NaBloPoMo 2010 Day 12 -- Some Just Don't Get It

So I was watching an interview of Jon Stewart today. Rachel Maddow was talking to him about his recent March to Restore Sanity with Stephen Colbert. They discussed a number of topics, including Stewart's belief that what he does on the Daily Show is different from what Maddow does on MSNBC. Maddow wasn't in complete agreement about that.

The interview was refreshing in some ways because it was a discussion and not a "who can yell loudest" school yard tantrum.

Over the course of the interview, Stewart attempted -- several times -- to explain to Maddow how what she does is different from what Stewart does AND that what MSNBC does is not that different from what Fox News does -- just from the other side of the argument. Again, Maddow didn't agree with Stewart.

Stewart probed further. Although he was the interviewee, Stewart asked Maddow if she and her network viewed a difference between liberals who interrupt events to declare that Bush was a war criminal and the Tea Party supporters who interrupted town hall meetings on health care reform to make their points. Stewart believed that MSNBC was willing to give the liberals a pass for the displays but railed against the Tea Partiers. And by implication, MSNBC was as one-sided as Fox News can be on the other side.

Maddow seemed almost offended that Stewart would suggest such a thing.

Maddow is of the belief that the Tea Party folks were only yelling at those town hall meetings because of a select few puppeteers who were trying to advance their economic interests. In effect, Maddow said the Tea Partiers were different because they were part of an organized assault on Obama's health care proposal. And the Code Pink group was a self-initiated collection of change agents.

Maddow misses the point. Even if those who support the Tea Party movement, or identify themselves with the Tea Party movement, have been organized in a way by a smaller group with their own agenda, the fact that these people are upset enough to yell over speakers at a town hall meeting should alert Maddow and others that maybe they have a point worth discussing -- or at least listening to. Stewart was willing to acknowledge the possibility that "Tea Party" didn't equal "clueless nut job" and perhaps that it was simply the group that best fit those who want smaller government. Maddow wasn't willing to go along.

Some people just don't get it.

NaBloPoMo 2010 Day 2 -- Election Day

It's a big day in the United States as we sit at the mid-term between Presidential election cycles. Over the last several mid-term elections, much has been made of the people making statements about the popularity of the President by the way they vote in the mid-term. In 1994, the US Congress swung to a Republican majority for the first time in decades in an apparent reaction to Bill Clinton as President. Today's election appears to be a similar statement -- even if the Republicans will wake up with control only of the House of Representatives.

The net gain of over 39 representatives by the Republicans should at least make President Obama and the Democrats sit up and take notice that there is a significant segment of the American public that does not approve of Obama's policies. I am not a political consultant or an expert (assuming those are different), but I feel comfortable saying that it would be a large mistake for the Democrats to consider today's results and forge ahead undaunted and attempt to foist their plans upon the people. And the nice thing about the separation of powers and the checks and balances built into our form of government is that these results will make it very hard for anything to be foisted upon US citizens that doesn't have bi-partisan support.

NaBloPoMo 2009 Day 27 -- Life Lesson

Our new approach to disciplining K-Man and teaching him about the realities of life.

An end of relativism?

I'm just asking the question. Tell me what you think after reading the article.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081112/D94D9Q1O3.html

I was fine

In case you were in a coma, we elected a new President yesterday. The person I voted for didn't win. But I can appreciate the historical significance of the results. And, I admit, there is a part of me that is proud of this country for arriving at this moment -- even though I do not agree with the winner's philosophies.

And I was fine with where things stood until earlier this evening when I was driving home.

I was listening to NPR. Yes, I sometimes listen to NPR. I also read the New York Times (well, the online version). What better way to know how the other side thinks than to listen to and/or read their main media outlets?

So anyway, I was listening to NPR on the way home. Actually, I was listening to their program called Fresh Air. The host was interviewing Bill Moyers. Now Mr. Moyers was on the staff of Lyndon Johnson from 1963-67, serving as his Press Secretary from 1965-67. Mr. Moyers was serving with LBJ when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. These are very important pieces of legislation in American history.

The host wanted to ask Mr. Moyers about his perspective on the election given his proximity to history in 1964 and 1965. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Moyers shared that after LBJ signed these two bills into law, he made the comment that "we just lost the South."

This was an obvious comment about the state of race relations in the South in the middle of the 1960s. We know what that decade looked like. We've seen the black-and-white footage. We've watched Mississippi Burning. Many of us -- if we're honest -- are embarrassed by that part of history. The country's history. The South's history. But that was more than 40 years ago.

The follow-up question from the host was whether he thought, given the election results, the South had moved past that. Past that decade. Past that comment from LBJ. Past those racist beliefs.

I was fine up until this moment.

Then Mr. Moyers gave his opinion.

He said that sadly, he thought the election results showed that the South had not moved past its racism. And he said that was reflected in all the red states on the map throughout the South. Like it was obvious from the mere fact that those states had not voted for Obama.

It's not possible that the majority of the voters in those states had serious concerns about Obama the man? Obama the candidate? Obama the guy who wouldn't be completely forthcoming about what he meant exactly by "change" but resorted to platitudes instead?

For Mr. Moyers to paint with such a broad brush is beyond offensive to me. Not to mention the millions of people -- IN THE SOUTH -- who voted for Obama. Mr. Moyers even commented that only 1 in 6 white Mississippians voted for Obama as evidence that they must have voted on the basis of race.

Worse, the host of Fresh Air just let Mr. Moyers' assumptions about the Southern voters sit out there. She never pushed back on the absurdity of his hypothesis. She never asked him if the fact that 9 out of 10 black voters voted for Obama meant they voted because of race. Or whether that was OK for some reason.

The notion that the South voted as a bloc against Obama because of his race is belied by the millions of Southerners who voted for the man -- not to mention by the results in Virginia and North Carolina.

What this really reveals is the underlying paradigm among the Democrats or liberals or left or whatever label you want to put on it. As long as you agree with their positions, you are enlightened or smart or sophisticated. Dare to question their positions or -- gasp -- oppose them, and you must be a blithering idiot. Oh, and a racist apparently.

VP Debate Humor

As a warm-up to tonight's VP debate, a little humor . . .