35 Years After Vietnam

Was it only six years ago when I realized that the Vietnam war, contrary to the historic record, was not over after all? I'm talking, of course, about Vietnam vet John Kerry and what he did (or didn't) do in protesting a war he once fought in, dredged up during the 2004 Presidential election between Kerry and George W. Bush, whose own military record also came into question.

I admit to have been one of those people who actually supported the Vietnam war in the beginning of 1967. After all, it was an American war, I was an American, ipso facto, Q.E.D. My opposition to the conflict evolved over the next year or so, starting with the Beyond Vietnam speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1967, a year to the day before he died. (Was that just coincidence?)

The group that most influenced me at the time was the VVAW, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It was one thing for civilians to oppose the war. It was quite another thing to see soldiers who had been fighting the war then come out against it.

In time, I found about some of the history of conflict in Vietnam, the fighting against the Japanese and the French, among others. The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 might have signaled the end of colonial occupation, but it led to greater involvement by the Americans, first in small numbers of analysts in the 1950s to massive numbers troops in the mid-1960s, facilitated in no small part by the prevarication that was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in August of 1964.

No doubt that many of the soldiers may have operated honorably, but it's also true that the My Lai massacre in 1968 was not the only atrocity in this drawn-out engagement. My buddy Steve Bissette wrote a piece about a couple films delineating military failings during Vietnam and a more recent conflict. (I actually chuckled when I discovered his post was dated February 2, for that was the date in 1972 when the draft for those born in 1953 took place; that's a LONG story.)

My general disinclination towards war is fueled by the belief that even in a "good war" (a true oxymoron), bad things, unintended things occur. Even the "good guys" get it wrong sometimes, regardless of the safeguards. Thus war should always be a last resort, not a first option.

In a bold attempt to be "fair and balanced, I point out to you The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam WarK -- "the latest installment in Regnery Publishing’s bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide™ (“PIG”) series -- [Phillip] Jennings gives you the surprising truth, and backs it up with facts that liberals ignore."

I should note that I haven't read the book. Among the assertions:
*The Tet offensive was a debacle for the North Vietnamese
*Communist Vietnam is now trying to emulate a more capitalist approach
I actually agree with both of those statements, but not with most of the others.

Thirty-five years after Vietnam and we're still fighting the war.

***
Pete Seeger: Waist Deep in the Big Muddy from the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. Pete turns 91 on Monday.

ROG

April Ramblin'

Fun Interpretation of the Google Books Settlement

What I love about my Bible study: we talk a LOT about current affairs. Part of the conversation recently, in reading the 23rd Psalm, was "What IS evil?' One of the examples I thought of was the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth with the intent to incite.

We also were distressed about the new Arizona immigration law Two thoughts on that. Remember the Sun City (video) album from the 1980s? Sun City was the resort town in South Africa, which, during apartheid came to symbolize the difference in conditions for blacks and whites. On that album was the song, Let Me See Your ID (video).

The other thing is that famous quote by theologian Martin Niemöller
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Having been profiled one or twice (yeah, right), this really disturbs me.
***
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: FOX News, GOP further 'the un-mooring of politics from fact' (video)
***
Gunn High School Sings Away Kansas Hate Group known as the Westboro Baptist Church (video).
***
The vengeance of Bernie Goldberg on the Daily Show (Link to video). I don't recall Goldberg being quite so wack when he was on CBS.
***
Plaque in honor of activist William Moore unveiled. He was a civil rights activist from around my hometown of Binghamton, NY, who was murdered in Alabama in 1963. The local branch of the Congress of Racial Equality, with which my father worked, was named after him. It even rhymed: The William L. Moore chapter of CORE.
***
Very soon, you can listen to the sounds of the cosmos yourself. All of the data from the SETI program will soon be available at setiQuest.org to download or play.
***
New national park quarters unveiled: U.S. Mint debuts designs for the first five coins in its America the Beautiful Quarters Program, which will honor 56 national parks. The rest will be released through 2021. I probably WON'T collect them; still haven't found most of the 2009 quarters.
***
MAD Artist Jack Davis’ Illustrations of NBC’s 1965-66 Season for TV Guide is really cool, especially if you remember the shows, which I do.
***
Angelina Jolie is in the summer movie I can't wait to see, Salt, which was filmed in part in Albany, NY. The filming caused massive traffic delays for days.
***
Siren's Crush Receives Rave Reviews from NAMM (short video). This is my niece's group; Rebecca is the brunette female.
***
My friend Deborah, who I met in 1977 in Manhattan, and who's been living in France for the past quarter century, recently bought a beautiful old stone house in Brittany with a plan of partly financing the loan by renting it out as a holiday home.

The Kan ar Vouac'h website and its listing on VRBO are finally done, and she's hoping to be putting the final touches on buying the final necessaries over the month of May.

I'm told it's a lovely and reasonable place to stay in Brittany.
***
Retiree Bathtub Test

During a visit to my doctor, I asked him, "How do you determine whether or not a retiree should be put in an old age home?"

"Well," he said, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the retiree and ask him or her to empty the bathtub"

"Oh, I understand," I said. "A normal person would use the bucket because it is bigger than the spoon or the teacup."

"No" he said. "A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?”

ROG

The Confederacy? WTF

OK, I was on the road and I somehow missed this: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell proclaims Confederate History Month, for which he later (sort of) apologizes. The President of the United States (psst! he's BLACK, so OBVIOUSLY, he has a racist agenda) upbraids the governor for leaving slavery out of the equation. Certain right-wing pundits kvetch: "My God, they're talking about slavery AGAIN? Why can't they let it go?", oblivious to the inability of others to let go of a cause that one could reasonably consider sedition. There is an article in Salon which addresses this. I was particularly fond of this comment: "History has a peculiar habit of becoming revisionist drivel when it comes to culture & politics. Romanticized to the point of nausea, even dark days are brightened with an artificial hue."

The best discussion of this phenomenon appeared even before the McDonnell proclamation. Once more, I must point you to Bill Moyers while I still can; he's going off the air soon. Specifically, the show broadcast on the anniversary weekend of Martin Luther King's death, which reflected on his legacy.

"Two talented lawyers who've dedicated their careers to fighting inequality, Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson, join Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL to examine justice and injustice in America 42 years after King's death."

Specifically to this point about race in America:

BRYAN STEVENSON: Other countries that have confronted historic problems of racism and gross ethnic conflict have recognized that to overcome that, there has to be a period of truth and reconciliation. In South Africa, they had to go through truth and reconciliation. In Rwanda, there had to be truth and reconciliation. In this country, we've never had truth and we've never had reconciliation. And so, the day to day reality for the clients where I work, the people I work with is one that's still hurt, angry, broken.

I keep hoping for that "conversation about race" we've been promised, so we CAN "get over it." This seemed obviously to be great opportunity. Yet I've seen from more than one quarter that the idea about bringing up the slavery issue is merely liberals being (eye roll) "politically correct". Not to be confused with "historically correct", or "factually correct."

The lawyers make some other interesting points. Much of the conversation after Obama's election was that "we HAVE overcome", that the struggle with racism was over, something I always thought was a lot of bunk.

MICHELLE ALEXANDER:...I think individual black achievement today masks a disturbing, underlying racial reality. You know, to a significant extent...affirmative action, seeing African Americans...go to Harvard and Yale, become CEOs and corporate lawyers...causes us all to marvel what a long way we have come.

But...much of the data indicates that African Americans today, as a group, are not much better off than they were back in 1968. When Martin Luther King delivered his..."The Other America" speech.

And interesting observation about terrorism - and some, though by no means all of these groups who idealize the antebellum South, seem to be attracted to a violent fringe element in this country.

BRYAN STEVENSON:...older people come up to me, and they say, "Mr. Stevenson, I'm tired of hearing how we're talking about-- we're dealing with terrorism for the first time in our nation's history." They were antagonized by the rhetoric around 9/11. They would come up to me and they'd say, "Mr. Stevenson, I grew up with terrorism. We had to worry about being bombed. We had to worry about being lynched. We had to live in communities close to each other, because the threat of violence was constant...

Ms. Alexander has written a book about The New Jim Crow, not that dissimilar to the old Jim Crow.

MICHELLE ALEXANDER: ...just a couple decades after the collapse of the old Jim Crow system, a new system of racial control emerged in the United States. Today, people of color are targeted by law enforcement for relatively minor, nonviolent, often drug-related offenses. The types of crimes that occur all the time on college campuses, where drug use is open and notorious. That occur in middle class suburban communities without much notice, right?

Targeted, often at very young ages, for these relatively minor offenses. Arrested, branded felons, and then ushered into a parallel social universe, in which they can be denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries, and legally discriminated against in many of the ways in which African Americans were discriminated against during the Jim Crow era...

The Reagan Administration actually hired staff whose job it was to publicize crack babies, crack dealers in inner city communities, in the hope that these images would build public support for the drug war and persuade Congress to devote millions of more dollars to the war.

So that it was possible to convert the war from a rhetorical one into a literal one. It was part of a larger political strategy. And once the media became saturated and our public consciousness began to associate drug use and drug crime with African Americans, it's no surprise that law enforcement efforts became concentrated in communities defined by race as well.

BRYAN STEVENSON: The reality is, is that in poor communities, the police do raids all the time. I've worked in communities where the SWAT team comes and they put up a screen fence around the public housing project. They do searches. They stop people coming in and out. There are these presumptions of criminality that follow young men of color.

And whenever they're someplace they don't belong, they're stopped and they're targeted. And so-- and because you don't have the resources actually to create privacy and security, you're much more vulnerable to prosecution... we could do the same thing, but middle class communities, elite schools in this country would not tolerate drug raids from federal law enforcement officers and police. Even if there's drug use.

And so, there is this way in which resources and economic status actually makes you more vulnerable to criminal arrest and prosecution. And it becomes a self-fulfilling story. So that when I walk down the street in the wrong kinds of clothes, if I'm in the "wrong place," there's a presumption that I'm up to something criminal.

It goes on, but the point is that the "good old days" of the 1950s, or the 1850s, weren't that good for some. Certainly the antebellum South holds no warmth in my heart. The lawyers on Moyers also describe how poor and middle-class whites are manipulated to see blacks as, if not the enemy, then at least people to be suspicious of, a deliberate manipulation going back to Richard Nixon's "southern strategy", then perfected by Ronald Reagan. They argue that the huge growthin the prison population makes us less safe, not more.

I mention all of these other issues because I believe these aren't just individual events, bloopers of a thoughtless politician or pundit, but rather a pattern of racial insensitivity that needs to be continually looked at in the broader context.

ROG

I would Have Voted For Harold Ford

I was mildly disappointed that Harold Ford, Jr., the former Tennessee congressman, has decided this week not to run in the Democratic primary against US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

I'm pretty sure I would have voted for him...in 2006, when he ran for US Senator from Tennessee. He was clearly the more moderate choice in his race against Bob Corker. But it he lost, and many folks thought it was in no small part because of some racially tinged commercials.

In 2010, though, he never identified any particular reason to vote for him. He was evasive in his February 14 appearance on Meet the Press concerning his Merrill Lynch bonuses. His reception at the Black and Latino Caucus, based on what I saw =on television, was lackluster at best. He was one of only a handful of Congressional Democrats to vote for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and his recent conversion supporting gay marriage has been met with a decided lack of enthusiasm. The one thing I would have advised him not to have worried about the carpetbagger charge - everyone else who was so charged (RFK in 1964, James Buckley in 1970 and Hillary Clinton in 2000) not only ran but won.

Whereas Kirsten Gillibrand, who started off as an apparent afterthought of a choice of Governor Paterson, and was thought likely to be primaried from someone on the left, seems to have grown into the role of junior Senator. I watched her during her live video Facebook chat back on February 24, and her command of the issues was very impressive. She was strong in her support of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and believes that the process of hearings that had just started would get to that goal. She also adamantly opposes the so-called Defense Of Marriage Act. She was equally forceful on health care, jobs, tax credits, and reproductive rights. She explained that the agricultural committee she serves on deals with financial derivatives, a vestige of a time when farmers used their crops as collateral.

I should say that while Harold Ford Jr. almost always seems slick and polished, Kirsten Gillibrand trying to read the questions that scrolled by too fast was a bit comical. Still, had Ford actually decided to run, I think Gillibrand would have cleaned his clock. We'll never know, of course. And with the primary falling so late, in September, it does avoid the internecine warfare that the Democrats are known for, thus giving them a better chance to hold onto the seat.

But that race would have been FUN.


ROG

A Couple Links In Lieu of Actual Content

Maybe it's because I've tried cutting back on caffeine. Surely it has to do with Black History Month at church and a presentation I did at the Underground Railroad conference this past weekend. But I am FRIED.

Fried means going to bed when the child goes to bed, between 8 and 9 pm. Going to bed BEFORE my wife, and if you know her sleep patterns, you'd find that astonishing.
So I'm not going to force it. I'll give you a couple links. The good news, I suppose, is that I wrote them:

EDIT: POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL (paragraph below)
Over at Trouble with Comics, the esteemed comics blogger Alan David Doane is having Guest Reviewer Month. And guess who his first contributor is? (And yes, ADD, I DO laugh your claim to my "fame".)

On my Times Union blog, I note how lucky Albany has been with the weather this winter. Those of you from across the country or the world might read that NYC schools and Syracuse University were closed on Friday; Albany got about an inch of slush. Oh, and I dedicate the post to Jason at 2political, who's in the Washington, DC area and gotten far more snow in 2010 than I have.

Finally, I want to point you to the NYS Data Center blog where I highlight the Modern Mechanix blog.

More content tomorrow, I hope.

ROG

It's Not A Liberal or Conservative Issue

It is my general feeling that amending the United States Constitution is something that should not be suggested lightly. There's a whole slew of proposed amendments that never really went anywhere.

Still, I'm mulling over this e-mail I got from Uthaclena which reads in part: "As you are undoubtedly aware, the Supreme Court recently decided that Corporations are Persons who are entitled to spend as much money on 'free speech' to effect elections as they like. I believe that most Americans, be they Liberal or Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Independent, thinks that this is ludicrous. The ruling legitimizes the business of BUYING elections, which is already a grave threat to our democracy. This is an issue that should unite us despite the partisan contention of the last decade."

Well, yes. When I commented on the court case initially, my view was what it was, one commenter suggested, because I was liberal. I AM a liberal, but the issue was that the Court seemed to cede power from the people to the corporate state. It seemed radical. People complain about the "activist" court when some "progressive" ruling down. Well, this was the height of judicial activism. Along with the Griswold decision to essentially allow eminent domain for "economic" reasons, this court has put the people last.

So I'm feeling inclined to support such a measure.

"Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards and Congressman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have co-sponsored a bill to send a Constitutional Amendment to the States for ratification that would allow corporation’s influence to be limited. The proposal reads:

111TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION
H. J. RES. ___
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on __________________

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

'ARTICLE—
'SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
'SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.'.

You can voice your support of Representative Edwards here.

But more importantly, contact YOUR OWN Congressional Representative and ask them to support this resolution so that it can move forward. If you are uncertain who your representative is or how to contact them, use the locator.

The source article can be read here.

(WARNING! Leftie blog!! ;-)"

ROG

Behind the Curve

Partially because I deigned to watch football the last three weekends and partially because I have the annoying habit of taking on more stuff than I'm comfortable with, I'm behind in watching stuff on TV, reading the paper, etc.

That two-hour Haiti special, the album for which is the first #1 album that exists without an actual physical product? Haven't watched it.

The State of the Union - read the reviews, but not heard the actual address. The chat Obama had with Republicans that went so well for the President that FOX News stopped showing it 20 minutes in - plenty of places to read it or watch it, including here but hasn't happened yet. Still, I think Evanier's right when he notes: Once you tell your constituents that everything Obama does is evil, you can't meet him halfway on anything without appearing to be compromising with evil. You can't even support him when he does things you like. I think that's a lot of our problem right there.

Of course, being behind has its benefits. After Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown in the Massachusetts race for US Senate, there's been this revisionist message that the Democrats only dumped on her because she lost. Watching the Sunday morning talk shows two and nine days before that election, it was clear that the Democrats, though muted in their criticism - she was still their candidate - suggested that she did not run the robust campaign she ought to have. Yes, in answer to her rhetorical question, you DO pass out fliers in front of Fenway Park.

Some stories I missed altogether, such as the death of Pernell Roberts, the eldest son on Bonanza who later became, in some bizarro world spinoff, Trapper John in the CBS drama Trapper John, MD. It was not a great show, though it was the jumping off point for now-Broadway legend Brian Stokes Mitchell.

I plowed through a couple weeks of the Wall Street Journal and came across this story of Scarlett Johansson's debut on Broadway as well as a very positive review of "Gregory Mosher's revival of 'A View From the Bridge, Arthur Miller's
1955 play about love and death on the Brooklyn waterfront." "Of course you'll be wondering about Ms. Johansson, whose Broadway debut this is, and I can tell you all you need to know in a sentence: She is so completely submerged in her role that you could easily fail to spot her when she makes her first entrance. You'd never guess that she hasn't acted on a stage since she was a little girl."

Other stories I just didn't know what to say. I noticed that Kate McGarrigle of the singing/songwriting McGarrigle Sisters, and also mother of Rufus and Martha Wainwright, died of cancer at the age of 62 back on January 18. The best I could come with is a link to an obituary for Kate written by her sister Anna. I was listening to Trio, an album by Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris this week. There's a Kate song called I've Had Enough, about lost love, but feels right here.

Love it's not I who didn't try
Hard enough, hard enough
And this is why I'm saying goodbye
I've had enough, I've had enough
Love you don't see
The pain in me
That's plain enough, plain enough
You're never here to catch the tears
I cried for us, I cried for us

I'll take my share but I'll be fair
There's not much stuff
Easy enough
And if you choose I'll break the news
This part is tough, so very tough

I've tried and tried to put aside
The time to talk, but without luck
So I'll just pin this note within your coat
And leave the garden gate unlocked

And this is why I'm saying goodbye
I've had enough, I've had enough

Her funeral is today in Montreal.

Little Boxes theme from Weeds by the McGarrigle Sisters.

ROG

Earl Warren Would Have Hated the Citizens United Ruling

The disturbing 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United vs. the FEC this week is based largely on the notion that a corporation be legally considered a person, with the same rights of freedom of speech. This was based on what I always a convoluted interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the "equal protection", post-Civil War amendments designed to prevent states from discrimating against newly freed black slaves. (Arthur at AmeriNZ rants about this here.)

What would Earl Warren, the California governor nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower (reportedly, to his lasting regret), and who served from 1953 to 1969, think of this new ruling? He would have opposed it vigorously. How do I know? I asked him.

Not about the current situation of course; Earl Warren died in July 1974. But the spring of 1973, I took a political science course, and one of the things our professor Ron Steinberg arranged was a meeting by the now-retired author of such landmark rulings as Brown v. Board of Education (equal education regardless of race), Miranda v. Arizona (police to advise suspect in custody of rights), and Reynolds v. Sims (one person, one vote).

Earl Warren spoke to us about many of the cases his court dealt with. As I recall, he seemed optomistic that the court, by then under the jurisdiction of Warren Burger, would continue to open avenues for historically discriminated-against individuals.

Then we got to ask him questions. Dry-mouthed, I rambled some question based on research I had done. It clearly wasn't apparent what I trying to get at. Finally, I asked him if he thought the Court's long-time assertion that a corporation was a person was consistent with the legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. He got agitated, apparently not with me, but with the core of the question. "My, no!" he exclaimed. He thought it was a great overreach, not at all consistent with what the amendment was designed to do.

I'm confortable asserting that Earl Warren would have HATED this week's ruling.


ROG

December Rambling

I've become fascinated with the fascination over Joe Lieberman re: the health care debate. This example from a New York Times colummnist is a perfectly good example: Let us contemplate the badness of Joe Lieberman.

Who would have thought that this holiday season we’d be obsessed with the senator from Connecticut?

I guess it's the fact that people seem surprised by his intransigence, that it is he, rather than 40 Republicans in the Senate holding bill hostage. I am reminded that he is a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). He got all "mavericky" by supported his "good friend" John McCain over the Democratic nominee last year. In 2006, Connecticut Democrats realized that he was no Democrat and booted him from the ticket when he was running for re-election. He ran and won as a Liebermanist.

Oh, and re: those from the GOP: Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason: How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? This came out in August, but is no less true today for that.

But as Paul Krugman said: A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable. Butut in his defense of the bill on the table, he says:

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

Look, I understand the anger here: supporting this weakened bill feels like giving in to blackmail — because it is. Or to use an even more accurate metaphor suggested by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, we’re paying a ransom to hostage-takers. Some of us, including a majority of senators, really, really want to cover the uninsured; but to make that happen we need the votes of a handful of senators who see failure of reform as an acceptable outcome, and demand a steep price for their support.

At the same time, I was surprised by the attack by Mike Madden on Keith Olbermann's announced intent of civil disobedience: Wrong, Keith: Olbermann's prescription for protesting the insurance mandate -- don't buy insurance -- is nuts. I think these fights are almost always taken on at multiple levels. So if a bill is passed, and a number of people REFUSE on conscience, to abide by said law, sometimes - sometimes - the laws get changed.
***
And speaking of laws DC Council Passes Gay Marriage Bill; On to Mayor for Signature. Interesting that Congress - yes, the U.S. Congress - gets final say in this matter. I keep forgetting that the District of Columbia is a protectorate of the United States. But, from the tone of this and other stories I've read, it appears that the Democrats in Congress have enough political muscle to pass this; I'll wait until the actual vote, thank you.
***
The 10 Best Web Sites of the Decade
***
For those who follow movies, Box Office Mojo has production cost, foreign & domestic box office, and DVD sales in the initial period.
***
The resurrection of Josie and the Pussycats?
ROG

V is for Values

When I was pondering the notion of "value", this came unbidden into my head:
When the values go up, up, up
And the prices go down, down, down.
Robert Hall this season
Will show you the reason
High quality! Economy!
music by Leon Mitchell; words by Charles A. Gaston; original version (c) 1946

When I was growing up in Binghamton, NY in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Robert Hall was THE place to go for back-to-school clothing. The clothing was inexpensive but solidly made, the kind of place a working-class family wanted to shop for their children's apparel.

The secret of the stores' success was told in this 1949 TIME magazine article. But what sold me were the nifty ads, sometimes with the lyrics slightly altered, which you may be able to hear here and/or here.


But the more pervasive meaning of the word "values" involves the "set of emotional rules people follow to help make the right decisions in life." Or the wrong ones, I suppose. In a large country such as the Unites States, not to mention a vast planet, one hopes for commonality in values, but certainly cannot expect unanimity.

Yet some groups have successfully seemed to have hijacked the term "values". There is a group of "values voters", for instance, who are in the right wing of American politics. Based on their recent summit, they are concerned about the "silenced" Christians, the evil of "Obamacare" (health care), "defending marriage", and in general, the "vast left wing conspiracy."

While I support differing points of view, I'm troubled by the notion that only those people of a particular political persuasion are the only ones with "values". It's similar to the notion that "Christian" only represents a certain political POV.

As a "liberal" and a Christian, my values are just as legitimate. Oh, and I vote, too.

ROG

Truth, or a Variation on the Same

This is one of those breakfast blogs Dan VanRiper said I write.

The New York Times recently ran a story about how Rosa Parks WASN'T =the first black person to protest treatment on the bus. How did these others get ignored by history? Because history is arbitrary and not generally 100% accurate. And as a friend of mine put it, "Food for thought about figureheads...Teenagers don't get respect!"

Jackie Robinson was not the first black to play major league baseball, only the first one in several decades, which does not at all diminish his breakthrough. Meanwhile, the black players who reintegrated the NFL, friends of Robinson, BTW, are all but forgotten, or were until this recent Sports Illustrated story. Even if you're not a sports fan, read it, if you haven't. One writer has suggested these players ought to be in the football hall of fame.

My wife, who teaches English as a Second Language, tells me that sometimes only the primary teacher in a classroom is considered the "real" teacher by some students, whereas the specialists (ESL, speech) are though of more like teachers' aides. This is particularly true when the primary teacher is a male and the specialist is a female, and all of the specialty teachers in her schools are women. Stereotypical gender roles, even in our "enlightened" 21st century, come creeping back.

I've mentioned that when I was my daughter's age and in the hospital for an uncontrollable bloody nose, I was slackjawed to discover a male nurse and a female doctor; even at five and a half, I could be surprised that the world wasn't as I expected it to be.

I was listening to the podcast KunstlerCast #90: The Demise of Happy Motoring this week. The host, Duncan Crary, didn't know that "Happy Motoring" was a catchphrase of Esso gasoline (later Exxon). Duncan told Jim Kunsler said he'd Google the phrase, and I ended up doing the same. Apparently, Esso tried to be culturally diverse in its ads. Here are the Esso logo morphing into folks from the British Isles, and, showing some real stereotypes, these American folks.

Here's 18-and a half minutes of sharp political commentary. Eighteen-and-a-half minutes? Shades of Rose Mary Woods!

There seems to be no clear consensus on the meaning of Boxing Day.
ROG

Politicking

Here are some issues I've been musing about,. some happened a couple weeks ago but are still in my head.

New York State passed a no texting while driving law that became effective November 1. While I'm very much in favor of people not multitasking in that fashion, I'm not all that excited by the passage of more legislation that can be routinely ignored. Perhaps those who always follow the law will abide, and maybe those who've decided even before the law that texting while driving is unsafe. But, based on the (non-)enforcement of the no cellphone law, the only benefit will be something to charge a driver with ifwhen an accident occurs, the authorities will be able to charge the driver with additional violations.

Racialicious had an interesting article I’m for gay rights, but...; the topic was also discussed on the podcast Addicted to Race, episode 125, which describes the "oppression Olympics": essentially who is more oppressed, blacks or gays, and why that whole mindset is so wrong. In the episode, the panel discussed Martin Luther King Jr's daughter's recent declaration that her father "didn’t take a bullet for same-sex unions." Meanwhile the late Coretta Scott King had shown support for the rights of all, including gays. As the show notes ask: "Why is it that marginalized people fight each other over scraps, instead of uniting to work toward justice for all?" Sounds like a reasonable strategy to me.
***
Only recently did I get to watch the Sunday morning talk shows from two days before Election Day. It is very instructive to listen to most of the predictions in the House race in NY-23, which "everybody knows" was going to the Conservative. Except, of course, it didn't. One Republican operative in particular was complaining how 11 Republican county chairpersons could pick a candidate, suggesting that it's undemocratic. Well, it is, but it's also the way the Democratic candidate was picked. When Kirsten Gillibrand replaced Hillary Clinton in the US Senate, the county chairs in her district picked the candidates, but the winner stands only until the next election, in 2010. (For that matter, Gillibrand also has to run in 2010, and if she wins, in 2012, when the seat would normally be up.)

That race was a perfect example of why Instant Runoff Voting would have been helpful, as I noted here. For that matter, IRV would have clarified the New Jersey governor's race. One pundit noted that the third party candidate faded, "as they always do." But the reason isn't their qualifications, it's their perceived win-ability.

Speaking of Election Day, Jason at 2political, among others, noted this peculiar trend in Virginia gubernatorial races. In the last three decades, when there is one party elected President, the very next year, the Virginia governor is elected from the other party:
CARTER 1976 (D); John N. Dalton 1977 Republican
REAGAN 1980 (R); Chuck Robb 1981 Democratic
REAGAN 1984 (R); Gerald L. Baliles 1985 Democratic
BUSH 41 1988 (R); Douglas Wilder 1989 Democratic
CLINTON 1992 (D); George Allen 1993 Republican
CLINTON 1996 (D); Jim Gilmore 1997 Republican
BUSH 43 2000 (R); Mark Warner 2001 Democratic
BUSH 43 2004 (R); Tim Kaine 2005 Democratic
OBAMA 2008 (D); Bob McDonnell 2009 Republican
So it's difficult to see any repudiation of Obama in the Virginia race. Not to mention that the Democrats picked a lousy candidate.

Speaking of repudiating Obama, I was baffled that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News were baffled by two recent polls. One showed about a 57% support for the public option; the other showed that the majority of Americans oppose Obama's handling of the health care issue. They seemed to assume that opposition to Obama on the issue would only come from the right. In fact, if I had been asked, I would have said the same thing: that I oppose Obama's handling of health care, not because it contains a public option but because single payer got taken off the table much too easily. And, absent single payer, I support the public option.

As for the bill that DID get passed by the House, what SamuraiFrog said, particularly with regards to abortion, applies to me too. And there's no guarantee that the wuss of a House bill will even make it through the Senate in any meaningful way.

I got an important e-mail this week:

Become a Charter Member of the Bush Presidential Center
Dear ROGER,
I don't have to remind you how America was tested time and again-at home and abroad-during the eight defining years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The difficult decisions President Bush made in the face of each challenge were rooted in the core principles he held throughout his years of public service—the fundamental values that have guided America since her founding: Freedom . . . Opportunity . . . Responsibility . . . Compassion.
Now President and Mrs. Bush—with the support of many patriotic Americans like you—are taking on a new challenge. They are continuing their personal commitment to advancing these enduring principles through the George W. Bush Presidential Center.
The Center will uniquely integrate the records of a national archive, the thematic exhibits of a presidential museum, and the intellectual capital of a research-based policy institute to transform ideas into action.
The George W. Bush Presidential Center will continue to advance the ideals and core principles that shaped his presidency during a defining period in America's history.
Please accept this invitation to stand with President and Mrs. Bush by becoming a Charter Member of this vibrant, multi-disciplinary Center.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Hon. Mark Langdale
President
George W. Bush Foundation

"Principles"? Er, thanks, but no thanks.
***
A lot more pictures like the ones above can be found here.

ROG

The Concert Suit

As much as as I hate buying clothes generally, I REALLY hate buying suits. All that measuring, especially when the body trends poorly compared with the previous time I bought a suit, which it did. The harsh lights and the three-sided, full-length mirrors don't help.

The other bad thing about buying a suit is that I end up spending too much. I've gotten myself to the place, and I'm buying one (expensive) suit; why not two, especially when the second is free, except for the alterations? And while I'm at it, how about some new shirts, which are buy one, get one at 50% off? Oh, and new ties to go along with them? And I DO need a better coat for winter. At the end of the excursion, I experience massive sticker shock and don't buy any suits, or much of anything else clothing-wise for the next two or three years.

The initiation of this shopping spree is this event:

We received information about the dress code for the performance a week ago Sunday. And I own ZERO black suits, and only one white shirt that's probably too tight. So this past Saturday evening, the wife, the daughter and I went shopping.

And I've felt lousy ever since.

Initially, I thought it was just exhaustion that sent me to bed at 8:30 Saturday night, but now I'm thinking it's some sort of sinusitis and/or allergies flaring up. But what caused the truly horrific insomnia I got Sunday night, so much so that my eyes burned on Monday morning? Probably consuming the cheese and crackers I ate after the Sunday night rehearsal.

But more basically, I think it was a week without riding the bicycle or playing racquetball. When I got to do both on Monday, I got surges of energy that I'd been lacking lately, though I was more stuffed up yesterday.

So no, I can't blame any of it on shopping for suits, unfortunately.
***
Monday night, I did go to the marriage equality rally. The State Senate was supposed to take up the legislation the next day. So the chant was, "What do we want?" "Marriage equality!" "When do we want it?" "Tomorrow!" Tomorrow? I mean, yes, literally, the next day when the vote was due, but "tomorrow" has such lousy scansion; having been to lots of rallies, I'm a big fan of "NOW!"

In any case, the state legislature didn't vote on much of anything Tuesday, and they won't be meeting again until next week. I DO think that the position of at least Republican state senator I saw on TV Tuesday night - that the government can't deal with ANYTHING else until it deals with the budget deficit - is totally bogus. Truth is, balancing the budget will be a long, arduous process that may take weeks; gay marriage can be achieved with one vote in one house, as the State Assembly has already passed a bill. Twice.

Speaking of which: Via Mark Evanier - Shelly Goldstein on stupid, callous, homophobic hateful legislation. Julie Andrews couldn't do any better.
***
I found out in Hispanic Business, of all places, that Glenn Beck Lost His Lawsuit Over A Controversial Domain Name
Fox TV host Glenn Beck has lost a suit he filed against the creator of a satirical Web site spreading a rumor that even the site itself admitted was false: Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Although he lost the case, Beck still received the domain name he sought, but not because the arbitrator awarded it to him. Rather, the man who established the site gave it to Beck himself -- but not without getting in a good parting shot. And the REAL kicker is that the guy has kept the CONTENT of the site up at http://gb1990.com/. That's GB, as in Glenn Beck, 1990 (dot) com.

It's a nasty little site, but then again, Glenn Beck is a nasty little man. It is also one of those First Amendment issues people love to hate. My reactions is a mix of mild discomfort with a whole lot of schadenfreude.
***
Chances Are Profanity Was Intentionally Encoded in Text of Schwarzenegger's Veto. As though you had any doubt.

ROG

Climate Change

I agreed to do this bloggers unite to save the world thing today on climate change, but my heart's not in it. I mean, there are still people who deny that we are slowly, or not so slowly killing ourselves and our planet. No wonder they called a movie about the topic The Age of Stupid.

President Obama gave a nice speech on climate change at the United Nations last month. Of course, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show rightly mocked the amount of fuel used by the leaders getting to New York City.

I WILL plug the 350 event on October 24. That day, in almost every country of the world, ordinary citizens will come together in a series of events and rallies and demonstrations and glorious public art projects, all designed to do one thing: make the most important number in the world the most well-known.
That number is 350, as in parts per million carbon dioxide. In the last two years, the scientific community has made very clear that it's the maximum safe level for carbon in the atmosphere, at least if we want to have a planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapated."

Perhaps huge participation numbers will light a fire under President Obama when he goes to Copenhagen in December for U.N.-sponsored climate talks.

Of course, we as individuals have to do more. I may use a reel mower, which I tend to arrogantly think of as a REAL mower. We compost. But surely our old house still needs more insulation. So it's not just the leaders; it's gotta be all of us as well.

I've mentioned this before, but someone should explain to me how cap and trade is NOT functionally like the (not so) old church tradition of selling indulgences, where the the "sinners" pay for redemption.

As the President said: "Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress."


ROG

I is for Instant Runoff Voting

Elections in most of the United States are dominated by one of, or if one is lucky, by the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. People often complain about the Tweedledee/Tweedledum nature of voting, having to select the "lesser of two evils", or, as is almost as likely as not, decline from voting at all.

Ever since I heard about Instant Runoff Voting would be a solution to a multitude of problems in the American system. Here's how IRV works:

Voters rank candidates in order of choice: 1, 2, 3 and so on. It takes a majority to win. If a majority of voters rank a candidate first, that candidate is elected. If not, the last place candidate is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again, but this time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next ranked candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. With modern voting equipment, all of the counting and recounting takes place rapidly and automatically.

IRV acts like a series of runoff elections in which one candidate is eliminated each election. Each time a candidate is eliminated, all voters get to choose among the remaining candidates. This continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

In most places in the US, a candidate is awarded a seat and wins the most votes in an electoral area; a majority vote is not required to win. Thus the winner in a race with more than two candidates may not represent the majority of the people.

Let's take three mythical candidates and call them, Bush, Gore and Nader. Say that a goodly number of voters are inclined to vote for Nader but see in the polls that he's trailing the other two. His supporters might well reluctantly vote for one of the other two, or not bother voting. Nader ends up with say 6% of the vote, with Bush and Gore each with 47% each; which ever one ekes out a victory will not be supported by a majority of the voters.

But let's say IRV were in place. Perhaps Bush and Gore garner 40% each and Nader 20%, most likely of a higher number of actual voters, because the citizens are not afraid that their initial vote has been "wasted". The Nader vote will be distributed among those who picked Bush or Gore as their second pick. If 11% picked Bush and 9% picked Gore, then Bush would win.

This also addresses the issue of those places, such as the state of Louisiana, that require a runoff election when neither candidate reaches the majority threshold. A runoff is expensive, and ironically usually brings out a smaller number of voters. IRV will eliminate the need of having a second go-round at all.

There are places in the US that already use IRV or some variation, but it appears more popular elsewhere in the world.

One element proponents here seem to make a point of NOT stressing is the possibility that the system is more likely to generate a third-party winner. Using the old example, lets say it's Bush 35%, Nader 35% and Gore 30%; it would then be Gore's votes that would be split between the remaining two candidates. I think proponents don't want to scare the guardians of the status quo.

Something that excites me as an Oscar buff is the fact that in the past month the Motion Picture Academy has adopted Instant Runoff Voting for the Best Picture balloting. It was used "by the Academy in Best Picture voting before 1945, which was the last time ten pictures were nominated...The nominee with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that film are moved to voter's next choice among the remaining films. The process continues until one film has more than half the votes and is declared Best Picture of the Year...

"Earlier this year, the Academy announced that it would expand the Best Picture category from five to 10 nominees. Given that the nomination threshold will now be about a tenth of the vote, keeping the 'first-past-the-post' voting system where voters can indicate a preference for just one choice would theoretically allow a film to take home the Oscar despite being potentially disliked by 89%. With IRV in place, the Best Picture winner is sure to be preferred by a large share of Academy members."

Let's say that Oscar voters, confusing box office success with quality, nominate Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for best picture. Under the old system, 11% of the voters could determine that it was the finest film of 2009, even if 89% thought it was dreck. With IRV in place, more of a consensus will be reached within the Academy.
ROG

Mistakes Were Made

I was at our choir party Thursday night with my wife and daughter. We had a lovely time. Our organist showed Lydia how the organ worked. But somehow one of our co-pastors asked me about a television show called "My Mother, the Car." Seems that one of them claimed that the show existed, while the other co-pastors said that it couldn't possibly be so. Even when I noted that it starred Jerry Van Dyke and the voice of Ann Sothern (why was THAT sticking in my brain?), I was not believed. It was not until three others acknowledged that they too saw remembered the program that the first co-pastor and I were vindicated.

But I had forgotten until afterwards that not only did friend Fred Hembeck write about the show a few months ago, he found a link to five episodes, including the first one.

Fred wrote: Look, "Bewitched", "I Dream Of Jeanie", "My Favorite Martian", and "Mr. Ed" were all of the same era as "My Mother The Car", and all shared a central conceit with it--one character, and one character only, is aware of a magical totem right smack dab in the middle of things. A witch. A genie.A martian. A talking horse. All were big hits. All were just as fanciful as having your dead mother come back, reincarnated, as a talking car, maybe, but far more manageable, storywise. Viewers found the notion of a pair of attractive young women performing magical tricks, a faux uncle who's really a man from outer space, and even a horse that talks, far easier to believe. For one thing, each of them could casually interact with those in the cast unaware of their special abilities, even the horse. But David Crabtree's (Jerry Van Dyke) mother? There wasn't much she (the voice of early sitcom icon Ann Sothern) could do but squawk at her son via the radio when he--and he alone--was sitting in the car. Sorta limited the plot possibilities...

Well maybe that was the problem but I think it was something more Oedipal: Dave Crabtree was riding INSIDE of his mother. Freud would have had a field day.And check out the lyrics:
Everybody knows in a second life, we all come back sooner or later.
As anything from a pussycat to a man eating alligator.
Well you all may think my story, is more fiction than it's fact.
But believe it or not my mother dear decided she'd come back.

As a car...
She's my very own guiding star.
A 1928 Porter.
That's my mother dear.
'Cause she helps me through everything I do
And I'm so glad she's near.

My Mother the Car.
My Mother the Car.

Hadn't really thought about it until the other day, but it has a real ick factor. Maybe that's why TV Guide in 2002 named the 1965-66 program the second-worst TV show ever, behind only Jerry Springer Show.
***
So I'm reading my 2009 World Almanac - yeah, I've been known to do that from time to time - and I came across a listing of Cabinet officers. Cabinet secretaries are interesting in that sometimes they either go onto higher office (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Hoover to the Presidency; John Marshall and Roger B. Taney as chief justice of the Supreme Court) or at least become well-known to this day (Daniel Webster, Alexander Hamilton).

I get to page 443 and the list of Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development (created in September 1965); they are listed:
LBJ- Robert Weaver, WA, 1966
LBJ- Robert C. Wood, MA 1969
Nixon- George W. Romney, MI, 1969
Nixon- James T. Lynn, OH, 1973
Ford- James T. Lynn, OH, 1974
Ford-Carla Anderson Hills, DC, 1975
and so forth

Then I look at the Secretaries of Transportation
LBJ- Robert Weaver, FL, 1966
Nixon- Robert C. Wood, MA 1969
Nixon- George W. Romney, CA, 1973
Ford- James T. Lynn, CA, 1974
Ford- James T. Lynn, PA, 1975
Carter-Carla Anderson Hills, WA, 1975
and so forth

The same held true for the Secretaries of Energy; Health, Education, and Welfare; Health and Human Services; Education; Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security. The first person listed was always Robert Weaver, followed by Robert Wood. Now the President appointing always changed as was the year sworn in and home state. Weaver was appointed from VA for Energy in 1977 by Carter, for HEW from TX in 1953 by Eisenhower, from HHS from DC in 1979 by Carer, and so forth. And Wood and the other up to a dozen names followed. So it was ONLY the names that are wrong; the years, the appointing Presidents, the home states were all correct.

I found it quite bizarre.
ROG

Politics. Unusual.

There are three political lawn signs in our front yard presently. This is two more than have ever been in our lawn, and three more than I generally have in front of our house.

I guess I have a certain resistance to yard signs. It's this public statement at my own address. Of course, it's better than bumper stickers on the car. I STILL see this car in my block with a Kerry-Edwards sticker and even though they were probably jobbed in Ohio, it seems sad and slightly pathetic to look at. Lawn signs you can just pull up. My next door neighbor still has a half dozen signs from last year on the front porch, some winners (Obama-Biden), some losers (a Congressional candidate).

The first sign in my lawn is for a guy running for a new position known as city auditor. The job's so new that the city has not yet established a salary for it. My candidate I have known for a number of years through the State Data Affiliates. More recently, his family belongs to my church.

I even appear in one of his campaign mailers, which I agreed to. The odd thing about that is that there are two pictures of me. The one where I'm facing the camera I see myself. The one where I'm in profile I literally don't even recognize myself because of the vitiligo; very strange.

His opponent, BTW, is a parent of a child in the the day care my daughter attended until recently. For you folks from out of town, that's why they call it Smallbany. He's running using his first name, as he did last year in his unsuccessful bid for Congress, figuring that his last name, which is comprised of a 4-, a 2- and a 3-letter word is somehow too difficult for the populace to remember.

The second sign is for a woman running for a seat on the common council; that's what they call the city's legislative branch in Albany. I initially met her through an old FantaCo friend but now know her quite independently of him. She's a bus advocate, among other positive traits. Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote for her because the lines for her district end a block away.

So two of the candidates I actually know personally before they ever considered running for office. I suppose that happens when you're in a place long enough. The last candidate I had a sign for, who ran for school board, and is now up for re-election this year, I had known since college.

The third sign in my yard is someone I don't know personally. He is running for mayor against the incumbent, who has about ten times as much money; that is no exaggeration, as these things do have to be reported periodically. Thing is, he wasn't my first choice for the job; my initial choice dropped out of the race because she - probably correctly - thought that two challengers to the current guy would leave us with the current guy again.

The guy I'm now supporting is, in the words of the song, "young, gifted, and black." He also has the endorsement of a minor party, the Working Families Party, so that if he should lose in the September 15 Democratic primary, there may be a rematch in November. Is there a Republican candidate? This is Albany; does it really matter?

There are all sorts of reasons not to support the incumbent. One issue is garbage. I mean literally; the mayor, without the knowledge of hardly anyone allowed other municipalities to dump garbage in the Albany landfill for a too-low price, so it filled up very fast, and now where Albany's trash will go in a couple years - not to mention how it'll balance its budget, when that out-of-town dumping money dries up - is an open question.

A recent issue is the resignation of the police chief, an ally of the mayor, in part over a racially insensitive comment he made. (No, I don't think it was the use of the epithet he used, but rather him suggesting relative value of black and white murder victims.)

There's a primary Tuesday, September 15. These races will be decided by a relatively few people, if history holds. Frankly, I don't know why so many more people voter in statewide elections than local elections; it's the local races that have the greater day-to-day impact in our lives.

It IS more difficult to keep track of the issues in local races. Frankly, I've often decided that when people whose opinions I value had lawn signs in their yards was at least a leading indicator of who I might support. So, maybe I'M a leading indicator this time.
ROG

Know Thine Opposition

I often read the views of people whose positions I have a track record of disagreeing with. (Whereas actually WATCHING them on TV sometimes makes me apoplexic and I'm forced to shut them off, lest I scream at the TV; Bill O'Reilly I won't even try to view.)

So I'm reading the latest from Ann Coulter, Obama Birth Certificate Spotted In Bogus Moon Landing Footage, where she cleverly compares the birthers to a bunch of conspiracy theories from the left, both implausible -"Sarah Palin's infant child, Trig, was actually the child of her daughter" and possible - "the 2000 election was stolen". Just because I oppose her views most of the time doesn't mean I don't think she's not clever in constructing straw men to knock down.

Meanwhile, Chuck Norris notes in What Obama and My Wife Have in Common that Obama and Chuck's wife Gena have a birthday in the same week (Barack - August 4; Gena - August 9.) He then ties Obama's birthday to the birther movement. (Hey, *I* did that; I think like Chuck Norris!) But of course he took a different tactic: "Refusing to post your original birth certificate is an unwise political and leadership decision that is enabling the "birther" controversy. The nation you are called to lead is experiencing a growing swell of conspirators who are convinced that you are covering up something. So why not just prove them wrong and shut them up?" The particular fun stuff is in the letters of comment.

I was reading somewhere that while their parents grouse that liberals (Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Al Franken SENATOR Al Franken) should keep out of politics, it's OK for Chuck Norris or the late Charlton Heston (or, of course, Ronald Reagan). I never biought into that mindset, BTW. How does being an actor (or singer) somehow negate one's right to participate in the democratic process?

Anyway, I didn't get much sleep, so here's former sportscaster Keith Olbermann's recent rant on health care, which I agree with.
***
Peace Through Music Film Trailer
***
Friend Walter and his wife went to see the Lovin' Spoonful recently. The group (sans John Sebastian) performed a song, not an orginal, he'd heard before and wanted to know what it was. It has the lyrics:
Ah-ha-ha-ha (ha-ha-ha-ha)
Hey-oh (hey-oh)
Koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba
(Koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba)
Ah-ha-ha-ha (ah-ha-ha-ha)
Ah-ah-ah-ha (ah-ha-ha-ha)
Hey-oh (hey-oh)
It was Don't You Just Know It by Huey (Piano) Smith & The Clowns from 1958; went to #9 on the pop charts. (If link doesn't work, try this.) Here's a version by C.J. Chenier from 1996.


ROG

The "Obama Birthday Surprise"

It's Barack Obama's 48th birthday. While I do have some real policy issues with him (I fear a quagmire in Afghanistan, among other issues), those can wait. After all, it IS his natal day, wherever he was born.

OK, I jest, but that is my basic point. I think that too many people, including me, have gotten caught up with the various attacks on the President, from whether he's a natural-born citizen of the United States to whether he's a racist (Jeremiah Wright -I heard invoked by Glenn Beck just recently - to Skip Gates) to whether he's a socialist (single payer health care). Or merely the Antichrist who wants to euthanize old people. What we've been missing, what I've been missing, with all those trees, is the forest.

I've become convinced that the proponents of these theories don't need to PROVE the smears against Obama as unAmerican (by birth or by values). It's merely necessarily to repeat them over and over. And over and over and over again.

Take the birthers, please. Jon Stewart pretty much eviscerated their points a couple weeks ago. The very next day, I get an e-mail that goes on and on and on about how the group (I won't bother identifying them) will lead a campaign to "FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD"
According to published reports,[WHAT published reports?] Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
* Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii) except by legal authorities in Hawaii...
* Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" - writing about the USSR; maybe he's also a Communist? ...
* Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard Hey, yeah, and while you're at it, reveal why the clients were there. But wait, wouldn't that violate lawyer-client privilege?
* Baptism records
* Obama/Dunham marriage license
* Obama/Dunham divorce documents
* Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
* Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
But would even THAT be sufficient? Ask David Hernandez.
It's a longer list, but it's brilliant in its innuendo.

The point is that it does not matter what Obama does; he will be criticized. And not on legitimate grounds, such as the deficit, but over specious stuff.

Take the mundane example of the so-called "beer summit". Obama was criticized for his choice of beer - Bud Light. But think about it: don't you believe he'd be criticized for ANY pick he made? If he'd picked a German beer, he'd be criticized for not picking a domestic brew. (Is Anheuser-Busch still considered "domestic" now that InBev owns it?) Even a selection of Sam Adams would have been picked as blue state elitist, I'm willing to bet. There was never going to be a satisfactory choice.

So for the President's birthday, we should vow to vow not to get confounded by the - dare I say it? - vast right-wing conspiracy - designed to make sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. Let us hold this President accountable for the substantive issues, but ignore the politics of distraction. And distraction it is, though it has the capacity of being believed. The repetition gives some the belief that "Where there's smoke, there's fire," except that it's the same cabal blowing smoke.

February Ramblin'

So much going on, and so little time:

COMICS
AdAge has a 3-minute daily video. The topic on February 20: Could Kindle put the KABOOM on Comic Books? (February 26 discusses the Tropicana packaging debacle.)
But not all is bad in comic book land. Marvel, bucking economic trends, actually set a revenue record for 2008.

Comic book blogger Mark Evanier linked to a CBS tribute, which I found oddly moving. I think it's because when I grew up in Binghamton, NY, there was only one VHF station, WNBF, Channel 12, so it was the Andy Griffiths and Lucille Balls I'd be watching the most.

OBAMA, POLITICS
Too much snark: Even Gov. Bobby Jindal, whom I suppose I should note was the first Indian-American to give the Republican response to a president's speech, began with an encomium to the first black president. (Wasn't Bobby great in "Slumdog Millionaire"?). As though I needed more proof that this woman (blonde, initials AC) is an idiot.

But this was a weird story: Poll Results: Obama, Jesus and Martin Luther King Top List of America’s “Heroes”. "When The Harris Poll asked a crosssection of adult Americans to say whom they admire enough to call their heroes, President Barack Obama was mentioned most often, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King. Others in the top ten, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa. These heroes were named spontaneously. Those surveyed were not shown or read a list of people to choose from. The Harris Poll was conducted online among a sample of 2,634 U.S. adults (aged 18 and over) by Harris Interactive between January 12 and 19, 2009." I can't explain why I find this a bit disturbing.

Another story I find puzzling is Will trade: One black Democrat for one Mormon Republican. "Congress appears to be on the verge of granting D.C. actual voting representation in the House. The Senate is expected to pass legislation Thursday or Friday that would expand the House to 437 members, adding one seat for the District and one seat for Utah, where officials say the 2000 Census would have yielded an extra seat if overseas Mormon missionaries had been counted." Problematic for a couple reasons: 1) two more members of Congress (plus staffs)? Actually, there is a delegaste from DC, so it'd be really one more, but still. 2) I find myserlf in the strict constructionist camp, but I think fair representation for DC, long overdue, will require a Constitutional amendment.

I find that performers on the left who spout political opinions are often more criticize than those on the right, such as Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent, in my experience.

MARIJUANA
Comparing public support for legalizing marijuana to the approval ratings for Rush Limbaugh and various Republican Party leaders, the conservatives lose.
So does this mean we should start legalizing and taxing pot, as some are trying to do in L.A.?

RACE
That chimp cartoon debacle probably would have bothered me more if it hadn't been in the New York Post. It is just what I expect from the New York Post. What does unsettle me is not the chimp reference per se as much as the DEAD chimp reference.

Eric Holder: America ‘a Nation of Cowards’ on Racial Matters. Arguably true. But will saying that initiate useful discussion? I have my doubts.

BLAME

Time magazine did a story about 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis, which is well and good; they all seem to have taken advice from Ayn Rand - selfishness over altruism. But Joe Queenan in the February 14 Wall Street Journal wonders about the national obsession "over the missteps of public figures like Alex Rodriguez" and Michael Phelps with "the American people [working] themselves into such a sustained, unmediated level of fury at once-revered public figures."

"What they did is certainly wrong, but it isn't in any way unprecedented, or for that matter, unexpected. It's not off the charts...No public misdeed is too insignificant to earn our limitless fascination. Actor Joaquin Phoenix caused a stir this week following his appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman." His principal offenses: chewing gum and maintaining a generally unresponsive demeanor throughout what proved to be a very painful, unproductive interview... And thus ensued a heated debate about whether Mr. Phoenix was acting, on drugs or just spaced out. Meanwhile, in a nearby solar system, the stock market dropped another 400 points..."

"In light of the fact that we are facing one of the worst economic environments since the Great Depression, and are still in the throes of a global war against faceless, stateless terrorists, Michael Phelps can probably be forgiven for thinking that he could get away with taking a hit off that bong. And Jessica Simpson can probably be forgiven for scarfing down a few Twinkies."

"What accounts for the shock...? For one, we the public think that we know these people because we see them all the time on TV. Because of this, they root us in the here and now in a way run-of-the-mill white-collar villains do not. They have violated an old-fashioned code of morality that we can all understand in a way we cannot understand a $50 billion Ponzi scheme or the fact that Iceland has put out a 'Closed for Business' sign."

"From the therapeutic perspective, this is vastly superior to ranting about the latest depredations of Wall Street. No matter how much we froth and foam, none of us can lay a glove on imperious figures like John Thain or the haughty fat cats who run the auto industry or the inept regulators who let Mr. Madoff run wild in the first place. These folks all look the same, they all talk the same and the man in the street would have trouble picking any of them out of a police lineup. We don't really know them and we never will."

"It's the human scale of their malfeasance that makes them such inviting targets." (Mentioned in the headline, though not the article, Octomom.) "Ronald Reagan proved a long time ago that while it was impossible to get the public all riled up because the federal government was throwing away billions of dollars on this or that program, you could get them to blow their stacks by recounting a dubious anecdote about some conscienceless welfare queen on the south side of Chicago who was jobbing the public out of a few grand. This was partly because it was possible to put a human face on the welfare cheater, even if the story was vastly exaggerated, whereas the federal bureaucracy would forever remain vague and amorphous. But it was also because a few thousand bucks here and there was a number the average person could wrap his head around. Unlike, say, $700 billion."

ROG