Search Episodes (If You Love Serve)

A Message To Seven Churches

Added 04/23/12
158 Views

A Message To Seven Churches

Added 04/23/12
0 Views

'Sin City 2' Cast Confirmed

Added 04/19/12
0 Views

Scott Walker Ramps Up the Extremism

Added 04/07/12
1 Views

Scott Walker Ramps Up the Extremism

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 16:30:21 04/07/12
In advance of his upcoming recall election and possible legal trouble, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has become even more extreme, ramping up the rhetoric and taking actions that are troubling, to say the least. Most importantly, he signed a repeal of the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act : > Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is facing a recall election, quietly repealed a state law making it easier for pay discrimination victims to seek justice. Amanda Terkel reports in The Huffington Post that Walker signed into law a bill passed in party-line votes by Republicans in the state legislature that rolls back the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act. The act had allowed workers to challenge pay discrimination in state rather than just federal courts. The act was only one part of Walker's assault on women : > Among them were four highly controversial measures focused on women's health care and sexual education: A repeal of the state's Equal Pay law, which allowed victim's of wage discrimination to collect damages of between $50,000 and $300,000, and a repeal of the Healthy Youth Act, which had provided requirements to schools that comprehensive and scientifically accurate information about everything from abstinence to contraception be taught at an age-appropriate level. Walker also signed into law a ban on abortion coverage through policies as part of a health insurance exchange to be created under the federal health care reform law starting in 2014 (the only exceptions would be in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity); and a bill requiring women seeking abortions to undergo a physical exam and consult with a doctor alone, away from her friends and family, in order to make sure she isn't "being pressured into the decision." Doctors who break the law could be charged with a felony. As usual, working families were a target for Walker as well : > I know that collective bargaining is not a right; it's an expensive entitlement. It's about time somebody stood up for the hardworking taxpayers of our state. The problem is, of course, that collective bargaining is a right. Walker has also been railing about how state workers can't be the "haves" while everyone else is a "have not." The state worker he used in an ad to that effect , it turns out is actually one of the have-nots, making only $25,227 a year, certainly not a massive salary by any standards. In an interview with CBN, Walker made a series of more and more strange claims : * "Any human being, if we're honest about it, you don't want to be hated by anybody, you want everybody to love you," he said. "But I was asked last December, somebody asked me, a supporter, asked me a very interesting question at dinner. He said, 'Did you ever stop and think that maybe if you hadn't gone so far, that you wouldn't be facing a recall?' I said, 'Yeah, sure, but if I hadn't taken the steps I took, we wouldn't have fixed things.' And I said, 'For my kids and their generation I don't want them to inherit a Wisconsin that is not at least as great if not greater than the one I inherited. And you don't get that by not fixing things.' " * "And, to me, that's one of our problems. You can't be afraid to lose," Walker said. "You shouldn't plan on it, but you should make decisions that are ultimately about what's right and what's just and what's best - not just for yourself but for the next wave of young people who are going to inherit our states and our country and not be afraid to lose along the way." * "Why?" he asked. "Because their guys are back to work, they're working again. Unlike my predecessor, who made it very difficult for people building infrastructure, building roads and bridges and rail and things of that nature, we put money back in that had been raided there." * Walker told Brody that he had heard his opponents would spend $70 million to $80 million in the recall race. Probably most frightening was a final quote: > "We realize that all this is just a temporary thing and God's got a plan for us that, who knows where it might be, beyond just serving as governor of this state, but if we stay true to that, there's always comfort," he said. "And God's grace is always abundant no matter what you do." Walker for president in 2016?

This Week: Is Newt Planning A Floor Fight For The Republican N...

Added 03/11/12
1 Views

This Week: Is Newt Planning A Floor Fight For The Republican Nomination?

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:03 03/11/12
video platform video management video solutions video player On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Republican strategists Mary Matalin and Nicole Wallace spin, spin, spin about the GOP primaries. Is Mitt Romney the inevitable nominee or, as Jake Tapper seems to think, will Newt Gingrich force a floor fight in Tampa? Stay tuned: > STEPHANOPOULOS: Everyone's in place right now. George Will off today, but we're happy to welcome Republican strategist Mary Matalin, Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, but, Eliot and Mary, you also host "Both Sides Now," a new radio show. Glad to have you here today. We also have Nicolle Wallace, Republican strategist, veteran of the Bush White House, McCain campaign, Austan Goolsbee, the former chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, and our own White House correspondent, Jake Tapper. Welcome to all of you. And, Mary, let me begin where Lindsey Graham left off in this delegate hunt in the Republican primary. Let me show the board right now. You see 454 delegates for Mitt Romney, more than double what Rick Santorum has right now. Is Romney right, is the campaign right when they say it's going to take an act of God? Lindsey Graham seemed to pretty much say so, yes. MATALIN: I wouldn't throw God into this equation at this point, given what's happened. But Mitt Romney's won the most states, he has the most delegates, he has the best organization, he has the most money. He's -- he's getting it done where he needs to get it done. He's the only candidate that's broke 40 percent. I mean, he's just getting better. He's closing better. STEPHANOPOULOS: How does this end? MATALIN: It just -- well, let me say this, that it goes on is not a bad thing. That is a big myth, that 90 -- the last campaign of y'alls, the liberal campaign, they went into June and Hillary was screaming at Obama for being an elitist, for talking about bitter clingers, and saying shame on you, Barack, so, you know, that went into June, they did fine. The short campaign is not necessarily a good campaign. McCain and Kerry were the last nominees from a short campaign. So I think it goes on. I don't think that's bad. SPITZER: But there's a fundamental difference, and that is the passion and energy in the campaign, which is totally lacking behind Mitt Romney, and the reason for that is there's three Republican parties . There's the theological party. There is the libertarian party, obviously, theological party being led by Rick Santorum right now, Paul leading the libertarian party. Mitt Romney has what remains of the sort of corporate party, but the three don't go together very well. And Mitt Romney -- and I agree, he'll probably be the nominee -- but when he emerges, there won't be any energy and passion behind him. Hillary and Barack, there was energy that you have never seen before. WALLACE: That romanticized 2008, you know, to a point where -- where... (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: Well, I mean, the major animating force in 2008 was their anger at the Bush legacy and the Bush years. It was not passion, love, and affection for Hillary and Obama. So this -- the romanticizing of that election has to stop . I think what -- what Mitt Romney has going for him is people want him to do well almost with as much intensity as -- as -- as anything else. So people are pulling for him, and people are desperate for him to look stronger, to do better, and to put this away. So inasmuch as I think -- I accept that -- the fact that it goes on and on may fortify him for the general election. People want to see him stronger. They want to see him win races. And they want to see him look like our nominee. Wallace is indulging in either major spin or wishful thinking. No one in their right mind can claim that Clinton and Obama backers were only passionate because they wanted to reject the Bush era. You can make a strong case for that with the 2004 Kerry campaign, not with 2008. Naturally, she wants people to think it's no big deal that Republican voters don't seem to care much for Romney. > STEPHANOPOULOS: And he has picked up points in week by week from traditional Republicans. Let me bring this to you, Austan Goolsbee, this idea of romanticizing 2008. One thing you saw coming out of the long fight in 2008 was a lot of talk about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton getting together on the ticket, and that brings me to the question of what Rick Santorum is going to be able to demand if he continues to pick up delegates every single week. GOOLSBEE: I think that's a good point. I mean, the -- the -- the conundrum, the puzzle of this race compared to 2008 -- and I think it's right. We shouldn't over-romanticize. But if you looked at the numbers, it wasn't like this. It wasn't debilitating the candidates. Their favorability wasn't plunging among independents as it continued. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but Hillary was upside-down around this point in 2008. GOOLSBEE: Yes, but it wasn't getting worse. What's happening in the Republican primary is that as it's gone on, it still remains interesting, but they're -- it's just chewing them up, and it's not clear whether that's because what they're proposing... MATALIN: Well, I don't know what data you all are looking at. The enthusiasm among Republicans is greater than among Democrats, and it's greater than it was in '08. (CROSSTALK) GOOLSBEE: No, the data is independent voters. (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: ... that that which makes you weak in a primary strengthens you in a general. GOOLSBEE: No, but independent voters... SPITZER: Independents, exactly. GOOLSBEE: ... are turning very heavily against all the Republican candidates in a way that did not happen in the Democratic primary. STEPHANOPOULOS: And that leads to the question of -- because Mitt Romney is facing that especially, he's -- his favorability among independents is -- he's got a real deficit right there, so how does he fix it going into these next several weeks? TAPPER: Well, he needs to win, and he needs to win strong. But that's probably not going to happen, at least in the next contests, in Alabama. And... STEPHANOPOULOS: Although if he won in Mississippi or Alabama, that could end this rather quickly. TAPPER: It could, but I don't see any indication that Santorum or Gingrich are going to drop out any time soon. And they -- both their campaigns make the case, look, the path might be difficult for us -- I think they have to win 60 percent or 70 percent of all the remaining delegates, but Romney has to win 50 percent of all the remaining delegates. The Romney people will acknowledge that the campaign as it goes forward today could deny him the key number of delegates, 1,144. And if you talk to the Gingrich people, they are already talking about how Gingrich is going to go to Tampa . They're the only ones who have... STEPHANOPOULOS: He says no matter what. TAPPER: No matter what. And they say, Gingrich is the only one who has ever run a whip operation, when he was the House majority whip. He -- he is -- or the minority whip. And that says to me that they are actually literally preparing for a floor fight. SPITZER: And that's the critical point, because Austan raised the critical issue. The question is, how do independent voters view these candidates? Winning the nomination isn't the objective here; it's winning in November. Independent voters will determine that. And the narrative over the next few weeks will be determined by both Gingrich and Santorum, which means the theological vote, which is driving independent voters away, will domestically. MATALIN: Can I just -- reality zone. Reality zone. There's never been the numbers that this -- in March, nine months before the election, that were predictive of the head to head. STEPHANOPOULOS: Bill Clinton was in third at this point. MATALIN: Thank you. WALLACE: And independents aren't even paying attention yet. I mean, they tune in late, and they change their minds. (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: ... let me pose it to both you, Mary and Nicolle. How does -- and, Nicolle, you go first -- how does Mitt Romney manage to continue to try to get conservatives over to his side while reaching out to independents? WALLACE: I think the trouble that he's having in bringing along -- really, the hard-core elements of our base will serve him well in the general. It was a little bit similar to what John McCain faced, where he had supported comprehensive immigration reform, it was a huge burden in the Republican primary, but it didn't -- some of the more difficult things to swallow for women voters who make up the majority of independents made it easier for him to make his case to those same voters in the general election. And I think that... TAPPER: McCain did not do well with Latino voters, though. WALLACE: Well, women, though. Women. TAPPER: Oh, OK. WALLACE: I mean, some of these issues that feel hard or harsh turn off women voters, and I think that Romney will have -- have an easier time. I think some of the social issues and some of the debates we've had don't attach themselves to Romney . STEPHANOPOULOS: Does he -- does he have the freedom at this point to do what a lot of people are recommending, find a place to pick a fight, show some distance from the base of the party? MATALIN: That's a ridiculous kind of pundit strategy, OK? What -- I don't care what -- you can look at any poll, and by three to one, four to one, I don't care what kind of conservative you are, you care about the economy. I don't care what kind of independent you are, you care about the economy. The very last thing voters say they care about are social issues. And he's not -- he is going to be running against Barack Obama, whose numbers as an incumbent closely resemble Bush I and Carter. They do not resemble LBJ's or Clintons. So this canard about it's -- this is a Goldwater or a Dole analogy is just... All's I can say is, Mary Matalin is now a Catholic , yet she just told a big fat lie. Republicans don't care about the economy, they've already made it clear they're ready to wreck the economy to keep President Obama from getting reelected. This is not a secret, except to Sunday morning bobbleheads. The second statement is just her using weasel words. "The very last thing voters say they care about are social issues." Yes, that's true. But all your best research shows they can easily be manipulated into letting their lizard brains take over if you push the right buttons -- and that's where Republicans excel. > (CROSSTALK) SPITZER: Mary, I... (CROSSTALK) MATALIN: Opine (ph) on the Republican Party, about which you know so much. (CROSSTALK) SPITZER: Well, you know, I've run against them and beaten them, but here's what -- here's what I would say. You're right. The economy will be dispositive, and that story line will increasingly come back to the White House and be favorable for them. But on the subsidiary issues by your term of immigration, women's rights, civil rights, critical issues to get the Latino and female voters who determine that centrist middle, the Republican Party is losing and going the wrong way.

The Evaporators - "Hate Being Late (feat. Andrew WK)": SXSW 20...

Added 01/20/12
37 Views

Make an Upholstered Headboard

Added 01/13/12
1651 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

Added 12/19/11
13 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

[LESS INFO] 13 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes. The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state. Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .") We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost. Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred." Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand." Portrait of the President as a Young Freak As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence. The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan. And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans. Words Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ... Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: > I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions. When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television. Havel had been burned by language, too: > The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps. And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: > The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable. Control In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: > The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens. Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure. "Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel. Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: > The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'" People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives. Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'" Ambition Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: > If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism. It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record. From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: > Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power. Technocracy It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies." That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation." Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: > States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success. Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: > (It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation. "The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic." Responsibility "I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." > I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans. None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so. Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: > Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia. Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered. Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere. "Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power. At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.

Right-Wing Furious Over Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Address

Added 11/29/11
7 Views

Right-Wing Furious Over Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Address

[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:43 11/29/11
Remember when President Bush forgot to thank God in his 2008 Thanksgiving address? Neither do the conservatives now apoplectic that Barack Obama's 2011 remarks contained no reference to the Almighty. Nevertheless, the usual suspects on the right are frothing at the mouth over the perceived slight from the man many still pretend is a secret Muslim . As Americans were still eating their turkey on Thursday, the Los Angeles Times served as the dutiful stenographer for the Twitter vitriol: > But Thursday morning, Republicans and others tweeted their discontent with the reported omission of God from Obama's address. > Comments included "So sad!" and "God help us!" Republicans Abroad retweeted the Fox News headline: "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." > "To give thanks for luck is to deny God much less omit!" tweeted "PastorJeffBrown," whose Twitter account lists him as a rural Oklahoma husband, father and Baptist pastor. Apparently, Obama's passing references to "blessings" and "faith" were not sufficient in his expression of gratitude to American service men and women, among others: > As Americans, each of us has our own list of things and people to be thankful for. But there are some blessings we all share. > We're especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas. To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families: the American people are thinking of you today. And when you come home, we intend to make sure that we serve you as well as you're serving America. > We're also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay. This sense of mutual responsibility - the idea that I am my brother's keeper; that I am my sister's keeper - has always been a part of what makes our country special. And it's one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured. Of course, if this language sounds familiar, it should. With one mention of the "a land where they could worship the Almighty without persecution," George W. Bush said pretty much the same thing for Thanksgiving, 2008: > During this holiday season, we give thanks for those who defend our freedom. America's men and women in uniform deserve our highest respect -- and so do the families who love and support them. Lately, I have been asked what I will miss about the presidency. And my answer is that I will miss being the Commander-in-Chief of these brave warriors. In this special time of year, when many of them are serving in distant lands, they are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans. > During this holiday season, we give thanks for the kindness of citizens throughout our Nation. It is a testament to the goodness of our people that on Thanksgiving, millions of Americans reach out to those who have little. The true spirit of the holidays can be seen in the generous volunteers who bring comfort to the poor and the sick and the elderly. These men and women are selfless members of our Nation's armies of compassion -- and they make our country a better place, one heart and one soul at a time. Following Bush's departure, God returned to a place of prominence in Barack Obama's 2009 and 2010 Thanksgiving addresses . Two years ago, President Obama encouraged " all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather" to, among other things: > [R]ecall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed "by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God," and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured Nation in the midst of civil war. A year ago, President Obama again offered thanks to Him: > Today, like millions of other families across America, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will sit down to share a Thanksgiving filled with family and friends - and a few helpings of food and football, too. And just as folks have done in every Thanksgiving since the first, we'll spend some time taking stock of what we're thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another. But never missing an opportunity to portray Obama as "the other," Fox News rang the alarm , declaring, "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." His calls for community and unity, and to "give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny," was more than the conservative caricaturists could handle from the supposed "militant atheist" in the White House.

Right-Wing Furious Over Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Address

Added 11/29/11
1 Views

Right-Wing Furious Over Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Address

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:43 11/29/11
Remember when President Bush forgot to thank God in his 2008 Thanksgiving address? Neither do the conservatives now apoplectic that Barack Obama's 2011 remarks contained no reference to the Almighty. Nevertheless, the usual suspects on the right are frothing at the mouth over the perceived slight from the man many still pretend is a secret Muslim . As Americans were still eating their turkey on Thursday, the Los Angeles Times served as the dutiful stenographer for the Twitter vitriol: > But Thursday morning, Republicans and others tweeted their discontent with the reported omission of God from Obama's address. > Comments included "So sad!" and "God help us!" Republicans Abroad retweeted the Fox News headline: "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." > "To give thanks for luck is to deny God much less omit!" tweeted "PastorJeffBrown," whose Twitter account lists him as a rural Oklahoma husband, father and Baptist pastor. Apparently, Obama's passing references to "blessings" and "faith" were not sufficient in his expression of gratitude to American service men and women, among others: > As Americans, each of us has our own list of things and people to be thankful for. But there are some blessings we all share. > We're especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas. To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families: the American people are thinking of you today. And when you come home, we intend to make sure that we serve you as well as you're serving America. > We're also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay. This sense of mutual responsibility - the idea that I am my brother's keeper; that I am my sister's keeper - has always been a part of what makes our country special. And it's one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured. Of course, if this language sounds familiar, it should. With one mention of the "a land where they could worship the Almighty without persecution," George W. Bush said pretty much the same thing for Thanksgiving, 2008: > During this holiday season, we give thanks for those who defend our freedom. America's men and women in uniform deserve our highest respect -- and so do the families who love and support them. Lately, I have been asked what I will miss about the presidency. And my answer is that I will miss being the Commander-in-Chief of these brave warriors. In this special time of year, when many of them are serving in distant lands, they are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans. > During this holiday season, we give thanks for the kindness of citizens throughout our Nation. It is a testament to the goodness of our people that on Thanksgiving, millions of Americans reach out to those who have little. The true spirit of the holidays can be seen in the generous volunteers who bring comfort to the poor and the sick and the elderly. These men and women are selfless members of our Nation's armies of compassion -- and they make our country a better place, one heart and one soul at a time. Following Bush's departure, God returned to a place of prominence in Barack Obama's 2009 and 2010 Thanksgiving addresses . Two years ago, President Obama encouraged " all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather" to, among other things: > [R]ecall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed "by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God," and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured Nation in the midst of civil war. A year ago, President Obama again offered thanks to Him: > Today, like millions of other families across America, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will sit down to share a Thanksgiving filled with family and friends - and a few helpings of food and football, too. And just as folks have done in every Thanksgiving since the first, we'll spend some time taking stock of what we're thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another. But never missing an opportunity to portray Obama as "the other," Fox News rang the alarm , declaring, "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." His calls for community and unity, and to "give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny," was more than the conservative caricaturists could handle from the supposed "militant atheist" in the White House.

Police Mercenaries: Privatizing Liberty

Added 11/18/11
15 Views

Police Mercenaries: Privatizing Liberty

[LESS INFO] 15 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:46 11/18/11
As Mayor Bloomberg's forces swooped down on Occupy Wall Street, news reports described the " hundreds of police and private security guards " who had re-taken Zuccotti Park. Those private guards were used against public citizens who had been exercising their civil liberties in a public area. That's not just wrong. It's unAmerican. This incident holds an important lesson for anyone who loves our freedoms: When something public is made private, our liberties are privatized too. And privatized liberty isn't liberty at all. Privatizing Liberty Zuccotti Park. New Yorkers knew it as Liberty Plaza Park for nearly half a century. Like other sites in New York, the plaza was created through an agreement between the city and a private company, United States Steel, that wanted to erect a building that exceeded the city's height limits. So the city made them a deal: You can take up more than your share of the public skyline, but in return you have to give the city some open space at ground level. This wasn't a gift. It was a fair exchange between two parties, a private corporation and the people of New York. The people gave up a chunk of their skyline and the owner agreed to provide an open - and, by agreement, fully public - space in return. New York City makes these deals fairly often. The plazas created by these agreements are called "privately owned public spaces," or "POPS," and the city has lots of them. The Mayor may want to read that phrase again: It doesn't say "privately owned private spaces." Both the owner and the city are obligated to keep them for public use, in the public sphere, with all the laws and freedoms that apply to public space. The park's current owner, Brookfield Properties, rebuilt the park with private donations after it was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. With Mayor Bloomberg's permission, they also overstepped tradition and the bounds of propriety by renaming the park - not for the thousands of innocent people who died that day, but for their own chairman. The symbolism is perfect:They replaced a treasured word for freedom with the name of a rich guy who'd done nothing to create the park. With the Mayor's blessing, they literally privatized the word "liberty." Like I said, perfect. Tragic, but perfect. Private Dicks Brookfield overstepped its bounds when its CEO sent the mayor a letter saying that the Occupation "violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues." Those aren't decisions a private company, even an owner, should make about a public space. They are judgments an elected official makes on behalf of a free citizenry. This week Bloomberg and Brookfield have used the park's semi-private status as an excuse to invade a public space with a private security force. Whoever these guys were - besides rude and uncivil - they served as a kind of Blackwater militia, but targeting New Yorkers instead of Iraqis. (At least Brookfield says it fired the guard who called a citizen a " faggot .") When it comes to privatization, it seems the Mayor has boundary issues. He has repeatedly used the park's private ownership status to claim, that the public has fewer rights there than it does in other public spaces. That's false. But then, that's the problem with "public/private partnerships." The "public" partner always gets rolled the public one. But then, that's how these people are. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. The lesson of Zuccotti Park is: Never give them an inch. Thin Blue Line, Thick Green Wallets News reports made noted the presence of two different groups, New York City police officers and private security guards, but in some ways that's become a distinction without a difference. The NYPD is frequently rented by the same Wall Street banks that broke the law, crashed the economy and got away with it. As Pam Martens reported in Counterpunch, Rudy Giuliani created an operation called the "Paid Detail" unit that turns New York's Finest into a "rent-a-cop" service for anyone with the money to pay for it. And who has more money in New York than the banks? As Martens reports, companies like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and the New York Stock Exchange have rented the Thin Blue Line with the cash from their Thick Green Wallets. Even after the Stock Exchange was found to have illegally taken over public streets and walkways and "created a public nuisance," nobody was fined or arrested. But then, it must be hard for a cop to arrest anybody that he sometimes has to address as "boss." Maybe that's one of the reasons why a retired Philadelphia police officer, Capt. Ray Lewis, was willing to be handcuffed and arrested by fellow officers during the protest. Capt. Lewis called their rationale for arresting him a ' farce ' and promised to return. (photo by permission of the photographer, Lauren Thorpe) New York isn't the only city that rents out its police force. But the financial capital of the nation bears moral and civic responsibilities that Mayors Guiliani and Bloomberg have disrespected and violated. The photograph of Capt. Lewis is like an image of law enforcement's honor, handcuffed by the mercenary instincts of Gracie Mansion's two most recent occupants. Checkbook Democracy But then, why would Michael Bloomberg be expected to understand that privatization is undemocratic? He "privatized" the electoral process, one of our most sacred democratic institutions, by buying himself the mayoralty. And he spent unprecedented levels of campaign cash from his personal billions to do it. Then, when he didn't like the term limits that the people of New York had decreed for their mayor - well, he "privatized" that too. But this isn't really about Michael Bloomberg. Despite his reputation for healthy self-regard, even the billionaire mayor is only a symptom of a much larger problem. Rich people have been buying elections for so long that it's become the newest form of self-indulgence, conveying even more status than a Citation jet or a private island. Public office is the newest must-have item for the excessively vain and excessive well-to-do, a kind of vanity press for the self-published authors of their own meritless political careers. Bloomberg is merely the today's most conspicuous, extravagant, and fiscally irresponsible member of an increasingly ordinary club. You don't have to be a billionaire to run for office these days, of course. But if you're not you'll spend most of your time begging them for money. No wonder the 1% call all the shots in government. They own it. I've always thought it would be a good idea if elected officials wore the insignia of the corporations that sponsor them, the way race car drivers do. Sold American Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The Bush and Obama Administrations have privatized law enforcement on Wall Street by asking banks to police themselves. And during the devastating San Diego fires, residents learned that AIG had created a private fire department that saved the homes of its clients while other nearby houses burned. Privatized police. Privatized fire departments. Privatized prisons. Privatized armies of Halliburton and Blackwater soldiers. When for-profit companies perform government functions, they'll do it in a way that makes them money. That's not hard to understand, but our "leaders" keep doing it anyway. Why? Because they've privatized their consciences, too.

Police Mercenaries: Privatizing Liberty

Added 11/18/11
13 Views

Police Mercenaries: Privatizing Liberty

[LESS INFO] 13 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:46 11/18/11
As Mayor Bloomberg's forces swooped down on Occupy Wall Street, news reports described the " hundreds of police and private security guards " who had re-taken Zuccotti Park. Those private guards were used against public citizens who had been exercising their civil liberties in a public area. That's not just wrong. It's unAmerican. This incident holds an important lesson for anyone who loves our freedoms: When something public is made private, our liberties are privatized too. And privatized liberty isn't liberty at all. Privatizing Liberty Zuccotti Park. New Yorkers knew it as Liberty Plaza Park for nearly half a century. Like other sites in New York, the plaza was created through an agreement between the city and a private company, United States Steel, that wanted to erect a building that exceeded the city's height limits. So the city made them a deal: You can take up more than your share of the public skyline, but in return you have to give the city some open space at ground level. This wasn't a gift. It was a fair exchange between two parties, a private corporation and the people of New York. The people gave up a chunk of their skyline and the owner agreed to provide an open - and, by agreement, fully public - space in return. New York City makes these deals fairly often. The plazas created by these agreements are called "privately owned public spaces," or "POPS," and the city has lots of them. The Mayor may want to read that phrase again: It doesn't say "privately owned private spaces." Both the owner and the city are obligated to keep them for public use, in the public sphere, with all the laws and freedoms that apply to public space. The park's current owner, Brookfield Properties, rebuilt the park with private donations after it was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. With Mayor Bloomberg's permission, they also overstepped tradition and the bounds of propriety by renaming the park - not for the thousands of innocent people who died that day, but for their own chairman. The symbolism is perfect:They replaced a treasured word for freedom with the name of a rich guy who'd done nothing to create the park. With the Mayor's blessing, they literally privatized the word "liberty." Like I said, perfect. Tragic, but perfect. Private Dicks Brookfield overstepped its bounds when its CEO sent the mayor a letter saying that the Occupation "violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues." Those aren't decisions a private company, even an owner, should make about a public space. They are judgments an elected official makes on behalf of a free citizenry. This week Bloomberg and Brookfield have used the park's semi-private status as an excuse to invade a public space with a private security force. Whoever these guys were - besides rude and uncivil - they served as a kind of Blackwater militia, but targeting New Yorkers instead of Iraqis. (At least Brookfield says it fired the guard who called a citizen a " faggot .") When it comes to privatization, it seems the Mayor has boundary issues. He has repeatedly used the park's private ownership status to claim, that the public has fewer rights there than it does in other public spaces. That's false. But then, that's the problem with "public/private partnerships." The "public" partner always gets rolled the public one. But then, that's how these people are. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. The lesson of Zuccotti Park is: Never give them an inch. Thin Blue Line, Thick Green Wallets News reports made noted the presence of two different groups, New York City police officers and private security guards, but in some ways that's become a distinction without a difference. The NYPD is frequently rented by the same Wall Street banks that broke the law, crashed the economy and got away with it. As Pam Martens reported in Counterpunch, Rudy Giuliani created an operation called the "Paid Detail" unit that turns New York's Finest into a "rent-a-cop" service for anyone with the money to pay for it. And who has more money in New York than the banks? As Martens reports, companies like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and the New York Stock Exchange have rented the Thin Blue Line with the cash from their Thick Green Wallets. Even after the Stock Exchange was found to have illegally taken over public streets and walkways and "created a public nuisance," nobody was fined or arrested. But then, it must be hard for a cop to arrest anybody that he sometimes has to address as "boss." Maybe that's one of the reasons why a retired Philadelphia police officer, Capt. Ray Lewis, was willing to be handcuffed and arrested by fellow officers during the protest. Capt. Lewis called their rationale for arresting him a ' farce ' and promised to return. (photo by permission of the photographer, Lauren Thorpe) New York isn't the only city that rents out its police force. But the financial capital of the nation bears moral and civic responsibilities that Mayors Guiliani and Bloomberg have disrespected and violated. The photograph of Capt. Lewis is like an image of law enforcement's honor, handcuffed by the mercenary instincts of Gracie Mansion's two most recent occupants. Checkbook Democracy But then, why would Michael Bloomberg be expected to understand that privatization is undemocratic? He "privatized" the electoral process, one of our most sacred democratic institutions, by buying himself the mayoralty. And he spent unprecedented levels of campaign cash from his personal billions to do it. Then, when he didn't like the term limits that the people of New York had decreed for their mayor - well, he "privatized" that too. But this isn't really about Michael Bloomberg. Despite his reputation for healthy self-regard, even the billionaire mayor is only a symptom of a much larger problem. Rich people have been buying elections for so long that it's become the newest form of self-indulgence, conveying even more status than a Citation jet or a private island. Public office is the newest must-have item for the excessively vain and excessive well-to-do, a kind of vanity press for the self-published authors of their own meritless political careers. Bloomberg is merely the today's most conspicuous, extravagant, and fiscally irresponsible member of an increasingly ordinary club. You don't have to be a billionaire to run for office these days, of course. But if you're not you'll spend most of your time begging them for money. No wonder the 1% call all the shots in government. They own it. I've always thought it would be a good idea if elected officials wore the insignia of the corporations that sponsor them, the way race car drivers do. Sold American Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The Bush and Obama Administrations have privatized law enforcement on Wall Street by asking banks to police themselves. And during the devastating San Diego fires, residents learned that AIG had created a private fire department that saved the homes of its clients while other nearby houses burned. Privatized police. Privatized fire departments. Privatized prisons. Privatized armies of Halliburton and Blackwater soldiers. When for-profit companies perform government functions, they'll do it in a way that makes them money. That's not hard to understand, but our "leaders" keep doing it anyway. Why? Because they've privatized their consciences, too.