Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The latest effort of the Republican right and the leader they vigilantly rallied around not that long ago and have now forgotten is reminiscent of a ploy that occurred regularly within the now defunct Soviet Union.

When a former leader became too huge a burden to explain then he would be banished.  Children would no longer study this leader's period of history. An effort would be made within top leadership circles to erase that leader from memory.

The most celebrated example of Soviet attempted erasure came when Nikita Khrushchev took great pains to erase Joseph Stalin from memory.  There were all those gulags, those knocks on doors in the middle of the night, then the transporting of opponents to undisclosed locations never to be heard from again.

The strategy was to treat the embarrassing historical period and the leader behind it as if those events and that individual never existed.  Those Russians initiating that strategy are tactically similar to the Republican right and the eight years when they not only rallied mightily behind George W. Bush.

A party whose titular head appears to be Rush Limbaugh with strong competition from Roger Ailes' Fox News could be expected to be disturbed over the recent proposal to scrap the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule regarding the service of homosexuals in the military invoked when President Bill Clinton was in office.

A party moving perpetually backwards while heating up the forces of hate in a manner consistent with Limbaugh and his radio broadcasts would be expected to launch the same parade of horribles rationale so popular when Republicans are confronted with policy changes that reflect modern reality.

On the issue of gays it is particularly appealing to conjure up fear with a tinge of hatred since the most rightward and antagonistic element of the base can be more easily rallied by such an appeal.  

The accusation of an appeal to prejudicial hatred will always be denied with the angry retort being that the interest of America is the ultimate barometer but it has been easy to see for some time where the party's dominant right flank, which has been in control for so long, stands on gay issues and conclude why such a posture is being taken.

The death of Howard Zinn last week at 87 is a loss deeply felt by the grassroots citizenry that he so ardently championed.

Zinn's longtime friend and ideological compatriot Noam Chomsky put the historian-activist's life of achievement in perspective in a quote from an obituary in the Boston Globe January 27:

"He made an amazing contribution to American intellectual and moral culture.  He's changed the conscience of America in a highly constructive way.  I really can't think of anyone I compare him to in this respect."

Scores of others of us, Dr. Chomsky, also cannot think of anyone to compare Howard Zinn in that respect, someone who delivered a lifelong commitment to America's intellectual and moral culture along with unswerving identification to serving people and seeking to help establish a progressive agenda.

The death of Jean Simmons at 80 beckons memories of an angelic looking woman who got her first major break exuding the look of youth's sweet exuberance in David Lean's "Great Expectations" (1946).  

Simmons appeared in numerous hit films, including "Elmer Gantry" (1960) as a woman infatuated by Burt Lancaster's rousing preacher's demeanor under her husband to be Richard Brooks' direction.  Working in another Brooks film, the 1969 release "The Happy Ending" she received a "Best Actress" Oscar nomination.

A hallmark of a talented performer is to extend one's range, and this occurred with Simmons when she undertook the role of the deeply disturbed Diane Tremayne for Howard Hughes at RKO under the direction of Otto Preminger in the 1953 film noir release "Angel Face."

The title played into the film's irony, extended by the fact that Preminger was noted to be filmdom's exponent of the thematic concept of moral ambiguity.  How could one better display moral ambiguity than by casting a beautiful woman with an angelic face to play a sociopath who will stop at nothing, including murder?

For those interested in comparative government, and especially the British system, the historic appearance of President Obama at a Republican congressional retreat created an interesting precedent.

Understanding the meeting's significance, MSNBC devoted a special two hour segment to it featuring regular political commentators Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow.  The similarity was quickly addressed over the historic presidential appearance and the traditional British parliamentary sessions where prime ministers respond to direct questions from that body's members.

There was one distinct difference between the Obama appearance and Britain's regular question and answer events.  In the latter instances a prime minister not only takes questions from opposing members hoping to score political point in the process but from members of the PM's party as well.  These individuals are also seeking to score points, but in a positive vein.  

Opposition members understandably post critical questions to generate the idea that all is not going well and that their party, given the chance, would do a better job.

There were no Democrats posing friendly questions at the Republican gathering in Baltimore.  The questions were designed to make it appear as if Obama and the Democrats were the true obstructionists in the legislative impasse and that their ideas were not being considered.

Obama used the meeting to his advantage.  MSNBC correspondent Luke Russert echoed a point made by others in the media that certain leading Republicans lamented afterwards that it was a mistake to hold such a meeting.  Based on the way that it went, such a reaction would be understandable.

Obama demonstrated with his cool and detailed responses that he is a master at absorbing public policy information.  Each time that the Republicans sought to link him along with his party to obstruction he responded with detailed information on contact attempts as well as aspects of legislation wherein ideas recommended by the opposition were included.

It was plain to see that the meeting was part of a broad Democratic Party strategy to show America that Obama stands ready to meet and work with Republicans.  

His cool and detailed presentation demonstrating a commitment to working with the opposition can in time put Republicans on the defensive if they persist in using the filibuster to prevent legislation from being considered.  

It should be noted that at Scott Brown for Senator rallies in Massachusetts Tea Bag types held signs displaying the number 41, indicating the importance of thwarting Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and defeat filibuster efforts.  

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before the official British inquiry into the Iraq War with the kind of stonewalling performance characteristic of George W. Bush after it was learned that the claim of alleged weapons of mass destruction manufactured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no basis in fact.

It has been reported in the media that Blair reportedly thought about the death and destruction visited on so many in the war torn nation every day.  

His testimony at the Iraq inquiry revealed someone more interested in sticking with the official self-serving line than anyone who has done any soul searching.  In fact, the January 29 New York Times account reported by John F. Burns and Alan Cowell referred to Blair's testimony as "(a)t times spirited and at times prickly."

In describing his bond with George W. Bush, Blair's testimony can be synthesized in one statement that ended with a question that was meant to serve as an answer, a compelling reason for launching the Iraq War:

The 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company established by head note the proposition that a corporation is a person with Fourteenth Amendment rights.  

The above proposition has propounded much shock and confusion for law students tackling the subject of corporations.  How assiduously the powerful have sought every economic advantage to stay not only on top of the game but to rig it.

Much rigging can be done by putting those of your persuasion in the highest court of the land.  This has been the warning cry for years by progressives seeking to keep the disenchanted among their ranks in line during presidential elections.  

This cry was delivered in 1968 as a persuader to stay in line with Hubert Humphrey and not cast a protest vote for Eldridge Cleaver.  It was used in 2000 to encourage votes for Al Gore and eliminate defections toward Ralph Nader.

With the advent of cable television and a steady proliferation of channels  competition intensifies to fill time slots and garner higher ratings.

The tragedy of the heavy swing toward the high tech television era is that the kind of comprehensive analysis needed of issues becomes lost in a world of half minute sound bites.  The tragedy is all the graver when major federal, state, and local elections are decided on this pattern.

The arrival of Scott Brown on the Massachusetts scene, taking advantage of a political opponent devoid of new era campaign skills, harkens back to an image of a telegenic candidate whose political career reeked ultimate economic disaster from which America has never recovered.

Scott Brown is a telegenic candidate and so was Ronald Reagan.  The movie and television actor was 55 when he was elected governor of California in 1966.  Scott Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts at the age of 50.  

Remember that polls were out there before the voting began, both nationally and in Massachusetts, such as the Boston Globe poll indicating displeasure that Obama had not lived up to campaign promises.

For all too long the Democratic hierarchy has concluded that progressives will vote predictably on election day for the simple reason that they have no viable alternative to the Republican opposition.  

Increased warnings of displeasure drew no more than a few shrugs, but now that Republican Scott Brown has won the Senate seat long held by progressive icon Ted Kennedy perhaps the Democratic Party high command will awaken before more of the same occurs.  They should be well aware that if such a result can occur in liberal Massachusetts with its top heavy 3-1 Democratic registration that it can happen anywhere.

Remember what disgusted not only progressives but many mainstream moderates as well when Congress began considering a health care bill.  It was made emphatically clear that the single payer system which has served as the model of America's neighbor to the north, Canada, would not even be discussed in the wake of national polls indicating that a substantial majority of Americans favored such a proposal.

We are all citizens of the world.

During a time of crisis we must bond.  

In the interests of justice and human decency we must all become one and deliver and integrate our spirits as empathic individuals striving toward a common purpose.

The people of Haiti have endured and continue to endure grave tragedy and hardship.  Others are no longer with us, having perished in the great tragedy that befell Haiti.

It is interesting to note that Fox News, the media arm of the Republican Party, has signed up Sarah Palin as a commentator.  This should be a good fit for an obvious reason.

Fox and the Republicans have a distinct tendency to fuzz up the facts and Palin with her wild, off the top of her head commentaries on global warming, international affairs, or virtually any other issue one could name makes her a fitting prospect to follow in the tradition of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

One issue that the Republicans are notably fuzzing up is Harry Reid's unfortunate comments about his belief as to why Barack Obama would make a successful presidential candidate.  They definitely displayed racial insensitivity and he had every reason to apologize.

So now Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee's chairman and an African American himself, is shouting "double standard" from the rooftops.  

One of the factors generating disgust and driving people away from the political process is excessive spin control, the art of telling the public one thing while initiating feints and doing something else.

The current health care bill features an excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, conveying the instant impression of a rich guy out for a spin, living the life of luxury.  The idea is that this is the guy who will provide a break for Joe Six Pack based on the excise tax that will generate funds that in turn will assist the middle class.

According to Bob Herbert's reading of what is happening, revealed in his December 29 New York Times column, the tax will "kick in" on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, beginning in 2013.

Now here is the story on what is considered wealth and how it will play out:

When Jeff Greenfield was not long out of Yale Law School and was a regular on William F. Buckley's PBS interview program "Firing Line" he reminisced about the period he had served as a volunteer in the 1968 presidential campaign of Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Greenfield recalled a discussion featuring one of the leading figures of the Kennedy campaign, Richard Goodwin, with younger staffers such as Greenfield.  Greenfield noted the seriousness of Goodwin, assuredly reflecting the view of Kennedy, who also happened to be Goodwin's closest friend, on the subject of presidential power.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, save Alexander Hamilton and others who believed in the very system being overthrown in America and favored, if not a king, a strong executive, subscribed to the philosophical concepts enunciated by French thinkers such as Montesquieu concerning the importance of limiting power in that branch and dividing it instead.  

The Virginians Jefferson and Madison were staunch Francophiles and believed that, unless checked, an executive dictatorship could well emerge.  Indeed, the elder statesman at Philadelphia's Constitutional Convention, the venerable Benjamin Franklin, when being asked at the conclusion of the final session what kind of government the new nation had, replied, "A republic if you can keep it."

Ever expanding numbers of people refuse to participate in a political process they consider a sham.  The current ongoing health care debate reflects what drove them out of a system under the suffocating domination of special interests.

National polling on the health care issue delivered an overwhelming result.  The American people in substantial numbers support a single payer system such as currently exists in Canada.  

What we hear from our elected representatives is that this is a democracy and they listen to the voices of the people.  Really?  In the current instance, where support for a single payer system has been amply manifested, it is not even a subject for debate despite the fervent efforts of a few independent minds in Washington clamoring for such a discussion, such as Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

The ongoing process in which President Barack Obama sought a bipartisan health care bill has been pathetic.  Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa was courted.  

The latest running debate between Al Gore and Sarah Palin reveals once more the absurdity behind today's Republican Party, which looms increasingly as a far right pressure group rather than a viable political entity.

The Republicans indicated the direction where they were heading when Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele dared to speak of right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh as an "entertainer," which was construed to mean that he was undermining his stature as a serious political analyst.

A furious Limbaugh demanded an apology.  The blustery talk show host had declared himself to be the titular head of the Republican Party.  Generally that title is conferred on the party's last presidential nominee, in this case Senator John McCain of Arizona.

It was soon learned how much clout Limbaugh wields on the Republican Party as a penitent Steele issued an apology.  This prompted Limbaugh to reiterate his claim as titular party head.  

I've spent a good part of the last week re-reading Neil Sheehan's book, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. Partly, this is just happenstance; I found a nicely annotated hardback copy in a local used book store. But it's also because I wanted to look again at the 1962-64 period of the Vietnam War to see how much it resembles our current situation in Afghanistan. I don't have good news to report.

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth, TP), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages... SIMULTANEOUSLY!

If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.~~Thomas S. Szasz, The Second Sin

If you keep on excusing, you eventually give your blessing to the slave camp, to cowardly force, to organized executioners, to the cynicism of great political monsters; you finally hand over your brothers~~Albert Camus

What better weapon is there to use against starving populations than food?

What is more frightening -- that the C.I.A. got its jollies by torturing, even murdering human beings in its secret sodomy frat-houses -- or that the F.B.I. took one look, fled the scene and remained silent for years?

Glenn Beck has always been desperate for two things -- attention and ratings.  And he learned early in his career that nothing works as quickly nor as well with the media as personal insults, public humiliation and character assassination.

The H1N1 vaccine is being spread around the nation, free of charge, in limited doses. If the internet is any indicator, people have decided to freak out about it.

One of the most controversial parts of President Obama's healthcare proposals is the public option.  It's also badly needed. Nonetheless, the insurance industry and conservatives and even Blue Dogs in Congress are fighting it tooth and nail.

First to the dictionary ...

 

  twit  

    To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults.

    n.
    1. The act or an instance of twitting.
    2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.
    3. Slang A foolishly annoying person.

Then, to The Twit ... (obviously, choose which meaning has most meaning for you ...)

Senator Clair McCaskill (D-MO) loves twitter. On more than one occasion and re more than one issue, Claire's Twitter comments have raised eyebrows for their "embarrassing mistakes or faults". And, on more than one occasion, people have used Twitter to twit Claire about her statements.

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

It seems no matter which political party in America holds the majority, a Washington/Wall Street corporate centric axis dominates policy making. Indeed, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin recently observed that banks, "Frankly Own the Place." Among liberal-progressive activists like myself, this condition has facilitated a confrontational mindset.

Our experience suggests that the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few will not be voluntarily relinquished. Hence, everything from healthcare reform to bankruptcy protection for aggrieved homeowners is perceived by many of us as a high stakes pitched battle between struggling families and feculent corporate behemoths. Although activism has certainly facilitated important victories on behalf of working people, fighting for economic justice often seems analogous to climbing an endless wall.

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn't so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America's conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base.

Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham.

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken  published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, "How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index." Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index ("EPI") shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a "Democracy Index" would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.

Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:

Amid all the discussions about potential paths forward in terms climate legislation, there is basic agreement about the need to 'put a price on carbon' to incentivize reducing carbon intensity (and usage ... or, actually, dumping into the atmosphere) throughout the economy.

Should we pursue a Carbon Cap (or A CAT, a Cap, Auction, and Trade) or some form of Carbon Tax (or fee)?

And, then the debate turns to "what to do with the resources".  For many, the best answer seems to be some form of Cap & Dividend program.  The idea of sending money "back" to people has great appeal, for many reasons but what about looking behind the curtain. Does it continue to make as much sense?

What REALLY Happened in the Churchyard

Steve Best and Jason Miller with Joan Court, Janet Tomlinson, and Lynn Sawyer

I. Background

Anyone who follows the animal rights movement in England knows that the direct action element has become increasingly powerful and controversial. By abandoning what they see to be futile efforts to persuade a government beholden to corporate interests and speciesist ideology to respect the rights of animals, a growing number of activists have taken the fight directly to the animal exploiters themselves. Over the last few decades, groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), SPEAK (originally named Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge), and Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs (SNGP) have developed highly effective campaigns against all facets of the vivisection industry. While the ALF is an underground network of activists engaged in "criminal" actions involving sabotage, arson, and break-ins, other direct action groups such as SHAC and SPEAK are aboveground organizations and employ legal approaches.