wishes of the majority of those who elected him.

The president should be much tougher, they all said.

Tougher on who or what? Elected and appointed officials in government who used torture, who lied to Congress; contractors with the government who've used the wars in the middle east to line themselves in solid gold and who've been guilty of fraud, abuse and much worse; and the many financial misdeeds from Wall Street and beyond into the banking system who broke laws and then begged for bailout from the Bush administration and the Congress of '08.

Another complaint - attempting to build a consensus in Congress was a bad idea. Congress is a source of trouble, not open to any meaningful consensus or bi-partisan behavior.

In short - The Very Bad Powers That Be are still The Very Bad Powers That Be.

It wasn't that they had lost all support for President Obama, but they expressed some mighty disappointment.

That discussion of course had many forks -- into talk about the recent Supreme Court decision to essentially allow limitless corporate donations to political campaigns, as well as local politics in towns and counties across East Tennessee. My favorite part of this discussion was the reality that there was no Left and Right Wings here - it's all Right-Wing and Not As Much Right-Wing politics. And the current reality in U.S. politics which already allows for foreign-owned nations to create U.S. shell companies which have been donating to political campaigns.

There were such healthy doses of vigilant skepticism of our current system, it seemed to me that, despite any sudden changes, there remains a growing population of very smart folks who have not lost their passion or their will to demand more changes, to call out hypocrisy on the current state of Left and Right Wing tactics and policies.

There were, as well, a strong and growing sense that local media is in a very poor state, with no change in sight, other than a continuing change for the worse.

As for me, I think President Obama and his team have faced more tough challenges than most administrations. It isn't going to get any easier in 2010 either. I do think he has the support of the majority of Americans, but we remain in an economic turmoil created over the last few decades and altering that course significantly is but one of the toughest jobs he faces.

And politically, I remain pretty much all over the political map - I'm very much a less-government-is-best believer, sometimes landing in the Right, the Center and the Left. No single political party holds much weight for me. And it was heartening to me to see a continued belief that real change and activism begins on the local level and grows out from there.

Still, there remains much passionate anger over the disastrous course the Right has been demanding for many years. And I know from talking to those who are on the Right they too are angry, sensing their own forecasts of Left Wing Doom in every situation imaginable.

It is puzzling that the central notion of a government gone haywire is a part of both the Left and Right and among Independents too, but fixing it is where everyone diverges.

As I have opined here on this humble but lovable blog since Day One: Being an American requires constant vigilance.

Oddly, for a long time now, I have often been reminded that today's political landscape was seen and expressed astonishingly well by a World War 2 General and President, Dwight Eisehnower, in his 1961 "farewell speech" which you can read here. Perhaps these excerpts will show why I hold that speech in some regard:


"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

---

"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

GOP: No Lie Is Too Big To Fail

"The combined crazy quotient was enough to nearly cause a rift in the space-time continuum."

It's easy to dip into a set of projected statistics in Washington DC and emerge with some kind of shocking OMG!! slab of information, coat it with tongues of lies and sell it as fact to some in America. Congressional members like Michelle Bachmann takes her lies to Pat Robertson and the 700 Club, while John Boehner repeats it. Their plan: repeat lies over and over until a section of people believe it to be true.

FOX News Channel ("we lie, you decide to like it") picks another liar to boost their oft-stated plan to insure failure at every level of government. No lie is too big to fail, they wail on a 24-7 time frame.

"Former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino played her usual role on Fox News yesterday, trashing economic recovery efforts. Most of her comments were easy to dismiss, but a couple of remarks stood out.

She noted, for example, that White House officials "try to claim that the stimulus bill worked and I just look at all the polling data and no one believes it." In other words, it doesn't matter what's true -- it matters whether people can be misled into believing things that aren't true. (That is, of course, why Fox News exists.)"

Tennessee's two senators, Alexander and Corker, meanwhile decide that finding a catch-phrase to spread like manure over the health reform bill debate, is a WIN!

As noted above, what is real matters much less than what is believed. Stoking fires of paranoid fear is job number one for the GOP.

For Alexander, Corker, Bachmann, Boehner, Robertson, Beck, Limbaugh and others leading the GOP the ends justify the means. They're playing a losing game and have decided that cheating to score a point or two is honorable.

Republican Orin Hatch took to the Senate floor to whine that if only the GOP could control the House, the Senate and the office of President, then by God, they could fix everything. Oh Senator - you did control all branches for many years and that led to 99% of the problems Americans face today. Lying about it might soothe some, but it's still a lie and a huge one.


"I dream some day of having the Republicans have 60 votes. I’ll tell you one thing, I think we would finally have the total responsibility to get this country under control and I believe we would. But we never come close to that. There are essentially no checks and balances found in Washington today just an arrogance of power with one party ramming through unpopular and devastating proposals on after the other."


Oh really??? The truth?? It's right in front of you Senator:



"Republicans controlled for years — but their agenda of tax cuts for the super rich did little to “get this country under control,” so to speak. Throughout the Bush administration, “the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.”

Republicans ignored the health care crisis. Throughout the years of Republican dominance, the rate of uninsurance grew and employer-sponsored insurance continued to erode. “When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.” Between 2001 and 2005 — when Republicans had majorities in both chambers of Congress — the number of uninsured employees grew by 3.4 million and employer-sponsored health insurance premiums grew by no less than nine percent each year, while wages only grew between 2.2% and 4.0% each year. (In fact, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency.)

"Death Panels" Are Real - They Come From Your Insurance Policy

I was glad to see that former Gov. Sarah Palin was forced to choke on her own words thanks to a major blast of reality from folks like my blogging friend Southern Beale.

Palin's idiotic "government death panels" are fantasy, but the reality is insurance companies DO have them, as Beale experienced first-hand. Her blog post has been rocketing around the internet:

"I’ve been part of a death panel conversation. I know about death panels.

You have no idea what it’s like to be called into a sterile conference room with a hospital administrator you’ve never met before and be told that your mother’s insurance policy will only pay for 30 days in ICU. You can't imagine what it's like to be advised that you need to “make some decisions,” like whether your mother should be released “HTD” which is hospital parlance for “home to die,” or if you want to pay out of pocket to keep her in the ICU another week. And when you ask how much that would cost you are given a number so impossibly large that you realize there really are no decisions to make. The decision has been made for you. "Living will" or no, it doesn't matter. The bank account and the insurance policy have trumped any legal document.

If this isn’t a “death panel” I don’t know what is.

So don’t talk to me about “death panels” you heartless, cruel, greedy sons of bitches, who are only too happy to keep the profits rolling in to the big insurance companies while you spout your mealy-mouthed bumper sticker slogans about the evils of socialism. You don't even know what socialism is. You don't know what government healthcare is."

Other tales of of the way our current insurance systems operate (or fail to provide for operations perhaps) are in Salon today.

At KnoxViews, TN Senator Lamar Alexander says no reform bill currently being debated is worthwhile. Certainly, what is being termed "debate" has no value.

At MetaFilter, their readers comment on the way wild rumors are getting credibility thanks to enablers from the lunatics and protectors of big insurance companies with some humor:

"Two recent concerns appear to have been omitted:

(1) "Obama's gonna EAT mah BABY!!1"

and

(2) "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

===

"I'm convinced Americans have gradually been duped into becoming the best consumers in the world: a whole nation full of dyed-in-the-wool suckers whose biggest blind-spot is thinking ourselves savvier than everyone else.

So we gladly pay for food packed with cheap fillers (practices like injecting water into meat products to weigh them down that might have gotten a butcher's hand chopped off in a medieval marketplace are routine in ours). And by default, the beverages in restaurants and bars come with more ice than beverage in them. And our health insurance policies feature high deductibles and so many exclusions they don't even cover things as fundamental to human health and continued existence as childbirth. Hell, after Katrina, how many people in the affected regions were astonished to learn that their catastrophic hurricane insurance included a flooding exclusion that allowed insurers to get out of paying claims if they could demonstrate virtually any degree of water damage (even if the damage was due to rain coupled with wind damage, not flooding)?

And yet, we always remain convinced that the choices we have as consumers are better than the equivalent choices available to consumers in any other part of the world. My first extended stay in Germany, seeing first hand that my mom and my sisters, even living near the bottom of the economic ladder as they did, ate better food and enjoyed a better quality of life and higher standard of health care than virtually any American I knew--man, that was something.

Bristol Palin and The Political Jabbering of Her Elders

Bristol Palin has been discovering how tough it is to avoid the game of political football which many - including her mom - want to force her to play as a member of Team Teen Motherhood.

Her mother's would-be political ambitions hauled Bristol's unwed teen pregnancy onto the national political football field like it was just some mascot, and really seemed to ignore the costs. It was simply an image, an idea to wrap about the McCain-Palin ticket ... more the Palin For President Project than anything else.

But I watched Bristol speak rather plainly to FOX News about her situation and was sad to see how even her earnest effort to speak the truth was tackled by her mom and her interviewer, attempting to wrestle her own words away from her.

Rebecca Traister at Salon wrote about the interview and how Bristol's plain talk was hustled off the field:

"It doesn't matter what my mom's views are on it. It was my decision. And I wish people would realize that, too," [said Bristol]

No matter how you might like to spin that line, Bristol is talking about one thing: choice. She has that right, she made her choice. The same thing any other woman has the right to do. The Salon article continues ...

"I don't know if it's what I expected," Bristol said of young motherhood. "But it's just a lot different. It's not just the baby that's hard. It's like I'm not living for myself anymore. It's for another person." Later in the interview, she again repeated this line -- a heartbreaking point if ever there was one, and one we don't talk about much because we feel obligated to acknowledge that of course motherhood is a sacrifice, of course there are consequences, of course for many women and men, choosing to have children and become less self-obsessed is a pleasure. But so much of what pro-life advocacy is about -- whether it denies people sex education or contraception or access to abortion -- is in valuing the cells that make up a fetus (or baby) more than the woman in whose body those cells have grown.

---

"Gov. Palin opened by claiming to be "proud of [Bristol] wanting to take on an advocacy role and just let other girls know that it's not the most ideal situation but certainly you make the most of it." It was like the elder Palin had put her daughter's words through a meat grinder: What Bristol had said was that she wanted to let other girls know that they should wait 10 years, that their lives would shift beneath their feet.

"Bristol is a strong and bold young woman," Palin said, as Bristol sat quietly -- after her mother entered, she barely spoke further -- "and she is an amazing mom, and this little baby is very lucky to have her as a momma. He's gonna be just fine. We're very proud of Bristol." Palin was missing the point, or part of it, or perhaps making it even louder: Bristol's self-professed desire to prevent teen pregnancy is not just about whether this little baby is going to be just fine, it is about whether his momma is.

But that just wasn't of much concern to Sarah Palin."

---

And how poignant that the untrained and unrehearsed and inelegant message of the young woman who actually had the baby, the one who said, "I think everyone should just wait 10 years," made far more sense than the politicized jabbering of her elders.

Read the whole story here.

Kicked Out of The Garden

Here's a controversy that's got plenty of hot button issues - land use, immigration, food, poverty, celebrities, court battles, media bias, government corruption, the search for Justice, political activism and much more.

"The Garden" is a documentary which follows the convoluted events surrounding an urban community garden in South Central Los Angeles - some 14 acres of carefully tended agriculture which emerged in the area after the riots in the early 1990s. Hundreds were using the land, many more than that were fed by the crops and a few years ago the farmers were told they were being evicted, despite all promises to keep the garden intact.

The must-see trailer for the film is here. It has just begun the festival circuits and more press attention is likely to follow. The story is as twisted as movie plot and several celebs got involved, like Willie Nelson and others, including actress Daryl Hannah, who wedged herself into a tree on eviction day. (I'm not sure that helped the cause.)

Was the sale of the land illegal? Did the city conspire to bulldoze the farm? Are the South Central Farmers ordinary folks or crazed activists? (Wikipedia has a page devoted to the debate.)

Kicked out of the farm, locals continue nightly vigils at the site, demanding the right to return to The Garden.

Supreme Court Hears Voter ID Case

The Supreme Court heard arguments about Indiana's Voter ID case yesterday, and as Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS Blog points out, there was limited acknowledgement the case was mired in partisan politics:

"The Supreme Court, studiously avoiding almost all mention that it was examining a thoroughly partisan political battle, spent a spirited hour on Wednesday looking for ways either to scuttle a major test case over voters’ rights or to find a way — as if the Justices were writing a law themselves — to soften the impact of a tough state requirement for a photo ID before a voter may cast a ballot at the polls.

Only two Justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens — even hinted at the real-world fact that the photo ID law in Indiana is at the heart of a bitter, ongoing contest reaching well beyond Indiana. It is a dispute between Republicans worried over election fraud supposedly generated by Democrats to pad their votes, and Democrats worried over voter suppression supposedly promoted by Republicans to cut down their opposition. The abiding question at the end: can a decision be written that does not itself sound like a political, rather than a judicial, tract? Can the Court, in short, avoid at least the appearance of another Bush v. Gore?"

The full commentary and access to the hearing's transcripts are here.

I've mentioned this case before, though it should be noted that observers expect a decision of this case to come out this summer and not this fall, as I said previously.

Burning Issues

Who knew? I had no idea the key political issue in the race for the Republican nomination for president was the following: "Do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?"

Um ... and this has what to do with leading American government? Oh sure, it gives copyeditors a chance to write headlines like "Huckabee Sparks Religious Flap." (And just what makes a 'religious flap' different from a regular flap?)

A religious scholar quoted in a Reuters report said: "Spiritually, all God's children are brothers and sisters, so Huckabee would also be the brother of Satan," said Francis Beckwith, who teaches a course on politics and religion at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Whoa! Talk about a negative attack!

Will the next burning issue a reporter brings forward be "Could God make a rock so big even he couldn't lift it?"

Political campaigns for national office (and the press covering them) today seem to hold fast to the 5 basic rules of playing dodgeball, as cited by Patches O'Houlihan: duck, dodge, dip, dive and ... dodge.

Gore's Peace Prize Win Brings Attacks

As sure as night follows day, the indignant hostility of many in Tennessee and nationwide followed the announcement that former Vice President Al Gore shared a win of this year's Nobel Peace Prize with a U.N. Panel on Climate Change. And as this day continues, the hate-talk will spread across the typical sources on talk radio and on TV and in newspapers and blogs. Time to hate, hate, hate!

Folks sure do hate Al Gore and the U.N. Some really hate Gore, like TN State Rep. Stacey Campfield. And the TN Center for Policy Research continues to hate Gore, as if it were part of their DNA: "Handing a Nobel Prize to Al Gore, a proven hypocrite on the issue of climate change, would be an injustice to the many people bravely fighting for peace and freedom throughout the world,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson."

Some folks hate the Nobel Committee.

Some folks hate the idea of Climate Change as either a reality or a fantasy-hoax.

Comments left on this article of the win from the Knoxville News Sentinel reveal how deep the hate goes, and how it spreads to connect to almost any topic imaginable.

ACK at Volunteer Voters has a roundup of reactions, some happy, many not.

I suppose it is important to some to have a specific person to hate, to blame for all evils of the world, to be the emblem of all things wrong. Perhaps the hate serves as some soothing balm for all the things that irritate.

GOP To Boycott YouTube Debate?

Why is it the GOP candidates for President are unwilling to participate in the YouTube/CNN debate?

Despite some claims that it was a failed experiment, the facts show that viewership was quite large among the 18-34 age group -- the highest ever since audience measurements began in 1992.

Details about YouTube also show that a larger percentage of users who express a preference are Republicans -- some 3.5 million self-identified Republicans, 3.1 million self-identified Democrats, and about 5 million who call themselves Independent. This via techPresident, who goes on to write:

"Seriously, I really haven't noticed a hugely disproportionate difference between the number of liberals and the number of conservatives on YouTube... I really haven't seen evidence that one is far and away more present than the other.

As a side note, who wants to join me in predicting that the Republican debate will get more video question submissions than the Democratic debate did? The Dem one attracted 2989 submissions. The GOP one already has 149 entries and they only opened it up on Tuesday. And they have until September. Now that people saw how neat the Dem one is, there are sure to be plenty more people uploading videos for the Republican one, although I'm not sure about whether or not this would be an indication of there necessarily being more people on YouTube who are Republican than Democrat-- probably more an indication of the greater exposure this format has attracted.

Also as an aside, I'm willing to bet that a significant chunk of the questions submitted are submitted by people who aren't YouTube users. That is, people who signed up for an account just so they could participate but haven't been active on YouTube before, for instance the Reverend who asked the gay marriage question in the Democratic debate only signed up for an account after a member of his congregation heard about the debate and thought it'd be a good opportunity. The majority of question-askers are undoubtedly regular YouTube users, but there's probably also a substantial chunk of submitters that are using the site for the first time.

There's no doubt that CNN was using YouTube to show off how CNN is kinda hip and tech savvy. But both the users and viewers of YouTube gained much in the process too. Hard core negativists, like Rush Limbaugh offered his view (via Beltway Blogroll):

"Above all else, this is a show. CNN is in this for ratings. They’re not going to turn over the all-important questions to these candidates to a bunch of dingbats who don’t know what they’re doing. ... The YouTube business is nothing more than the latest attempt by the Democrats and the media to extend the youth vote to the Democrat Party.

Yeah, how evil to expand awareness and engage younger voters.It must be a Satanic Liberal Conspiracy.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow says President Bush isn't "big on YouTube debates." What does that matter since he isn't a candidate? Does he just want to issue some marching orders to GOP candidates?

Talks are underway to perhaps reschedule the GOP event. But the Florida state Republicans are adamant to have the event take place:

"It is also evidence of Florida's growing and prominent role in the 2008 presidential election cycle, and we are excited to partner with the campaigns, CNN, and YouTube to bring the Republican presidential candidates to viewers across America."

I think if only two candidates, Sen. John McCain and Ron Paul, both who say they'd participate, are the only ones who show up, then I say go ahead and air the debate. Those who avoid it will speak volumes by their silence.