Toure' Takes it to Piers Morgan

Toure’ once again stirred the whole debate about innocent until proven guilty last night. He absolutely blistered Piers Morgan in an interview on CNN. I get the concerns about judging before the facts are in and the constitutional principle, but as I said earlier the courts need to dispense blind justice-- I don't. While many question the media speculation and rush to judgment as to Zimmerman’s guilt, there have been many examples of irresponsible journalism either in defense of Zimmerman, or in presentation of the facts. Again and again and again Zimmerman’s backers and friends have come forward to tell his side of the story, and in almost every case they have been allowed to leave huge gaps in the story, or present their facts with very little effective challenge from the media. Zimmerman’s lawyer, after talking to his client, appeared on Today and many other media outlets, talked about the before and after, but was allowed to say he knew little about the during. Later, Zimmerman’s father appears and attributes damning comments to Trayvon Martin, but is not asked the most obvious question: “Why do you think your son did not tell this story to the police immediately after the incident?” None of these comments is in the Police incident report.  Now the brother comes forward on Morgan’s show and makes claims that the medical records will substantiate Zimmerman’s story. Morgan neither asks him to substantiate that claim or requests any clarification of the wildly inconsistent stories that the family and friends have already put out there.  

Earlier this week, I saw a CNN  Early Start talking head, Zoraida Sambolin, frame a question with something like “Now that news has come out that Trayvon initiated the attack…” I was shocked and looked around for the video or media coverage, but have been unable to find. Perhaps I made a mistake, perhaps I heard it wrong.  I do not believe that Ms. Sambolin meant to suggest that Trayvon was truly responsible, but I do believe she is but one example, Morgan is another, where the reporting and framing of the issues has been sloppy and highly undisciplined.

I will grant that the reporting that condemns Zimmerman has been wildly speculative in cases, but in other places the media has been just as irresponsible in presenting every new leak, or element of the story as the final word. In the process both Trayvon and Zimmerman have each been repeatedly vilified. This is not, however, a balanced equation by any means. Zimmerman and his people can tell their version of events. Trayvon of course cannot.

Once again, my bottom line is that it seems eminently clear to me that there is more than adequate cause to believe a crime has been committed. As a result I am mystified that an arrest has not been made. I agree with those critics of the media that caution about a trial by media, but believe the only reasonable response to that can be charges, arrest, and a trial. ARREST ZIMMERMAN NOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2qOUfQEMRI

The AIG Dodge

Elizabeth Warren Explains how AIG is hosing us taxpayers-- who are the only reason they have a company while-- avoiding paying corporate tax on $19.8 BILLION in profits. A US government committed to not picking winners and losers should follow Warren's advice and address this absurd giveaway immediately. When I see either Tea Party or Republicans stand up for fairness here, well, ah, forget it. Hell will have frozen over.

According to Warren the US treasury loaned AIG $182 billion. Forbes disputes that amount but still puts the total at something approaching $86 billion with a f***ing “B”! Much of the difference is made up with monies set aside for credit insurance where the US government makes loan guarantees, or direct investments in AIG stock. The US taxpayer is still AIG’s largest stock-holder, and so does gain some benefit ironically from these tax breaks. $40 billion of the finds made available to AIG was done in the form of an investment in preferred stock which was supposed to pay a 10% dividend, but for some reason the US government has negotiated that benefit away.

Projections of the amount the AIG bailout will cost US taxpayers still run to the tens of billions. Bailout of AIG came about as a result of the whole shell game of credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. In essence, AIG offered-- for very substantial fees-- to insure the wildly speculative bets the big Wall Street firms and International banks were making in bundled packages of American mortgages. When the housing markets slowed and began to sour in 2007 and 2008, the banks initially took the hits, and eventually claims flowed back to AIG which essentially guaranteed through the insurance they provided that those hits would not be too extreme. AIG had to be propped up because their failure would have meant the failure of every major Wall Street firm and every major bank.

In gratitude, AIG is using legal dodges to boost profits and avoid paying taxes. Even so, most do not believe the government will ever recoup the investment which was made to rescue the company and the American economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/aigs-past-losses-cost-taxpayers-now-and-into-the-future/2012/03/29/gIQAI8ssjS_story.html?hpid=z3

A Worthy Battle

NBC News reported this morning that the most prolific Hedge Fund Manager in 2011, a guy name Ray Dalio who runs a firm named Bridgewater Associates , earned $4.0 Billion in compensation. I doubt that all of that income was salary, but let’s say for a minute it was. Under current tax law Mr. Dalio would have paid $1.4 billion in taxes. Under Obama’s proposal, the one the Republicans oppose at every turn, Mr. Dalio’s tax bill would rise to $1.6 billion, leaving him with a mere $2.4 billion to buy groceries, pay the electric and gas bills, pay for the kids braces and so forth. We can be certain that Mr. Dalio shelters a substantial portion of that income just like the Mittman, the humor challenged presidential candidate who paid only about 15% of his income last year in taxes. Unless Mr. Dalio has the dumbest accountants in the world we can be sure he isn’t paying close to $1.4 billion in taxes either.

As a job creator, Mr. Dalio’s firm Bridgewater Associates employs a total of 1,200 people.  We can only hope that should the Ryan budget plan succeed and Mr. Dalio’s personal taxes are reduced from $1.4 billion to something closer to $1.0 billion (again assuming Mr. Dalio has really dumb accountants) that he will hire a few more people. At an annual salary of $50,000 Mr. Dalio could hire 8,000 additional people with the tax cuts the Republicans are proposing. While it is possible that Mr. Dalio would go on such a hiring binge, it would seem pretty unlikely considering his current payroll of 1,200 employees. According to NBC news the top twenty five hedge fund managers earned a total of $14 billion in 2011, so Mr. Dalio is just the tip of a very big iceberg. Just to show the lame stream media gets it right, Bloomberg headlined this story as follows “Pay for Top-Earning U.S. Hedge Fund Managers Falls 35%...”   

In addition, as expected the Republicans killed a proposal in the Senate to tax away $4.0 billion in tax breaks for oil companies. A pure majority of 51 senators voted to repeal the breaks, but this was not enough to close the debate which means the tax breaks remain. The Republicans who oppose picking winners somehow rationalize these breaks, which amount to a mere 3% of the $130 billion plus in oil company profits, somehow as outside that framework. We can only assume this makes the oil comanies a neutral on the scale of winners  and losers. 

For those who would bemoan the filibuster rules, just keep in mind that a filibuster-proof minority in the Senate, assuming the worst case scenario of a Republican win for President and takeover of the senate, would be the only thing standing in the way between the American people and the complete takeover of the American government by moneyed and/ or corporate interests.

Stand and Fight

Trayvon is Attacked Again

The justice system can only do its work if the charges are aired in a court of law. If there is not probable cause to hold Zimmerman over for trial, then... Well, it seems to me there is more than enough probable cause. That being said as each day goes on, tempers burn hotter and there is definite push back coming from the right and from law enforcement now. Every racist in America is going to say race is not the issue and should have no bearing in this case, though it clearly has already dirtied the entire police effort, and so has great bearing. One thing seems relatively certain no matter how this plays out; race is indeed in the issue, especially in Sanford, Fl. Does that mean Zimmerman gunned down Trayvon in cold blood? No, but it is fair to say that it does not preclude it either. Either way there is still a distinct possibility that the case was handled by a white establishment that was afraid of, or for whatever reason wanted to hide the truth? It is almost certain that whatever happened in confrontation, there would have been none of it, if Zimmerman had just followed police orders and the general principles of neighborhood watch, which is that you watch. Do not confront, and do not approach. The Police investigation was a disaster which at minimum did not lead to the community having a fair appreciation of the facts. For me, my anger at the circumstances are equal parts directed at what Zimmerman did, especially his refusal to stand down when asked to by police, and the horrific way the case was handled by the police. Even in death the Police treated Trayvon, a 17 year old boy, like a criminal. The sensationalist response to the shocking notion a 17 year old may have used pot is a further criminalization of the victim and continues the pattern which seemingly was established on the day Trayvon was killed.  
Trayvon gets drug screened, Zimmerman is not. Zimmerman’s story is taken at face value, or minimally backed up by whoever came forward to corroborate. Those that challenged Zimmerman’s story were discounted or ignored. Zimmerman goes home with the clothes he was wearing during the altercation making further forensic examination impossible.  Zimmerman’s previous record including an assault on a police officer is not examined before he is released, his story accepted as the whole cloth of truth.
I believe danger is growing that that anger could boil over in violence and all sides need to do what they can to avoid that. Justice is justice, and so far there is no justice for Trayvon, and what is being leaked now is clearly aimed at twisting the story in one direction. A "watchman" has stepped forward and claims Trayvon was the aggressor that immediately after the confrontation Trayvon flattened him with one punch and started banging is head against the ground. This owuld fit with the story of head wounds Zimmerman apparently had. Then there is the issue of what happened in the Martin house after Trayvon went for tea at halftime and never came back. What went on in the Martin home in those hours, until the next morning when the Police came to tell Mr. Martin his son was dead. The Marijuana story is a red herring, designed only to turn people against Trayvon. Perhaps all the potheads should come to church this Sunday to show that POT should not be cause for violent reaction just as so many came this weekend to make a similar statement about hoodies. The pot angle has zero practical bearing on the violent confrontation. America should shut it all out and demand what was right from the beginning: Arrest and trial. All of what is leaked and sneaked now matters little. When people speak in a court of law, I’ll accept it. Until then it’s one version or another of propaganda. The family has said all along that they wanted the facts to come out in court. Seems right to me.

A Letter to Geraldo

Dear Geraldo Rivera,

I saw the Twitter pic posted by Lebron James of his entire Miami Heat Team wearing Hoodies in honor of Trayvon Martin. It got me to thinking.

Long before the brutal murder the following people were often seen (and could be easily googled) wearing a hoodie: Justin Bieber, Brad Pitt, Jay Z, Spike Lee, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Sasha Obama, Bill Belichek, and well, you get the idea.

What people wear, especially young people, is one of the primary ways they define their personality. My son wears almost nothing but hoodies, and that goes for most all of his friends. And yes, despite the best efforts if his mom and I, his pants ofen sag down below his waist band. I would have to say I don’t particularly like it, but when I remember what I wore back when I was his age and actually wore for a stunning number of years beyond my teens, I recall vaguely how kids find and define their identity through what they wear.   

I seem to recall a young Geraldo Rivera with wild hair-- much in fashion in those days-- reporting from Willowbrook, a photo also easily googled. In those days, young men with long hair were often considered an enemy of the state, nearly un-American, especially those that dared to challenge the status quo.

Could it be that you have forgotten?

I don't know what exactly you were trying to say. Although let's face it, some of your reporting is pretty ridiculous (Al Capone’s Safe), and even though you speak from a forum on Fox News, I am inclined to give you some benefit of the doubt based on your long journalistic career.

But the message you conveyed was that Trayvon and all boys his age, especially black kids, were just asking for it when they went on in public wearing hoodies as Trayvon wore on that rainy day. Perhaps he would be alive still if it did not rain that day. It seems in doing this you perpetuate the stereotype that likely got Trayvon killed. The country seems repulsed by the loss of this young life. While we know that so many kids his age are in trouble already, that did not seem to be Trayvon’s life. His story seems to have been one of hope. Whether a life of hope or one of anxious want we should see the circumstances of death as precisely what they are: Tragic and Avoidable. As such we should search our souls now for ways to prevent this in the future.

Speaking personally, I wish the Americans showed just as much outrage for the other 3,000 kids younger than 18 killed by gun violence every year, or the 20,000 wounded by guns. America has a horrible and tragic attachment to their guns. I wish you had spoken to that instead of reinforcing a stereotype that is the root of too much violence.

For The Russia Readers

I see a small group of people or just maybe one or two is checking into the blog with some regularity. If that's you, I would like to hear your thoughts. Please post in the comments area and let me know what you think.

A Condemnation of Fear

This morning Mohammed Merah committed suicide by police in France after a standoff that lasted more than 30 hours. According to recently published reports Mr. Merah had an affiliation with Al Quaeda. Once again there are stories about trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan. All that will be sorted out including the specific circumstances of his death, but one thing is certain. Mr. Merah had a deep hatred of Jews.  The hatred led to the murder of a rabbi, Jonathon Sandler, and three children. Because of his hatred Arye Sandler, 6, and Gabriel Sandler, 3, and Miriam Monsonego, 8, are no longer of this earth. Mr. Merah also murdered three soldiers a week earlier and had been detained previously in Afghanistan charged with bomb making. One has to wonder about the facts of Mr. Merah’s life that lead him to hate in such a vicious and unrestrained manner as a young man of just 23 years.

Perhaps we might also wonder about the facts of George Zimmerman’s life. On February 26, he gunned down 17 year old Trayvon Martin. After telling police that Trayvon looked “suspicious”, Zimmerman apparently chased Trayvon down when a scuffle broke out leaving Trayvon, armed only with iced tea and Skittles, dead. Though Zimmerman’s father claims his son is of partial Hispanic origin and not a racist, ABC news reported yesterday that on the tape of the 911 call-- the one where Zimmerman is specifically told by the police not to follow Trayvon-- Zimmerman can be heard saying  “under his breath what sounds like ‘f**ing coons.’" Seconds later he confronted Trayvon and shot him dead. The Orlanda Sentinel also reports that of the 46 calls the self-appointed and armed neighborhood watch commander made to the police in recent years, a number of them were to report suspicious persons that were black. While a number of calls centered on kids playing in the street and open garage doors, when it came to reporting “suspicious” characters, Mr. Zimmerman, repeatedly found black men fit his clearly racist perceptions.

Also yesterday, Deryl Dedmon, 19, was given two life sentences for the murder of a black man, James Anderson, in Mississippi. Dedmon was found guilty of running Mr. Anderson over with his car. He is said to have driven 30 miles after leaving a party in his hometown of Puckett in search of a black man to harass, eventually driving 30 miles to Jackson, Mississippi.  At sentencing he claimed to be a “reformed man” who God has showed to “see no colors”. Shortly thereafter he was sentenced to two life sentences.

These stories do not relate to each other in many ways, but something here calls our attention. There can be little doubt that racial animus is the cause for all of this death, and all this loss.  Trayvon may not have been killed in the same way as James, Arye, Gabriel, and Miriam, but they are all gone forever now, victims of hatred that seems to survive in spite of any enlightenment or human progress. Mr. Anderson will never sing in his church again, something friends said loved to do. Trayvon is gone forever from his mother and father and brother. The NBA All Star game will no longer be a reason for happy family gatherings. In the years down the road that game will only serve as a reminder of loss to Trayvon’ s mom, Sybrina Fulton, who says her heart is broken. In France two little children and a father have been torn from a family of religious devotion. When I put myself in that mindset of the wife of Rabbi Sandler and the mother of the Sandler children who must carry on, I cannot fathom how she would do it. That faith can be an answer to such loss is unimaginable to me.

In the days ahead we will hear American voices condemning again the vile nihilism of Al Qaeda, but will we also hear condemnation of the racist executions in Stamford Florida and Jackson, Mississippi?  So far Hannity has expressed his sorrow over Trayvon’s killing, while pivoting to his fervent hope that this incident does not turn into an attack on gun laws.  Meanwhile any American with an open heart and an open mind knows that while America rises quickly to reject and condemn Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants, our vision is substantially more myopic when it comes to the violent acts which occur in our midst with stunning regularity. America demonstrates its capacity for violence based on hatred of the “other”, whether that is blacks, immigrants, or gay people with damning frequency. Even in liberal New York, stories of street attacks on gays are not uncommon.

The most heinous act in American history the attacks of 9-11, for a brief period gave us all reason to pause and examine where we are as citizens of the United Sates and the world, but quickly thereafter the one emotion that seems to have lingered from that event—fear-- drove us to enter two wars. In the months that followed Americans on both right and left were back in familiar positions of attack and counter attack, firmly grounded in their political postures and unable to communicate. A national consensus briefly visible through the shroud of tears disappeared almost overnight. Looking back one has to wonder if the consensus was only really that of a desire for revenge. Nothing else has really proven to be sustainable. Similarly, for a few weeks we condemned the hateful political environment that led to the near assassination of Gabby Giffords, the death of six and the wounding of seven more Americans. At a grocery store where all must travel we can be sure that both conservatives and liberals were victim of this insane rage. But then we just moved on our political dialogue as poisonous as ever. We seem to muster always the strength to mourn, but we seldom exhibit the capacity for self-examination and change. This it seems to me is not uniquely American, it is a human trait. But as we condemn the fear and anger which leads to violence all over the world, we tolerate it to such a great measure here. I cannot help but be stunned by our inability to even notice the hypocrisy in us, much less seek to heal the deep wound in our collective soul.

Mr. Hannity need not worry. This country has a deeply rooted attachment to its violent weapons. To put them aside we must agree to hate less and love more, even our enemies, especially our enemies, because beyond second amendment arguments the real reason America wants its guns is that many of us are afraid of the other. Racism is at its core a philosophy of fear. There is no courage in any of these monstrous acts. Courage, real courage, comes only from our willingness to listen more, to have a dialogue with those with whom we disagree, to accept that reconciliation means compromise, and that we all come up short in the measure of what it really means to love our fellow man and woman.

This is in memory of all of those who died, and in dedication to my long lost friend Calvin, who last I heard somehow made it through. I miss you, old friend, and hope you are well and safe.

Trayvon Martin Didn’t Make It

We live in dangerous times. They are not as heinous as the days of my youth when it seemed that from Memphis to Chicago white America was burning with rage, spoiling to inflict pain. But when a life is wasted in bigotry and fear it is hard to qualify one death as worse than another. The loss of potential is complete in death. We all died a little when Trayvon Martin was gunned down outside Orlando over the weekend. Death, unwarranted and shockingly, stunningly, immediate cannot be explained or understood.  I doubt the tears spilled these past days by the mother and father of Trayvon Martin are more or less any different or pained than those shed by other moms and dads. Parents should never outlive their kids, and Trayvon should still be able to sit on the couch watching the game with his dad and younger brother.  

James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner should still be with us also.  These three young men were Civil Rights workers killed by the Klan in June of 1964 in Mississippi. Chaney was from nearby Meridian, and Goodman and Schwerner were from the New York.  White folks, north and south, but especially in Mississippi, were fearful of the black population, long suppressed, who lived in what the white population perceived to be their communities. Fear metastasized to hate, which was often expressed in violence. In 1964 the state seldom found reason to respond. Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner were murdered by the side of a Mississippi road, and buried under mounds of dirt in an earthen dam, their broken bodies bulldozed in a swamp.

The horrible men who committed these crimes were not brought to any sort of justice for three years. In 1967 they were tried and sentenced, but Southern Justice only went so far. None of the men were convicted of murder and none served more than six years. Finally in 2004, 40 years later, Edgar Killen, who was thought to have planned the attack was finally tried again and found guilty of manslaughter. Killen was 80 at the time and had by then had lived his entire adult life without interruption or prosecution.

In 1964 a young black man’s life, and those of the white northerners who struggled by their side was worth little. Time will tell if Trayvon’s life carries any greater value.

How long will it take until George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon in the chest after a still poorly understood struggle, is measured by the Scales of Justice? Zimmerman had a license to carry a concealed weapon to protect the gated community in which both he and Trayvon’s father lived. Zimmerman made out from the hoodie Trayvon wore and what he reported to the police was a hand in his waste-band that the 17 year old football player was “up to no good”. The Police advised Zimmerman not to follow the boy. He did. Minutes later Trayvon was dead, a bullet in his chest and a bag of skittles, purchased minutes earlier for his little brother at a local 7-11, in his pocket. He was unarmed.

Mr. Zimmerman is an active community watch volunteer with a self-appointed need to be armed. He claimed self-defense, has not been charged or arrested, but also has yet to explain how you can be attacked by someone you are following surreptitiously. The local police did not perform alcohol or drug tests on Zimmerman. Police claim that Zimmerman’s record was clean, but he has at least one prior arrest for assaulting a police officer.  There are many unanswered questions regarding the imprecise investigation conducted to date by the police. Charles M. Blow wrote an excellent and detailed piece for the NY Times last Saturday.

One has to wonder what drove Mr. Zimmerman. Why did he follow Trayvon is an obvious question. But also why did he make so many other calls to the police on his Neighborhood Watch duties? Nearly 50 according to some reports.  What words rang in Zimmerman’s head, words that made a 17 year old black kid someone to fear or to all too easily suspect of being “up to no good”?  

What has the litany of hate has done to our communities?

 Our African American President, the pride of America’s ability to be open in our hearts and our minds and to change, is delegitimized at every turn. His opponents call him a Socialist AND a Muslim, a contradiction that cannot be bridged or explained except through the prism of blind hate. At rallies they call Obama a monkey, using nearly every available insult, everything short of the word they really want to use but owing to the distance to 1964 for the most part withhold.  

Meanwhile, immigrants in search of a better life for themselves and their families are smeared as aliens for political purposes, and blamed for the economy of hurt that affects so many Americans. Crimes of the wealthy barely register on the scale that faults the immigrant South or Central American, the urban teen, or the poor family in need of food stamps for every wrong in our society. Women are sluts in this calculation, and gay people are infecting the morals of American youth, their search for love an affront to presidential candidates and debate audiences.  Our churches, a refuge of reconciliation to earlier generations, are now just another battleground, the front line for what so many call culture wars.  Opponents in political dialogue, owing to the sins they perceive to be perpetuated by their opposition, now feel empowered to express their abiding hatred for those they oppose. Americans hate both the sin and the sinner. A turn of the cheek is long out of fashion.  All we need is love… How quaint.

Trayvon Martin did not make it through. We do not know for sure that hate was at the root of the confrontation, but there can be little doubt that there was fear in the air that night. Trayvon was walking home with a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman was afraid.

There are those who in defense of the indefensible will point to the crime perpetuated in other communities. They will work hard to shed the indictment of their efforts to remove strand by strand the safety net which sustains the brothers and sisters who live in need in our midst all across America.  Trayvon was not the only life of potential to be wasted on Saturday. Across the country just outside Seattle, Jasmyn Tully, also 17, was killed by a drug addled teenager who said he “wanted to hurt somebody”. There will be criticism for those of us who protest the violent act which took Trayvon’s life and the poor application of justice. They’ll call us hypocrites, because Jasmyn Tully will garner no comparable headlines.

Well, anyway it doesn’t matter to me. American hurts today, or at least we ought to. A young boy and a young girl with all the promise two 17 year old kids could hold are no longer with us. We are met with senseless violence and have no answers. All around us we see hard hearts, and yet we still wonder how these two lives could be taken. Trayvon’s mother and father search for answers and justice in their community. So far they can find none. Two lives gone. No one wins.

Some of us don’t hate nothin’ at all except hatred.”—Bob Dylan

http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/245083/4/Wheres-your-green-card-chant-prompts-apology-from-Southern-Miss

"During their school’s NCAA Tournament game against Kansas State University today, members of the Southern Mississippi University band chanted, “Where’s your green card?” at a Puerto Rican Kansas State player. Kansas State guard Angel Rodriguez, who was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico and played high school basketball in Miami, Florida, was fouled while shooting during the first half of today’s game in Pittsburgh."

I am biting my tongue to control the release of a barrage of vicious words that this story invokes. This is so disgusting and yet so consistent with the “dark side of populism” (to quote McCain) that we have seen and heard in these last few years. There is a part of me that wants to hate. We are reminded to hate the act, but not the hater, a human just like us. I keep telling myself that to surrender to the meanest and darkest instinct would only be a victory for racists like the So Miss band& its fans. They wanted to get a rise out of Mr. Rodriguez. They clearly did not. It is easy to paint the entire school as supportive of these actions, they are not.

And still the anger rises in me. Why should I respond in any way except to acknowledge Rodriguez’s victory over the chants? He Scored 13 points and K-State won.

I am oh so tired of the pride with which morons continue to parade their vicious fears and prejudice in arena after arena after arena. In Mississippi, recent polls showed that 51% of the Repub electorate believes that Obama is a Muslim. Mississippians don’t repeat the lie for political ends, they repeat it because they believe it to be true. The lie repeated so often it has become accepted wisdom. Mississippians hear it all the time, in their churches, at their lunch counters, and from their friends, neighbors, and political leadership. In this political season, thugs on the political right have felt compelled to, even empowered to attack women, gays, and in through barely camouflaged ways the first African American President of the United States. He is a Muslim, they say. He is not an American Citizen they say. He is a Commie, Socialist they say, without noting that in practical terms he cannot be both a devout, or even closeted Muslim, and also a Communist.

It is often said that the racism practiced today, is of the most subtle kind. Often what sounds like racism is actually, a deep hatred for the poor, for example. That seems to be an acceptable version of hatred. They talk of a food stamp nation without acknowledging the deep sense of corruption of the elites that created this environment. Some suggest that being poor is a life choice. They say charity should provide, but challenge the Government’s efforts to do that as enabling the laziness of the economic class that requires it.

I am all so sick of it, really disgusted by the arrogance, the superiority, the lack of shame or remorse. Apologies come at the end of an advertiser boycott. Morality never ends the picture. NEVER.

I want to say: F*** You, Rush Limbaugh and really to all of them. What can you say to the members of the So Miss state band with their ignorant ill-informed chants. Or Representative Bachman with her deep and hateful fear of homosexuals. What can we say to the thugs that root for the death of those with no insurance, and cheer for the execution of hundreds in Texas? The Republican right seeks to further empower a small class of financial elites on the backs of working men and women. They despise the poor even as they feed off their misery, hoarding their wealth. What can we say to those with no ears for those living in real pain, in a state of real deprivation all around them? Rick Santorum has felt comfortable, happy even to rant and rave, spouting a patriarchal misogynist view of women’s role in society. What can be said to him?

How can we be both militant and loving as Dr. King might have suggested to us were he still alive? Today is not a good day for those thoughts. These people disgust me. I am in ways no better than them and so maybe in no position to condemn, but I really despise them.

Obama’s Finger in the Iranian Dike

I have seen the case made that Obama is showing dangerous signs of militarism in his approach to the nuclear challenge in Iran. These concerns are legitimate particularly in light of the surge in Afghanistan, which now teeters on the edge of disaster with no clear goals, and no apparent willingness on the part of the administration to reconsider. Americans have every reason to press for diplomatic solutions in Iran, and the administration needs to be pressed more forcefully to accelerate the departure from Afghanistan.  

But in Iran there is at least a glimmer of hope. We have seen that there is an argument that the President can’t win on Iran, he is either too militarist or too pacifist. It seems to me though, that what can't win are the only two solutions presented to this point. Americans we are told must choose between the wild-eyed zealotry we hear on the right—move carriers into the Gulf and so forth—and the isolationist refrain we hear from Ron Paul and some members of the liberal left.

I believe that the president has it about right, both politically and strategically. He has said the policy of this country is not to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. He has, one hopes for strategic reasons, said that all options including military are on the table. Of course that worries me too, and I did cringe when I heard it. BUT, in taking this posture Obama has managed to slip the Gordian knot the Republican Presidential candidates and the right wing Israeli government, always too ready for war, were pulling tighter by the day. Israeli air strikes by this summer—which almost certainly would drag the US into yet another military confrontation with Muslims- seemed to becoming more and more inevitable. That is until last week.

Last week, the President, said several things. 1) The United States has Israel’s back. 2) The policy of the United States is that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. 3) The talk of war is dangerous and unwarranted. On the three prongs of this strategy Obama seems to have bought time. One can only hope that time leads to a peaceful resolution. At minimum it is always better when the movement for war is set back in the quest for reconciliation and negotiations.

Count me among those that believe the US has done Israel no favors by not being more firm in standing up to their militarist and expansionist actions. Peace will only come when the Israel’s and Palestinians move back to the negotiating table. Politicians can bounce back and forth forever between the intransigence of each side, but negotiations are the only solution.  The Israeli’s have had a partner in peace talks available for several years, the PLO. Israel could have isolated Hamas by entering into negotiations with the PLO, but domestic political considerations have meant the continuation of settlements, and the building of the wall which now encircles and is some cases slices through much of the future Palestinian state. Nonetheless, Obama is already getting killed by those on the right for whatever modest moves he has made to encourage the Netanyahu government to moderate its stand, especially in terms of settlements to clear the way for negotiations. Republicans, without exception have denounced the President as no friend of Israel.  

There is another side of that story though. Out of curiosity about changes bought about in the season of the Arab Spring, and all the talk of the role of social media in these democratic uprisings, I dug a little and now follow several tweeter feeds which report an Arab point of view from Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and the Middle East in general. Mostly the posts are about the activities oin the ground in these places, the genocide in Homs, hunger strikes in Israel and so forth. There is ample discussion on the American policies in the region.  I have seen many comments which call the US position, especially vis a vis the Israeli Palestinian problem as hypocritical. From what I read, Arabs do not seem to think that Obama has been any friend of theirs. There does seem to be some openness to reconsider in places where the US has taken an active role—Libya and Egypt, but in Palestine and Syria there is a sense of abandonment. It seems to these people that if Obama is a friend of the Arab cause, and democracy in the region in general, he has a funny way of showing it. There is great frustration. In the real world there are two sides to every story. Competing interests abound.

The second point Obama made last week was an absolute requirement to leash the dogs of war, and diplomatically to underscore the need for the Iranians to meet the requirements for negotiations. If Obama had waffled at all on this policy, the Iranians, already operating under Chinese and Russian protection at the UN, would have been emboldened. Tough new sanctions are just now taking effect in Iran, the US is pressing the Chinese hard to reduce their oil imports from Iran. The Iranian leaders are being squeezed economically and the vast majority of the population already wants to be rid of them. The Mullahs rule only through the threat of force. Assad in Syria has shown the world and the Iranian people the price of rising up against a totalitarian state with nothing to lose and vast stores of modern weaponry.  

Finally, Obama won the rhetoric war and in doing so calmed the war talk. This was Obama’s strongest case and to me the highlight of the strategy. He challenged the Republican candidates with their dangerous militarist rhetoric to explain the costs of war to the American people. He challenged them to explain the results they would seek. There was only deafening silence. Perhaps the relentless primary calendar also contributed to this, but the one-upmanship that seemed to escalate every day on the campaign trail seems to have stopped for now. One could not help but hear a war weary nation, with the failures of Iraq still fresh in their mind, taking a deep breath and pondering what they were hearing. Without ever mentioning Iraq, America was reminded of the propaganda barrages that lead to the run-up to the immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq.

In addition, Obama made a strong case to Israel, to delay military action which could be potentially disastrous and allow diplomacy and sanctions more time to work. The Israeli president, Netanyahu is also up for reelection this fall. In Israel and the US nothing pulls the country together better than the creation or promotion of an exterior enemy.  Fear is the best running mate any candidate could ever have. Since Obama and Netanyahu met, the former head of Israeli intelligence—one rough looking M-F --has cautioned against the rush to war. Both Israelis and Americans have made the case that the Iranians have not even decided if they are going to attempt to build a weapon.  In addition, there is now a building determination to explain the dangers and the cost of a war with Iran. There is little doubt that gas prices would spike to a level that would completely undermine the economic recovery. There is also a great danger that war could escalate quickly throughout the region with consequences that no one could predict.

I believe that American would be pursuing a dangerous and immoral course were we to either strike Iran preemptively, or to nod quietly and let Israel do the dirty work. America and the world have two competing interests: We want to both stop the Iranians from possessing nuclear weapons at almost any cost, and we want to avoid war. The Republicans as they always do doubled down on the most militarist and dangerous course possible. Obama threaded a fine needle and proposed a third way which neither appeases or confronts.  There is some danger in that if the Iranians do not see the urgency of standing down, and the pressure will build on Obama and the Israelis to act. But for now at least the house is quiet.

The American Journey through Sara Palin’s Version of the Truth

Steve Schmidt (Senior McCain Campaign Strategist-- The Character played by Woody Harrelson in the Movie) was on MSNBC this morning said some interesting things in the process of taking nothing back from the movie "Game Change" which absolutely blistered Palin's cynicism as well as her unpreparedness for the Pres or VP role.

Schmidt said Palin  was "manifestly unprepared" to be on the ticket . After someone brought up Palin's lack of preparedness for the 2008 race Schmidt was asked how he would feel about her now, noting that there had been media reports suggesting Palin as a solution to a brokered convention. Plain, herself has said she would make herself available in such circumstances. Schmidt said that Palin embraced the bitterness of the 2008 campaign and learned none of the lessons. Moreover, she did not appear to have in any way made an attempt to fill in the glaring holes in her knowledge. He went on to discuss the issue of celebrity in presidential politics. He made this point by relating a short anecdote in Patraeus' book about the cost of war and the need to know the lessons of history. Twice in the last decade, Schmidt, said, the parties have put up a candidate who was wholly unqualified to be president: Edwards and Palin. I hope it never happens again. For those libs inclined to defend Edwards on some sort of sliding scale in comparison to GOP sins, please don't. He would have been a disaster for the country and for democrats.

In the tradition of the fast and loose with the facts approach Palin evidenced on the campaign trail in 2008, her website today stated had the following statement: "The movie is at best historical fiction - historical only in that Sarah Palin was nominated and campaigned for the office of Vice President. The movie is a series of scenes where the dialogue, locations and participants are invented or rendered unrecognizable for dramatic effect. HBO and its surrogates continue to argue that they spoke to 25 sources. None of them are on the record nor is their level of involvement in the campaign disclosed. Not one source is on the record in either the book or in the movie and it is clear why." Mr. Schmidt was on national TV this morning to tell his version of the truth on the record in front of cameras. He covered this ground in an extensive 60 minutes interview in 2010.  Schmidt and Palin clearly did not like each other, especially at the end of the 2008 campaign so there is room for debate as to whether part of this is story is one-sided to the campaign aides point of view. However, there can be NO debate as to whether anyone will step forward and corroborate. Schmidt was at the heart of the decision to add Palin to the ticket and play a leading role in preparing her for public events. In addition, Nicole Wallace who was Palin’s communication director, and the aide responsible for debate and media prep, said today, "I believe that if she were on the cusp of becoming the nominee for the Republican party a whole lot of people... would talk about some of her more troubling deficiencies. Her incredible cynicism, her bitterness, her aggressive attempts to claw anyone that points out an area for her to work on, I think these things will continue to reveal herself and the people that love her will continue to love her, but the people who are not so sure about her will, I think, formulate harder opinions and more clarity about her." These are too highly placed, well connected Republican operatives. Schmidt worked for Bush/ Cheney in 2004, and in 2005 and 2006, he was the White House strategist in charge of the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Ms. Wallace joined the Bush–Cheney ’04 campaign as the Communications Director.

I thought Sara Palin came off quite well in some aspects, particular in her ability to relate to people, and there especially with families with special needs kids, and also as a mother. There are aspects we see initially of someone who is, dare I say it, likeable. In the context of family, she seems to have been struggling with much the same challenges as a lot of everyday Americans. If she had stayed in Alaska as governor, she may have settled with a legacy of some accomplishment. Though she is staunchly Pro-Life, early on Palin evidenced some willingness to act in a bipartisan manner. She did in fact take on corruption in the oil and gas industry in her state.  Political leaders of both parties were ensnared in the fallout.

As Governor there were issues of abuse of power. The movie makes clear that there were state findings which affirmed that and Palin muddied the waters simply by denying what she knew to be true when questioned. Ms. Palin does not recognize the truth when it is uncomfortable to do so. That was the case when she was governor, for all of two years, and when she ran in 2008, and it is true now as her website promotes the obvious lie that Game Change was formulated completely by anonymous sources that refused to come forward. Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace came forward today.

Most conservatives I know say the movie is either a “Hollywood hatchet job” or not worthy of their time. They do this in defense of Palin. However, by this method they really do miss the point of the whole movie. Americans are fixated on and stuffed with celebrity in our every waking moment. This is opium for a lot of people, but when it seeps in to the political arena it can be very dangerous.  Palin, for all her strengths, knew entirely too little about America and the world to be VP just a health problem away from the presidency. Americans ought to ask how we let that happen. And as Steve Schmidt said today make sure it never happens again.

My Brother, My Sister and Our Churches. Part II

“Your piece is both compelling and well-states the breadth of the topic. But…

 Let me focus on the bit currently directly above this post. On one hand I agree (both generally and with this specifically) that we need not be painting with a broad brush.On the other hand, if a group of people would continue to be part of an organization after the leadership of that organization had committed nefarious acts, then is that not tacit approval? Thus, broad stroke away.

Perhaps not you say. Perhaps they have the courage of conviction to stay and shape the organization from within? To that I would say, perhaps. But if that organization has a clear, established, elitist hierarchy, then what are the chances of that?

 Perhaps pretty good. There are probably stories of the hierarchy (most likely local) drawing upon the strength of their flock. Or perhaps, the remaining members just nailed a posting to the front door.”

NCS

This is all so much more complicated than simple dogma, and I think you make an excellent point.

I hope you will indulge a response that wanders some from the subject at hand but circles back to it.

In the Civil Rights struggle I believe there may be a clearer prism, wizened by the distance of history, to view this. We can definitely draw a distinction between Ebenezer Baptist and any of the hundreds of whites only churches scattered across the South. With Dr. King’s leadership and an activist community of engaged African Americans, one can draw a positive view of both the Ebenezer and its leader at the time, Dr. King, excepting of course the treatment of women. On the other side the southern Methodists, George Wallace for example, allowed for the creation of White Citizens Councils (actually) inside many of their congregations across Alabama. There is no argument to be made that those congregations or their leader’s actions deserve anything less than condemnation. Both cases present fairly clear cases where a more generalized determination is not only called for, but also it would seem eminently fair.  

And yet,  Dr. King viewed the faith of white church goers as the basis on which an appeal could be made for greater tolerance. This appeal is most graphically displayed in The Letter from The Birmingham Jail which was both militant and searching which was a direct response to statements made by white Southern church leaders questioning his tactics.  Dr. King wrote…

 “You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.”

King confronted whites in general, as well as church leaders and their congregations. But in doing so, he did not condemn the religious foundations of the South. King went onto write…

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Kings efforts to create a color-blind society in the face of brutal treatment from white racists caused Stokely Carmichael and others to depart for the far more militant Black Power movement and the creation of the Black Panther Party. Derrick Bell, a civil rights pioneer deceased but now much in the press, took stock of that militancy, from which Critical Race Theory was born. Arguments were made, battles were won and lost. But there is little doubt that anger, the urge to condemn, to strike, to separate for the purposes of acceleration of the cause fueled both militancy and rejection. As King predicted intolerance among the Civil Rights community gave whites all the reason they needed to challenge the moral legitimacy of the movement. With fresh attacks on Bell, a man so much more than CRT, this continues even into today.

With his magnificent intellect and his expansive morality Dr. King was able to rise above condemnation, and to challenge both a racist power structure as well as a compliant silent majority. Dr. King condemned neither the church leaders or the members of their congregations to the oblivion of the other, rather they were called to join the community of love that Dr. King fought and died to create.

I recognize the anger that so many hold for the institutions of the church across America. In many places churches are still the most segregated places in America, and many pursue a dogma that is infused with a paternalistic, misogynist view of women, as well as open tolerance and in some cases theology of homophobia. The crimes we have seen are repulsive, and the cover-ups that ensued cannot be measured on any scale of human decency. I have no words for those that committed or condoned specific acts, or hold the church now blameless in contrast to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, there can be little doubt but that the conversation on contraception is skewed by a religiously inspired and logically cramped view of sexuality and the relations between the sexes.

But if I am asked to choose between condemnations, especially of the individuals in church communities or dialogue based on a mutuality of concerns, I chose dialogue. While I often feel my own words run dangerously close, and sometimes cross the line towards condemnation, in my rational mind I know that King is and was right.

 “Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly…”  Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

My Brother, My Sister, And Our Churches

We can agree with a principled argument that the tax exemption for religious activities is perhaps not in the best interests of the country, and moreover, much of what is characterized as religious activity is not really very religious at all, but is more in the area of profit making enterprises or political activity. When I see that I get very agitated about the tax exempt status. It seems to me that the government crosses a bright red line on matters of church and state very, very often.

We can also agree that the contradiction between separation of church and state and a nation that is overwhelmingly judeo- Christian in my viewed has caused blind spots in oversight of some of these institutions. This has created to a fertile hothouse of financial crimes and worse. On the financial side we have seen what seems to be a limitless parade of charlatans, church leaders both big and powerful, and small and localized, raising huge monies through their ministries and the diverting vast sums for personal financial gain in a hustle not terribly more sophisticated than a the card monte player, but with tragically worse consequences. In my view the doctrine of separation has kept the government hands off for too long in too many instances, which has only allowed these crimes to continue. In the latest episode high pants Paul Crouch and his frightful purple haired wife are accused of embezzling $50 million from the TBN enterprise they founded.

Eminently worse…It is quite clear that the Catholic church at levels which in my view reaches as high as the current as well as the previous pope has for decades been concealing, and indeed been accepting of, a conspiracy of pedophiles. Sexual indiscretions and outright crimes we have seen from other church leaders, notwithstanding, I do not think there is any doubt the atmosphere of criminality in the Catholic church is directly tied to the vows of celibacy that the priests take. I believe that many of these heinous crimes were overlooked by church leadership that saw them in some cases as the “natural” outcome of the vows of celibacy. Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the entire hierarchy of laws dealing with sexuality and in a broader sense women, is driven by a deep and abiding fear held by the all-male leadership of the church. There is every reason to believe that if women were including in the higher reaches of church leadership many of these crimes would have been exposed at a substantially earlier date.

Much in the way that Penn State hid the crimes of Sandusky in furtherance of the glory of their football team, Catholic leaders hid the crimes of scores if not hundreds of pedophiles, with chronic histories of serial abuse, in furtherance of the projection of their power and as they saw it moral authority. The deeply twisted mind set which created this moral catastrophe and injured what is no doubt thousands of people exposed the institution of the church for what it is: A group of mortal men who set themselves up as a bridge between people and their perception of God, whatever that is. It has made clear to me that as humans we are all deeply fallible, and in a larger sense created an environment where the entire cannon of social stands of the church can and ought to be called into question. It is nearly impossible to hear any Catholic leader lecture Americans now on so many issues when we now know the absolute moral failure on which they stand. That so many continue to deny, or to be too afraid to speak compounds the damage.  

I was raised as a Catholic by a devout mother, but for me the ugliness of the behavior, combined with the total lack of morality of church leaders in covering up the crimes, has torn something in me that was tenuous at best to start.  Yet there is still something in me that makes me reluctant to condemn the population of the church in the broader sense. More than 40 years ago I met Jesuit brothers, friends of our family, deeply involved in the liberation movement in The Philippines. This is right about the time Marcos took power, 1965. I still remember with great affection the pictures I saw of the Philippine people whom I know the brothers wanted to help so much and cared for so greatly.  One of my mother’s closest friends from back then, a former Jesuit brother is still someone I hold in the highest regard as a moral person. In many ways he is the only link I have to my former Catholic self.

In later years my mother, through her church worked with people with HIV and cancer though hospice. Her faith gave her a calling so much greater than mine, and she acted on that faith in ways both large and small. She is gone from us now, but she was a better person than I will ever hope to be, and the reason for that is and was the foundation of faith in her life.

In deference to my observant wife, I still attend a church service maybe a couple times a year. But intellectually I left the church with little in my bag, except the teachings to love one’s neighbor in whatever form one can, care for those less fortunate than us, heal the sick, house the homeless, and in general try to operate in a sphere of concern and empathy that is larger than your own little world. There are Christians of many flavors who hold similar views, and of course this can also be said of Jews, Muslims, and people of all denominations.  One of my closest childhood friends is a man of deep and abiding faith.  We are all on some sort of journey of discovery. My friend is perhaps more liberal in his views than any time in his life. Yet I know that it is his faith that informs his sense of morality. He did not need to leave his church to engage the growth that his rich and fertile mind would have taken anyhow. Even now, there are times and ways I am oddly jealous of the connection he feels to his faith and his church.

So when I see people on this page attacking religious institutions, and sometimes churchgoers with a vengeance and fury normally reserved for a conservative republican, I want in some cases to both champion their rage and condemn their narrow mindedness. Today we saw someone make a series of condemning remarks about the Jewish population in the community in which he leaves which border on racism. In tone and tenor they ought to be condemned. There simply is no justification at any level in our discourse to make statements which condemn a community of people with the broadest of brushes and which make no accommodation for the individual sense of moral being within the larger religious communities.

While it is easy to condemn the hate speech we have heard recently, generated in large part by religious affiliation and doctrine, liberals and the progressive community at large ought not to respond with the same kind of narrow-minded vitriol. Liberals have for decades been allies with the moral authority of church leaders in almost every battle, be it union organizing, disarmament, and of course civil rights.  For those that condemn all church activity I respectfully present Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and challenge you to carry your extreme argument to that level of absurdity. Today church leaders across the country are taking on the issues of immigration, climate change, and the deep sense of unfairness they perceive in the country. Far from talking the talk, many are also walking the walk, ministering to the increasing legions of hungry and homeless. Catholic charities leads in these endeavors, and it should be pointed out is compensated well by the federal government for much of this activity. But that does not diminish the urgency of their work, or the faith that guides and informs it.

This is an area where liberals ought to be able to find some common ground with conservatives. Bush, for all his legendary failures, increased spending on AIDS massively, and for once and forever, sort of buried the argument that the wages of sin caused the disease so those sickened by it have reaped what they have sewn. There is growing movement among evangelicals to minister to those in extreme poverty in Africa. Many do this out of a deep and abiding moral calling. Of course, they also want to proselytize.

We are all so torn in this country with our particular political affiliations and ideology; there is every reason to be concerned about our future. In the political sense I have grave doubts on how and where and why we might find any reconciliation or compromise. But in the moral personal sense I can recognize a brother or a sister when I see one. Not all of them are atheist liberals, especially those who espouse a generalized hatred that borders on or is racist. Some of them might be evangelical Christians, some of them might be Catholics, some Jewish, some Muslim, some Hindu, AND some pagan and/or atheist.  We spot our enemies so easily. Would that we could spot our friends as well. God, whomever that may be, might sort of like that.

Sandra Fluke’s Free Speech Offensive

Rush Limbaugh is a vile and disgusting person who said hateful and reprehensible things about a political opponent with whom he did not agree. Limbaugh has a well-documented history of making misogynist, homophobic, and racist remarks. However, the campaign to remove him from the air aligns liberals with conservatives who despite the Free Speech protections of the First Amendment seek to silence liberals and others that oppose them. Progressive Americans ought to think carefully before they line up to silence Mr. Limbaugh.

Free Speech is the answer to the unadorned hate of Limbaugh, and no one demonstrates that more brilliantly than Sandra Fluke.

Ms. Fluke, at the age of 30, already has a distinguished career of public service including working at batter women’s shelters in NY and advocating on behalf of the GLBT community. She has been active in the fight to include insurance contraception in insurance coverage at Georgetown University and was the former President of the student group Law Students for Contraceptive Justice. 

Students at GU are required to buy Health Insurance by the University. The school then makes a religious rights argument which translates to mean that female students are not allowed to receive contraception through the insurance policy for which they are required to pay without exception. Ms. Fluke has actively engaged the President of the University, John J. DeGioia, on the subject of contraception and other women’s health issues. DeGioia for his part was not silent in the face of Limbaugh’s bigotry: “She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.”

After a few days of intense heat, some now argue it is time to move on, time to forgive Mr. Limbaugh. His radical views of white male supremacy they seem to suggest no longer merit examination and condemnation. For f***s sake, it’s been three days already! Forgive and move on they say. This is only the most recent crest of a seemingly unending wave of right wing recrimination, blame, bigotry, and hard-heartedness in this election cycle. So count me among those who is reluctant to turn the page, very reluctant, and more than a little pissed off. I hope Limbaugh wallows in his vile sh** for a good while longer. He so deserves it. There are no doubt millions in his audience that are true believers, but with Limbaugh one must always remember that he makes tens of millions per year spewing his message of hate and intolerance. Let him simmer until he gags from the stench of his own breath.

But leave the first amendment alone…

For those that argue that Sandra Fluke was a private citizen and so deserving of some special protection against slander, which suggests that Limbaugh cannot park his fat ass under a First Amendment umbrella, there must first be a separation between the legal and the political. Perhaps there are those that would ever so slightly twist the record to make Ms. Fluke seem somehow smaller, a less public figure. This may be a practical legal strategy, opening the door for a slander suit, I don’t know. But as a matter of politics Sandra Fluke stands as a ringing rebuttal of Limbaugh’s hate speech. Far from being merely a private citizen, Ms. Fluke is a highly accomplished and articulate public advocate for progressive policy change. She is to be applauded for her public advocacy, and admired for her fearlessness.

Her written testimony is practical and direct. There can be little doubt that Ms. Fluke is informed on the subject of contraceptive rights. So much has been made of the Limbaugh’s remarks Ms. Fluke’s statement has barely been spoken of. In it she addresses the broad issues of contraceptive coverage in Insurance policies as a specific issue of women’s health, not limited to birth control. She also raises her objections to the Blunt amendment and other proposed legislation, which gives lie to the suggestion that the Congressional panel at which she was forbidden from speaking, was narrowly engaged on the subject of Freedom of Religion. This panel was convened in an attempt to define the issue as one of religious freedom before someone like Ms. Fluke called bullsh**! Even so, apparently only men were capable of speaking on this issue that day. Following is a small excerpt of Ms. Fluke’s written testimony:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Students like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just on Tuesday, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider allowing even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

http://crowmeris.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/03/10566797-sandra-fluke-written-testimonyhouse-committee-on-oversight-and-government-reform21612pdf-applicationpdf-object

On the day of the hearing Ms. Fluke was not permitted to speak, her first amendment rights shaded to grey in an attempt to silence her attempt to bear witness. Limbaugh’s over the top rhetoric was a further attempt to interfere, to further darken her first amendment light, this time through intimidation and fear.  In the face of that, Ms. Fluke went on TV this morning and pointed the world to www.mediamatters.org for a lengthy history of the record of Mr. Limbaugh. Up yours, Rush…

As Ms. Fluke argues in her testimony it is ridiculous to cast the issue of insurance coverage for contraceptive care as purely being about birth control, but even if that were true, the arguments to make insurance coverage mandatory are still compelling. Beyond the reaches of a small band of religious zealots this is long settled policy, but these are the battles we fight in this election cycle of bigotry and fear.

Mr. Limbaugh blithely impugned the integrity of Ms. Fluke, but in doing so he disregards the obvious truth; the equation of sexual relations (at least those being discussed here) is that is a woman AND a man. The woman is of low morals, so he says, but in the argument Limbaugh presents the man is absent. In too many cases when there is an absence of birth control, that is the practical fact.  As late as 2007 40% of all children are born out of wedlock. Much of that can be attributed to the changing face of American families, but there is a sizeable proportion where whatever can be said of the woman a man did not want to be a responsible partner. 

I heard about 45 minutes of Limbaugh’s Friday, and know the complete dishonesty in his apology. Even on Friday, given a day to think over the remarks, Limbaugh while refraining from the course language, made clear that he felt well entitled to direct his bitter hatred towards Ms. Fluke in the way that he did. I heard more than one caller put up, who underlined the vitriol against the Ms. Fluke, so much so that even Limbaugh had to wonder what he had unleashed. Limbaugh and his followers have a long history of this sort of mutually reinforcing mega-dittos bullsh**.  Callers and Limbaugh outdo each other in their blinding rage, and bitter isolation. Limbaugh lives an extremely opulent life off his shtick, his listeners not so much.

That being said, the answer to hate speech-- which is what Limbaugh practiced and will continue to do once the dust settles-- is strong voices who say we do not accept and we do not agree, in other words more speech. Those of us who want to see Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, the participants on those shows, and other strong liberal voices such as Sandra Fluke on the air would do well to remember that First Amendment protects all speech. There is no practical way to allow a portion of it to be shredded. It stands as a blanket of protection for everyone, or none. Stand in front of Limbaugh’s radio stations and the offices of his corporate masters and call Limbaugh what he is-- A racist, misogynist, neo-fascist. He is all those things.

But tread lightly, and step clear of the first amendment…

If liberals act now to protect some shattered sense of civility they are phenomenally off track.  Civility is not constitutionally protected and woe be the day that it is. I have argued on these pages and elsewhere that the rising sense of uncivil dialogue is not good for the country or our political discourse, bit I do not deny the right of my opponents to be uncivil. Liberals who practice similar disrespectful dialogue lower themselves down a deep hole when they parrot this eye for an eye bloodletting. Dancing on the grave of an opponent is ugly and diminishes the humanity of both the deceased and the dancing fool.

Look, if I want to call my neighbor, El Rushbo, (or our President for that matter) a fat toad, I can. That is constitutionally protected speech. If Rush were dragged into court by Ms. Fluke, that is certainly her right, but we can be quite certain that the NY Times, The Washington Post and most likely MSNBC, along with all the usual-suspects right wing media outlets would line up as friends of the court to defend his free speech rights, and well they should.

It is truly amazing to me the speed and ferocity with which Americans now glibly trade away their rights. Western liberals, to use the broadest sense of the word, used to worry about Orwellian government. 1984 was practically required reading for certain groups of counter culture thinkers. Now in the name of our bruised sense of civility we trade all that in. Advocates on both sides are only too glad to advocate the elimination of the speech rights of the “other”. I would argue that the progressive American left especially needs to nurture and protect these rights even in the face of highly charged and disgusting remarks by our opponents. In the face of the onslaught of Citizen’s United Cash, our side needs Free Speech more than ever. We cannot win by silencing our opponents and those that suggest we can are just plain wrong. We win by convincing a majority of Americans that we are correct and that those that expose their true instincts and feeling through the use of rabid hate speech are wrong.  

Breibart's Death Feeds the Paranoia Machine

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/michael-savage-was-breitbart-assassinated/

Assassinated? I am really disappointed to see so many almost dancing on this guy’s grave, but this is f***ing nuts. Good luck with that. Platform shaping up nicely. Dems had Breitbart assassinated. Obama is not an American. That birther thing is working for ya, keep it up. Contraception should be outlawed and those women using it, approx 90% of all women in child bearing age, are sluts, whores, or prostitutes.  Rush would “pay” to see the femi-nazis on-line videos. Yawzah! Abortion should be criminalized. Separation of church and state turns my stomach. Small government is for Big Business.  Inter-vaginal scopes are not intrusive and are a great and totally reasonable example of government staying out of people’s lives. College is for the elite, like Santorum with two advanced degrees, and those parents who would aspire to that for their kids are snobs.  America should deport 12 million undocumented workers. The tax code has not gone far enough in protecting the extreme wealth of the few and more tax breaks are required for the job creators . The meager record-low job growth in the face of Bush’s stunning top heavy tax breaks were an anomaly. Time to double down, even if it means raising taxes on the middle class. Those that disagree are Socialists waging class war.  Crony capitalism does not include giving $5 billion in tax breaks to oil companies, who will no doubt record another round of record profits this quarter. College costs will go up in the near term for millions, but that’s Ok in the long run the free market will reign in costs. 50 Million go with no health insurance, let the free market work there too, and that problem will magically go away. 20 million have been foreclosed. The government should stand back and let another 20 million enter foreclosure so we can just gosh-darn-it fix the housing market.

Global warming is a sham, dreamed up by liberal socialists to stop any industrial progress. The only answer to Iran is further military adventurism. That worked so well in Iraq. Congress has not gone far enough in blockading any progress on any legislation this last term. Republicans should announce they will go further if elected in bringing Washington “business as usual” to a complete and grinding halt. Minorities, immigrants, gays, inner city kids, and those dependent on food stamps are the cause for everything wrong in America. The answer to every problem of the poor is to reduce or eliminate the social safety net. If you want to grow jobs let the already absurdly rich upper crust have free reign over every aspect of the economy. Eliminate the EPA.

Unregulated gamblers on Wall Street had nothing to do with the calamity and the real problem was too much regulation, not that when left to their own after the repeal of Glass Steagull (under Clinton) the f***ers ran amok in a deregulated Bush era environment. The tangled web of influence between Fannie and Freddy, Wall Street, and highly compensated history professors like Newt  had nothing to do with their calamitous failure. It’s all the democrats fault for pushing for more home loans for the poor and those on the fringe. Bankers chasing an ever smaller pool of qualified lenders in an endless chase for fees and exotic de-regulated investment vehicles, all the while ignoring the warning signs that the risks were becoming untenable,  had nothing to do with the housing crisis. And finally, unregulated cash is the same as speech. It is good and healthy for the country to allow a couple dozen billionaires to completely control the political dialogue.

Post Script:

Well, you know this piece is somewhat tongue in cheek, but I do think that there is a dangerous amount of pure hatred on both sides. Also saw the "Go to Hell" Obama ad in DC. When I see some of this bile being directed at the now dead Breithbart, I wonder how close some of those on the extreme right, amped up by the rhetoric spewing from almost very leaders mouth, inspires some yahoo to do something really hatelful and really desperate. There are pleny of policy issues to battle, this personal hatred, including that now coming from the left vis a vis Breitbart's death does not raise our dialogue. It muddies us all. An atmosphere of hate serves no one. I mean to both defame those who speak with tongues that only serve corporate masters, and to call the dialogue back to issues and away from hate.