This is awesome. A visualized Twitter hash cloud, chronicling the Egyptian uprising.  It illustrates the power and triumph of the human spirit in the age of social media.

H/T: Daily Dish

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Self immolation.  Absolutely astounding.

The dichotomy of  human beings wanting  to control their lives, even at the expense of them is simply striking.  Here is more context on the protest:

The video is popularly credited with helping inspire fellow Egyptians by the thousands to participate in protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, calling for an end of the 30-year authoritarian rule of Hosni Mubarak. The video is also credited with helping to inspire the Egyptian government to block Facebook. Whether it’s accurate to credit this one video, and this one young woman, with all of that, I’ll leave to activists in Egypt who know the history better than I. But at the very least, her powerful video captures the spirit of an important moment in history.

Egyptians showing such faith in democratic principles should inspire all of us.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Rand Paul is the new face of the republican party.  Rand, the son of longtime republican congressman Ron Paul, is the candidate who’s the culmination of the angst and anger felt by voters in the country today. Paul the younger has benefited from the anti-establishment rancor, and has developed a significant following amongst the ever growing Tea Party wing of the republican party.

The Pauls are libertarians, and their philosophy espouses a maximization of personal liberties and a limit to government intervention.  Many on the right champion these ideals.  But the Pauls’ ideology seems to take a drastic right turn, even from republican thinking–in their thoughts on democracy– and its application toward individual rights:

Not to be confused with a republic, a democracy is a system in which, theoretically, what the majority says goes. The reality, however, is more complex and much uglier. In a democracy, various political elites struggle for control of the state apparatus by appealing to the material interests of large voting blocks with promises of legalized graft.

Imagine how this would play at those countless Tea Party protests?  Many protesters castigate democrats, specifically President Obama, over his percieved takeover of the democratic process. Yet Paul’s libertarianism frowns upon the principles of democracy, an intrinsic core value amongst the American people.  Where were the signs excoriating this at those countless rallies?

The Paul family’s link to libertarianism goes back a while.  It can be traced to a think tank called The von Mises Institute.  Here’s a little about it’s inception, and the elder Paul’s involvement:

The politics of the organization are complicated–its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”–but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

Is this a completely fair assessment of the family ideology?  Perhaps not, but both Ron and Rand’s views on policy and personal rights, have roots in this radicalized individualist thinking.  Rand Paul was a young man when his father’s views germinated.  It would not be fair to claim he had knowledge of these statements, or the institute’s writings.  But in the next piece, you will start to see that the links in the chain seem to be forged of the same steel.

(Coming Wednesday:  Race issues)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Tea Party movement’s influence and rabid energy is being felt throughout the corridors of the capitol in Washington, D.C. as well as the hot pavement and dusty plains of America.  The group, who believe in less government, is the driving force behind the republican party’s efforts to retake congress in this year’s midterm elections.  But what do we really know about the movement– besides it’s disdain for big government?

Tea Party members tend to be white males, over 40, and wealthier and more educated than the general populace.  This tends to fly in the face of those who’ve conjured images of Tea Partiers who live in rural communities, and have less education than other supporters of the republican party.  Here’s a quick snapshot from the New York Times of what Tea Party supporters generally feel:

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, despite some conservative leaders urging a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

Let’s examine this more closely.  Anger toward Washington may have nothing to do with high taxes, high deficits, or even Washington incumbency.  The apparatus responsible  for the formulation and growth of the Tea Party is a contempt and ambivalence toward the poor.  Tea Party anger may not be aimed at health care reform directly, but for whom the actual reform is meant to help. Here’s more from the Times:

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

If the majority of Tea Party supporters believe that President Obama does not share their values, and his policies are intended to help minorities, then what’s gestating beneath the surface isn’t just antipathy toward politics as usual.  In what manner is this White House’s policies benefiting black Americans, or minorities in general?  Black unemployment is nearly twice as high as the American average.  In fact, there is a strong cross-section of black leadership–including members of congress– who believe the exact opposite. 

They’ve called on the president to create a Black Agenda in order to properly address the needs of black Americans.  President Obama has rejected that notion, instead choosing to enact policies that benefit all Americans–particularly middle-class Americans.  So this perception on the part of Tea Partiers is at best skewed, and at worst bigoted.  So why would the Tea Party movement have this perception in the first place?

It stands to reason that they believe only the privileged few– those whose quantifiable worthiness is measured by their ability to project their “Americanness”– can reap the benefits of government benevolence.  The idea of a new Contract With America, reinforces the notion the some whites in the movement refuse to relinquish their grip on the structures of power.  This new Contract from America offers this basic tenet:

“The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders.”

In short; they believe in a limited government that restricts aid to minorities and the poor–those undeserving dregs of American society.  It is the re-creation of a brand of white nationalism, meant to reawaken the spirit of the Founding Fathers.  The Founding Fathers– who at one time displayed their antipathy toward blacks and native Americans– by railing against full citizenship status for them–and instituting political structures to prevent it from occurring.

Could this be a coincidence?  There have always been forms of white nationalism rooted into the framework of the American socio-political landscape.  Tea Party members have become the progenitors of a slice of radical, racially charged American ideology, determined to jettison those deemed unworthy of America’s promise.  Clearly a provocative statement, but given some of these quotes, is it really that far off?

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

Let me make three points here.  One:  Ms. Mayhugh is receiving medicare benefits– and as an American it is her right to do so– but she is participating in a program with many socialistic values.  She, like many conservatives, refuse to engage in debate about scaling back the program to limit its size and scope.  Here’s a quote from another Tea Partier about this very idea:

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Of course she didn’t.  She only wants other, less deserving people to lose things they might need.  How is it be possible to reconcile your disdain for big government, while being complicit in its continued pattern of growth and waste?

Point two:  Sarah Palin– the GOP superstar who headlines most of these tea party rallies– is a vocal critic of the president and his socialist agenda.  Yet it was Palin who raised taxes on oil companies as governor of Alaska, then distributed the money to the state’s citizens.  I don’t have an issue with her raising taxes–especially for the purpose of righting a corrupt tax loophole– I do have an issue with the hypocritical stance she’s taken, and the her lack of acknowledging her own socialistic past. 

My point is simply this:  Elements of this society–from medicare, to social security, to pell grants for college, to unemployment benefits are socialist in nature.  There may be some who are critical of this point, but even they at some point will partake in one of this government programs.  And they will be drinking from the same socialist fountain.

Point three:  When I listen to the speakers, and the rhetoric, I hear words or terms such as patriot and American values.  The movement seems to be using code words to denote the underlying theme in a lot of their protest.  A good portion of these protesters don’t believe the president shares their values–and some believe he isn’t even a citizen of this country.  Just read Ms. Mayhugh’s quote.  She believes he’s a Muslim, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. 

His ascendance to Pennsylvania Avenue embodies every literal fear some white nationalists have about their nation.  A black man, as alien and unrelatable to them as possible, gains power and begins to distribute it to his black and brown minions–amassing an army of militant minority militiamen, primed for the ultimate insurgency– to reshape their America into some unholy image.  Take back our country indeed.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’m, for one — I know it’s not politically correct to say it — I believe in racial and ethnic profiling. I think if you’re looking at people getting on an airplane and you have X amount of resources to get into it, you get at the targets, and not my wife. And I just think it’s something that should be looked into. The statement that’s made, it’s probably 90 percent true with some exceptions like the Murrah federal office building in my state, Oklahoma. Those people, they were not Muslims, they were not Middle Easterners. But when you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the age of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners between the age of 20 and 35, that’s by and large true. –Senator James Inhofe, (R-OK)

When I was in the tenth grade, I had a friend who attended a catholic high school about two miles from my public school.  On occasion, several of my other friends and I used to walk the distance to go meet up with him.  We thought nothing of the trek, other than the fact that we wished he’s gone to our school instead.  One particular day, three of us made the journey to meet him for a game of basketball.  We walked right up to the front gates, as we normally did, and waited for him.  This time, one of the nuns came out of the front office to meet us.  This was an unusual occurrence.  Of the countless trips I’d made to see my friend, none of the nuns ever deigned to set foot outside for any reason.

The nun, all four feet of her– clenched her fists nervously– and said in a rather standoffish tone that the three of us needed to wait across the street.  I told her that we were waiting for a friend.  Again, she told us to wait across the street for him.  Rather than get into a bizarre argument over something quite minor, the three of us walked the 50 yards across the busy street.  As soon as my foot met the cracked curb, three police cars– lights flashing and sirens blaring–rolled up right behind us.  Six police officers hurriedly jumped out of their vehicles, and proceeded to throw us all against them.  Trying to discern the reason why we were all being treated as if we had just robbed a bank, was a secondary thought to the sheer terror pulsing through my body.  Was I going to jail? Why? What were we guilty of?

As it turned out, there were a few break-ins in the well kept neighborhood the school resided in.  I reasoned that the nuns called the police as soon as we made our approach onto school grounds.  After a few minutes of telling police who we were and why we were there, they let us go with a warning:  Don’t come into this area until the suspects are apprehended.

I left, without my two friends, visibly shaken and angry.  The was the first time I was profiled.  As a 15 year old kid,  just for going to see a friend of mine.  For those who don’t know, there is this degrading sense of shame and anger in being profiled.  Your rights as an American citizen are challenged, based upon some supposed method model of criminal activity.  You fit the profile because you may be the same color– or speak the same language, or pray to the same God– as the intended targets.  But you are a model citizen.  You don’t have a criminal record.  You do all of the right things.  And you are still the target of some ill-conceived, comprehensive model of criminal behavior  It made me sick.  It makes me sick today.

My story is intended to illustrate a point.  Last week Colleen Larose, better known now as “Jihad Jane” –was apprehended by authorities on suspicion of recruiting for terror organizations, and plotting to kill an artist in Sweden.  Ms. Larose is a white woman with blond hair and blue eyes, far from the norm of what our perceived conception is of a terrorist.

Does this change the dynamic of profiling in the eyes of those wanting to do it?  It should.  Believe me, I want our country to be as safe as humanly possible.  I don’t want to have to worry about nut jobs high-jacking airplanes, or exploding bombs on city buses.  But in an unpredictable world where things are never what they seem, racial profiling is emblematic of our false attempts at weeding out true criminals and terrorists. It not only infringes upon our civil rights, it does not work nearly as well as its proponents believe. I could ask all of my readers what their idea of a terrorist looks like, and I’m sure I won’t get Colleen Larose.  But that is the reality right now.  So was Tim McVeigh.  So was Ted Kaczynski.  So was Adam Pearlman.  So was Richard Reid.  Maybe we should just profile everyone Senator Inhofe?  I wonder how that would make some Americans feel?  Would it make then feel as I did back in high school?

Racial profiling doesn’t catch criminals, it generates assumptions and spreads grievous generalities that in the long run, harm our society far more than terrorist ever could.

UPDATE: As this post hits the interwebs, a second white woman has been arrested and charged in the Islamist conspiracy.  “Jihad Jamie’s” arrest further buffers the points I make in my post.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For those who haven’t seen the seminal film The Birth of a Nation, it remains to this day revered by some as a significant cinematic achievement– because of its usage of technical innovation– the usage of lighting, editing and close-ups was ahead of its time.  It’s also despised for its graphically stereotypical portrayals of Black people, as everything from sex-crazed beasts, to mammies, sambos and toms.  

Quite frankly, I cannot quite grasp the technical achievements of the film, due to the overwhelming urge I get to wretch every time I see one of Griffith’s black characters cross the screen.  But in unearthing this American “classic” over the weekend, I noticed one particular black character– whose motivation and behavior in the film conjured a host of metaphorical imagery for me relating to today’s political culture:  His name was Silas Lynch.

In Griffith’s tale, Silas Lynch is the dastardly villain– the man who almost single-handedly destroys the way of life that white people enjoyed– before the civil war ripped the union asunder.  Lynch is given all of the trappings of a maniacal despot:  He thirsts for power, indulges heavily in alcohol consumption, is wracked with seething rage and animalistic blood-lust, and suffers from an uncontrollable, deviant sexual appetite.  In the film, the Lynch character appears in its second half–after President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination– to seemingly symbolize a clear, calculated distinction between good and evil. 

Lynch, as a black man, represents everything that is destructive and wrong about post Civil War America. He is free to act upon his desires– and he desires power, the subjugation of the white race, voting opportunities for blacks, and the legalization of interracial relations.  In short, he aspires to be equal– which is anathema to the America Griffith has created. There is one more fascinating aspect to Silas Lynch though.  One that is the impetus for this story:  Silas Lynch was biracial.

It was a relatively innocuous observation on my part.  Until I actually thought about it.  It began five days ago with the release of the Republican National Committee’s fundraising document.  The RNC’s game plan– using fear to generate money to fight our country’s precipitous slide into socialism– was not shocking in and of itself.  The images used to project this fear were.  Barack Obama, the nation’s first black commander-in-chief, is of mixed parentage.  The son of a white mother and a black (Kenyan) father– President Obama has reveled proudly in his biracial heritage– extolling it in books and countless speeches. But in this flyer, you have Barack Obama– the black President of the United States– portrayed as a ghoulish spook in white face. 

A black man in white face. This was the same image we’ve all seen in the last year and half–produced by crazies mostly out of the mainstream.  But this time it’s different. This time, this image was circulated by the Republican National Committee– the legitimate fundraising and organizing arm of the national party.  The party hell-bent on turning Barack Obama into Silas Lynch.

In the last year and a half, I’ve watched as opponents of the president have painted him as everything from a Nazi, to a Marxist, to a Socialist, to an illegitimate citizen of Kenya who stole the election, to a rabid fomenter of anarchy– using the Constitution as toilet paper in his quest to usurp power.  The strategy of fear.  This is the re-invention of Silas Lynch in modern times. President Obama has become the evil tragic mulatto, out to destroy the country and the white race.

In Birth of a Nation, Griffith portrays the biracial Lynch as a divider, not a uniter.  His bronze skin is literally and figuratively symbolic of black -white relations, and the disunity it brings.  It is Lynch’s very existence that is tainted and foul–he is not just black, he is the product of a union between black and white– and this was considered corrupt and against God.  The mulatto was the chaos bringer, thought to be power-hungry and salaciously conniving and evil.  Silas Lynch has morphed into Barack Obama.

Fear is a powerful deterrent to change. Fear is projecting Barack Obama as the divider, whose ideals and methods are contrary to what a unified nation should be.  This goes to the heart of republican dissent today.  In essence, the incessant fear-mongering and that subsequent RNC document has accomplished its goal.  The injection of fear has successfully immobilized rational debate, and paralyzed leadership in Washington.  D.W. Griffith’s prophetic racist vision has provided the backdrop for this new strain of political theater.

Perhaps this is some new, dangerously upgraded version of the Southern Strategy.  Whatever the motivations of those engaged in this reckless approach, it proves that the color of fear remains.  And Silas Lynch lives on in American politics, reborn in the 44th President.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

wrightandleftreport’s candidate for the sixth congressional district in Minnesota, Dr. Maureen Reed, speaks at the Senate District 14 Convention. Dr. Reed is challenging incumbent Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

UPDATE:  I apologize to those of you who tried to play the stream and found it was unavailable.  Apparently, the White House site was down.  Is that a bad omen?  I mean think about it. How can the government run health care, if the damn white house server can’t even sustain streaming video?  I kid.  Sort of.

The day has arrived.  The White House and congressional democrats and republicans get together at Blair House, to bash each other’s heads against the wall debating health care reform.  Conservatives are looking for democrats to participate in “good faith,” by flushing the bill down the toilet, and starting from scratch with their ideas.  Democrats are unsure of the level of commitment from the white house and their own midterm prospects– even though the president introduced his own bill just days ago, validating his engagement.  The media has pronounced health care reform dead more times than Jason Voorhies.

Maybe we’ll finally have the answer to these pertinent questions:  Is health care reform really dead?  Will there be any type of bipartisanship coming out of this circus?  Will someone die in that room in Blair House?  Watch all of the sordid drama below, streaming live from Whitehouse.gov.  You can also participate in the live chat.  Exercise your right as an American to yell and squeal at other Americans.  It’s pure democracy in action.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The National Tea Party Convention concluded this past weekend, and  If you’ve already read part one, then you know that the tone of the convention was set very early on.  Racial paranoia wafted heavily in the air over the weekend, dampening the intended message of anti-tax, and anti-government intervention the movement was trying to focus on.  It’s hardly a surprise that beneath the surface of the angry, pro-liberty message– exists a bubbling brew of right-wing extremist views– and disdain for cultural changes taking place in the country.  As the convention dragged on, more emphasis seemed to be place on social commentary, and divisive issues.  Here’s an example:

The birther meme seemed to be in vogue, as evidenced by WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah’s widely praised speech about the president’s birth certificate, and his citizenship:

“The media, the politicians … all say, no, it’s all been settled. I say, if it’s been settled show us the birth certificate. Simple,” Farah’s said, as his remarks were cheered by the roughly 600 activists gathered in Nashville for the event.

Farah’s role as publisher of the ultra-conservative WorldNetDaily, affords him a consistent base to launch virulent attacks on the president’s citizenship, and fitness for office as seen here.  Farah also led the charge in urging the 600 tea partiers in attendance to engage in a cultural war, and to “take over not only the political institutions, but the cultural institutions, like the press, the entertainment industry, the universities, and yes the churches.”

What occurred after Farah’s speech was, in my estimation, the high point of the entire convention.  Farah got into a heated confrontation with conservative media magnate Andrew Breitbart about the birther issue.  The exchange was almost to good to believe, especially if you believe that the birthers have lost touch with reality.  Here’s a few amazing snippets.  Farah is first, followed by Breitbart:

“It is a winning issue!”

“It’s not a winning issue.”

“It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility–”

“You don’t recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order.”

“Nothing exposes the president’s–”

“Then prove it!”

“The press isn’t asking the question–”

“Prove it!”

“Prove what?”

“Prove your case.”

Read the full, amazing text here.  I highly recommend it.

I don’t necessarily have any issues with protest and voter antipathy toward politicians.  In fact, it should be a part of our DNA to engage in active civic discourse.  What demeans the entire process is irrational paranoia and fear-mongering.  It disguises the fundamental disagreements we all have, and dilutes political engagement.  This birther issue is being ridden to the point of exhaustion, and there is no salient outcome that would appease its proponents–save the resignation of the president.

In a way, birthers exist in that same parallel universe homophobes do– questioning existing truths already known– and denying the actual realities because of those truths.  The strains of homophobia were present in Nashville, as speakers denounced the president’s proclamation of a “gay pride month.”  The former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court stated that the president “has elevated immorality to a new level.”  But this one quote takes the proverbial cake:

“[Obama] has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He has elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of June to celebrate gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender pride. He now threatens to change our law to allow homosexuality in our military … He’s apologized to the Arab world for our past, subjugated our national sovereignty by bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia. He has pursued a socialist agenda by taking control of private companies and pushing a national health care plan with a public option. Backed by a willing Congress, he’s bought off our senators and representatives with our own money in an effort to mandate his agenda.”

Not exactly creating a warm inviting climate in my opinion.  But then, that wasn’t the point here.  The point was to release all of their pent up repression about how this country had the temerity to change, and elect new leadership.  Eight years of ramped up deficits, misguided foreign policy, and illegal torture procedures did nothing to dampen their appetite for more of the same.

And where does Sarah Palin fit into all of this?  Quite snugly actually.  As the keynote speaker Saturday night, Palin pulled out her usual rhetorical assault of President Obama, and the state of the country.  But there was one important difference in her recycled rant this time:  Palin used a black sharpie to remind herself of her talking points.  It wasn’t unusual in and of itself, except for two thing:  She was already reading from prepared notes, and she only wrote down three things on her left hand.  It makes you wonder how prepared she would be if she had to do a Q&A session in hostile territory without the benefit of any prep time (As most politicians worth their salt have to do from time to time).  She couldn’t remember three words?  Maybe she is the right person to lead this movement.

This convention, for all of its blustery, anti-government animus, exposed some seriously dark elements of tea party society. Right or wrong, the meaningful policy arguments this movement may have, will be shrouded under the shadowy hateful rhetoric of many of its speakers.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Photo courtesy of The Nation

Okay, let’s take a closer look at President Barack Obama’s first year in office.  Realizing that every possible medium is doing the same thing one year after the historic inauguration, I plan on taking a different approach here.  After this turbulent year in politics, who do we have in the oval office?  Is President Obama the change we all expected?  Was he the transformative agent the masses made him out to be?  To put it simply, yes and no.

Barack’s Finest hours:

Declassifying memos from President Bush’s legal counsel, that exposed torture techniques the CIA was engaged in.  Look, you can crap on the move all you want, but if you’re an incoming president, determined to transform the atmosphere in Washington from the previous administration–Then this is an important move.  Trying to instill a sense of openness and transparency in government, will go a long way in restoring trust on the part of the people. It was bold, controversial, and correct in my opinion.

His Oslo acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize;  His speech in Cairo. They were fine moments, because they injected heft back into our foreign policy, and they rejected the theme of all-out war with the Islamic world.  That distinction is vitally important.   Having military gravitas with direction is a necessary substitute for an aimless foreign policy.  The president’s speeches re-affirmed our position in fighting a war against rogue states and terrorists bent on our destruction– while seeking to remain grounded to the ideas of pragmatism and relationship building– with those who’d be best served as our allies.

Health Care, Health Care, Health Care. Even those who don’t agree can see that this was a bold, potentially defining (one way or the other) initiative.  I think most of the blow back has occurred because of the amount of time this issue has sapped from other issues.  And in a tough economy, health care reform was always going to be a tough sell.  But it was the right sell, and the right time to sell it, despite the obstacles.  The ideas in the bills on the hill will initiate greater change than we’ve ever seen in this country’s history.  Keep in mind health care reform has been contemplated for over 100 years.  It is, potentially,the greatest piece of legislation this country has ever seen– and it is closer to coming to fruition than ever before.  Kudos President Obama.

Sonia Sotomayor:  It was indeed a year of change.  Nominating the first Hispanic to the nation’s highest court deserves a finest hour nod.  Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation was not without its share of controversy, but the pick was the right one, and it will resonate with Latino-Americans– and all Americans– for years to come.

Coming Friday:  Barack Obama’s low points

George W. Bush:  Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Barack Obama:     Defense Secretary Robert Gates

George W. Bush:  Federal Reserve Chair Benard Bernake

Barack Obama:    Federal Reserve Chair  Bernard Bernake

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.