Hero of the Week Award: December 23, Rachel Maddow

Thank you to my friend Jay for this week’s nomination for HWA.

Hero of the Week

I usually find Rachel Maddow both entertaining and informative, but her humor in how she exposes the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin and Fox News earns her this week’s HWA.

Palin and Fox news took umbrage to President Obama’s Christmas card and went down the very tired and worn out path of “the attack on Christmas.”  Maddow does a marvelous job of showing just how ludicrous these modern day Carnival folk are.

Click here to see Maddow and the ghosts of Christmas Cards Past.

Singing A Different Tune: Republican Candidates’ Campaign Hypocrisy

Mine...All Mine!

What is it with Republican Presidential campaigns and the theft of intellectual property? It seems that once a GOP candidate starts running for the highest office, (s)he rises above the law and says, “Oh, I like that, I think I’ll take it!”

The latest offender is serial hypocrite and history buff Michele Bachmann. Since announcing her official candidacy (ironically after appearing in a candidates’ debate), Bachmann has taken to using Tom Petty’s song American Girl at her campaign stops. Petty, a staunch supporter of artists’ creative control rights, issued a cease-and-desist letter, which Bachmann has so far ignored. In fact, her campaign started using another song without permission, Katrina and the Waves hit Walking On Sunshine. Lead vocalist Katrina Leskanich immediately laid into Bachmann:

As the singer of ‘Walking on Sunshine’ I don’t endorse its use by Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign.  I’ve performed ‘Walking on Sunshine’ for so many years in so many different countries that it’s become the one constant in my life and the one thing I can count on to bring happiness to myself and others. The song is used in commercials and movies as a vehicle for a feel good moment or empowerment but if I disagree with the policies, opinions or platforms for its use, I’ve no choice but to try and defend the song and prevent its misuse.

Sadly, Bachmann is far from alone. Here are just a few other examples:

• Saint Ronald, whose politics were frighteningly far to the left of this current crop of loonies, started the trend when he practiced the unwitting irony of name-checking Bruce Springsteen and referencing Born In the U.S.A. during his re-election campaign. At least Ronnie didn’t actually steal the song.
• Mike Huckabee got into hot water with Boston’s Tom Scholz for appropriating More Than A Feeling.
• George W. Bush borrowed at least two songs without permission. He got into trouble with Orleans leader and NY Congressman John Hall for misuse of the 70s hit Still the One. He also practiced Petty theft with the rocker’s I Won’t Back Down. Petty did not, and Bush was forced to drop the song.
• Former half-governor Sarah Palin stole Heart’s Barracuda during her Vice-Presidential campaign disaster, prompting an angry cease-and-desist from Ann and Nancy Wilson. Ironically, this song was about the music industry mistreating women.
• Palin’s top of ticket man, John McCain, is the champ in this category. He most famously misused two John Mellencamp songs, Pink Houses and Our Country. The very Democratic Mellencamp sued. McCain also borrowed Survivor’s Eye of the Tiger and hits by the Foo Fighters and Van Halen, as well as playing a Bon Jovi song for appearances with Palin.

Other Republicans have behaved similarly. Senate wannabe Chuck DeVore stole two Don Henley songs during his failed bid to unseat Barbara Boxer. Florida’s Charlie Crist couldn’t decide which party to run with during his failed Senate bid, but he did steal Road to Nowhere from David Byrne and was forced to air a public service announcement apology. Here’s a great overview of these and other thefts.

The great irony, of course, is that Republican candidates are so aggressively “pro-business” in their politics. They argue for tax cuts, business incentives, deregulation, and protecting the rights of businesses over workers at every turn. If the business in question happens to be music, however, they turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. Ignoring the actual messages of the songs, the political wishes of the performers, and the property rights of the writers, they lift the soundbite they want with a grotesque sense of entitlement. Clearly, Bachmann et al. send the message that they are above the law. What does that promise for how they would lead this country?

Wednesday Word of the Week, June 8

I did WHAT?

This week’s word is: HISTORY

• the study of the events of the past
• the whole of time before the present, and all things that happened in that time
• an account of the events that happened during a particular period of the past

During the past week, former fractional Governor and failed Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin put her foot in her mouth once again. (Sadly the foot did not penetrate far enough to nudge her brain facsimile.)

In off-the-cuff remarks about Paul Revere, hero of the American Revolution, Palin totally misrepresented Revere’s actions. With at best a gross distortion and at worst a complete fabrication, she invented a mission for Revere in which he taunted the British with a message of braggadocio embroidered with the Colonists’ hypothetical, pre-Constitution (in fact, pre-Independence!) right to bear arms.

As has happened too many times in the past (thank you Katie Couric), the media have corrected Palin and pointed out her departure from established reality. Of course, the pundits of Teabagistan have rallied to her defense, also ignoring history. As reported on NPR, using Revere’s own words, Palin clearly misrepresented Revere’s primary mission. Some right-wing commentators have used a single incident (actions Revere took when briefly captured during one mission) to support Palin. This flimsy and inaccurate view is nicely analyzed on another blog. In the final analysis, can Palin and her supporters claim that she has presented a moment of history? Let’s dissect that definition and find out.

Given that Palin can’t name a single major newspaper nor identify even a “favorite” American Founder, we can safely dismiss the concept of STUDY

the process of learning about a problem or subject using scientific methods

from her use of history.

Since the events Palin recounts did not actually HAPPEN

come into being; become reality

we can throw out the second definition as well.

If we choose to be generous, we can give Ms. Palin some credit for creating an ACCOUNT

a written or spoken report about something

since she did speak about something, however inaccurately. In most cases, however, I think we would prefer that our history be based on fact, not whim, sloppy interpretation, or political agenda.

Despite our best intentions to create an accurate record, the aphorism attributed to Alex Haley has merit:

History is written by the winners.

Just ask significant figures like Victoria Woodhull or Bayard Rustin, who were obscured in or nearly eliminated from the historical record because their contributions were problematic to the narrative a certain population wanted to create. Conversely, ask Presidents Grant or Wilson, both of whom have rosier histories than they merit based on very specific accomplishments that some narrators wish to emphasize.

Revere’s story is problematic because it is mostly known to us from Longfellow’s poem, which takes great artistic license with the history. Much of our childhood history comes from art like this or fables like Washington and the cherry tree or Betsy Ross and the flag. It is helpful to children to have simple stories to whet their appetite for history; we must not, however allow art, fables, agendas, or outright lies to be spun into the web of real history. When we become lazy about our understanding of the events that precede us, like Michele Bachmann repeatedly does, we either revel in dangerous ignorance or allow others to craft the narrative of our lives for us.

George Santayana famously said

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

which is often paraphrased with a  reference to the word history. This is very true. How much more perilous must it be, then, when we opt to remember a past that meets our needs and not the truth?

(All definitions courtesy of Macmillan Dictionary Online)

Wednesday Word of the Week, May 18

The More You Look, The Less You Like.

This week’s word is: CANDIDATE

one of the people competing in an election

Despite the Presidential Primary season being months away, many Republican hopefuls have declared their candidacy, officially and not so much so. Who are these people, anyway?

Herman CAIN

Cain and Abel were the first children of Adam and Eve born after the Fall of Man; Cain killed Abel out of jealousy and was exiled by God

Oops. Not too auspicious there, Herman. Given his low profile, exile seems pretty likely after a primary or two.

NEWT Gingrich

a small animal similar to a lizard that mostly lives in water

At the risk of offending the lizards, small and slimy seems like a good description. He’s also wriggly, given how many times he’s decided not to decide about running.

Mike Huckabee, whose affable demeanor hides the heart of a HUCKSTER

someone who sells things dishonestly or illegally

Ron Paul, whose election would cast a PALL

a sudden numbing dread

on the whole country.

Tim Pawlenty may not be well-know by most Americans, but there are PLENTY

a large amount of something, or a large number of things

of reasons to dislike him.

Mitt ROMNEY

one of an English breed of hardy sheep, having coarse, long wool

He’s certainly hardy, as his constantly resurging candidacy attests; his demeanor is slickly robotic, but his methods are coarse and woolly.

Rick Santorum, a man whose views are so loathsome that his last name was rather vulgarly redefined in a contest.

Donald TRUMP

the suit that players decide will be worth the most in a card game

Heavy on the suit, light on the “worth the most” especially now that it looks like he’s out of the running again. We’ll see what he decides next week…

We also have a quartet of nearly complete unknowns, the DARK HORSE

a political candidate who is not well known but could win unexpectedly

Republicans, with an emphasis on “unexpectedly” for Fred Karger, Gary Johnson, Tom Miller, and Vern Wuensche. Their best chances of winning rest on the fact that their competition is so well known for their odiousness. If they are anything like the rest of the pack, consider them to be the four darkhorsemen of the Apocalypse.

Last but not least, a pair of undecideds, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, whose candidacies would lend a certain festival air to the election but in the end an utterly maddening one. Perhaps they will run together so we can go into Bachmann Palin Overdrive…

Looking at this probable competition, it is easy to see why President Obama’s favorables are rising. We must be vigilant, however, as the last election demonstrated just how absurd and unpredictable the actions of the electorate can be.

All of this week’s definitions courtesy of Macmillan Dictionary Online.

You Gotta Love Keith Olbermann

Thankful for Olbermann

With all the craziness with the Tea Party sinking and trying to shut down the federal government, and cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood, it is a relief to hear the reasonable and intelligent voice of Keith Olbermann injecting some levity while simultaneously drawing attention to the hypocrites putting in their bids for President of the United States. Please let us hope that the bigoted Herman Cain had no real traction. Click here to see the full video and why Susan Burns should be the GOP nominee.

Cracks in the Teapot

One of the many Cracks

Yes, for those of us that are pro-women, pro-equality and anti-hate, have been long aware of the many many cracks within the Tea Party– can we say Paul LePage, Michele Bachmann, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, and the many other nut jobs. Thankfully, a new study reveals that 51% of self-identified conservatives do not strongly identify with the Tea Party.  As we learn more and more about the Koch Brothers funding many of the Tea Party candidates and the paranoia of the Tea Party itself, let us all hope this will be the last Teapot Dome Scandal and that we will start learning from history, despite the anti-intellectual stand of Bachmann et al. Any bets that Palin, and the majority of the Tea Party have no clue what the Teapot Dome Scandal was?  Do we need a literacy test for elected officials? Click here to read the full article.

Wednesday Word of the Week: March 9

The Face of Profanity

This week’s word is: PROFANITY

Language that is offensive because it is rude or shows a lack of respect for God or religious beliefs – Macmillan Dictionary Online

One of the hottest news topics over the past week was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps. In a rare display of unity (other than Justice Alito, whose contempt for the Phelps family’s behavior created a resonant dissent), the Court ruled in favor of the members of the horrific bigot cult known as the Westboro Baptist Church. For anyone with a sense of humanity who is also an ardent supporter of free speech, this is an agonizing dilemma.

As we’ve noted on this blog before, free speech is a bedrock principle of this country and even people with distasteful messages have that right. From a strictly legalistic perspective, relying on significant precedent, Phelps seemed the most likely victor in this case. As Salon.com noted, however, there is an interesting, debatable point in the central argument put forward by Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion:

“The protest was not unruly. There was no shouting, profanity or violence.”

Westboro protests are notorious for adhering to the letter of the law. It is true that they do not shout (anymore) or practice physical violence. They also follow any local guidelines about protest and assembly assiduously. So far, so good. But no “profanity” in their protest? That is highly debatable.

Westboro is also notorious for signs that state baldly “God Hates Fags” or that bear cartoon depictions of anal sex (usually with the universal “no” sign of the red circle with a slash.) That is certainly rude and disrespectful. It is fairly clear from the majority opinion that the use of the word “profanity” really activates one of the slipperiest areas of free speech, that of OBSCENITY

Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance. – American Heritage Dictionary Online

Obscenity is often not protected under the First Amendment. Are Phelps’ signs obscene? The Salon.com article does a good job of analyzing the legal issues here, and the most probable answer is “not quite” since courts tend to put pretty narrow walls around free speech exceptions. Enough uncertainty exists, however, that local jurisdictions wanting to put tighter controls on certain kinds of protests could probably construct laws that would restrict Phelpsian hate speech while not violating the First Amendment.

Freedom is tricky, and speech is one of its trickiest elements. There are clear exceptions (such as speech while on the job) and there are muddy areas like Westboro’s technically legal and morally abhorrent actions.  It is interesting to note the somewhat counterintuitive reactions to the decision. Former Phelps counter-protestor Romaine Patterson wrote a wonderful editorial supporting the decision. Some strict constructionists on the Far Right, however, have reacted against the ruling, typically lacking any sense of history or irony. NOM’s odious Maggie Gallagher rails against a ruling protecting hate speech, even though she is a regular practitioner of such speech. The perpetually confused half-governor Sarah Palin blasts the majority opinion and then backpedals confusingly.

In the end, I am deeply torn by this decision. I’m grateful that a conservative court did not take advantage of this situation to chip away at free speech. I truly believe that we must protect everyone’s speech or the freedom is illusory. Nevertheless, I find Westboro so repellent that any ruling which supports their actions – even tangentially – makes me ill.

Taking solace in the knowledge that democracy is hard, I’ll offer one word for Phelps and his ilk that is much less slippery than “profanity” or “obscenity”…

Extremely unpleasant or offensive – Macmillan Dictionary Online

REPUGNANT.

The Bully Beck Batters Benevolent Bubbie

I like to beat up old ladies and the poor.

So how much of a sociopath do you have to be when you start threatening and beating up 78 year old Jewish women?  Really? For those of you that hold up Beck as some type of hero, I’m scared of you! His reputation as a bully continues to hold true. Can we please focus on facts here–I grow weary of those people that have chimed in on the blog with just “this is how I feel.”  Beck has repeatedly incited violence for those that disagree with his “poor, hetero, white boy perspective.”

In 1966, Frances Fox Piven and her late husband wrote an article for The Nation outlining a plan to help the poor of New York and other big cities to get on welfare.  While writing the article they realized that not all the poor who were eligible to receive welfare actually did. Like any good social reformer (FDR), Piven and her husband started to advocate for the poor and disenfranchised.

For about the last three months, Beck has been hammering away at Piven and her husband. He has dug up the 45-year-old article, and says he sees a vast conspiracy to overthrow the American financial system. He says, their article intends to “overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.”  He has been well educated by Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Unfortunately, our Frances Piven has since received hundreds of death threats from conservative blogs. Things like, “‘May cancer overtake you soon!’” Piven says. She ended up asking the FBI and state police for help.

Am I the only one that finds Beck and Faux News absolutely culpable and despicable? Click here to see the full article.

 

Right Wing Racist Reach Wrong Resolution: Refuting Reality

Michelle Obama: Fighting Fools

I was hoping not to have to do yet another article on the right wing racist NUTS, for fear of crossing the Bachmann line. Due to the recent flurry attacks from Palin, Bachmann, and Limbaugh on First Lady Michelle Obama, I felt the need to address such incredible ignorance and blatant racism, a la Andrew Breitbart’s racist cartoon. I’m frankly surprised that have not called her “uppity.”

Really? Really? This is where we are as a nation? We are attacking the First Lady because she is preaching against childhood obesity and advocating breast feeding–am I alone in thinking this is not only ignorant racism at work, but PROFOUND STUPIDITY on behalf of anyone listening to this noticeably white cadre of critics. Childhood obesity is a real problem in America right now, which also weighs heavy on the healthcare system (no pun intended). Have any of these critics of the First Lady done any research on the dangers of childhood obesity, or on the benefits of breast feeding? No, they are all graduates of the Bachmann Skuull, or is spelled Skool?  Click here to read a comprehensive study about the benefits of breast feeding.   Lest we forget the benefits and links between mental health and physical health.

When as a culture do we say enough is enough! When does intellect defeat ignorance? When are we willing to examine truth and reflect and take action, which is what the First Lady is asking us to do.

Wednesday Word of the Week: February 23

This week’s word is: SOCIALISM.

This is one of those words that the Tea Party and their Far-Right allies like to wield against President Obama and his administration’s actions. What does it really mean?

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that controls the economy.

This is clearly not an accurate assessment of the actions of the Obama administration so far. The government does not own the means of producing and distributing goods and those means are certainly not owned collectively. So what evidence is used to support this claim?

• The TARP program and the auto bailout are frequent examples even though both programs were established to maintain the integrity of existing businesses and imposed new regulation only so far as required to keep the businesses from failing. A socialist government would have let General Motors go under and created the Obamacar.
• Stimulus funding is also treated as socialist, even though it distributed money to states, thus decentralizing the governmental economic control. The program also favored small and emerging businesses, clearly not a collectivist action.
• The most frequent example is the health care reform bill, mostly on the grounds that it mandates insurance purchasing; sadly for the finger-pointers, that mandate requires purchase from private businesses, thus not qualifying as socialist legislation.

If none of the examples hold true, why would anyone use the word Socialist? The answer is sad and simple: because it’s scary. For decades our nation was locked in a cold war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism was the enemy. For the even wackier Right-wingers, the Nazi party also used the word “socialist” in its full German title. Calling Obama a socialist labels him as anti-American and links him with Stalin and Hitler. Never mind that those comparisons are (1) not truly socialist and (2) untrue. The language has power so the administration’s enemies use it; being honest isn’t their game.

As an interesting side note, the Tea Party also says things like “We don’t want to be Great Britain or Sweden!” usually in the context of their government-operated health care systems. Once again, they provide more irony than accuracy. Neither country is socialist, neither has a health care system very similar to the one passed last year, and both countries are run by coalition governments unlike our winner-take-all, one-of-two-parties model.

The call of Socialism also summons up a series of other “-isms” with both good and bad connotations.

The wingers want us to contrast Obama with CAPITALISM, which they see as good.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Unless of course the free market can be reigned in by the development of massive monopolies that fund Right-wing causes, or corporations can be considered people in terms of political action, or the Vice-President can profit from a military contract.

We’re also supposed to hear “socialism” and think of

TOTALITARIANISM (like Stalin)

A form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

and FASCISM (like Hitler)

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Neither of these words even remotely describes the Democratic approach to governance in the United States. They do, however conjure up images of suppression of public art, repression of the rights of women and workers, the use of military metaphor to inspire action, and the use of fear and racism to demonize opponents. Which party is totalitarian, then?

At the end of the day, the Right wing is simply manipulating language to their own ends with utter disregard for its actual meaning. They can say they aren’t bigots or homophobes, they can tout Christian values, they can decry judicial activism while engaging in it, but they are lying to us. Shallow manipulators and venal corporate hacks, they use language cynically, not bothering with anything as inconvenient as the truth.

But as with the master strategist Vizzini, I don’t think those words mean what they think they do. Should we listen to people who lie so blatantly? I prefer not to.

(All of today’s definitions taken from the American Heritage Dictionary online)

"Socialism in Action"