The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- William Bradley: Terminating the Darkness?
- George Lakoff: Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
- Mark Morford: Obama should take wife to Liquor Barn, watch pay-per-view, fall asleep in drunken stupor "just like the rest of us," furious GOP says
- Zorianna Kit: The 2009 MTV Movie Swag Awards
- Leah Anthony Libresco: Wikipedia Removes Semi-Protection from Civil Liberties
- Don McNay: Entrepreneurs, Bailouts and the Last American Hero
- Andy Worthington: Forgotten: The Second Anniversary Of A Guantanamo Suicide
- Michael Russnow: Susan Boyle Placed Rather Than Won: Hollie Steel Cried Her Way Into the Finals
- Geoffrey R. Stone: Sonia Sotomayor and the Hypocrisy of "Conservative" Critics
- Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Picketing President Obama Is the Wrong Way to Get Blacks to Back Gay Marriage
- David M. Abromowitz: Who is Wise?
- Tony Sachs: Happy Birthday To The King Of Swing: Benny Goodman Turns 100
- Daoud Kuttab: What Should Obama Tell the Muslim World?
- Mary Ann West: Dinner with Newt: Why Would Anyone Want to Attend?
- Eli Dansky: In Praise of Injustice (Accentuate the Negative)
- Stephen Balkam: Schools Out for Summer: Kids Go Online
| William Bradley: Terminating the Darkness? | Top |
| George Lakoff: Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy | Top |
| The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack -- on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line. There are several fronts: Empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup. Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up. Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on. Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing? Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others -- not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice. Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy -- a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis. The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope , "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule -- not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes." President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does. The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights . Click here to hear her speak. The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind , just out in paperback. In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those whom your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and who a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy. President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms -- a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society. Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation. But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general. We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy and its true meaning must be defended. But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in the New York Times . He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error , you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks: People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row. Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world. Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works. Then the conclusion. But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint. Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice. Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" -- personal -- a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"-- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove. The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous : Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then. Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture. What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind -- Latinos and women -- she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up. The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs -- and their pride -- being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics. Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant ! The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions. It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above. Supreme Court justices, like all of us, ... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work... These models shape the way judges perceive the world. These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else. So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly. But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should. Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats' lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats' deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists. Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47% of the voters who voted for McCain. Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again. How should Democrats respond? Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy -- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness -- which are necessary components of justice. Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered. George Lakoff is Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book, The Political Mind , appears in paperback on June 2. More on Sonia Sotomayor | |
| Mark Morford: Obama should take wife to Liquor Barn, watch pay-per-view, fall asleep in drunken stupor "just like the rest of us," furious GOP says | Top |
| The Republican Party was quick to criticize President Obama's recent trip to New York City to take wife Michelle out to dinner and a Broadway performance for a long-promised "date night." "I think it's rather disgusting, his blatant disregard for the American people and their fiscal problems," former political roadkill-turned-born-again voice of the ultra-marginalized Republican fringe Newt Gingrich did not tell the Associated Press, between bites of a giant boar's head being slowly roasted on a huge spit on his front lawn, as three terrified Haitian servant boys polished his nine Lincoln Town cars with the pelt of a small woodland creature Gingrich had recently suffocated between his thighs. "General Motors is about to go bankrupt due to the lack of foresight of countless overpaid executives who apparently like to design cars using bricks and a old glue gun, and the U.S. economy is in a tailspin thanks in large part to some of the most disastrous, corrupt and downright criminal policies and practices of a previous administration I helped spawn," Gingrich didn't add, sighingly. "And now Obama wants to take his wife to low-key dinner in New York? What's next, free health care for children?" Gingrich was not alone in his outrage. "How much is this costing us, the long-suffering taxpayers, to fund this frightening, dark-skinned president's lovely and healthy display of affection for his smart and powerful wife who obviously must be stopped because she is clearly too smart and powerful and tall?" radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh did not say, from the giant, prostate-shaped swimming pool in the back of his heavily gated $25 million West Palm Beach mansion, as enormous misters sprayed lazy clouds of liquefied Zoloft over his 47 square yards of oatmeal-colored flesh. "Doesn't the socialist-in-chief know this is America? We're supposed to resent our wives and loathe our children while harboring secret gay fantasies about the pool boy," Limbaugh would've added, had his mouth not already been crammed with Newt Gingrich's desperate ego. Mark Morford's columns are here . His personal newsletter is available here . More on Barack Obama | |
| Zorianna Kit: The 2009 MTV Movie Swag Awards | Top |
| As the cool and trendy The MTV Movie Awards rolled in to town this weekend, so did the gifting suites leading up to the event. The weather may not have been as summery as one would hope, yet despite overcast skies and cooler-than-normal temperatures, celebs still showed up to get pampered, collect goodies and socialize. That said, here come the best of the 2009 MTV Swag Awards . The 2009 MTV Movie Swag Award for Best Overall Variety goes to: The 2009 MTV Movie Award Red Carpet Style Lounge: Held by the Secret Room Events and the SLS Hotel, this is Secret Room's third win in the category. Judging by all the goodies from the gazillion (okay, not quite) vendors - and an additional bonus gift bag upon check-in - we're sure you'll agree : Highlights : This suite had something to wear for any occasion including tunics from C+C, bamboo woven pants from the eco-chic boutique Jonano, Anika bikinis, Eva Varo dresses, Millionaire Mafia tanks & tees, contouring under garments from Du Mi, bras by Ittybitty and flip flops by Blowfish Malibu. For the face and body there was shimmery make-up and facial cremes from Skin Blends, HD friendly cosmetics from Nikko, beauty and skincare products by Sanitas, Atache, Adonia and Vagosang. Those who travel to NYC received a day pass to the Setai Club with VIP access privileges to the Aqua Grotto water and heat lounge. Relax that bod! Other items included Mustella products for babies, fashionable reusable bags from Envi and tanning gift cards from Sunstyle Tanning. The piece de resistance item came courtesy of Caribbean Living Magazine, which handed out gift certificates on behalf of Elite Island Resorts. Celebs got to choose up to 7 nights accommodation at their choice of resort at either Antigua, Tortola or The Grenadines. What a way to finish things off! (Donations upon entrance benefited the Downtown Women's Center of Los Angeles.) The 2009 MTV Movie Swag Award for Most Eclectic goes to: Melanie Segal's Celebrity Gift & Charity House : The suite, located in a four story Spanish Castle in the Hollywood Hills, donated 100 meals to L.A.'s needy in honor of each celebrity who attended. Highlights : Socket Sense Surge protector that expands from 13 to 18 inches to allow over-sized power adapters to plug in. No more blocking extra sockets! FlexUSB Adapter that bends and rotates to allow it to be used even in the most cramped locations. Genius! Keri hand lotion designed to stay on through multiple hand washings. No need to reapply again and again. Sleek and rounded carry-on luggage from Mandarin Duck and L'Eggs hosiery's new anti-cellulite "Profiles," which smooth and shape the body while whicking away moisture. Other goodies included Cosabella underwear, Mawi jeans, Dramatic Radiance cream from DDF, Vera Wang's Rock Princess perfume, hats by Christy's, Nature's Cure acne treatment line, shirts, hoodies and thermals by Primp Clothing. Those ready to dig in to some summer reading could pick up such novels as author Meg Cabo's "Airhead," Suzanne Collins' "The Hunter Games" and Maureen Johnson's "Suite Scarlett." To satisfy the sweet tooth, Wonka candy had an assortment of candies including the classic Nerds, Gobstopper's and Fun Dip Candy. Yum! The 2009 MTV Movie Swag Award for Best Party Atmosphere goes to: GBK Productions 2009 MTV Movie Awards Gift Lounge: Tucked high away in a private estate in Hollywood hills, this suite was the ultimate pool party complete with on-site tanning from Spray Tan Factor and complimentary facials and massages from High Maintenance Mobile Spa. Guests were escorted to the house from the valet area in Volkswagen's new 4 door luxury coupe, The CC. Donations were given to the Ashe Foundation, which distributes shoes, clothing and services to needy children in African nations. Highlights : Who says people in Hollywood don't eat? Elixirs were served by Ocean Bar Service along with healthy and nutritious food from Gotwheatgrass.com and chef Andrea Rozsas. For dessert NitroCream' custom made ice cream and gelato. Oh, and since we're talking pool party here - there was the requisite hot dogs and veggie burgers cooking on the grill. Plus, who could say no to one year VIP cards from Johnny Rockets which serves unlimited dinners for 4 at any location!!!! Other freebies included graphic apparel from Faded Fool, Dr. Breck Bags' cowhide wallets, briefcases and purses, free fitness training sessions from Lalo Fit, Revitalash mascara, skincare from RN Factor, jewelry from Tara Moor Paris and Maggie Jewelry and accessories from Cool Three. Celebs left with the handy Mobigrip, a is a peel 'n' stick device that attaches to your handheld with a bungee cord that wraps around your finger. It'll never fall from your hands again! Keyah Grande Guest House in the San Juan Mountains was on hand to give out gift certificate vacation packages. Meanwhile, Blue Fin Surfboards and Surfboards were gifting free surf lessons. The 2009 MTV Movie Swag Award for Best Piggy Back suites goes to: Beauty Haven at the Byron & Tracy Salon in Beverly Hills: Capitalizing on the gifting mood of the MTV related suites, the salon held its own to celebrate the coming of summer. Highlights: Celebs like Nicole Ritchie, Rebecca Romjin, Rosairo Dawson, Ali Larter, Amanda Peet and Leslie Mann were pampered with manicures and got their hair highlighted and blow dried while sipping Alize champagne cocktails and eating finger foods from The Little Next Door. Additionally, guests picked up everything they needed to kick off the summer including dresses, rompers and yoga clothes from Express, Carrera Vintage Sunglasses and Cover Girl's latest make-up including lipstains and shimmery volumizing mascara. Honorable Piggy Back Mention goes to: The Oakley 'Intro to Summer' event at the Skybar: Celebs like Vanessa Hudgens and Zachary Levi were gifted with Oakley's newest products including luggage, beach towels and sunglasses. Various new shades made their debut including the Split Thumps that come with detachable MP3 headphones and an eco-friendly pair of Bob Burnquist Gascans made out of recycled materials and bamboo. Oakley set aside a pair specifically for eco-conscious actor Adrien Grenier. | |
| Leah Anthony Libresco: Wikipedia Removes Semi-Protection from Civil Liberties | Top |
| The public square just got a whole lot less open. On May 29th, Wikipedia, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" banned all IP addresses affiliated with the Church of Scientology from editing any part of the online encyclopedia. The decision came after four months of debate among Wikipedia's top administrators. This is the first wholesale banning of an organization from Wikipedia, as opposed to bans for individual users or protective restrictions placed on pages that are prone to vandalism (as after the Colbert-mediated African elephant prank ). The new policy is a major step back for Wikipedia and all internet communities. Almost no one would deny that Scientologist editors have persistently caused problems for Wikipedia. The latest case is the fourth scientology-related controversy to require arbitration at Wikiedia's highest levels in as many years. Edits and deletions of material that criticizes scientology have occurred on a massive, seemingly coordinated scale. It is entirely possible that, on net, edits from within the Scientology compound do destabilize the Wikipedia community, without contributing very much of value, but banning all members of a controversial organization sets a terrible precedent for the regulation of online speech. Today, online communities like Wikipedia and facebook are the public square, or at least the one with the most relevance to most citizens. When the assumptions for free speech change here, it represents a threat to our civil liberties that is every bit as dangerous as an attack on them in the 'real world.' There are ways to curtail the kinds of edit wars that were raging on the Wikipedia Scientology pages. WikiScanner , a free software available online, can identify the sources of anonymous edits made on Wikipedia by analyzing the IP addresses of the perpetrators. With the motto of 'Radical Transparency' this software has already uncovered self-serving edits by Diebold Election Systems, Exxon, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Wikipedia's commitment to sourcing its articles and maintaining a neutral point of view should allow it justifiably to revert biased editing that isn't supported by facts. In the long run, Wikipedia can succeed only by fact-checking and not by bans. Very few organizations' edits stem from a central location that can be discerned by IP address, and, even for those that do, it is easy to send operatives out to public libraries to edit Wikipedia articles with real anonymity. Wikipedia's policy to ban all Scientologists, regardless of past behavior, is ineffective, at best, and sets a terrible example for online communications. One disheartening preview of the future has been playing out on the forums of Bioware, a company that runs a Star Wars -themed MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game). Bioware banned the use of the words "gay," "lesbian," and "homosexual" in forums discussing the characters that players created. Bioware community manager Sean Dahlberg's initial comment was simply, "As I have stated before, these are terms that do not exist in Star Wars. Thread closed." After an outcry by the Bioware's users (and a listing of several famously gay characters in the extended Star Wars universe), discussion of homosexuality was allowed back on the forum. This situation was resolved, but it is hardly the first scandal of this kind. Sony's Home network for PlayStation users banned the words "gay," "bi-sexual," and "Jew" in 2008, and a Microsoft-run Xbox forum banned a user who self identified as a lesbian, on the grounds that discussion of sexual orientation was "offensive." This kind of censorship is more dangerous that simple hate speech. Bioware, Sony, and Microsofts's actions were meant to stifle debate, mute speech, and shove gays back into the closet. Wikipedia's recent actions, like those of these companies, prevent an entire class of people from engaging in communication and commerce. As long as there is sufficient competition, perhaps this kind of discrimination can be overlooked, if we assume that the targeted group can simply switch to a different service, but the issue is really less a question of losing out on a service than one of losing out on society. We don't live in an era of block parties and neighborhood associations, and, today, the public square isn't in our streets, it's on our computer screens. Our lives and our business and personal connections are moving online to sites like facebook, flickr, paypal, and Wikipedia. Wikipedia should reverse its Scientology ruling rather than set a precedent of discrimination that will only grow more dangerous as our lives move online. Shutting out entire subgroups from these networks is shutting them out of 21st century society. This discriminatory policy will have repercussions that we can't revert with a single click. More on Press Freedom | |
| Don McNay: Entrepreneurs, Bailouts and the Last American Hero | Top |
| I've got a name, I've got a name And I carry it with me like my daddy did But I'm living the dream that he kept hid -Jim Croce . The Last American Hero is a 1973 movie about race car legend Junior Johnson. It was based a profile of Johnson that Tom Wolfe wrote for Esquire Magazine. Johnson had dreams, determination, and the willingness to go against the powers that be. In short, he had the make up of a natural entrepreneur. When Johnson started driving, NASCAR took place on dirt tracks in small towns. Now it is a multi billion dollar business. Johnson had a lot to do with that growth. Johnson made a unique mark and helped to create a unique industry. The way that entrepreneurs often do. I've been a critic of the Wall Street bailouts since day one. "Too big to fail" corporations with greedy and out of touch management should have been allowed to die. Instead they are propped up by taxpayers. They are using those tax dollars to crush potential competition from start up businesses. There are many long term ramifications of the bailouts. Our children, grandchildren and great grand-children will pay a high price for the mistakes that Wall Street and Washington made. One the greatest tragedies will be if potential entrepreneurs are discouraged instead of being encouraged. The spark that drives a person to be an entrepreneur is more than making about money. Businesses are started by people with vision, who passionately want to show that vision to the world. It is about an individuality and not sucking up to people wanting you to conform. It's all about breaking away from the norm. The theme song of the Johnson movie is Jim Croce's I've Got a Name and that sums up the spirit of entrepreneurship. People wanting to make a name for themselves. I saw The Last American Hero on a movie channel but it ought to be shown on the Fox Business Network and CNBC. In a world where AIG and Citigroup have become the perception of American business, we need champions like Junior Johnson to inspire us. At no point in the movie did I see Johnson apply for a government bailout. Even when his father needed a bailout, as in getting bailed out of jail, (they were in the moonshine business) the Johnson family didn't go looking for a handout. Junior got creative and started racing cars. That decision that led to a multi billion dollar industry and that employs thousands of people. That wouldn't have happened if Johnson had been able to get a government bailout. Trillions of dollars of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on bad management with bad business. The biggest tragedy will be if the bailouts stifle creativity and innovation. Instead of giving the money to Wall Street, I would have prefer we allow Main Street companies to have easy access to capital and show us their newest ideas. A lot of people are hurting right now. We need programs that encourage those hurting people to work hard, innovate and create businesses that make an impact that lasts for decades. We need to be enabling the next American heroes. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the founder of McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement consulting firm, in Richmond, Kentucky. He is the author of Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You When The Lottery. You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his award winning, syndicated column at www.donmcnay.com. He is a frequent guest on television and radio talk shows. McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table. The Movie: THe Last American Hero Starring Jeff Bridges, Valerie Perrine, Ned Beatty and Gary Busey (all of who went on to be bigger stars.) Music by Jim Croce. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070287/ The Esquire article, The Last American Hero by Tom Wolfe was selected as one of the seven best Esquire articles ever written. http://www.esquire.com/features/page-75/greatest-stories More on Citibank | |
| Andy Worthington: Forgotten: The Second Anniversary Of A Guantanamo Suicide | Top |
| Today, unnoticed in the Western media (although I can't vouch for the Arabic world) is the second anniversary of the death at Guantánamo -- apparently by suicide -- of Abdul Rahman al-Amri, a Saudi prisoner, and a long-term hunger striker, who had admitted that he was a foot soldier for the Taliban, but who went to his death with a ludicrous and unsupported allegation against him that, to this day, is regarded by the Pentagon as "evidence" -- a claim that, despite arriving in Afghanistan in September 2001, he became a "mid-level al-Qaeda operative" who "ran al-Qaeda safe houses" in the three months before his capture in December. The date of al-Amri's death is always significant for me, because it was in response to his death -- and with no interest from the mainstream media -- that I wrote my first two articles for my blog (after completing the manuscript for my book The Guantánamo Files ), providing some background to his story that would otherwise have been overlooked. I have followed this up in the two years since with several articles about the other prisoners who have died in Guantánamo: the three men who died in June 2006 -- Ali al-Salami, Mani al-Utaybi and Yasser al-Zahrani -- and the belated and inadequate results of an investigation into their deaths, and Abdul Razzaq Hekmati , the Afghan prisoner who died of cancer in Guantánamo on December 26, 2007, who was featured in a front-page story that Carlotta Gall and I wrote for the New York Times in February 2008. Al-Amri's death, like those of the three men the year before (two of whom were Saudis) provoked the Saudi government to break the festering mistrust that had developed between the Saudis and the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks (in which most of the operatives were Saudis) by pushing the U.S. government to repatriate the majority of the remaining 106 Saudi prisoners in Guantánamo (93 between June 2006 and December 2007), so that they could be put through a rehabilitation program that, with a high degree of success, has involved religious reeducation, counseling and support in finding wives and jobs, in order to enable them to re-enter Saudi society. As a result of this pressure, only 13 Saudi prisoners remain in Guantánamo, even though, as I reported two months ago , six of these men were "approved for transfer" after multiple military review boards. However, the 100 or so Yemenis still held at Guantánamo (who make up over 40 percent of the prison's remaining population) have been less fortunate, even though one of the three men who died in June 2006 was a Yemeni. Only 13 Yemeni prisoners have been released throughout Guantánamo's history, as negotiations between the U.S. and Yemeni governments have dragged on interminably, and even a recent proposal -- that the Saudis would take them , and put them through their rehabilitation program -- has not yet resulted in any official agreement, despite being discussed during a recent visit to Saudi Arabia by defense secretary Robert Gates. In the meantime, two Yemeni prisoners have had their habeas corpus petitions granted by U.S. courts (and more are likely to follow ), and with each passing day it becomes more apparent that Obama's promise to close Guantánamo within a year will only be achieved if a solution can be reached regarding the Yemeni prisoners. The great irony about this delay is that, as my three years of research into the stories of the Guantánamo prisoners has demonstrated, the Yemeni prisoners, like their Saudi counterparts, are, for the most part, not the "hardcore terrorists" invoked in Dick Cheney's fearful, self-seeking rhetoric (as he attempts to evade prosecution for his central role in the illegal and counter-productive "War on Terror"), but rather a mixture of innocent men -- missionaries and humanitarian aid workers, sold for bounties by the U.S. military's unscrupulous allies -- and low-level Taliban foot soldiers, recruited, like Abdul Rahman al-Amri, to support the Taliban in Afghanistan's long-running civil war, in which the enemy was not the United States, but the Muslims of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. In the absence of any news regarding Abdul Rahman al-Amri's forgotten death, I can only reiterate what I wrote exactly a year ago , to mark the first anniversary of his death: On this somber anniversary, the best I can do to mark the shameful circumstances of Abdul Rahman al-Amri's passing (without having been granted an opportunity to present his case in a court of law) is to repeat one of the few statements attributed to him during his imprisonment in Guantánamo, which demonstrates, I believe, how he never presented a threat to the United States or its interests. Responding to an allegation that he admitted to "carrying an AK-47 while retreating" to Pakistan (which was supposed to suggest militancy against the United States), he pointed out that "Americans trained him during periods of his service" with the Saudi army, and insisted that, "had his desire been to fight and kill Americans, he could have done that while he was side by side with them in Saudi Arabia. His intent was to go and fight for a cause that he believed in as a Muslim toward jihad, not to go and fight against the Americans." Two years after his death, Abdul Rahman al-Amri's words remain as relevant as ever for many of those still held at Guantánamo, when, as President Obama vacillates , Dick Cheney's monstrous lies once more draw politicians of both parties to resort to preposterous fearmongering , unable -- despite the evidence available to them -- to differentiate between the few dozen terrorists at Guantánamo, and the rest of the prison's population: innocent men and foot soldiers in a distant war that preceded the attacks of September 11, 2001 and that had nothing to do with the events of that dreadful day. One day, when historians look back on the history of Guantánamo, they will realize that, behind all the arrogant labeling of randomly-seized prisoners as "enemy combatants," who could be held neither as prisoners of war nor as criminal suspects to be put forward for trials in federal courts, and behind all the torture that was introduced when these nobodies were unable to come up with "actionable intelligence," was a war that, although justified in its pursuit of al-Qaeda, was fatally flawed when those who instigated it -- and the politicians who supported them -- decided to equate a despised government that had sheltered al-Qaeda (the Taliban) with al-Qaeda itself. Four months into the new administration, the grievous errors made by the Bush administration in its pursuit of that small group of men who had gathered around Osama bin Laden, as the Saudi billionaire, or his proxies, launched the attack on the United States, have not been addressed in an adequate manner , and seem, instead, to have inflicted permanent damage on America's moral compass. Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press), and maintains a blog here . More on Barack Obama | |
| Michael Russnow: Susan Boyle Placed Rather Than Won: Hollie Steel Cried Her Way Into the Finals | Top |
| It was a surprise, though not completely shocking, that Susan Boyle did not win Britain's Got Talent . Her performance in the finals held today in London surpassed her original rendition of the same song she sang in her introduction to the world, I Dreamed a Dream from Les Miserables and was a marked improvement over her semi-final selection of Memory from Cats . But the intervening week since last Sunday's semi-final performance win via telephone call-in votes -- ironically over the contestants which beat her in the finals, the dance hip-hop team, Diversity -- may well have played a part in her second place finish. Taking nothing away from Diversity , who displayed terrific moves as did their dancing counterpart Flawless , which was the opening act, it seems to me Susan's negative press in the tabloids and CNN, plus tweets on Twitter may have worked against her. Hard to say and difficult to prove, but, having suggested in my last column that she was a bit too overconfident and cheeky, I must commend her for her subdued patter after her brilliant number, and, in particular for how she behaved when Diversity was declared the winner. "The best people won," she said of Diversity . "They're very entertaining, and lads, I wish you all the best." She put a beautiful cap on her talent show stint and, no doubt, vanquished the doubters with her remarks and, more importantly, the stirring and different style with which she sang the Les Miserables hit. Of course, though we may be disappointed for Susan it is unlikely too many tears will flow from either our eyes or her own, because she is destined to live the dream she sang about and we'll be hearing a lot from her in the years to come. It's hard to believe with all the hoopla that the Queen won't summon her for a command performance. To me, although he didn't make the top three, the other bet to achieve some level of stardom is the handsome and very talented Shaun Smith, the 17-year-old high school rugby player who wowed us with Ain't No Sunshine . For a teenager with no previous exposure or professional experience, his singing was enormously infectious and his baritone vibrato and up-tempo transitions were sheer excitement. Because of his age and looks there's little doubt a contract will soon be forthcoming, probably from American Idol 's Simon Cowell, who was practically salivating during every performance -- even more than Amanda Holden! The other young singers, 12-year-old Shaheen Jafargholi and 10-year-old Hollie Steel, were quite good, but as adolescents will have to develop a bit before we see whether they rise to everyone's expectations of their talents. A word about Hollie, though, and her complete breakdown on Friday's semi-final performance. Lest you think I'm cruel, so be it, but it tells me that shows like this should not allow children to compete against the adults. It is simply not fair. Not because they might be considered cute and cuddly nor even that the flaws in their performances contrasted with adults might be forgiven. But Hollie's mistakes and fumbles, leading to a hysterical meltdown, should have ended it there for the girl. Indeed, hosts Ant and Dec, as they tried to calm her down, informed her there would be no more time for a do over. But amidst her continued tears, running into the arms of her waiting mother, the ordinarily cold Simon Cowell, playing against type, assured her they would find the time and permitted her to come back later. Her second try was much better, and so, though she didn't win the audience vote, she was voted into the finals by the judges. They insisted it was because of her talent, and against the other choice, the falsetto-voiced Greg Pritchard, I would have to agree. However, I have to respond to Simon's comment in the finals, after Hollie performed extremely well, that others had discussed the fairness of whether children should appear with grownups. He admitted that he'd wrestled with it as well, but came to the conclusion that if their talents matched the adults, why not? He further suggested that votes for Hollie should be based on talent and not pity. But wasn't it pity that rescued Hollie in the semis? There were several other children near the same age, who all performed in the semis without subjecting us to their neuroses. Indeed, Natalie Okri, also ten years old and one of the top three in the group that included Susan Boyle, didn't cry until after she was voted out. Shaheen, Aiden Davis, Callum Francis, Kieran Gaffney and 2 Grand's Sallie Lax are all in the age twelve range and didn't need the judge's support. However, having said that, Simon did help Shaheen in the initial audition when he stopped him mid-performance and suggested that he do another number, which then wowed the judges and the audience. These two instances demonstrate that, talent aside, the children have been given favored treatment over the adults. No one stopped Susan Boyle and gave her a chance to start again after a faulty beginning when she squeaked out the first few bars of Memory in the semi-finals. Likewise, no one allowed Welsh tenor Jamie Pugh to have a second try when, with an admitted bundle of nerves, he fell short as he performed Impossible Dream . Amanda Holden even buzzed in during the middle of the song, later chided by Simon for doing so, which no doubt even unnerved him more. So, why the double standard? On the one hand they say that talent is talent, no matter the age, and in a sense that's true. But if they make exceptions for kids who don't quite make it at first or cry uncontrollably,is that fair? In a track meet, if you fall they don't make everyone redo the race just because you've won all the previous ones. In my opinion, they should have a separate talent contest, Britain's Kids Got Talent, with a cutoff at least at 14. That's my solution, though I doubt they'll take it. Michael Russnow's website is www.ramproductionsinternational.com More on Susan Boyle | |
| Geoffrey R. Stone: Sonia Sotomayor and the Hypocrisy of "Conservative" Critics | Top |
| The May 30, 2009, New York Times contains two interesting articles about Sonia Sotomayor. One deals with her views of affirmative action, the other with her views of campaign finance regulation. According to these articles, Judge Sotomayor has been supportive of both policies. What this means in terms of her predicted behavior as a Justice of the Supreme Court is that she will tend to uphold the constitutionality of both policies. The articles report that conservative critics of Judge Sotomayor have begun to attack her for her positions on these issues because, by doing so, she is allegedly making inappropriate policy judgments rather than applying the law in a cautious and respectful manner. This criticism reveals the inconsistency and, dare I say, hypocrisy of the contemporary conservative stance on constitutional interpretation. Conservatives insist that their heroes - Justices Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito - are judicial "passivists," rather than judicial "activists," who "strictly construe the Constitution," do not substitute their own views for those of the Framers, and generally defer to the judgments of the democratically-elected branches of the government. Most fundamentally, these conservative Justices do not use the power of judicial review (the power to declare laws unconstitutional) to smuggle their own policy preferences into their interpretations of the Constitution. That vice, they say, is the vice of liberal activists. Now, let us consider the debate about affirmative action and campaign finance regulation. What does it mean to say that Judge Sotomayor is "supportive" of affirmative action and campaign finance regulation? It does not mean that Judge Sotomayor would use the power of judicial review to require affirmative action or campaign finance regulation. That is not the issue. What it does mean is that she would be inclined to uphold the power of the democratically-elected branches of government to adopt those policies if they choose to do so . This is not judicial activism, but judicial passivism. It is not free-wheeling interpretation to impose her own views on the nation, but strict construction of the Constitution that takes a modest rather than an aggressive view of judicial power. It is precisely the judicial methodology that conservatives say they admire. What the conservatives commentators really want in a Justice with respect to these issues is not judicial passivism but judicial activism. What they want is not strict construction, but free-wheeling, activist interpretation. What they want is a Justice who will hold unconstitutional programs of affirmative action and campaign finance regulation, which is exactly what they've gotten from Justices Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. What they want is conservative activism - the aggressive use of judicial power in order to smuggle conservative political views into the interpretation of the Constitution. Consider affirmative action. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "No State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." What does this mean? It does not mean that all persons must be treated alike in all circumstances. That would be absurd. For example, citizens can vote, aliens cannot; eighteen-year-olds can drive, fourteen-year-olds cannot; lawyers can practice law, doctors cannot; and so on. What is clear from the history of the adoption of the Equal Protection Clause, which was enacted shortly after the Civil War, is that its Framers intended it primarily to protect African-Americans from continued oppression. But the Equal Protection Clause doesn't expressly apply only to African-Americans. So the inevitable question is: Who else does it protect? Over the years, the Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause also protects other groups who have been historically discriminated against, such as women, illegitimate children, and ethnic minorities. The key question in the affirmative action debate is whether laws designed to benefit racial and ethnic minorities and women are unconstitutional because they disadvantage whites and men. Put differently, are whites and men like blacks and women for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause? The passivist, strict constructionist, originalist answer must be: No. If states want to engage in affirmative action, such programs do not violate the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, and they do not violate the intent of its Framers, who never envisioned affirmative action. Nonetheless, Justices Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have consistently held affirmative action unconstitutional. Whatever else one might say about those judgments, they do not reflect what are supposed to be "conservative" principles of constitutional interpretation. They represent conservative judicial activism, plain and simple. Similarly, on the issue of campaign finance regulation, the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Campaign finance legislation limits the amount that wealthy individuals and corporations can spend in order to influence the political process. The goal is to reduce the corrupting influence of money on political candidates and officeholders and to create a greater sense of "one person, one voice" in the political process. Think of a presidential debate in which time was not allocated equally, but was sold in ten-minute segments to the highest bidder. Does a regulation that limits the amount individuals and corporations can spend in the political process violate the First Amendment? The passivist, originalist, strict constructionist view must be: No. But Justices Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito consistently say: Yes. Protecting the interests of wealthy individuals and corporations, they invariably hold that such regulations violate the freedom of speech. Whatever else one might say about those judgments, they do not reflect what are supposed to be "conservative" principles of constitutional interpretation. They represent conservative judicial activism, plain and simple. I don't mean here to say that affirmative action and campaign finance regulation should be constitutional or unconstitutional. (My own view is that the former generally is constitutional while the latter generally is not.) My point, rather, is that the conservative commentators and critics have to be held accountable for their inconsistency and cynicism. If they truly believe in conservative judicial principles, then they should be delighted with Judge Sotomayor's apparent views on affirmative action and campaign finance regulation, for those views reflect precisely the interpretative principles the conservatives say they admire. And, at the same time, they should be furious with Justices Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito for departing from those principles in order to impose conservative political values on the nation in the guise of constitutional interpretation. | |
| Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Picketing President Obama Is the Wrong Way to Get Blacks to Back Gay Marriage | Top |
| The Gay activists that picketed President Obama at a recent fundraising event in Los Angeles for allegedly not doing and saying enough to beat back Proposition 8 must have dropped in from another planet. Obama remains wildly popular among African-American voters and an attack on him for being less than resolute on gay rights does nothing but further tick black voters off. They'll need those voters now more than ever if they plop another initiative on the ballot in 2010. The measure would reverse Proposition 8 and legalize same sex marriage. The Catholic Church and the Mormon groups dumped millions into the Proposition 8 initiative campaign. Yet even with their money and their drum beat media campaign, polls showed that Latinos marginally supported the proposition, Asians voted overwhelmingly against it and whites were split. Polls also showed that a majority of black voters in key parts of the state voted for it. Los Angeles was one. Nearly sixty percent of blacks backed the initiative. The black vote made the crucial difference in passing the initiative. A well-heeled and probably well paid off core of preachers who head fundamentalist leaning, mega and medium-sized black churches held rallies and took to their pulpits and bible thumped their congregations to pass the initiative. Proposition 8 backers shrewdly flooded mailboxes in mostly black neighborhoods with a mailer that featured a stern faced Obama and his horribly out of context quote saying that he opposed gay marriage. Obama vehemently denounced Proposition 8. Even if the ministers hadn't said a word about gay marriage, a significant number maybe even the majority of blacks might still have voted for it. The warning signs that black voters were susceptible to religious and conservative pitches to oppose gay marriage lit up in 1997. Then the late Green Bay Packers perennial all-pro defensive end Reggie White, an ordained fundamentalist minister stirred a firestorm when he took a huge swipe at gay rights and gay marriage in a speech to the Wisconsin state legislature. White became the first celebrity black evangelical to say publicly what many black religious leaders said and believed privately about gay issues. Few blacks joined in the loud chorus that condemned his remarks. A year before White's outburst, a Pew Poll measured black attitudes toward gay marriage and found that blacks by an overwhelming margin opposed it. A CNN poll eight years later showed that anti-gay attitudes among blacks had not changed much since then. At a tightly packed press conference in October 2003, five of Michigan's top black prelates publicly called on the state legislature to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The ballot measure passed in November, and more than fifty percent of blacks backed it. The same year the conservative Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage corralled a handful of top black preachers to plop their name on the Alliance's letterhead and tout the Alliance's anti-gay rights agenda. At the NAACP convention in July 2004, there was some talk of taking a delegate vote to put the organization firmly on record backing gay rights. It didn't get far. Reverend Julius Caesar Hope, the head of the NAACP's religious affairs department, warned that a resolution to back gay marriage "would make some serious problems. I would think the membership would be overwhelmingly against it, based on our tradition in the black community." Seven months before the November 2004 presidential election, a legion of black churchmen staged a rally on Capitol Hill, "We believed that we are faced with a challenge," Bishop Paul Morton thundered to the crowd, "God versus same-sex marriage and we will not compromise in that area." A day later an AME convention forbade its ministers from performing same-sex marriages. In nearly every state since then where gay marriage bans have been enacted, conservative church-influenced blacks have been the driving force backing the bans. Christian fundamentalist groups have played hard on that sentiment. At the same time, however, a significant percent of blacks have rejected the bigoted, narrow religious appeals of some black ministers and opposed gay marriage bans. Even in the winning Proposition 8 campaign, forty percent of black voters overall opposed the initiative. Many, perhaps the majority of blacks, can be won to back same sex marriage as a paramount civil rights issue. Because that's what it is. But picketing President Obama is the absolute wrong way to get them to do that. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles at 9:30 AM Fridays on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and live streamed nationally on ktym.com More on Gay Marriage | |
| David M. Abromowitz: Who is Wise? | Top |
| A few weeks before Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court, a Princeton alumnus of the Class of 1945 complained in a letter to the Princeton Alumni Weekly: "But the feminization of Princeton seems to be pervasive, invading all activities so that Princeton now seems almost to be a women's college with a good-sized male contingent. Gone is the distinct masculine flavor of an all-male college. The maleness of the Nassau Inn's Tap Room has been replaced by a female, dainty, tearoom atmosphere." The author was not the first, and certainly he will not be the last, defender of the sanctity of male exclusiveness ranting against the erosion of the supposedly higher standards of yore. What is more remarkable is that in 2009, public figures like Limbaugh, Gingrich , Buchanan, Tancredo , Barnes and Rove articulate their attacks on Judge Sotomayor by loudly echoing the cranky elitists from a bygone era, who apparently can't stand that one half of America might be just as well qualified to runs things as are they. These conservative icons perpetuate views that were rampant - and openly expressed -- on campus when Sotomayor enrolled in 1972. In February 1973, the magazine of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton carried an article by one of the group's founders lamenting about co-education: "The makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse." That Judge Sotomayor earned summa cum laude honors in this sometimes hostile atmosphere was doubly impressive. No one with a shred of decency would claim that her professors, some of whom certainly shared the feelings of the Concerned Alumni, were handing out "As" to her as a gift. She was even awarded the highest honor Princeton bestows on any undergraduate, the Pyne Prize, recognizing the member of the senior class whose performance "manifested in outstanding fashion...excellent scholarship and effective support of the best interests of Princeton University." If only all that were going on in the attacks on her credentials were nostalgia for the supposedly good old days of an all-male Tap Room, or even an all-male Supreme Court. But the view that only a certain kind of person belongs in the club is closely linked to the false argument that the Constitution reveals fixed, clear "law" that only some people (read: traditionalists and conservatives) truly understand and respect. Others outside this club (read: women, liberals, minorities) are always cast as trying to subvert the true meaning of the law when they acknowledge that experience and empathy inevitably play a part in human decision making. Deciding a Constitutional case - unlike being a baseball umpire - demands that you wrestle with open-ended terms and consider what is a "reasonable" search, or "equal", or "due" process. How can that be done without reference to life experience and differing views shaped at least in part by that experience - or by hearing and appreciating another's views so shaped? If the meaning of the Constitution is so clear, why not have only one really smart Justice? Or at this point, couldn't we just program a computer with all the precedents to tell us the answer? The Court is not a representative body, but if an ancient sage was right in saying , "Who is wise? He who learns from all men", broadening the range of experience on the Supreme Court can only enrich and strengthen it. Some conservatives - notably Justice Scalia -- choose a line of argument that masks their own bias, often called "originalism ." This approach is asserted as neutral and legitimate, by claiming that deciding a case today merely requires divining what a clause of the Constitution originally meant. But doing so intentionally limits questions to inherent views and biases of the all white male property owners of 1789 sitting around the Tap Room of their era. Would outlawing sexual harassment be seen as a valid exercise of federal Congressional power? Probably not to the Framers, who gave women neither a vote nor full property rights. And even if originalism were a valid approach - which many Constitutional scholars doubt - then the logical outcome is that the next Supreme Court justice should be an historian, not a lawyer. Since long before Galileo theorized that the world was round, there have been cranky old guys arguing that the person bringing change is the radical, citing everything from tradition to Divine immutable law as proof of their own superior wisdom. Putting down the Latina from the Bronx, then, is just the latest illustration of the time honored die hard resistance to change and inclusion. When Sonia Sotomayor entered Princeton in 1972, the percentage of women undergraduates was roughly equivalent to the percentage of women there will be on the Supreme Court when she takes her seat. One hopes this Court and those observing its workings will offer a more hospitable atmosphere. David Abromowitz is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org. More on Sonia Sotomayor | |
| Tony Sachs: Happy Birthday To The King Of Swing: Benny Goodman Turns 100 | Top |
| May 30th marks the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Benny Goodman. The "King Of Swing"'s centennial hasn't garnered the same hoopla as those of, say, Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong, at least not among the part of the population that doesn't love vintage jazz. If you want to know why, look at a picture of Benny next to the Duke or Satchmo. Goodman looks more like an accountant than a jazz musician. It also doesn't help that the clarinet as a jazz instrument is a hard sell, lacking the power of brass instruments like the trumpet or saxophone. In the wrong hands, it can be a whiny, almost comical instrument. Even when played by a master, it can sound dated, quaint, unfashionable to untutored ears. Simply put, Benny Goodman isn't hip, certainly not by early 21st century standards. Benny's image, or lack thereof, is probably why a lot of people forget that he was the Elvis of the big-band era. "Hot" jazz had been popular for a decade by the mid '30s, and Goodman had been on the scene almost that long. But the title "The King Of Swing" wasn't simply bestowed on him because he was white and popular. He earned it the night his band turned his brand of music into a full-fledged phenomenon. According to legend, the spark became a flame on August 21, 1935 during a broadcast from the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles, when the crowd went berserk and the Swing Era began. For the next few years, Benny Goodman was the most popular bandleader in the country, and his music helped to pull the record industry back from the brink of extinction in the middle of the Great Depression. In 1938, the Goodman outfit took over Carnegie Hall and helped to prove that jazz wasn't just music, it was art. But of course, it was art that you could jitterbug to, and the recording of the legendary concert reveals instances of the audience screaming and whooping like they were at a rock club. Swing wasn't always the mannered music of nostalgia that our grandparents dance to at weddings. Benny Goodman's music was wild, rebellious, and pissed off parents the same way Elvis or the Rolling Stones did decades later. To dig what the fuss was all about seven-plus decades ago, just put on one of Goodman's records. His band -- which over the years included legends like Bunny Berigan, Gene Krupa, Harry James, Lionel Hampton and Teddy Wilson, and featured arrangements by the brilliant Fletcher Henderson -- was able to swing with the power of a blast furnace, but with a lightness and fleetness that makes it damn near impossible not to get your feet moving. They rock out, but with a precision and economy that also marks the playing of Goodman himself. As amazing as his big-band records are, his small-group "chamber jazz" recordings from the '30s, featuring Teddy Wilson on piano, Lionel Hampton on vibes and Gene Krupa on drums, are to my ears even better. The music is witty and elegant but it swings, and swings hard. Goodman may be the leader of the group, but he doesn't step on the toes of the other players. The songs are perfectly crafted miniatures, where every note makes sense, and the overall effect sets the blood to pumping and the toes to tapping. And let it not be forgotten that Goodman had the guts to put together an interracial quartet in 1935, back when even jazz groups were almost completely segregated. Goodman's music never really progressed beyond the swing era; except for a half-hearted stab at bebop in the late '40s, he didn't really explore the new frontiers of jazz that emerged between the end of the swing era and his death in 1986 (although he did regularly dabble in classical music). But he kept making brilliant records into the '60s; his 1963 reunion album with Wilson, Hampton and Krupa packs almost as much punch as their records of a quarter century earlier. And he kept kicking ass onstage right up to the end, thanks in part to a fanatical practice regime. Frank Sinatra said he once asked Goodman why he practiced so much. Benny's response was, "This way, even when I'm not great, I'm still good." If you like jazz -- or 20th century American music, for that matter -- then you owe it to yourself to check out Benny Goodman. And if you're already a convert, put on "Let's Dance" or "Stompin' At The Savoy" or the 1938 Carnegie Hall album or any one of Goodman's thousands of classic recordings, and pay respect to one of the greatest musicians of the last 100 years. Happy birthday, your majesty! | |
| Daoud Kuttab: What Should Obama Tell the Muslim World? | Top |
| Muslims and Arabs would like to hear a lot from President Obama, starting with Palestine, Iraq and the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf. While foreign policy is crucial, a sincere show of respect and attempt to rebuild trust are more important. Palestine has become the litmus test for U.S. foreign policy because it has exposed U.S. hypocrisy. Examples of the double standard include U.S. bias toward Israel while it claims to be an honest broker, its push for "democracy" while rejecting the results of Palestinian elections, and its silence on Israeli nuclear weapons while blasting Iranian nuclear efforts. There are huge expectations for Obama. Arabs and Muslims appreciate and respect American values of democracy and human rights, but the disreputable actions of U.S. soldiers, diplomats and civil servants have led many to question the U.S. commitment to its stated values. Typical references to the Judeo-Christian heritage need to be replaced by an approach appealing to universal values based on human rights, self-determination, and opposition to occupation and dictatorships. Obama needs to find a way to apologize for the past and to convince people that he is planning to change course. No one expects the U.S. president to totally change U.S. policy, but people will welcome efforts to turn a new page based on fairness and trust. Obama could weaken the accusations of U.S. double standards and help dispel the false connection between Islam and terrorism -- as well as demonstrating a reason to trust an American president -- by establishing low-level negotiations with the elected members of the Palestinian legislature who ran on the reform-and-change bloc headed by Ismail Haniyeh. Talking to the political wing of Hamas is no different than talking to the leaders of Iran, which Obama promised to do while campaigning. Daoud Kuttab is Palestinian journalist and former Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University More on Israel | |
| Mary Ann West: Dinner with Newt: Why Would Anyone Want to Attend? | Top |
| Your Invitation from Newt Gingrich Trolling through my e-mail spam collector stacked high with the usual Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Starwood, press releases etc. from both Democrats and Republicans, I was chagrined to actually open what I knew would be the usual rantings from the Right, an invitation to join Newt Gingrich and his band of merry men at the round table for a chicken dinner. I personally know several Republicans who would be only too happy to shell out the bucks for this golden opportunity. "Our country has a hostile, Democrat-controlled Congress and a popular Democrat president - much like we did in the early 90s - and they are intent on pushing their liberal agenda at our expense. We were up against similar electoral odds in 1994, but we were able to win back a Congressional majority with core conservative ideals to move the power out of Washington and give it back to the American people." Wow! A chance to sit at the same table with Newt Gingrich and listen to hours of rabid rousting from the far right, who can resist such an offer? All I need to do is send $50 and join the lottery! Well actually, I can because I would rather have a tooth extraction than "... And I'd be honored if you were sitting at my table to discuss the future of our Republican Party." Once again: Earth to Newt and Friends, isn't this why you lost the 2008 elections? Maybe 65 million voters chose to make a significant change in how our country is being run because of your views! "I'll put I it this way; its time to end Nancy Pelosi's reign as Speaker by supporting the NRCC's efforts to take back a Congressional majority. Our nation, our national security and our private enterprise depend on this change. As a special thank you to all the contest entrants, you'll receive exclusive access to the live webcast of my speech courtesy of the NRCC. So, please take a few minutes to make a special contribution and I hope to see you at my table on the 8th. Your friend, Newt Gingrich P.S. Don't forget every time you enter you increase your chances to join me at the dinner. Please visit www.nrcc.org/dinnerwithnewt before May 31st at midnight to make your contribution. I look forward to meeting you. -Newt" Newt, you aren't my friend & the last thing I would want to do is sit through a dinner posing as a true believer, I'm not an actress! This is one way to get my e-mail address removed from the NRCC list serve! More on Nancy Pelosi | |
| Eli Dansky: In Praise of Injustice (Accentuate the Negative) | Top |
| I'm not a political scientist. I don't run a website or have even cursory knowledge of basic html. I don't own any poster board. I also don't hold political office or a union card, I haven't been tortured, and I am a straight white dude who's getting married next month. I am perhaps unqualified to be holding forth on the state of activism and messaging in play across the broad fight for progress in this country. Though from the looks of the blogosphere, I am not uniquely unqualified. And hey, I'm Jewish, so I know a little something about laws that rob certain citizens of their rights. I learned about them in Hebrew School, where they'll also let you know that some of my fellow MOT's (Members of the Tribe) were Freedom Riders during the 1960s! So there's that. Plus, the whole Moses thing. Resume aside, I don't think it takes more than a set of eyes and a smidge of dreaded Empathy to understand that freedom's gallant march has slowed to a parched freeway crawl of late. The California High Court's recent ruling against gay rights is enough to remind anyone that freedom is not in fact just another word for nothing left to lose. Losing one's natural born status as a fully recognized human being, for example, ain't exactly unburdening. It does seem lately as if "activism" is just another word for standing outside of important buildings and landmarks with clearly printed placards and well-phrased chants decrying an important decision that's just been made. Alternate meanings include crafting cogent arguments on websites or in blog posts on others' websites that decry important decisions that have recently been made. While decrying decisions in the aftermath of their making is not entirely effective as a plan of corrective action on its own, there is lots to decry: torture, labor, gay rights, for starters. Personally, I blame Obama. And not just because I have a deep voice and it would be kinda cool to have a radio show. I think it's possible that, following Obama's success, we've all gotten just a bit too goddamned warm and fuzzy for our own good. Conventional wisdom has it that goal-oriented optimism is now the way to win, especially in this economy. Also, the phrase "especially in this economy" is now a required addendum to all public messaging and certain college essays. Just cover your bases and think of it like a punctuation mark. With Obama, we participated in the most successful movement of our time. I know this because the web banners said, "join the movement". And when I did I was explicitly thanked and congratulated for being part of the movement for change. It was sweeping the country. We had days last year that they said would never come. They told us we couldn't, and we, well you know what we told them. And you know what we did. It's instructive to recall, however, that the Obama movement, wrapped as it was in the language and spirit of civil and social rights, was a presidential campaign. Unlike movements for civil and social rights, candidate Obama wasn't advocating a narrow issue or specific right. This was not a movement centered on a particular measure benefitting humankind, it was a movement centered on one human in particular. Anything else would have been self-defeating. Of course, this human, now POTUS, is in position to make progress for a wide swath of humanity on a number of issues, and is even taking advantage of that power now and again. Djya hear the one about Sonia Sotomayor? With regard to diversity and jurisprudence, that's actually a twofer. Still though, it may be time to un-know hope. I'm not asking that we strike the stuff from all memory. What say we simply park it out back awhile? At the very least let's restore despair and self-righteousness, along with shame/fearmongering, to their rightful places in the activist's arsenal (a benign alternative to the anarchist's cookbook). Above all, we have to stop starting with the solution. Take The Employee Free Choice Act . Labor Unions, the folks that gave us the weekend, the middle class, and The Sopranos (the production crew on that show was all union) are in trouble. Big Business, while vilifying unions for everything from the fall of the American automobile to the rise of outsourcing, has invented a variety of ways over the years to use the current system to interfere with organizing efforts. Labor's latest response was legislation making it easier to form a union. Labor, as is their wont, lobbied Congress for support on the measure, winning lots of commitments. Then EFCA lost steam as pro-business pols and pro-business pals picked apart the legislation and removed their names and the names of remotely vulnerable Senators and Representatives from it. A lot like what happens when you try to form a union. Unions might not now be holding out hope for a diluted compromise had they first made plain that broadly accepted worker's rights and collective bargaining itself are in mortal danger. Collective bargaining should be at least as sacred as secret ballot voting, which apparently must be employed in every group decision made on American soil if Democracy is to be preserved (except one group ). Of course this would all be a bit more relevant if the words "card check" registered more than a blank stare on the face of the average eligible voter (you want me to look in my wallet?). So there is still time to start from scratch on EFCA, with the knowledge that political support is a bit easier to come by when you show the problem before proposing its solution . Fact is, in the pursuit of social justice, the failure to articulate in justice will always be fatal. The enduring images of America's civil rights success stories are not the successes themselves. I wasn't there (another qualification out the window), but when I think of the voting rights movement, I don't picture smiling black folks walking unfettered into a voting booth (if that's even happening yet). I don't necessarily think of Martin on The Mall, either. I think of Sheriff Bull Connor and I see the protesters on the business end of his police dogs and fire hoses. I see kids of all colors torn from their seats at diner counters throughout the Deep South. I see Emmit Till, or what was left of him. I imagine there was a point in time then when you could see as clearly as now the straight line from the schoolroom or the ballot box to the lynching tree. I'm not interested in a tiresome compare/contrast on suffering and oppression, that's not what I'm intending. But I do think it is important for those who value equal rights to draw a line from the wedding altar to Matthew Shepard . Disenfranchisement of African-Americans was not simply about the vote, as if that wasn't enough. The larger issue was whether or not black people were to be viewed and treated by their own government as human, or not. Any law or ordinance that undermines the rights of a specific group necessarily isolates and defines that group as "less than." That goes for marriage, too. The CA Supreme Court didn't "uphold the ban on gay marriage." They signed off on California's newly anti-gay constitution. By invalidating the rights of gay and lesbian people, the government validates and gives de facto encouragement to those who treat the LGBT community as subhuman. Anti-gay laws in California make a joke of hate-crimes legislation everywhere. Hate crimes against gays, by the way, have been on the rise , particularly since last November and the passage of Prop 8. Recently, in Richmond, CA, just outside of Oakland, a group of men found a lesbian woman with a rainbow bumper sticker on her car, dragged her from it, beating and robbing her while spewing anti-gay slurs. They proceeded to rape her in the street. When they noticed someone walking in their direction, the men bundled her into her car, drove a few blocks away, and pulled over to rape her some more. They then left her for dead in an abandoned warehouse. Somehow, timid television ads invoking slippery slopes or kindly old straight validators , or even door-to-door Mormon marriage burglars , don't quite communicate the depth of the matter. It's facile--the bad kind of facile--to think that because we all seem to agree with the ideal of equality in general that it will always be a popular notion in specific. If that were the case then we wouldn't need laws. We'd have love, love, love. That'd be good with me, but details keep getting in the way. I've heard and even had confusion at times over the big deal with marriage. Weren't we just talking about civil unions? Can't we get past tax form, health care and visiting hour snafus through loopholes that won't inflame those who find homosexuality so threatening? The answer of course is that it's bigger than all that, as if just getting hitched weren't enough. Marriage is also about the 14th amendment and simple human decency. Extending full recognition to all citizens is something we either do or don't do. Prohibiting loving relationships via ballot measure or constitutional amendment or both is shameful and hateful. It's guaranteed that government endorsed hate poses a greater danger to the future of your kids and mine, gay or straight, than a ceremony at Town Hall. And if you think the comparison to '50s and '60s civil rights is overreaching, tell me if you think anti-miscegenation laws were primarily about the definition of marriage, or just plain racist. Maybe it is as simple as equality for all, only it takes a beat or two to get there. I was going to tackle torture here as well, but this is running long and Dick Cheney is on the job, clearly now working for the Left. Just keep trotting him out on the morning shows, throw in a couple of spots in prime time. Eventually the electorate will howl for hearings and more significant human rights legislation, and the politicians will follow like lemmings. Actually I'm inclined to think torture went from being a Bush Administration program to an American program once the polls closed on November 2nd, 2004. President Obama admitted as much when he noted, during the release of the last round of memos, that "... withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. " While all of the Bush regimes' alleged (cough, cough) crimes should be investigated and -- where appropriate -- prosecuted vigorously, assigning guilt will not relieve collective culpability. We simply didn't work as hard for Kerry as many of us did for the current President. Then again, the Kerry campaign seems to have been so focused on keeping it dignified that they failed not only to defend John Kerry but also to shine a harsh light on any of the smorgasbord of open secret Bush abuses. So in the end, more people were scared of marriage than of what might happen to them through four more years of Dick and George. Judging from the squeamish reaction of certain of my friends to my own impending nuptials, this is not entirely surprising and may not be about sexuality. Some voters are just afraid of marriage. In context, perhaps blaming our Chief Executive and reverting to a BBO (Before Barack Obama) mindset isn't the answer. The argument about the role of leaders inside and outside the government seemed cosmetic during the Democratic primary (remember Clinton/LBJ vs. Obama/King?). It turns out that expecting the President to simultaneously run the government and lead a daily sit-in isn't altogether realistic. Getting angry with President Obama for not doing everything we want or waiting for him to get it done on his own isn't going to work now any more than it did in support of John Kerry. The onus is on us to do the President the favor of pressuring him into action, by working to put and keep the big picture in everyone's mind. Let's say for the sake of argument that we are mature enough to keep shrill hyperbole at a reasonable distance and avoid invoking the Holocaust. Then the time's come to quit shying away from the larger ramifications of our discourse, no matter how bleak the message may become as a result. We still have to find full equity for gay people, and everyone else for that matter. And we need to begin to repair the environment and public education, extend health care to all, fight poverty, and on and on. And that's just domestic legislation. At this point in our history, we can't afford to lower the stakes any longer. Especially in this economy. More on Gay Marriage | |
| Stephen Balkam: Schools Out for Summer: Kids Go Online | Top |
| School is nearly out and the long summer vacation beckons. Kids will soon have loads of time to hang out with their friends at the pool, the park and each other's houses. And they'll have plenty of time to hang out online. June is Internet Safety Month and it would be good to remind ourselves of all that's great about the web and what problems and concerns parents need to be aware of in our kids' quickly expanding online world. What's new is the mobile nature of the Internet and the proliferating number of devices and ways kids can get online. We've quickly moved on from the family PC placed in the living room, to households with multiple computers, laptops, web-enabled game consoles and, increasingly, cell phones with online capabilities. Kids are walking around with the Internet in their pockets and many parents are oblivious to what their children can access and what and how they can post their own content (including pictures) on the web. So now would be a good time to have a talk with your children, tweens and teens about what they are doing online, where they are going and what they are uploading. This can be a humbling experience. You may find that you had no idea that the Sony Playstation Portable that you bought your 11-year old last Christmas had a web browser. Or that your sixth grade daughter has had a Facebook account for the past two years. Or that your five year old son (with the help of his older brother) has managed to create an avatar on Club Penguin and regularly goes for in-world pizzas with his other penguin friends. Coming to terms with your kids online activities can be daunting, embarrassing, frightening and amusing all at the same time. In order to navigate this new world, it is best to keep in mind the three different types of safety that you will need to address: physical; psychological and reputational/legal. Physical safety refers to the rather over-reported (and thankfully, rare) cases of online predators. Obviously we must teach our kids to avoid meeting strangers they've met online or in giving out personal information to sites or "friends" that they don't know. Kids have, for the most part, got the "stranger danger" message and simply delete the creeps that they encounter, but it is worth reinforcing this basic safety point. Secondly, and harder to measure or point to, is the psychological safety of our kids. Viewing porn or graphic violent images at an early age can have huge downsides to the healthy development of a young child or teen. So can the effect of cyber-bullying, the online version of teasing, harassing and downright viscous attacks that kids can launch at the expense of other kids. In some extreme cases, some teens have taken their lives in the face of this kind of online barrage. Finally, there is the issue of your kids reputations and, in some instances, of legal repercussions of their actions. The most obvious one getting all the headlines at the moment is sexting - the sending of nude or sexually explicit photos or videos, mostly through cell phones. A 16-year old girl may feel pressured into sending a risque photo to a boyfriend who then passes it along to his friends when they break up. This can end up being circulated on the web, copied, resent and never come down. A prospective college administrator or employer might use the photo as reason to pass on her application. Or, depending what state she lives in, could land her in court as a distributor of child porn. Recently an 18-year-old Floridian was prosecuted for passing on a nude photo of his underaged girlfriend. He is now on the Registered Sex Offender list and has had to move out of his dad's apartment as they live too close to a school. It's not hard to guess his job prospects will be bleak. So it would be good if we all take a good, deep breath and get things into perspective. The online world is here to stay and the kids will outpace their parents and teachers in every digital department. However, there is something we can do. We can help our kids enormously if we give them some online space in which to grow, while maintaining a watchful eye and an open ear. And, as it's summer, let's encourage them to stay rooted in real-world realities; hiking, biking or just playing outside in the way we were free to do 20, 30 and 40 years ago. Don't use the computer as a babysitter. Set controls and impose sanctions on their cell phone use. And check up on their online friends and profiles so we can deliver them safely and, perhaps, with some new-found wisdom, when it's time to go back to school. More on Facebook | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment