The Washington Post offers tips on how to keep your EV battery running in frigid temperatures. The link at the end of this graf is supposed to be a "gift link" (from me, Marie Burns, the giftor!), meaning that non-subscribers can read the article. Hope it works: https://wapo.st/3u8Z705
Wednesday
Sep122012
The Commentariat -- Sept. 13, 2012
Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian: "All the rage and denunciations of these murders in Benghazi are fully justified, but one wishes that even a fraction of that rage would be expressed when the US kills innocent men, women and children in the Muslim world, as it frequently does. Typically, though, those deaths are ignored, or at best justified with amoral bureaucratic phrases ('collateral damage') or self-justifying cliches ('war is hell'), which Americans have been trained to recite.... It's as though there are two types of crimes: killing, and then the killing of Americans."
Steve Benen: The Census Bureau annual report, published yesterday, shows that "for the first time in three years, the percentage of the public with [health insurance] coverage went up, not down, going from 83.7% to 84.3%.... The Affordable Care Act is making a positive difference, before it's even fully implemented.... 'Obamacare' is working."
Bill Maher on how Tom Brokaw & his band of "balanced, both-sides-do-it" newscasters contribute to birthism and racism. Thanks to Kate M. for pointing me to Maher's blogpost. CW: Brokaw is also a pompous know-nothing -- sort of the Rand Paul of broadcast journalism. I don't expect old farts like Brokaw to be policy wonks; he made a spectacular living reading the news, not analyzing it. But he should stay off the pundit circuit if he wants to pontificate about the deficit & hasn't read Krugman or about health insurance & hasn't read Ezra Klein. He's an embarrassing reminder of what happened to broadcast "journalism" in the U.S. when the first generation of actual journalists -- who came up from radio or print media -- died or retired.
Nicholas Kristof cites impressive statistics on how the quality of teachers affects students' futures. CW: I find the results surprising because I came up thru a school district (Dade County, Florida) where the vast majority of the teachers were pretty awful but many of the students -- who were almost all from lower middle-class families -- ended up being tremendously successful. Anyway, Kristof's piece is quite convincing. Maybe what it means is that if students don't get encouragement at home, then effective teachers make up the deficit.
Presidential Race
Michael Lewis has a well-writ feature in Vanity Fair on how President Obama made the decision to aid the Libyan rebels. Contributor Dave S., who recommended the piece wondered at its coincidental timing.
Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times: "President Obama began what was supposed to be a boisterous campaign rally [in Las Vegas, Nevada] Wednesday before his most ardent group of supporters with a somber remembrance of the four Americans who were killed at the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday." ...
Peter Baker & Ashley Parker's New York Times article on L'Affaire Libya is an attempt at "fair-and-balanced" reporting that manages to make Romney look pretty bad. It will appear in today's print edition. However, the story mentions Romney's running fake complaint that "Obama goes around the world apologizing for the U.S." but omits the "fake" part, thus leaving the reader to guess if this is true or not. ...
... Philip Rucker's story in the Washington Post is much tougher on Romney, & so is the front-page headline: "Romney faces flak for assailing Obama on Libya." (The internal headline & URL are not so flashy.)
Brian Montopoli of CBS News: "In response to Mitt Romney's criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of recent violence in Egypt and Libya, President Obama ... told '60 Minutes' correspondent Steve Kroft at the White House. 'And I -- you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em.' Asked if Romney's attacks were irresponsible, the president replied, 'I'll let the American people judge that.'"
Matt Vasilogambros of the National Journal has a timeline of events leading up to & during the Libyan attacks. As Greg Sargent says, the timeline "demolishes Romney's version of events." ...
... Kasie Hunt of the AP: "The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of 'disgraceful' handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo." Headline: "Romney Misstates Facts on Attacks." ...
... Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's fact-checker: "We have looked in vain for an 'apology' in the Cairo [embassy] statement, as well as significant differences between that statement and earlier ones [going back to the Bush administration]. One could criticize the Cairo statement for lacking a meticulous defense of freedom of speech. But that is not the same thing as an apology -- especially since the embassy clearly issued the statement long before the protests began. This all started because some people got the timeline wrong. In the fog of war and protest, it often helps to get the facts straight before you act -- or speak."
"Romney Camp Tries to Manage Fallout from Libya Response." Peter Hamby of CNN: "Facing criticism for its aggressive and politically-charged response to Tuesday's violent attacks on the American embassies in Egypt and Libya, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign is quietly advising Republicans how to respond to questions about the campaign's handling of the episode." Hamby publishes the list of talking points. ...
... Because even the neocons who constitute the Washington Post Editorial board have this to say: the "tragedy" in Libya "should prompt bipartisan support for renewed U.S. aid to Libyans who are struggling to stabilize the country. That it instead provoked a series of crude political attacks on President Obama by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is a discredit to his campaign.... Mr. Obama struck the right tone on Wednesday...." ...
... Paul Krugman thinks that the real damage Romney did to himself was to his relationship with the media: "Romney has really ensured that everyone in the news media, the GOP propaganda organs aside, is going to view him with distaste and alarm -- as well they should. Romney could still win, but he has just made it even harder for anyone to consider him suitable for the job."
Andrew Sprung of Xpostfactoid: "In response to everything Obama does or says -- or, for that matter, anything his primary opponents did or said -- Romney's reaction is so knee-jerk condemnatory, so extravagantly worded, so predictably self-serving that the instinctive response for most listeners or readers not themselves besotted with hatred for the target has got to be, 'this guy is faking it.' ... A majority even of Republicans think that Romney typically 'says what he thinks people want to hear' rather than that he 'says what he believes.'" Via Kevin Drum of Mother Jones.
... It Was a Set-Up! Noam Scheiber of The New Republic talked to a former Romney advisor who said "Romney may have been feeling defensive over the hazing he took in Charlotte last week -- 'my opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,' the president tweaked him -- and was primed to hit back. 'They set him up Thursday night at the convention with the smack down on foreign policy,' says the former adviser. 'They called him naïve, Palin-esque. Then he got his back up about it and was waiting for opportunity to show, "I'm strong, too." CW: nothing more reassuring than having a president who can be easily punked. ...
... Gail Collins: "Two months to go and we're rethinking our presumption that the Republican primary voters picked the most stable option." ...
... Michael Cohen of the New York Daily News: Romney's "reaction to the violence in Egypt and Libya over a film mocking the religious beliefs of Muslims is truly one of the most brain-dead political acts that I've ever witnessed -- and it speaks volumes about his personal character and fitness for the nation's highest office.... "Put [it] all together and you have a political assault that is craven, dishonest and shameless all at once."
... Jon Chait of New York: "Romney had grown accustomed to spinning fantasies cobbled together from months-old Obama speeches and nurtured into legend by extensive repetition and exaggeration in the conservative subculture. What he failed to realize from the outset was that the embassy attack was an immediate, high-profile event that he could not hope to rewrite so brazenly. Forced to confront the yawning chasm between reality and the fantasy he had wallowed in so long, Romney was exposed and, justifiably, discredited." CW: this may be the price a person pays when he feels he is "entitled" to lie. Romney has been lying for years & no one but a few lonely voices on the left called him out. Since substantively there's no difference between lying about something that supposedly happened years ago & lying about something that happened yesterday, Romney couldn't see the difference. The difference, as Chait writes, was that everybody but the Tom Brokaw contingent can remember way back to yesterday. ...
... BUT the REAL leader of the Republican party -- that would be Rush Limbaugh -- said that "Romney is the only guy that looked presidential in all of this." CW: evidently Rushbo was aware that while Willard was looking presidential, he was also moving his lips, which made him sound like a lying lunatic.
Greg Sargent rounds up for recent polls that show Obama tied or slightly ahead of Romney on who would do a better job on managing the economy &/or creating jobs: "For much of the presidential race, polls have shown that Mitt Romney has led Barack Obama on the question of who would do a better job handling the economy.... Well, we now have four national polls that show Obama and Romney tied on the question -- perhaps suggesting a potentially significant shift in the race's dynamics." Sargent also notes that the Fox "News" poll finds that Obama is favored 51-40 on "who is more trusted to protect Medicare and ensure that it's there for future generations." ...
... Nate Cohn of The New Republic looks at the Fox "News" poll: "Collectively, these figures are terrible news for the Romney campaign. They have always claimed that their path to victory depended on voters resolving to dismiss the president on the grounds that his economic performance is a resounding failure, but voters appear to be drawing a different conclusion." Via Greg Sargent. ...
... CW: these poll results are not news to the Romney campaign. They do their own polling. These post-conventions results explain why Romney is attacking Obama on every front, even when the attacks make no sense and are counterfactual. The Romney camp's central belief -- that they could win on "Me-Businessman/He-Socialist" and nothing else -- has been eroding for a couple of months. Those Bain Capital attack ads -- that so annoyed Cory Booker -- worked.
Two theories of presidential election dynamics, which are not mutually exclusive: David Atkins of Hullabaloo: the electorate's relationship with President Obama is "complicated" & personal; Paul Krugman: Americans know the economy is still bad, especially for middle-class job-seekers, but they perceive it as moving in the right direction. ...
... CW theory: the Republican base prefers crazy candidates, & the GOP honchos think their candidates should be the ones who have "paid their dues"; i.e., run for POTUS previously -- Saint Ronnie, Pappy Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Rmoney; Dubya was a legacy pick. "Normal" voters are turned off by the flame-throwers (as Rmoney has become) & don't give a rat's ass (including Willard's) if a president is a former also-ran. ("I used to be a loser," is not that great a campaign pitch; "I used to be a loser, & now I'm crazy" is worse.) Notice that the successful Democratic candidates have been relative unknowns who never previously ran for president -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton & Barack Obama.
Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times: the Obama "campaign's big-dollar fund-raising has become more dependent than it was four years ago on a smaller number of large-dollar donors and fund-raisers. All told, Mr. Obama's top 'bundlers' -- people who gather checks from friends and business associates -- raised or gave at least $200 million for Mr. Obama's re-election bid and the Democratic National Committee through the end of May...."
Congressional Races
Frank Phillips of the Boston Globe: "Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- amid growing unrest from party activists and leaders -- is facing pressure to make a major shift in her television advertising with a new series of commercials that seek to soften her image, while focusing more directly on her GOP rival, Senator Scott Brown."
Edith Zimmerman profiles Joseph Kennedy III for the New York Times Magazine. Kennedy is running as a Democrat for U.S. Congress in the redrawn district of Barney Frank (D), who is retiring.
News Ledes
New York Times: "President Obama on Tuesday rejected an appeal by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to spell out a specific 'red line' that Iran could not cross in its nuclear program, a senior administration official said, deepening the divide between the allies.... In an hourlong telephone conversation..., Mr. Obama deflected Mr. Netanyahu's proposal to make the size of Iran's stockpile of close-to-bomb-grade uranium the threshold for a military strike by the United States against its nuclear facilities."
Reuters: "The United States on Thursday identified two additional victims of this week's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as former Navy SEALS who died trying to protect their colleagues. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty died in Tuesday's assault on the Benghazi consulate, which also killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, a State Department information management officer."
New York Times: "Following a blunt phone call from President Obama, Egyptian leaders scrambled Thursday to try to repair the country's alliance with Washington, tacitly acknowledging that they erred in their response to the attack on the United States Embassy by seeking to first appease anti-American domestic opinion without offering a robust condemnation of the violence."
New York Times: "The Federal Reserve opened a new chapter on Thursday in its efforts to stimulate the economy, announcing simply that it plans to buy mortgage bonds, and potentially other assets, until unemployment declines substantially."
AP: "Chanting 'death to America,' hundreds of protesters angered by an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Yemen's capital and burned the American flag on Thursday, the latest in a series of attacks on American diplomatic missions in the Middle East. The protesters breached the usually tight security around the embassy and reached the compound grounds but did not enter the main building housing the offices." ...
... New York Times Update: "Deadly outrage in the Arab world over an American-made video insulting Islam's founder spread to at least half a dozen places across the Middle East on Thursday and threatened to draw in Afghanistan, two days after assailants in Libya killed four American diplomatic personnel, including the ambassador, and caused a foreign policy political clash in the United States. The worst of the violence was in Yemen, where at least five Yemenis were killed as hundreds of protesters stormed the American Embassy and were repulsed by Yemeni security forces."
... Al Jazeera: "Protesters angered by an anti-Islam film have stormed the US embassy compound in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, as similar demonstrations have spread to several countries across the Middle East." ...
... New York Times: "Hours before the attacks in Benghazi on Tuesday, the American Embassy in Cairo came under siege from protesters. While the violence there did not result in any American deaths, the tepid response from the Egyptian government to the assault gave officials in Washington -- already troubled by the direction of President Mohamed Morsi's new Islamist government -- further cause for concern." ...
... Al Jazeera: "US officials confirmed to Al Jazeera that a special unit of roughly 50 members of the Marine Corps had been dispatched to Libya to reinforce the troops guarding diplomats there, as two warships headed to the Libyan coast." ...
... Reuters: "Security forces fired teargas to disperse stone-throwing demonstrators near the U.S. embassy in Cairo late on Wednesday, some 24 hours after protesters scaled the walls and tore down the flag over a film insulting the Prophet Mohammad." ...
... AP: "The anti-Muslim film implicated in mob protests against U.S. diplomatic missions in the Mideast received logistical help from a man once convicted of financial crimes and featured actors who complained that their inflammatory dialogue was dubbed in after filming. The self-proclaimed director of 'Innocence of Muslims' initially claimed a Jewish and Israeli background. But others involved in the film said his statements were contrived as evidence mounted that the film's key player was a southern Californian Coptic Christian with a checkered past."
ABC News: "Al Qaeda has released a new video of American hostage Warren Weinstein delivering a personal message to Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. In the video, Weinstein, 71, believed to be held in the tribal regions along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, appears healthy and calm, speaking in a soft, controlled manner."
Reuters: "The union for Chicago teachers and the third largest U.S. school district said they will try on Thursday to make a final push to settle a strike that has drawn national attention to the sweeping education reforms sought by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. As the strike of 29,000 public school teachers and support staff prepared to enter a fourth day, negotiators for the first time expressed optimism that the nasty fight could end soon." Chicago Tribune item here.
AP: "One of New York City's most ambitious efforts to prod residents to live healthier appears poised to pass as a health panel takes up a plan to cut down sales of big sodas and other sugary soft drinks. The Board of Health was set to vote Thursday on the proposal, which would bar sales of sugar-heavy drinks in more than 16-ounce cups or bottles in restaurants, movie theaters and some other settings." ...
... New York Times Update: "... The New York City Board of Health approved on Thursday a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, street carts and movie theaters, enacting the first restriction of its kind in the country."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (19)
"Both sides do it is rubbish!
Just picture.....
1, a journalist trying to defend the church burnings during the
Civil Rights era? What would they have said. "well both sides do it."?
2. comparing Roosevelt (that power grabber with 4 terms) putting young men to work with the CCC camps
with Hitler, that power grabber, putting men to work building the road system all over Germany and put young men in jobs (military). So which guy do you want? Roosevelt or Hitler, "they both do it."
Sometimes there is not 2 sides to an issue.
mae finch
"Was Photo of Dead Ambassador Acceptable?"
By MARGARET SULLIVAN (NYTimes Public Editor) on September 12.
The early comments to Ms. Sullivan's post suggest strong outrage from readers, which I can understand...and yet while scenes such as this perhaps create more issues than not...I often think we 'Nice Nellie" so much our news that we don't get it, see it, or understand the horrors taking place around the world...or here.
This could be a Pandora's box, I'll readily concede as that there are media outlets that would abuse such photo-stories showing horrific scenes or views of awful crimes and abuses - for ratings sake. All the voyeuristic, bloody awfulness on parade. No, I wouldn't wish to see that at all. On the other hand, because we aren't exposed to the truth of situations, outrage is easily muted. Example, Bush didn't want images of the coffins returning to Dover AFB shown. Making war nice, huh?
I've subscribed to Paris Match for many years...in part, because they don't pussyfoot around with their photojournalism. At times, I've gulped, I've been shocked and stunned by what I see...but so many times their photos clarify a story beyond the whitewashed versions we see in print with images that say nothing. Newsweek and Time don't even come close in capturing the essence, whether it is a crime or tsunami or Hurricane Katrina. We're great with aerial views. Is there some balance? Or once the genie is out of the box, fuggehdaboudit!
Bring on the counter arguments!
Coincendental (?) timing: Micheal Lewis has a profile of the Prez in the October issue of Vanity Fair:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama
Ms. Burns: Please be advised that the proper title is "Lady Ann." Not "Lady Romney." Although we severed our relationship with the Kingdom over two hundred years ago, that does not excuse sloppy forms of title and address. We may be commoners all, but we should be polite, correct commoners. In the US, men need not tug their forelocks when addressing or speaking of her; women need not curtsy. But proper use of titles remains the polite form.
Steve Benen's observation about the health insurance coverage percentage increase is all the more noteworthy in that this is occurring in a time of dire financial stress. Normally this percentage would decrease dramatically, with more people not working, and real income decreasing. Obamacare is working more than anyone realizes.
Re; They both do it. Finally I get to say it and my meaning can be taken to both sides of the table, "Fucking Fundamentalists". You just don't get it; Muhammad and Jesus spoke of the same Spirit. Their followers turn them into the fall guys for hate and greed the world over. Too fucking bad humans can't see past the past. Religion; the great cover-up.
@Patrick: I thought you were right; e.g., Prince Charles' wife was "Lady Diana" before she married. But my chancellor of protocol Wikipedia advises, " If a woman marries a Lord, she will become "(The) Lady husband's first name husband's last name." So technically, the lovely wife of Lord Willard Romney is Lady Willard Romney. Doesn't have the right ring.
Howevah, my protocol expert further advises that for the younger sons of Dukes & Marquesses (& that would include young Willard), "The holder is addressed as 'Lord Randolph' and his wife as 'Lady Randolph.'" I'm sticking with "Lady Romney" just so readers know I'm writing about Lady Willard, not some other Ann.
My own husband has been knighted, so once years ago I asked him -- not seriously -- if I could be called Lady Marie or Dame Marie, something like that. He said no. (He never uses his title.) So you may call me Marie, Patrick, & skip the honorific "Ms." which otherwise is appropriate.
Marie
MAG,
Photographs possess the power of immediacy, the captured moment, transience made permanent. And unlike a written description, painting, or drawing, a photograph presents us with an absolute analog of the world. It's a actual image (but is it always true?).
So what’s wrong with using photographs to present, in the most immediate and starkest terms, the consequences, good or bad, of our actions and reactions as a nation, the result of circumstances within our grasp which we have cornered and tamed, or those beyond our control which have spiraled crazily and augered into the pavement?
Photographs have the power to change our view of the world and to crystallize moments in time. Think of Walker Evans’ dustbowl photographs, the Abu Ghraib pictures, the image of a stunned and confused George Bush getting the news about the attacks on 9/11, the image of John-John Kennedy saluting his father’s passing caisson, the photographs of living corpses walking out of Nazi prison camps in 1945, or the shot of 15 year old Elizabeth Eckford moving the country inexorably into a world of desegregation in Little Rock, surrounded by the National Guard as a white woman screams at her from behind (more about that later).
I’m sure all of you have your own pantheon of memorable images, including those taken by and for and of your friends and family.
I’m a big believer in an open society. Bush’s attempt to hide all the bodies returning from a war he lied to start was one of his more disgraceful acts of cowardice (and there were many). For many years I’ve believed that states that have the death penalty should broadcast the executions live. Why not let the people see what is being perpetrated in their name? Oh, claim some. We can’t do that. It will brutalize the viewers. Really? So what. Maybe it will be a good thing.
I’ve never been one to go along with the idea of many (most) on the right that films, for instance, should be censored or forced to restrict certain imagery. But once I became a dad, I wasn’t all that keen for my son to see those things. Why? You know why. Imagery is immensely powerful. I don’t think someone watching Criminal Minds is going to go out and become a serial killer, but I do worry about the kind and level of violence portrayed in many instances. But that’s a slightly separate argument.
Let me tell you about an image that has haunted me since the moment I first saw it. Legendary photojournalist Robert Capa snapped an image of a soldier at the moment of his death during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. The guy is holding a carbine and his body is snapped back by the force of the bullet. He is lit straight on by the sun with his falling shadow captured on the hillside behind him. It’s a stunningly urgent image of sudden death in war.
But it may not be real.
At least that’s the growing consensus. It appears that Capa staged it, which, if true, puts a black mark on his legend and throws the rest of his work into a bad light (even though the vast majority, I believe, is accurate and amazing).
So not everything we see in photos is real, for one thing. Also, there is the matter of framing. In 1968 during the riots in Chicago--you remember, “The whole world’s watching!”. A famous film shot of the riots seems to depict a huge confrontation with activists, police in riot gear, the smoke from tear gas, the rubber bullets, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin on bullhorns. The whole schmeer. Photos of the event shot at the same time and place are framed with a wide shot that shows a much smaller crowd than was evident on the film, which looked like Armageddon on Lake Shore Drive. This is not to diminish what happened in Chicago that summer, merely to say that selective focus and framing can convey an impression that is not altogether accurate. And it’s easy to do.
Next, we have the biggest bugaboo of all: Context and presentation.
Errol Morris recently considered problem in a series of brilliant NY Times Opinionator pieces. He took a single photograph of a Mickey Mouse doll on the ground outside a smashed apartment complex in Lebanon, the work of an Israeli airstrike. The meaning of the photograph, hence its political impact, is instantly changed by the way the image is presented, either as a condemnation of Israel, or an indictment of Hezzbollah for using the residents of those buildings as human shields. A viewer might be predisposed to lean one way without the editorial description, but it demonstrates the insidious power of context.
Yesterday, here in Red State World, a colleague rushed into my office to show me a picture of US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, being “dragged” (his description) by militants “through the streets”. He got the pictures from a Fox site which wasn’t being too careful of its descriptions of the events. I was told in no uncertain terms that they had “strangled our ambassador” because the description mentioned that he been choked to death. The actual cause of death, apparently, was asphyxiation due to a rocket blast that sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Not a much nicer way to go, admittedly. And the man “dragging” the ambassador’s body “through the streets” was apparently a rescue worker trying to recover the body.
But you see what I'm getting at. Context matters. Just look at how Romney framed the event. Quod erat demonstrandum.
During the Civil War, Matthew Brady had a number of highly successful showings of his famous plates. Images of bodies strewn about the Devil’s Den at Gettysburg still haunt. But most of those images were contextualized by the viewers themselves. A Civil War era Sean Hannity wasn’t peering over the shoulders of viewers whispering horrific things into their ears.
All of this is to say that I’m conflicted about these things. I do believe openness demands that we see more than we typically are shown, but we see so much already, most of it with disconnected, spurious, or downright iniquitous contextual commentary which can do far more harm than good.
And before I sign off, a word about intentions. In that famous photograph of Elizabeth Eckford, shot by photographer Will Counts, there is a very slight adjustment of focus that changes the subject of the photograph entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Rock_Desegregation_1957.jpg
Look closely at the focus. It’s not a picture of Elizabeth Eckford after all. She’s in it. But the focus is on the white woman walking behind her screaming, a woman named Hazel Massery. Counts was looking, at least in this photograph, not so much at Eckford's bravery and resolve on that day, but at the result of pure racism coming out in the face of this woman.
There are many paths to truth, you just have to be careful where you step.
A word about yesterday's hard-luck comments: I was touched by all the empathetic responses to everyone's plights and feel I am in the midst of the best in humanity, not to mention we seem to be all democrats which given our backgrounds isn't surprising.
Romney's gaffe is our gift.
Greenwald's message resonates with me. I felt the same after 9/11 as did Susan Sontag who expressed this message in an article in The Guardian and got lambasted for it. For many in this country have tunnel vision and cling onto a belief system that gets passed down generation after generation waving their flags, pledging their allegiance, while their attack dogs take big bites out of those who walk in different shoes.
Merely Marie instead of Lady or Dame seems tame, but thanks to her humble knight (in shining) she remains our constant companion who sifts through the weeds and brings us the seeds of illumination. I think we can all be thankful for the torn diploma of years past.
Republicans are funny.
Really. They are.
So yesterday that man of the people and defender of rights for all women, John Kyl, R(etard), AZ, stated that the embassy response to the crazy anti-Islam movie, a response calculated to try to wind down the tension by stating that provocative films like this one which insult religious beliefs are not condoned by the US, is the same as blaming a woman who dresses provocatively for being raped.
I know. Go figure it out.
First, I have no doubt that a far right, patriarchal prick like Kyl WOULD blame a woman for being raped if he decided that she had "provoked" her attacker(s), which makes it all the more hypocritical that he should choose that particular analogy with which to smack anyone decrying the insulting nature of a film portraying the prophet Mohammed as a child molester. This isn't provocative, this is an invitation to a street fight. This is applying the rudest fratboy epithets to someone's mother. Worse, actually.
Just imagine how the wingnuts would react if a Muslim (or any other) group made a film depicting Jesus as a deluded nincompoop, or having sex with animals, or raping a little boy?
Would they say "Oh, it's just crazies?" Maybe some would. But the real propeller heads? They'd be cleaning the guns. They would demand that the president nuke and pave the whole fucking country. And Sarah Palin would ask to see the size of his dick. Again. (Something about Todd going on with that? Maybe a penis extension operation or something?)
Of course Romney would tell everyone that if only HE was in the White House, he'd blast everyone to their constituent atoms and THEN ask questions. Because that's the kind of guy he is.
And of course right-wing gasbag and anal cyst boy Rushbo declared categorically that Romney's unthinking, uniformed, preternaturally puerile response was entirely correct, and presidential to boot.
So you see, Republicans are funny.
Like a diagnosis of cancer.
The following article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most prestigious journals in medicine) this week shows that if you are against the expansion of Medicaid in Obamacare, then you are pro-death.
"Mortality and Access to Care among Adults after State Medicaid Expansions."
N Engl J Med 2012;367:1025-34
Constant Weader: if you send me an email, I will send back to you the entire article in adobe format. Thanks!
Akillheus, appreciate the well-delineated response...you thoughtfully posited the positive and negative aspects that need to be considered before simply publishing or, more importantly, EXPLOITING every sensational news event.
I recall many of the photos you mentioned...and having read about the Capra controversy in the past was aware it might have been staged. It's so true, photos have a huge impact as to how we recall history. In most cases, a picture is worth a thousand words (such as the powerful "Elizabeth Eckford" photo) — as for others, as long as they are (accurately) captioned in detail!
There definitely is the "on-the one-hand and then on-the-other" conundrum this poses.
Time again to ponder just why we are spending so much treasure and so many lives in the Middle East - and what is stopping us from vastly reducing our presence there.
Victoria,
A timely and appropriate suggestion.
Unfortunately, the Middle East is, and will be for some time to come, the hotspot it's been for the last several thousand years, a major difference being that since the end of WWI, the stakes have gone up a thousandfold.
I don't think we can rightfully detach ourselves from what's going on there, surely not if we want to have some influence on how events unfold there. The big problem, for the West, and especially the US is how we spend our gold and our time and resources there. It can't be done in the same bellicose way we've been doing it, and it can't be in some la-la fantasy land that lackadaisical pundits like Tom Friedman yearn for while sipping drinks with names like "Skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee", poolside at their mansions while fielding sycophantic calls from media whores like Chuck Todd and Fluffy Gregory.
We need serious solutions that don't directly require military involvement (especially in the long run, a la the neo-con, Bush-Cheney, GI Joe fantasy approach). It needs to be a carefully crafted adult solution that relies on a knowledge and appreciation of local history and customs (do you remember reading that no one on Bush's senior staff knew the difference between Suni and Shia Muslims when they started bombing the Christ out of Iraq?) and a skillful use of diplomacy, economic and cultural engagement, and coalition building that doesn't require the Okay of knee-jerk ignoramuses like the Palins and Bachmans and, well, shit, every single Republican in Congress.
It's a long game and it requires us to expend our capital wisely.
Now whether that's doable, given the droolers and cynical manipulators who want control of this process, is another thing.
But I don't think there's any way around our involvement in that region.
In the meantime, as a backboard strategy (chess being another form of long game), we need to wean ourselves off oil.
Period.
Being hostage to OPEC will always compromise our ability to play from a strong position. And fracking and "drill baby drill" type strategies is not the way to go either.
A simple way would be to get rid of all Republicans, but since that's unlikely, given the rightward bent of all the media nowadays, we have to come up with another strategy.
Easy? Nope. Necessary? Yes.
Akhilleus,
The slavery to oil conundrum was in the forefront of my concern. Yes, we do have to wean ourselves off foreign oil, and not just. Y "drill, baby..." that, in fact, is already occurring. Though perhaps not the way some would wish.
If we were not dependent on their oil, what then would be our strategic interest in the region? Obvious protecting from or LI icing a regional war would be one, but leaving the area - at least partially - might actually further that interest.
Okay here's where I say "One more and then I'm done".
Picking up from the link Marie provided (by the way Marie, your editorial asides today are top shelf, personal fave being "Nothing more reassuring than a president who can be easily punked." Ain't it the truth?) I see that polls indicate that The Rat's camp has banked on getting the smelly proles to buy into his "Me good, Nee-gro Bad" gambit and basically, at least so far, getting skunked.
In the polls.
That's good news on one hand. But on the other, poll results are not the same as voting results, and we can't forget that if, in early November, we see polls favoring the president by 15 points over The Rat, it won't matter a whit.
The right is dispatching stormtroopers to (illegally) challenge anyone they deem impure from voting (ie, Democrats) and if that doesn't work, to outright steal the election through rigged ballot boxes and scuzzy, easily hackable (made to be hacked) election software.
Remember Ohio in '04? Remember the substantial lead Kerry had? And remember how that lead, the next day, mysteriously vanished and had Chimp-in-Charge winning by 5 or 6 points?
It doesn't matter what polls say.
Rove is on the job. Stealing, stealing, stealing.
The Rat could possibly get 40% of the actual vote and still move into the White House in January.
@Akhilleus: I know you're right. One sliver of light: my polling place has primarily black voters, & the Obama 2008 effort was impressive. They were calling registered Democrats who hadn't voted by early afternoon, they were bringing in voters in vans, & they had lawyers on site to challenge the poll workers who denied people the vote.
I saw nothing like that in 2000 & 2004, so I'm hoping the Obama camp makes the same effort this year as it did in 2008. Obama won Florida by only a couple of percentage points in 2008, & he'll need the same effort this year, especially here at GOP Coast.
Marie
The Daily Kos is looking for volunteers to go down to Florida to register voters and take people to the polls. Since Oregon is not in contention, and I am tired of the few crazy Tea Party nutsos in my little Paradise, I am thinking of going. I am still in the "thinking" stage, but getting more pissed off by the moment. And anyway, what is the use of being a community organizer if you are just walking around pissed off and taking no action, she said to herself!
Robert Reich talked about the health care numbers