Saturday, March 29, 2008
Who Knew?
Not me for one. Here are the origins of the peace symbol. Sad thing is that before reading this, I would be hard pressed to come up with the distinctions between the Mercedes symbol and the peace symbol. Turns out to be one little vertical line, yet the values represented by each are so contradictory. Could the Mercedes symbol, which predated the peace symbol by half a century, have helped popularize the peace symbol?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Clear, Hold, Build
Frontline: Bush's War Broadcast March 24th and 25th 2008 on PBS
While this is mostly a rehash of earlier Frontline reports, it is still important. I hope everyone gets to see it, especially those of us stuck in the miasma of our domestic media.
Some thoughts. First of all it is interesting to note that this was broadcast within the same week we reached our 4000th military death. I haven't thought of this before, but maybe that is what helped turn the tide in 2006. The amount of military deaths in the war on terrorism out grew the number of deaths in the actual terrorist attack. That is significant.
Also, how many Iraqis have been killed or are currently displaced? A poster at the Daily Kos says 37 to 300 for every one U.S. soldier. As our current military objective is to maintain security of the Iraqi people, isn't it important for the military to try to keep track of and maintain an accurate record of these numbers and make them public?
Talk radio has had a huge influence in selling and maintaining this war. Talking hawks like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Medved have been advocating strong action in the Middle east since before 9/11, and have taken advantage of that attack to lead the choir in this tragic mis-use of American foreign policy and military power.
It would be instructive to see what their policy suggestions have been throughout the war time line. I know it began with the fact that dissent and criticism should be shunned as we are at war. This tactic ended around the 2006 elections as it became increasingly clear how badly the management of the war had been bungled. I also remember how little discussion was allowed at the beginning when we were being sold the war. Did we ever think about we were going to deal with the power vacuum in the region, especially in regard to Iran?
The bungling of Iraq is not a series of honest mistakes. It is based on a systematic corruption of our government based on a political philosophy that basically does not believe in government. So many times during the Frontline narrative there are classic instances where policy initiatives take precedence over facts. The most frustrating of these is the diminution CIA and State Department, two organizations that are despised by many of the deepest believers in the conservative cause basically because of their institutional momentum which can be so difficult to change with the political whims of any one administration.
To call this Bush's war is inaccurate. It is really America's war. We all have the power to affect change and we have been largely mute. The question going forward is what do we do? Democrats have to be realistic about this. Currently, the talkers do have a point - complete removal of troops could be disastrous for the Iraqi people and the responsibility would have been ours. I hope we can be realistic and not be disillusioned by a continued occupation. Hopefully the presumably Democratic controlled occupation will be a great deal smaller and will include informed and intelligent regional diplomacy (for a change). The wounds created by the Bush administration are going to take some time to heal. And we do have to do what we can to fix the humanitarian disaster that we created, largely on a whim and a prayer, in the Middle East.
While this is mostly a rehash of earlier Frontline reports, it is still important. I hope everyone gets to see it, especially those of us stuck in the miasma of our domestic media.
Some thoughts. First of all it is interesting to note that this was broadcast within the same week we reached our 4000th military death. I haven't thought of this before, but maybe that is what helped turn the tide in 2006. The amount of military deaths in the war on terrorism out grew the number of deaths in the actual terrorist attack. That is significant.
Also, how many Iraqis have been killed or are currently displaced? A poster at the Daily Kos says 37 to 300 for every one U.S. soldier. As our current military objective is to maintain security of the Iraqi people, isn't it important for the military to try to keep track of and maintain an accurate record of these numbers and make them public?
Talk radio has had a huge influence in selling and maintaining this war. Talking hawks like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Medved have been advocating strong action in the Middle east since before 9/11, and have taken advantage of that attack to lead the choir in this tragic mis-use of American foreign policy and military power.
It would be instructive to see what their policy suggestions have been throughout the war time line. I know it began with the fact that dissent and criticism should be shunned as we are at war. This tactic ended around the 2006 elections as it became increasingly clear how badly the management of the war had been bungled. I also remember how little discussion was allowed at the beginning when we were being sold the war. Did we ever think about we were going to deal with the power vacuum in the region, especially in regard to Iran?
The bungling of Iraq is not a series of honest mistakes. It is based on a systematic corruption of our government based on a political philosophy that basically does not believe in government. So many times during the Frontline narrative there are classic instances where policy initiatives take precedence over facts. The most frustrating of these is the diminution CIA and State Department, two organizations that are despised by many of the deepest believers in the conservative cause basically because of their institutional momentum which can be so difficult to change with the political whims of any one administration.
To call this Bush's war is inaccurate. It is really America's war. We all have the power to affect change and we have been largely mute. The question going forward is what do we do? Democrats have to be realistic about this. Currently, the talkers do have a point - complete removal of troops could be disastrous for the Iraqi people and the responsibility would have been ours. I hope we can be realistic and not be disillusioned by a continued occupation. Hopefully the presumably Democratic controlled occupation will be a great deal smaller and will include informed and intelligent regional diplomacy (for a change). The wounds created by the Bush administration are going to take some time to heal. And we do have to do what we can to fix the humanitarian disaster that we created, largely on a whim and a prayer, in the Middle East.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
It's Not About Race, It's About Patriotism
Most of what we are hearing in the media is wrong. Senator Obama's polls have been dropping badly over the past two weeks and it is looking for the first time like the Democrats could be vulnerable in the general election. While the kerfuffle that really stuck to our nation's consciousness - the Reverend Wright sound bites - is rooted in race, it is really being attacked for it's anti-Americanism. This is the hammer that that right in one voice is using with a great deal of efficacy against the Democratic front-runner.
Their ultimate point is - in a moment of crises, with whom will President Obama surround himself, or put another more simply is he really for or against us "U.S.".
Some of the evidence against Senator Obama (to be fair I am leaving "evidence" out of quotes)
Barak Obama's drop in the polls in the last two weeks coincides with the fact that the right is for the first time in forever, united again against a common foe. They have seen the writing on the wall before Senator Clinton has and have begun attacking the front runner.
The media and Rush like to credit his "Operation Chaos" where he takes credit for prolonging the "Uncivil War" (in Rush's terms) in the Democratic Party. In this case, it is the whole lot finally able to speak with a loud, common voice again against Senator Obama. The object is character assasination, the subject is Anti-Americanism; two of the talker's greatest strengths.
I blogged previously about the "Politics of Other". In Senator Obama's case they will try to portray the Senator as Muslim, Black, or Liberal, often in very subtle ways. I realized this week that there is more to it than just marginalizing Senator Obama and his supporters out of the mainstream and therefore out of the largest voting block. All of these "Other" have at their core (at least the way the right sees it) an Anti- American essence.
The Muslims can be extrapolated to Terrorists, Blacks to Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan, and liberals to Marxists - all very anti-American in the polarized world view of the right.
I think this is a critical point. Questioning the patriotism of liberals really is the heart of the conservative attack against the left ever since the Cold War. It is such an effective political tactic as it is negative, personal, and easy for the populace to digest.
What it does is put the Democrats and their ideas on the defensive, so when we start talking about issues such as health care, soft instead of hard foreign policy, progressive tax rates, and rebuilding our infrastructure and social safety net, they can throw around other words like "Marxist" that will scare people out of really listening to the issues.
As an aside, a parallel discussion can be had of the right's use of the culture wars against the left. Of all the issues I mentioned above, they all seem pretty "Pro-Life" to me. Who is the real "Pro-Life" party?
Their ultimate point is - in a moment of crises, with whom will President Obama surround himself, or put another more simply is he really for or against us "U.S.".
Some of the evidence against Senator Obama (to be fair I am leaving "evidence" out of quotes)
- Michelle Obama's phrase saying Barak's candidacy is the first time she is proud of America.
- Senator Obama was seen not holding his hand over his heart during a ceremonial event when others on stage were.
- Senator Obama's decision to not wear the American flag lapel pin
- And finally, the one that stuck, Senator Obama's preacher's sound bites.
Barak Obama's drop in the polls in the last two weeks coincides with the fact that the right is for the first time in forever, united again against a common foe. They have seen the writing on the wall before Senator Clinton has and have begun attacking the front runner.
The media and Rush like to credit his "Operation Chaos" where he takes credit for prolonging the "Uncivil War" (in Rush's terms) in the Democratic Party. In this case, it is the whole lot finally able to speak with a loud, common voice again against Senator Obama. The object is character assasination, the subject is Anti-Americanism; two of the talker's greatest strengths.
I blogged previously about the "Politics of Other". In Senator Obama's case they will try to portray the Senator as Muslim, Black, or Liberal, often in very subtle ways. I realized this week that there is more to it than just marginalizing Senator Obama and his supporters out of the mainstream and therefore out of the largest voting block. All of these "Other" have at their core (at least the way the right sees it) an Anti- American essence.
The Muslims can be extrapolated to Terrorists, Blacks to Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan, and liberals to Marxists - all very anti-American in the polarized world view of the right.
I think this is a critical point. Questioning the patriotism of liberals really is the heart of the conservative attack against the left ever since the Cold War. It is such an effective political tactic as it is negative, personal, and easy for the populace to digest.
What it does is put the Democrats and their ideas on the defensive, so when we start talking about issues such as health care, soft instead of hard foreign policy, progressive tax rates, and rebuilding our infrastructure and social safety net, they can throw around other words like "Marxist" that will scare people out of really listening to the issues.
As an aside, a parallel discussion can be had of the right's use of the culture wars against the left. Of all the issues I mentioned above, they all seem pretty "Pro-Life" to me. Who is the real "Pro-Life" party?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Navel Gazing
Here is a NYT article on blogging. Interesting to see this hobby in the news. I thought this was out of fashion - but apparently blogging is still news worthy.
Scorched Earth
Michael Medved and Sean Hannity were in full scorched earth mode yesterday - each devoting all three hours to Senator Obama's personal speech on race yesterday. Their shows, which began at noon, were the first to have time to digest and react to the speech. Notably each spent all three hours dissecting and criticizing the speech.
This of course is not surprising, but it is telling. Senator Obama did answer the scurrilous attempts to link his ulterior motives to some kind of nefarious Anti-Americanism that is illustrated by the "endless loop(s)" of caricatures of Rev. Wright's sermons in a forceful and deeply personal way. But of course this wasn't enough, or even if it was - that wasn't the point. The point is to make sure Senator Barak Obama doesn't get elected president at all costs.
The point is to depress votes for Obama by demonizing him with the same despicable play book that they have used one Senator Clinton for the past 8 years. In the short term, addressing the issues that have been unfairly broadcast over AM radio over the past week will seem to help right wing radio. Their ratings should increase with the interest Senator Obama has given their cause by addressing their concerns. However, in the long run, I strongly believe that some thoughtful listeners will begin to get it.
In this case - the controversy isn't about what is said in the annoying snippets played incessantly. It is about making Senator Obama out to be an Other. In this case the strategy is to align Senator Obama with the most angry rhetoric of the African American Community in order to distance him from the largest voting block - whites. It is the same Politics of Other that will be played by characterizing Barak as a secret Muslim (which to me is a great thing, but to most listeners is one step away from being a terrorist) or a secret Marxist or a secret angry Black Man.
This is what bullies do. Throw around names in lieu of issues when events are not compatible with your goals, regardless of collateral damage. The issues that I get the impression that the United Church of Christ addresses is a systematic and historic racism of a society where poverty and pain are much greater per capita in the African American community than in the white community. I am proud that Senator Obama has stood by his church and explained to the larger audience the positive aspects of that church.
Inevitably this won't be aired by the hosts on AM radio. This doesn't fit their agenda. What is on their agenda is the marginalization of Senator Obama even if that means conducting a scorched earth policy. Despite having their legitimate concerns answered, they will continue to attack, demean, and marginalize. In turn, it is important that these AM hosts' tactics continue to be addressed and discussed (and marginalized) until someday these tactics are given as much credence as we give that old man with the megaphone pontificating on the edge of the city park.
This of course is not surprising, but it is telling. Senator Obama did answer the scurrilous attempts to link his ulterior motives to some kind of nefarious Anti-Americanism that is illustrated by the "endless loop(s)" of caricatures of Rev. Wright's sermons in a forceful and deeply personal way. But of course this wasn't enough, or even if it was - that wasn't the point. The point is to make sure Senator Barak Obama doesn't get elected president at all costs.
The point is to depress votes for Obama by demonizing him with the same despicable play book that they have used one Senator Clinton for the past 8 years. In the short term, addressing the issues that have been unfairly broadcast over AM radio over the past week will seem to help right wing radio. Their ratings should increase with the interest Senator Obama has given their cause by addressing their concerns. However, in the long run, I strongly believe that some thoughtful listeners will begin to get it.
In this case - the controversy isn't about what is said in the annoying snippets played incessantly. It is about making Senator Obama out to be an Other. In this case the strategy is to align Senator Obama with the most angry rhetoric of the African American Community in order to distance him from the largest voting block - whites. It is the same Politics of Other that will be played by characterizing Barak as a secret Muslim (which to me is a great thing, but to most listeners is one step away from being a terrorist) or a secret Marxist or a secret angry Black Man.
This is what bullies do. Throw around names in lieu of issues when events are not compatible with your goals, regardless of collateral damage. The issues that I get the impression that the United Church of Christ addresses is a systematic and historic racism of a society where poverty and pain are much greater per capita in the African American community than in the white community. I am proud that Senator Obama has stood by his church and explained to the larger audience the positive aspects of that church.
Inevitably this won't be aired by the hosts on AM radio. This doesn't fit their agenda. What is on their agenda is the marginalization of Senator Obama even if that means conducting a scorched earth policy. Despite having their legitimate concerns answered, they will continue to attack, demean, and marginalize. In turn, it is important that these AM hosts' tactics continue to be addressed and discussed (and marginalized) until someday these tactics are given as much credence as we give that old man with the megaphone pontificating on the edge of the city park.
Editor's Note: Military Terms
Beginning with a technical note. I dislike using sports and military analogies, but they come to mind and often are an easy and effective way to illustrate an idea. I am going to allow myself to use military verbiage in particular because they are often so apt to political dialog (such as the title of the forthcoming entry). However, I do want to try to designate a fine line that is important not to cross. In the political arena, the right and the left are opponents but not enemies. We do battle, but are not at war. I believe there are important distinctions that no doubt will come up later.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Speaking truth To Power
This is such a great speech. I hope everyone gets a chance to see/hear/read it. I have been trying to compose a blog entry for the past couple of days regarding the feeding frenzy the right has been on for the past week regarding Reverend Wright. I couldn't get it published before this speech - which turns out to be moot because he just answered his critics loudly and clearly. I think this was the first real test of his leadership abilities and direction and he passed with flying colors. (no pun, really)
The "Power" I'm referring to in the title is the megaphone of intolerance and deception that Conservatives and/or the Right have established - including most significantly (IMHO) talk radio. For the past week AM radio has been non stop Rev. Wright and linking snippets of his often incendiary sermons to Senator Obama. Unlike Senator Kerry in 2004, Senator Obama has the foresight to speak directly to these issues. Thankfully Senator Obama didn't "move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork" as Senator Kerry did. If Senator Kerry had fought back more effectively against the swift boaters at the heart of their argument - which party (and which presidential candidate) really has the best interests of the military and the country at heart. The choice was so clear - a man who served incredibly honorably in Vietnam, or a man who has a sketchy military past barely serving time in a unit that never left the U.S.. This was George Bushes greatest weakness and Kerry allowed the Swift Boaters to flip it around.
It seems from this speech that Senator Obama gets it. Politics is more that just a battle of quips, it is a battle of different opinions of right and wrong and not only does this speech illustrate his masterful ability to express his opinions, it also demonstrates his ability to fight for what he believes. One of the common memes going around in conservative radio (and Senator Clinton's campaign) right now is that Senator Obama is an empty suit with great orator skills. What has he really done? Well here is one thing he has done. In one stroke he has changed the national debate (or at least he should have if I turn out to be wrong). He has flipped the rhetoric around, deflating the narration of the Right and allowing us ("U" "S") to begin to work on the "legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality."
No doubt the new spin has already begun. But as long as Senator Obama continues to respond to the major issues of the Right in such a positive manner while maintaining focus on his own initiatives - the future seems bright for his aspirations as well as us ("U" "S").
A couple random thoughts about the speech:
The "Power" I'm referring to in the title is the megaphone of intolerance and deception that Conservatives and/or the Right have established - including most significantly (IMHO) talk radio. For the past week AM radio has been non stop Rev. Wright and linking snippets of his often incendiary sermons to Senator Obama. Unlike Senator Kerry in 2004, Senator Obama has the foresight to speak directly to these issues. Thankfully Senator Obama didn't "move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork" as Senator Kerry did. If Senator Kerry had fought back more effectively against the swift boaters at the heart of their argument - which party (and which presidential candidate) really has the best interests of the military and the country at heart. The choice was so clear - a man who served incredibly honorably in Vietnam, or a man who has a sketchy military past barely serving time in a unit that never left the U.S.. This was George Bushes greatest weakness and Kerry allowed the Swift Boaters to flip it around.
It seems from this speech that Senator Obama gets it. Politics is more that just a battle of quips, it is a battle of different opinions of right and wrong and not only does this speech illustrate his masterful ability to express his opinions, it also demonstrates his ability to fight for what he believes. One of the common memes going around in conservative radio (and Senator Clinton's campaign) right now is that Senator Obama is an empty suit with great orator skills. What has he really done? Well here is one thing he has done. In one stroke he has changed the national debate (or at least he should have if I turn out to be wrong). He has flipped the rhetoric around, deflating the narration of the Right and allowing us ("U" "S") to begin to work on the "legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality."
No doubt the new spin has already begun. But as long as Senator Obama continues to respond to the major issues of the Right in such a positive manner while maintaining focus on his own initiatives - the future seems bright for his aspirations as well as us ("U" "S").
A couple random thoughts about the speech:
- Is anyone else from Gen X feeling like this is finally our chance to have our voices heard? Moving on from the battles that so sharply divided the country and our culture in the late sixties and have left a discernible rift in our politics ever since?
- Also, perhaps related, I appreciated his appreciation of what he calls a conservative notion - self help. (I would quibble with this, but do admit that conservatives sell this a lot harder than liberals)
This guy is for real. I am stoked.Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Horse Race
My gut tells me this thing is over and has been since Super Tuesday I. That day Obama one some critical states. I don't have time to pour over results as much as I would like to. (Really, I would) But, Kos has and here are his predictions for today. (Kos and his site are pretty smart they know where to look for information, they have a good filter, and don't sugar coat bad news)
I have to use simpler, quickly digested data for my gut. If you look at the NYT map of the results you can deduce a few trends or patterns. First of all there is obvious regionalism - each candidate wins their areas which means both are viable candidates. (Edwards in 2008 couldn't win South Carolina and Gore in 2000 couldn't win Tennessee!) Next there seems to be a North/South divide which I might attribute to block Hispanic voting largely for Hillary, and of course powerful block African American voting for Barak which gave him the south. Finally, I was really surprised by states like Connecticut, Idaho and Minnesota on February 5th. Obviously I don't know the particulars of each battle ground and those are probably much more important than the thumbsucking that follows - but here it goes:
I think there was a national democratic orthodoxy on February 5th that Clinton would be the inevitable nominee. The large states such as California (and Texas if they could have voted on Feb 5th I'm convinced) voted this orthodoxy. The Democrats of the other states who are always voting in the shadow of the blue powerhouses such as NY and CA were more open to the underdog challenger. Thus you got the crazy results such as Obama getting an even higher percentage in Minnesota than in Illinois. And Idaho? 80% Barak? Even with caucuses which tend to skew numbers more than primaries this seems to be a huge number.
So what happens going forward? Obviously the route is already on. For both altruistic (let the voters decide) and self interested (ratings) reasons I believe that the medias have down-played this domination. Again, I haven't done the delegate number-crunching - but have heard that Hillary has to will by 20 points in Texas to jump start her campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if she pulls a "New Hampshire" and wins in Texas by a few points - especially with the support of Rush Limbaugh supporters who want Hillary to win and will cross over to help drag on the fight. But I think the route continues - Barak now has the O-mentum (I made this up but was I the first? I'm sure of the 7 billion others out there someone else beat me to it) (How can you beat Joe-mentum though?) I'm guessing he will win both Ohio and Texas and hopefully then we can finally move on to the final step of this oh-too-long process.
I have to use simpler, quickly digested data for my gut. If you look at the NYT map of the results you can deduce a few trends or patterns. First of all there is obvious regionalism - each candidate wins their areas which means both are viable candidates. (Edwards in 2008 couldn't win South Carolina and Gore in 2000 couldn't win Tennessee!) Next there seems to be a North/South divide which I might attribute to block Hispanic voting largely for Hillary, and of course powerful block African American voting for Barak which gave him the south. Finally, I was really surprised by states like Connecticut, Idaho and Minnesota on February 5th. Obviously I don't know the particulars of each battle ground and those are probably much more important than the thumbsucking that follows - but here it goes:
I think there was a national democratic orthodoxy on February 5th that Clinton would be the inevitable nominee. The large states such as California (and Texas if they could have voted on Feb 5th I'm convinced) voted this orthodoxy. The Democrats of the other states who are always voting in the shadow of the blue powerhouses such as NY and CA were more open to the underdog challenger. Thus you got the crazy results such as Obama getting an even higher percentage in Minnesota than in Illinois. And Idaho? 80% Barak? Even with caucuses which tend to skew numbers more than primaries this seems to be a huge number.
So what happens going forward? Obviously the route is already on. For both altruistic (let the voters decide) and self interested (ratings) reasons I believe that the medias have down-played this domination. Again, I haven't done the delegate number-crunching - but have heard that Hillary has to will by 20 points in Texas to jump start her campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if she pulls a "New Hampshire" and wins in Texas by a few points - especially with the support of Rush Limbaugh supporters who want Hillary to win and will cross over to help drag on the fight. But I think the route continues - Barak now has the O-mentum (I made this up but was I the first? I'm sure of the 7 billion others out there someone else beat me to it) (How can you beat Joe-mentum though?) I'm guessing he will win both Ohio and Texas and hopefully then we can finally move on to the final step of this oh-too-long process.
Kudos to McCain
It is important to dole out the props when deserved - even to your political opponent.
McCain did the right thing when he denounced claptrap by conservative radio host Bill Cunningham during an opening for a McCain rally.
Cunningham somehow brought focus to Obama's middle name, Hussein, in what is a clear attempt to slander him by using a name that many will associate negatively with Saddam Hussein, or terrorists, or Muslims, or some combination thereof.
Obviously, given my post below, I first have to reject Hussein as a smear at all. In fact, I find his middle name to be one of those precious details in news or politics, or even life when even an old agnostic like me finds evidence for the divine (or at least supernatural). What are the chances that we would have a major contender for the Presidency who just happens to have this strange connection to a part of the world in which we are desperately in need of healing? (As a connoisseur of numbers, another potentially divinely inspired moment was Florida in 2000 - I mean really - how many votes separated us from two totally different paths of history?)
The use of "Barak Hussein Obama" is out there. I guess mostly with pretty low-brow hosts such as Mike Gallagher and Bill Cunningham, but its out there and it is really frustrating. Why is it so frustrating? Because it really appeals to the lowest instincts - an instinctive and irrational fear of the unknown (in this case a religion or culture)- which is made even worse as much of this is passed along subconsciously by just inserting what is a smear to most between the name (brand?) of the eventual democratic nominee.
It is similar to the grammatically inappropriate use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". For example, Rush Limbaugh will never say "Democratic"- when this became an issue during the 2004 campaign he contended that he likes to do this because it gets under the skin of liberals. It certainly does that! I won't argue with him there.
However, he can't play dumb here. He never says this on air that I have heard, likely because there are some good-willed conservative listeners who will be repelled by this - but the reason "DemocRAT Party" is so frustrating to liberals is because it emphasizes the RAT - subconscious political warfare which is totally distasteful to me and probably most people on both sides of the aisle.
Back to Barak Hussein Obama, to Rush's credit and also to others like Michael Medved the big guns on political talk radio aren't using this name obsessively. Micheal Medved has condemned the use - good on him. Hopefully, The Bill Cunninghams and Mike Gallaghers will get the message too. If not, no problem, hopefully listeners will in the long run get the idea that this type of vicious, subconscious politics debases the social fabric of our county and turn these hosts off.
And finally, back to McCain. I have to admit I have a soft spot for McCain. I like the fact that he mixes it up on the Daily Show - but what I really admire is his courage and integrity. His service during the Vietnam War are beyond imagination. To be sure, however that I would sooner drink political hemlock by voting for a Green that vote for McCain - even if he was the Democratic nominee (as many conservatives think he might as well be). That makes me even more impressed by what he did by rebuking Cunningham. He really had nothing to gain and everything to lose as he continues to repel his conservative base. Cheers to McCain and I hope politicians from both sides follow his example and listen to their inner "straight-talk-express".
McCain did the right thing when he denounced claptrap by conservative radio host Bill Cunningham during an opening for a McCain rally.
Cunningham somehow brought focus to Obama's middle name, Hussein, in what is a clear attempt to slander him by using a name that many will associate negatively with Saddam Hussein, or terrorists, or Muslims, or some combination thereof.
Obviously, given my post below, I first have to reject Hussein as a smear at all. In fact, I find his middle name to be one of those precious details in news or politics, or even life when even an old agnostic like me finds evidence for the divine (or at least supernatural). What are the chances that we would have a major contender for the Presidency who just happens to have this strange connection to a part of the world in which we are desperately in need of healing? (As a connoisseur of numbers, another potentially divinely inspired moment was Florida in 2000 - I mean really - how many votes separated us from two totally different paths of history?)
The use of "Barak Hussein Obama" is out there. I guess mostly with pretty low-brow hosts such as Mike Gallagher and Bill Cunningham, but its out there and it is really frustrating. Why is it so frustrating? Because it really appeals to the lowest instincts - an instinctive and irrational fear of the unknown (in this case a religion or culture)- which is made even worse as much of this is passed along subconsciously by just inserting what is a smear to most between the name (brand?) of the eventual democratic nominee.
It is similar to the grammatically inappropriate use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". For example, Rush Limbaugh will never say "Democratic"- when this became an issue during the 2004 campaign he contended that he likes to do this because it gets under the skin of liberals. It certainly does that! I won't argue with him there.
However, he can't play dumb here. He never says this on air that I have heard, likely because there are some good-willed conservative listeners who will be repelled by this - but the reason "DemocRAT Party" is so frustrating to liberals is because it emphasizes the RAT - subconscious political warfare which is totally distasteful to me and probably most people on both sides of the aisle.
Back to Barak Hussein Obama, to Rush's credit and also to others like Michael Medved the big guns on political talk radio aren't using this name obsessively. Micheal Medved has condemned the use - good on him. Hopefully, The Bill Cunninghams and Mike Gallaghers will get the message too. If not, no problem, hopefully listeners will in the long run get the idea that this type of vicious, subconscious politics debases the social fabric of our county and turn these hosts off.
And finally, back to McCain. I have to admit I have a soft spot for McCain. I like the fact that he mixes it up on the Daily Show - but what I really admire is his courage and integrity. His service during the Vietnam War are beyond imagination. To be sure, however that I would sooner drink political hemlock by voting for a Green that vote for McCain - even if he was the Democratic nominee (as many conservatives think he might as well be). That makes me even more impressed by what he did by rebuking Cunningham. He really had nothing to gain and everything to lose as he continues to repel his conservative base. Cheers to McCain and I hope politicians from both sides follow his example and listen to their inner "straight-talk-express".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
