This blog has been archived for research purposes. Use the index to the left to access archived post titles. Or, use the "search blog" window above for specific subjects. All posts are original to the author, are documented and are copyrighted 2008. Thank you for visiting.
Blog Author
5/04/2008
4/24/2008
Birthday girl
This little bit of trouble came into the world on this date in 1942, just a few months after Pearl Harbor. Arriving two months early, she weighed in at 3 1/2 pounds. “About the size of a little bag of sugar and just as sweet,” her daddy said. A box by a wood-burning stove was prescribed by the attending country doctor as an incubator.
Her brother, then 16, and sisters, 14 and 12, have related many stories from those earliest days, including waking her up before they left for school just so they could play with her. Many older cousins joined in the fun of spoiling her.
A German shepherd puppy, “Jack Dog,” a gift from her uncle when she was six months old, became her constant companion and protector until he died when she was nine.
Her sister called her last night to tell her once more about the day she went missing and how Jack Dog led them to find her “sitting atop the wood pile laughing at everyone.” She also threw in the story of how the little girl tried to flush her beautiful new prom dress down the toilet.
Her earliest memories include a red velvet coat and hat, a gift from her sister, and seeing a movie where a white-gloved hand walked up and down stairs and played a piano.
To this day, 66 years later, she still celebrates life, and her birthdays make her feel like a happy kid!
A young niece once said her epitaph should be, “She lived until she died and outlived us all.” What a lovely thought.
To celebrate the day – and her 6,000th blog visitor – she has decided to give up blogging and devote more time to her beloved books, movies and music and to the special people in her life.
With deepest appreciation to all who have dropped by to read and to comment. I’ve learned a lot from the blogging experience and from your thoughts.
B. J. Trotter
Anderson, SC
Her brother, then 16, and sisters, 14 and 12, have related many stories from those earliest days, including waking her up before they left for school just so they could play with her. Many older cousins joined in the fun of spoiling her.
A German shepherd puppy, “Jack Dog,” a gift from her uncle when she was six months old, became her constant companion and protector until he died when she was nine.
Her sister called her last night to tell her once more about the day she went missing and how Jack Dog led them to find her “sitting atop the wood pile laughing at everyone.” She also threw in the story of how the little girl tried to flush her beautiful new prom dress down the toilet.
Her earliest memories include a red velvet coat and hat, a gift from her sister, and seeing a movie where a white-gloved hand walked up and down stairs and played a piano.
To this day, 66 years later, she still celebrates life, and her birthdays make her feel like a happy kid!
A young niece once said her epitaph should be, “She lived until she died and outlived us all.” What a lovely thought.
To celebrate the day – and her 6,000th blog visitor – she has decided to give up blogging and devote more time to her beloved books, movies and music and to the special people in her life.
With deepest appreciation to all who have dropped by to read and to comment. I’ve learned a lot from the blogging experience and from your thoughts.
B. J. Trotter
Anderson, SC
4/23/2008
Giddy ditty or rhyme of reason?
Throughout the day and half the night,
MSNBC joined in the fight
To boost Obama in P-A;
He’s closing the gap, they did say.
They crunched the numbers all day long,
“Obama’s a shoo-in, he can’t go wrong.”
You’d think these overzealous fools
Would stop and read the DNC rules.
Tim and Tom, Keith and Chris
Juggling numbers would insist
She cannot win the nomination;
Obama is the big sensation.
As soon as the last vote was cast,
Keith could announce at last,
To the delight of one and all,
“This race is too close to call.”
As they critiqued and harangued,
Keith said, “The terminolgy’s changed,”
The vote’s not close after all,
“This race is too early to call.”
As the tally monted, keeping score,
Keith said, “The margin’s down to four!”
MSNBC’s boys began to fidget;
“She cannot get a double digit.”
I saw this sideshow in New Hampshire,
And one thing is for damn sure:
Despite the spin, when votes were in,
Hillary was a perfect 10.
She told supporters, “The tide is turning.”
Across this nation there’s a yearning –
A growing sense of finality –
For a fighter who’ll deal with reality.
Her speech was “great,” Chris admitted.
Keith opined, she’s not acquitted.
With the panache of a Hulk Hogan,
He declared she “mocked Obama’s slogan.”
“He’s got the crowds, He’s got the money. He’s got the media,” but ain’t it funny,
Buchanan asked his TV mates,
“Why can’t he win the bigger states?”
They closed their anti-Hillary blitz
Demanding that she call it quits.
The jig’s up, boys, you cannot spin it,
The lady’s tough; she’s in it to win it!
MSNBC joined in the fight
To boost Obama in P-A;
He’s closing the gap, they did say.
They crunched the numbers all day long,
“Obama’s a shoo-in, he can’t go wrong.”
You’d think these overzealous fools
Would stop and read the DNC rules.
Tim and Tom, Keith and Chris
Juggling numbers would insist
She cannot win the nomination;
Obama is the big sensation.
As soon as the last vote was cast,
Keith could announce at last,
To the delight of one and all,
“This race is too close to call.”
As they critiqued and harangued,
Keith said, “The terminolgy’s changed,”
The vote’s not close after all,
“This race is too early to call.”
As the tally monted, keeping score,
Keith said, “The margin’s down to four!”
MSNBC’s boys began to fidget;
“She cannot get a double digit.”
I saw this sideshow in New Hampshire,
And one thing is for damn sure:
Despite the spin, when votes were in,
Hillary was a perfect 10.
She told supporters, “The tide is turning.”
Across this nation there’s a yearning –
A growing sense of finality –
For a fighter who’ll deal with reality.
Her speech was “great,” Chris admitted.
Keith opined, she’s not acquitted.
With the panache of a Hulk Hogan,
He declared she “mocked Obama’s slogan.”
“He’s got the crowds, He’s got the money. He’s got the media,” but ain’t it funny,
Buchanan asked his TV mates,
“Why can’t he win the bigger states?”
They closed their anti-Hillary blitz
Demanding that she call it quits.
The jig’s up, boys, you cannot spin it,
The lady’s tough; she’s in it to win it!
4/22/2008
'Hell freezes over'
Some four or five years ago, I was seated at my computer in the early morning hours when my chair shifted momentarily as if sitting in a bowl of Jello. “That was an earthquake,” I said out loud. I went to the Web site of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Center and filled out a report. This was a first for me, and I though it might, at least, establish that the effects of the 4.2 earthquake, centered in northern Alabama, had been felt by a novice in northwest South Carolina.
Early Friday morning, seated on my loveseat listening to Dickens, I felt the same sensation underfoot. I knew immediately another temblor had occurred. This one, at 5.4, was farther away and to the northwest.
Neither tremor shook me up as much as the well-reported change of heart of one Richard Mellon Scaife toward Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In the past year I’ve listened to Bill Clinton’s “My Life,” “Living History” by Hillary Rodham Clinton, David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,” and “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Bernstein. I know who Richard Mellon Scaife is.
During Bill Clinton’s administration, billionaire Scaife spent the collective GDP of four or five Third World nations and a couple of South American Banana Republics on a one-man effort to destroy the Democratic president and first lady.
Since Brock, now manning the liberal media watchdog site, Media Matters for America, was Scaife’s #1 hired gun, I recommend his book – a gutsy romp, a nonfiction roman à clef which doesn’t bother disguising the pin-stripe-suited, cigar-smoking young men and leopard-skin-skirted young women of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Brock and his fellow conspirators turned out reams of anti-Clinton tripe in the pages of the Scaife-backed American Spectator magazine and other right-wing media. Absolutely nothing stuck except a bit of DNA on a blue dress.
On Sunday, 30 March 2008, Scaife wrote the following editorial in his newspaper, the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Tribune-Review:
Hillary, reassessed
Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper's editors and reporters and declared, "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."
The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.
More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America's next president.
More than most modern political figures, Sen. Clinton has been criticized regularly, often harshly, by the Trib. We disagreed with many of her policies and her actions in the past. We still disagree with some of her proposals.
The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores.
Reading that, a lesser politician -- one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions -- might well have canceled the interview right then and there.
Sen. Clinton came to the Trib anyway and, for 90 minutes, answered questions.
Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.
Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.
Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.
Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation's security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America.
Like me, she believes we must pull our troops out of Iraq, because it is time for Iraqis to handle their own destiny -- and, more important, because it is past time to end the toll on our soldiers there, to begin rebuilding our military, and to refocus our attention on other threats, starting with Afghanistan.
On domestic policy, Sen. Clinton and I might find more areas on which we disagree. Yet we also agree on others. Asked about the utter failure of federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans since the Katrina disaster, for example, she called it just what it has been -- "not just a national disgrace (but) an international embarrassment."
Does all this mean I'm ready to come out and recommend that our Democrat readers choose Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary?
No -- not yet, anyway. In fairness, we at the Trib want to hear Sen. Barack Obama's answers to some of the same questions and to others before we make that decision.
But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed.
Call it a "counterintuitive" impression.
-END OF EDITORIAL-
It’s called “spunk.” I like spunk!
***
On Sunday, 20 April 2008, Scaife’s newspaper endorsed Clinton. The headline on Editor & Publisher’s report on the endorsement said it all: “Hell freezes over.”
Early Friday morning, seated on my loveseat listening to Dickens, I felt the same sensation underfoot. I knew immediately another temblor had occurred. This one, at 5.4, was farther away and to the northwest.
Neither tremor shook me up as much as the well-reported change of heart of one Richard Mellon Scaife toward Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In the past year I’ve listened to Bill Clinton’s “My Life,” “Living History” by Hillary Rodham Clinton, David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,” and “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Bernstein. I know who Richard Mellon Scaife is.
During Bill Clinton’s administration, billionaire Scaife spent the collective GDP of four or five Third World nations and a couple of South American Banana Republics on a one-man effort to destroy the Democratic president and first lady.
Since Brock, now manning the liberal media watchdog site, Media Matters for America, was Scaife’s #1 hired gun, I recommend his book – a gutsy romp, a nonfiction roman à clef which doesn’t bother disguising the pin-stripe-suited, cigar-smoking young men and leopard-skin-skirted young women of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Brock and his fellow conspirators turned out reams of anti-Clinton tripe in the pages of the Scaife-backed American Spectator magazine and other right-wing media. Absolutely nothing stuck except a bit of DNA on a blue dress.
On Sunday, 30 March 2008, Scaife wrote the following editorial in his newspaper, the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Tribune-Review:
Hillary, reassessed
Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper's editors and reporters and declared, "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."
The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.
More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America's next president.
More than most modern political figures, Sen. Clinton has been criticized regularly, often harshly, by the Trib. We disagreed with many of her policies and her actions in the past. We still disagree with some of her proposals.
The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores.
Reading that, a lesser politician -- one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions -- might well have canceled the interview right then and there.
Sen. Clinton came to the Trib anyway and, for 90 minutes, answered questions.
Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.
Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.
Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.
Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation's security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America.
Like me, she believes we must pull our troops out of Iraq, because it is time for Iraqis to handle their own destiny -- and, more important, because it is past time to end the toll on our soldiers there, to begin rebuilding our military, and to refocus our attention on other threats, starting with Afghanistan.
On domestic policy, Sen. Clinton and I might find more areas on which we disagree. Yet we also agree on others. Asked about the utter failure of federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans since the Katrina disaster, for example, she called it just what it has been -- "not just a national disgrace (but) an international embarrassment."
Does all this mean I'm ready to come out and recommend that our Democrat readers choose Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary?
No -- not yet, anyway. In fairness, we at the Trib want to hear Sen. Barack Obama's answers to some of the same questions and to others before we make that decision.
But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed.
Call it a "counterintuitive" impression.
-END OF EDITORIAL-
It’s called “spunk.” I like spunk!
***
On Sunday, 20 April 2008, Scaife’s newspaper endorsed Clinton. The headline on Editor & Publisher’s report on the endorsement said it all: “Hell freezes over.”
4/21/2008
Paying the piper
A DIFFERENT TUNE
Barack Obama supporters are livid over the “piling on” he got from ABC debate moderators last week – a 52-minute “free association test” of Obama’s “my bads.”
Were they paying attention early Sunday morning when Fox News’ “The Beltway Boys” – Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke – delivered a potentially lethal litany of Obama’s “unpatriotic” leanings?
Seems an appropriate moment to recycle my post from 17 December 2007. Bear in mind, dear reader, that Obama is now the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
THE PIPER
On the evening after Election 2006, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews hit the ground running with a one-man campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Soon, others fell in behind this modern-day Pied Piper of politics.
“To see the townsfolk suffer so
from vermin, was a pity.”
As I pointed out, on this blog, the growing media bias, I was told, quite frankly, that it was a product of my perception – by the very pesons who are now screaming “foul.”
“By drowning their speaking
with shrieking and squeaking in fifty different sharps and flats.”
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT
Maybe Obama supporters will pay more attention to the post’s premise now that the shoe is on the other foot.
“Folks who put me in a passion may find me pipe after another fashion.''
THE POST
12/17/2007
Method in MSNBC's madness
My veins still run with newspaper ink, and I still love the institution of journalism. Real journalism. Ethical reporting.
I confess: I have been addicted to politics and news since I was a child. Both were discussed at our family dinner table. I can remember lying on our living room floor reading the daily newspaper which landed on our front porch. The “Brenda Starr” comic strip led me as a kid to dream of a career in newspapering.
Because I love the Fourth Estate – and still believe in its potential power to right the wrongs – I am deeply troubled by what cable news is imparting under the non sequitur “news.”
Perhaps as a defense against spin, distortion and lies now disguised as “news,” I am compelled to keep myself informed.
This background leads me to this conclusion: MSNBC is swift-boating Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Opinion” shows such as “Morning Joe,” “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” “Tucker,” “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and “Live with Dan Abrams” aside, the personal attacks on this candidate for the presidency have spilled over into the so-called news segments throughout the day.
Those of you who despise Senator Clinton have your reasons and are entitled to them. But, if you approve the PERSONAL attacks on her and her campaign, you are turning a blind eye to ethics in journalism.
MSNBC has long been my cable news source of choice, although I do trust CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at 4 p.m. ET to give me a thorough and reliable daily news wrap.
From 5 a.m. ET up until the nightly tabloid, “Doc Block” at 10, I have heard reporting on Senator Clinton’s campaign which spins, distorts and takes out of context its every effort.
There is no attempt at subtlety. Whether her laugh is called a “cackle” or her campaign workers called “surrogates,” MSNBC’s campaign against Clinton is aimed at those who do not think for or inform themselves.
To my chagrin, I have seen long-respected journalists such as Tim Russert, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster join in these unrelenting jabs at the Clinton juggernaut.
(I hope you will remind yourself, dear reader, what this same select group did to Don Imus.)
There’s no need to even mention Fox News.
Big media is after the Democratic frontrunner.
Have you asked yourself “Why?”
There are two reasons, and they both involve profits.
The first, simply put, is “conflict sells.”
The other is a little more complicated. As you read this, the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to “open the floodgate” to further media consolidation.
Here’s what freepress.net has to say:
“If FCC Chairman Kevin Martin gets his way, your community will be inundated with even more mass-produced celebrity gossip and infotainment, and less local reporting and quality journalism: more of the junk news that is making us sick.
“Martin wants to ‘Super Size’ Big Media, allowing companies like Gannett, News Corp and Tribune to swallow up even more local TV, newspaper and radio outlets. Martin wants to let one company own both the major newspapers and a TV station in your hometown, drowning out the few remaining independent voices, so that media moguls like Rupert Murdoch can expand their empires.”
So, you ask, what has this got to do with MSNBC’s campaign against Hillary Clinton?
Well, everything.
When it became apparent that Senator Clinton was the frontrunner, outpolling candidates of both parties, cable news went into overdrive to stop the Democrat most likely to succeed.
By attempting to marginalize both Hillary and Bill Clinton and promoting candidates which, in my opinion, cannot carry the national vote, “big media” will keep in place an FCC which is favorable to both profits and expansion.
I remember the words of a former executive editor, who, when I complained our inside pages “news hole” (space left after advertisements are inserted) was too small, said, “It’s a business. If you don’t want it to be a business, you had better get out.” I did.
So, now you know: there’s method in MSNBC’s (and Matthews’) madness.
I will support and work to elect the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, but I did that in 2000 and 2004.
I honestly believe the one person who could win back the White House – and turn this country around - is at the mercy of an unethical media. If these personal attacks succeed, you just wait to see what they do to the Democratic Party’s nominee.
That “food for worms,” Benjamin Franklin, who chose “printer” as his sole epitaph, must be spinning in his Philadelphia grave.
And, when there’s a Republican taking the oath of office in January 2009, I will refer you back to this post. –END-
THE POSSIBILITY
“For dolts that can't or won't determine what's best to rid us of our vermin! … Rouse up, sirs! Give your brains a racking to find the remedy we're lacking, or, sure as fate, we'll send you packing!''
***
REMINDER:
· Barack Obama will appear on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Comedy Central, tonight at 11 ET/PT.
· Tuesday: Pennsylvania Primary.
· Tuesday is Earth Day.
Barack Obama supporters are livid over the “piling on” he got from ABC debate moderators last week – a 52-minute “free association test” of Obama’s “my bads.”
Were they paying attention early Sunday morning when Fox News’ “The Beltway Boys” – Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke – delivered a potentially lethal litany of Obama’s “unpatriotic” leanings?
Seems an appropriate moment to recycle my post from 17 December 2007. Bear in mind, dear reader, that Obama is now the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
THE PIPER
On the evening after Election 2006, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews hit the ground running with a one-man campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Soon, others fell in behind this modern-day Pied Piper of politics.
“To see the townsfolk suffer so
from vermin, was a pity.”
As I pointed out, on this blog, the growing media bias, I was told, quite frankly, that it was a product of my perception – by the very pesons who are now screaming “foul.”
“By drowning their speaking
with shrieking and squeaking in fifty different sharps and flats.”
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT
Maybe Obama supporters will pay more attention to the post’s premise now that the shoe is on the other foot.
“Folks who put me in a passion may find me pipe after another fashion.''
THE POST
12/17/2007
Method in MSNBC's madness
My veins still run with newspaper ink, and I still love the institution of journalism. Real journalism. Ethical reporting.
I confess: I have been addicted to politics and news since I was a child. Both were discussed at our family dinner table. I can remember lying on our living room floor reading the daily newspaper which landed on our front porch. The “Brenda Starr” comic strip led me as a kid to dream of a career in newspapering.
Because I love the Fourth Estate – and still believe in its potential power to right the wrongs – I am deeply troubled by what cable news is imparting under the non sequitur “news.”
Perhaps as a defense against spin, distortion and lies now disguised as “news,” I am compelled to keep myself informed.
This background leads me to this conclusion: MSNBC is swift-boating Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Opinion” shows such as “Morning Joe,” “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” “Tucker,” “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and “Live with Dan Abrams” aside, the personal attacks on this candidate for the presidency have spilled over into the so-called news segments throughout the day.
Those of you who despise Senator Clinton have your reasons and are entitled to them. But, if you approve the PERSONAL attacks on her and her campaign, you are turning a blind eye to ethics in journalism.
MSNBC has long been my cable news source of choice, although I do trust CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at 4 p.m. ET to give me a thorough and reliable daily news wrap.
From 5 a.m. ET up until the nightly tabloid, “Doc Block” at 10, I have heard reporting on Senator Clinton’s campaign which spins, distorts and takes out of context its every effort.
There is no attempt at subtlety. Whether her laugh is called a “cackle” or her campaign workers called “surrogates,” MSNBC’s campaign against Clinton is aimed at those who do not think for or inform themselves.
To my chagrin, I have seen long-respected journalists such as Tim Russert, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster join in these unrelenting jabs at the Clinton juggernaut.
(I hope you will remind yourself, dear reader, what this same select group did to Don Imus.)
There’s no need to even mention Fox News.
Big media is after the Democratic frontrunner.
Have you asked yourself “Why?”
There are two reasons, and they both involve profits.
The first, simply put, is “conflict sells.”
The other is a little more complicated. As you read this, the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to “open the floodgate” to further media consolidation.
Here’s what freepress.net has to say:
“If FCC Chairman Kevin Martin gets his way, your community will be inundated with even more mass-produced celebrity gossip and infotainment, and less local reporting and quality journalism: more of the junk news that is making us sick.
“Martin wants to ‘Super Size’ Big Media, allowing companies like Gannett, News Corp and Tribune to swallow up even more local TV, newspaper and radio outlets. Martin wants to let one company own both the major newspapers and a TV station in your hometown, drowning out the few remaining independent voices, so that media moguls like Rupert Murdoch can expand their empires.”
So, you ask, what has this got to do with MSNBC’s campaign against Hillary Clinton?
Well, everything.
When it became apparent that Senator Clinton was the frontrunner, outpolling candidates of both parties, cable news went into overdrive to stop the Democrat most likely to succeed.
By attempting to marginalize both Hillary and Bill Clinton and promoting candidates which, in my opinion, cannot carry the national vote, “big media” will keep in place an FCC which is favorable to both profits and expansion.
I remember the words of a former executive editor, who, when I complained our inside pages “news hole” (space left after advertisements are inserted) was too small, said, “It’s a business. If you don’t want it to be a business, you had better get out.” I did.
So, now you know: there’s method in MSNBC’s (and Matthews’) madness.
I will support and work to elect the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, but I did that in 2000 and 2004.
I honestly believe the one person who could win back the White House – and turn this country around - is at the mercy of an unethical media. If these personal attacks succeed, you just wait to see what they do to the Democratic Party’s nominee.
That “food for worms,” Benjamin Franklin, who chose “printer” as his sole epitaph, must be spinning in his Philadelphia grave.
And, when there’s a Republican taking the oath of office in January 2009, I will refer you back to this post. –END-
THE POSSIBILITY
“For dolts that can't or won't determine what's best to rid us of our vermin! … Rouse up, sirs! Give your brains a racking to find the remedy we're lacking, or, sure as fate, we'll send you packing!''
***
REMINDER:
* Hillary Clinton goes one-on-one with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, tonight at 8 ET.
· Hillary Clinton will be on CNN’s “Larry King Live” tonight at 9 ET.· Barack Obama will appear on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Comedy Central, tonight at 11 ET/PT.
· Tuesday: Pennsylvania Primary.
· Tuesday is Earth Day.
4/18/2008
ABC debate moderators catch hell
As explained in the previous post, I missed ABC’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia.
In addition to the transcript (LINK), I have read numerous critiques, all lambasting the debate moderators.
To be fair, the bulk of these were written by obvious Barack Obama supporters who thought he was treated unfairly. I am a Clinton supporter, and I agree.
On the other hand, most TV pundits I’ve seen since the debate have declared Clinton the clear winner – in terms of overall advantage.
Of the many articles I’ve read, here are two which stand out as most informative:
MEDIA MATTER FOR AMERICA:
“Numerous media figures have criticized George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, moderators of the Democratic presidential debate on ABC, or the subject matter of the event, in part or in whole, as "shoddy [and] despicable," "specious and gossipy," "cringe-worthy," "banal," consisting of "tabloid trivia," "flat-out repulsive," "embarrassing," "seem[ingly] slanted against [Sen. Barack] Obama," "shameful," and "an outrage." READ MORE
AN OPEN LETTER FROM A JOURNALIST:
Nothing like an ethical and ticked-off journalist to get my attention. In this open letter to the two moderators, Will Bunch of The Philadelphia Daily News reminds them – and us – of a free press’ obligation to serve the citizenry. Bunch is angry, yet manages to turn all that venomous energy into an outstanding critique. READ MORE
Wouldn’t you know it! The one debate of this long campaign season which I’ve missed turns out to be a lollapalooza of lame journalism! That would have set my keyboard afire!
In addition to the transcript (LINK), I have read numerous critiques, all lambasting the debate moderators.
To be fair, the bulk of these were written by obvious Barack Obama supporters who thought he was treated unfairly. I am a Clinton supporter, and I agree.
On the other hand, most TV pundits I’ve seen since the debate have declared Clinton the clear winner – in terms of overall advantage.
Of the many articles I’ve read, here are two which stand out as most informative:
MEDIA MATTER FOR AMERICA:
“Numerous media figures have criticized George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, moderators of the Democratic presidential debate on ABC, or the subject matter of the event, in part or in whole, as "shoddy [and] despicable," "specious and gossipy," "cringe-worthy," "banal," consisting of "tabloid trivia," "flat-out repulsive," "embarrassing," "seem[ingly] slanted against [Sen. Barack] Obama," "shameful," and "an outrage." READ MORE
AN OPEN LETTER FROM A JOURNALIST:
Nothing like an ethical and ticked-off journalist to get my attention. In this open letter to the two moderators, Will Bunch of The Philadelphia Daily News reminds them – and us – of a free press’ obligation to serve the citizenry. Bunch is angry, yet manages to turn all that venomous energy into an outstanding critique. READ MORE
Wouldn’t you know it! The one debate of this long campaign season which I’ve missed turns out to be a lollapalooza of lame journalism! That would have set my keyboard afire!
4/17/2008
Red-faced
I am sorry to say I fell asleep about 15 minutes into last night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia, but not before I saw where it was going.
Apparently, ABC went negative in a crucial moment when the candidates – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – needed to fine tune their differences and show the nation theirs is a better way.
I stayed up until 3 a.m., hoping ABC would reair the show, but the network felt it more important to show infomercials, or “paid programming” as it’s called now.
The transcript (LINK), copied and pasted to Microsoft Word on 18-point font is 101 pages – and so much is lost in a written transcript. But, I will read it.
I very much would like your take on the debate. To comment, click on “Comments” below, type in your comment, select “Name/URL,” and when the new screen comes up, scroll up until you see a place on the right to type in your name, then click on “Publish.”
I look forward to what YOU have to say!
Apparently, ABC went negative in a crucial moment when the candidates – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – needed to fine tune their differences and show the nation theirs is a better way.
I stayed up until 3 a.m., hoping ABC would reair the show, but the network felt it more important to show infomercials, or “paid programming” as it’s called now.
The transcript (LINK), copied and pasted to Microsoft Word on 18-point font is 101 pages – and so much is lost in a written transcript. But, I will read it.
I very much would like your take on the debate. To comment, click on “Comments” below, type in your comment, select “Name/URL,” and when the new screen comes up, scroll up until you see a place on the right to type in your name, then click on “Publish.”
I look forward to what YOU have to say!
4/16/2008
Sounds familiar!
Portions of The New York Times’ lead editorial today sound an awful lot like my post, “In Defense of Barack Obama” on 14 April (LINK)
Read the NYT editorial: LINK
The NYT and I agree Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have better fish to fry than to be going after each other over guns and religion.
Watch the debate between the two Democratic contenders TONIGHT on ABC at 8 ET/PT. Moderators will be Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
Read the NYT editorial: LINK
The NYT and I agree Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have better fish to fry than to be going after each other over guns and religion.
Watch the debate between the two Democratic contenders TONIGHT on ABC at 8 ET/PT. Moderators will be Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
4/15/2008
My left eye
Thought I would follow up with the report I got yesterday on the problem with my left eye – my so-called “good eye,” but first a little math.
Five minutes ago, Forbes reported the cost of oil has reached an all-time high at $113 a barrel.
The price of the antibiotic eyedrops needed to treat my eye is $3,090,278.40 a barrel. I figured it up.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I haven’t had a prescription filled in years. I’ll get over the shock in a week or two.
The retina specialist says I have an infection which can be a “recurring condition” and has a name so long I didn’t think it worth the effort to remember.
The feeling of having something in the eye is being caused by a "swollen area" on my eyeball. Nice.
A week of the eyedrops should clear up the infection and, hopefully, the blurring which has greatly hamped my computer activity of late.
$3,090,278.40 a barrel. My God!
Five minutes ago, Forbes reported the cost of oil has reached an all-time high at $113 a barrel.
The price of the antibiotic eyedrops needed to treat my eye is $3,090,278.40 a barrel. I figured it up.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I haven’t had a prescription filled in years. I’ll get over the shock in a week or two.
The retina specialist says I have an infection which can be a “recurring condition” and has a name so long I didn’t think it worth the effort to remember.
The feeling of having something in the eye is being caused by a "swollen area" on my eyeball. Nice.
A week of the eyedrops should clear up the infection and, hopefully, the blurring which has greatly hamped my computer activity of late.
$3,090,278.40 a barrel. My God!
4/14/2008
In defense of Barack Obama
Our hobbit friend Frodo (BLOG LINK) had predicted, even before George W. Bush took office, that one day his approval rating would drop to 24 percent.
On Thursday the Associated Press poll showed Dubya’s approval rating at 27 percent. It’s really scary: to think that 27 percent of Americans think Bush is doing a “good job.”
Who, then, was responsible for Bush’s re-election in 2004? Primarily, one-issue voters, who I suspect remain in the approving percentile.
To be sure, within that 27 percent are the people squawking loudest about the following remarks made at a San Francisco fundraiser by Sen. Barack Obama:
“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”
The premise in all this media uproar is that these one-issue voters have been insulted. It’s a shame they cannot see it as an opportunity for soul-searching self-improvement.
Given the fact that Democratic strategist James Carville has described Pennsylvania as “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle,” I have no problem with the camps of senators Clinton and McCain claiming Obama is “out of touch” with voters (NY Times, 12 April 2008, LINK). This is, after all, a heated political contest. All three candidates now have been victims of a 24/7 cable news and Internet smorgasbord of soundbites blown entirely out of proportion in a frenzied rebirth of “yellow journalism.”
My regular readers know I’ve supported Hillary Clinton since she entered this mad race. Barack Obama doesn’t need me to defend him. He’s got Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty and a whole host of reporters and pundits to do that. Let’s just say, then, that I am defending the truth.
“Out of touch?” “San Francisco liberal elitism?” “Condescending?”
Like it or not, Sen. Obama is right. What he’s talking about is what got Bush re-elected and could very well result in a McCain presidency. Let me exlain.
I once read that certain pooh-bahs, potentates, sheiks, emirs, princes, kings and other rulers in the oil-rich Middle East encourage hatred of Americans because it takes the minds of impoverished peoples off their fleets of Rolls Royces. Made sense to me.
Similarly, the Republican Party – with, in my opinion, a platform of hate - wants to take the minds of lower- and middle-class Americans off the problems which plague them.
Wouldn’t do for Americans in need to realize the Democratic Party is more populist, more in tune to their needs, more dedicated to solving their problems.
Suddenly, it’s incredulous that Sen. Obama would say such a thing? Gimme a break. This is not a novel idea: it’s rooted in the political strategies of Lee Atwater and his protégé Karl Rove and melded into the frontline in a cultural war.
How does the GOP accomplish this? In recent election cycles, they have brought out those old “hot-button” emotional issues, “God, gays, guns and abortion.” Under the auspices of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn), they even threw in flag-burning, gay marriage and poor Terri Schiavo. As Obama points out, immigration and trade have been stirred into the caldron.
Anything to take American minds off education; health care; the economy; energy, fuel and grocery prices; job losses; housing foreclosures and other problems close to home.
Nice diversions from the debacle in Iraq.
These red herrings create one-issue voters who ignore the candidates most likely to improve their lives and vote for those who claim to champion the issues they feel morally obligated to defend.
Sen. Obama used the word “bitter.” Yes, there are Americans out there who are bitter; they are angry; they are frustrated; they feel powerless. Yesterday, in discussing “our lot in life” with a friend, I remarked that I’m not bitter, that I feel blessed when I get a break. Her reply startled me. “I’m scared,” she said.
She’s scared because she quit her job a few years ago to care for an aging parent. Her husband works hard, with little fringe benefits, to support the family. Living costs are climbing. And, with no health insurance, they can’t afford to get sick.
It is time for an awakening in this country. The Democratic Party is not made up of “far-left extremists out to destroy the American way of life,” as proclaimed by a power-hungry right-wing chorus which makes its money manipulating the “have-nots.”
I have no doubt this is what Sen. Obama was trying to say, and telling the truth will probably hurt him with some voters.
Maybe those too easily swayed by the emotion-stirring techniques of propagandists.
On Thursday the Associated Press poll showed Dubya’s approval rating at 27 percent. It’s really scary: to think that 27 percent of Americans think Bush is doing a “good job.”
Who, then, was responsible for Bush’s re-election in 2004? Primarily, one-issue voters, who I suspect remain in the approving percentile.
To be sure, within that 27 percent are the people squawking loudest about the following remarks made at a San Francisco fundraiser by Sen. Barack Obama:
“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”
The premise in all this media uproar is that these one-issue voters have been insulted. It’s a shame they cannot see it as an opportunity for soul-searching self-improvement.
Given the fact that Democratic strategist James Carville has described Pennsylvania as “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle,” I have no problem with the camps of senators Clinton and McCain claiming Obama is “out of touch” with voters (NY Times, 12 April 2008, LINK). This is, after all, a heated political contest. All three candidates now have been victims of a 24/7 cable news and Internet smorgasbord of soundbites blown entirely out of proportion in a frenzied rebirth of “yellow journalism.”
My regular readers know I’ve supported Hillary Clinton since she entered this mad race. Barack Obama doesn’t need me to defend him. He’s got Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty and a whole host of reporters and pundits to do that. Let’s just say, then, that I am defending the truth.
“Out of touch?” “San Francisco liberal elitism?” “Condescending?”
Like it or not, Sen. Obama is right. What he’s talking about is what got Bush re-elected and could very well result in a McCain presidency. Let me exlain.
I once read that certain pooh-bahs, potentates, sheiks, emirs, princes, kings and other rulers in the oil-rich Middle East encourage hatred of Americans because it takes the minds of impoverished peoples off their fleets of Rolls Royces. Made sense to me.
Similarly, the Republican Party – with, in my opinion, a platform of hate - wants to take the minds of lower- and middle-class Americans off the problems which plague them.
Wouldn’t do for Americans in need to realize the Democratic Party is more populist, more in tune to their needs, more dedicated to solving their problems.
Suddenly, it’s incredulous that Sen. Obama would say such a thing? Gimme a break. This is not a novel idea: it’s rooted in the political strategies of Lee Atwater and his protégé Karl Rove and melded into the frontline in a cultural war.
How does the GOP accomplish this? In recent election cycles, they have brought out those old “hot-button” emotional issues, “God, gays, guns and abortion.” Under the auspices of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn), they even threw in flag-burning, gay marriage and poor Terri Schiavo. As Obama points out, immigration and trade have been stirred into the caldron.
Anything to take American minds off education; health care; the economy; energy, fuel and grocery prices; job losses; housing foreclosures and other problems close to home.
Nice diversions from the debacle in Iraq.
These red herrings create one-issue voters who ignore the candidates most likely to improve their lives and vote for those who claim to champion the issues they feel morally obligated to defend.
Sen. Obama used the word “bitter.” Yes, there are Americans out there who are bitter; they are angry; they are frustrated; they feel powerless. Yesterday, in discussing “our lot in life” with a friend, I remarked that I’m not bitter, that I feel blessed when I get a break. Her reply startled me. “I’m scared,” she said.
She’s scared because she quit her job a few years ago to care for an aging parent. Her husband works hard, with little fringe benefits, to support the family. Living costs are climbing. And, with no health insurance, they can’t afford to get sick.
It is time for an awakening in this country. The Democratic Party is not made up of “far-left extremists out to destroy the American way of life,” as proclaimed by a power-hungry right-wing chorus which makes its money manipulating the “have-nots.”
I have no doubt this is what Sen. Obama was trying to say, and telling the truth will probably hurt him with some voters.
Maybe those too easily swayed by the emotion-stirring techniques of propagandists.
4/11/2008
Flying takes a 'Lo' blow
Some things never change. The safety of flying is being scrutinized once more, so it seems appropriate to recycle this column published in the Anderson (S.C.) Independent-Mail, 20 July 1987. Enjoy!
***
Arguments for flying jumbo jets take a ‘Lo’ blow
By B. J. Trotter
My poor husband wants to take a European vacation, but our ’75 Caprice Classic won’t make it.
I once bought a waste-of-time paperback by Erica Jong because its title expressed my greatest phobia, “Fear of Flying.” The book, if I recall, was about sex and dirty toenails and never even mentioned airplanes.
Actually, it’s misleading to say I have a fear of flying. I first “slipped the surly bonds of Earth” at the age of four in a small plane piloted by my dad. I remember looking down with delight on ribbon-roads with crawling ant-cars. It’s those big, super, jumbo jets that scare me to death.
I love Cessnas and once ventured weekend flights with a friend who owned an Aerocommander. I even tried sky-diving, making five static-line jumps: at least with sky-diving you have a parachute! The only fatality was a favorite dress, ripped while I practiced PLFs off a table. (That’s “parachute landing falls.”)
Oh, I’ve heard all the reasons to fly the jumbos: “There’s nothing to it.” “You have a couple of martinis and watch a movie, and you’re there.” “Statistically, it’s safer than driving.”
Etc., etc., and when I finally work up the courage to even consider it, the news wires move yet another crash or near-miss story.
If this is less-than-comforting, there’s more. Add to the threat of terrorism and hijacking these recent headlines (ripped right from these pages): “Pilot Lands on Wrong Runway.” “Pilots Land at Wrong Airport.” “Pilot Says Air Safety ‘on the Brink of Crisis.’” “Senators Warn Airliners to Shape Up.” “N.C. Man Pleads Guilty to Firing at Airliner.”
Suddenly, the friendly skies don’t seem so friendly.
The topper came on June 30 (1987) when a 27-year veteran pilot, shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, mistakenly cut off fuel to both engines of his craft. The plane glided from 1,500 feet to within 600 feet of the Pacific Ocean, and passengers warned to prepare for a crash went into mass hysteria.
It’s mass hysteria which separates the Cessnas from the big ones. What I really fear is not flying, but sharing that moment of reckoning with hundreds. One-on-one, it doesn’t seem so bad.
When the big ones go down, they go down as poet Walter Benton puts it: “Without a rain check or a parachute, a key to Heaven or a last long look.”
My friends are right. Flying has to beat long treks by car or bus. (Amtrak has its own problems.) Statistically, flying is safer than driving. But, I’m serious about this. So much so that in 1982, to avoid flying, I drove a necessary 1,000 miles from Plattville, Wisc., to Jackson, Miss., in 24 hours – without sleep! So, I offer one last excuse:
Our dear Grandma Trotter is a lovely, bright woman. She gave me a better argument for not flying than any when she soothingly advised: “Remember, our Lord said, ‘Lo, I am with you always.’”
(Column photo, 1987)
***
Arguments for flying jumbo jets take a ‘Lo’ blow
By B. J. Trotter
My poor husband wants to take a European vacation, but our ’75 Caprice Classic won’t make it.
I once bought a waste-of-time paperback by Erica Jong because its title expressed my greatest phobia, “Fear of Flying.” The book, if I recall, was about sex and dirty toenails and never even mentioned airplanes.
Actually, it’s misleading to say I have a fear of flying. I first “slipped the surly bonds of Earth” at the age of four in a small plane piloted by my dad. I remember looking down with delight on ribbon-roads with crawling ant-cars. It’s those big, super, jumbo jets that scare me to death.
I love Cessnas and once ventured weekend flights with a friend who owned an Aerocommander. I even tried sky-diving, making five static-line jumps: at least with sky-diving you have a parachute! The only fatality was a favorite dress, ripped while I practiced PLFs off a table. (That’s “parachute landing falls.”)
Oh, I’ve heard all the reasons to fly the jumbos: “There’s nothing to it.” “You have a couple of martinis and watch a movie, and you’re there.” “Statistically, it’s safer than driving.”
Etc., etc., and when I finally work up the courage to even consider it, the news wires move yet another crash or near-miss story.
If this is less-than-comforting, there’s more. Add to the threat of terrorism and hijacking these recent headlines (ripped right from these pages): “Pilot Lands on Wrong Runway.” “Pilots Land at Wrong Airport.” “Pilot Says Air Safety ‘on the Brink of Crisis.’” “Senators Warn Airliners to Shape Up.” “N.C. Man Pleads Guilty to Firing at Airliner.”
Suddenly, the friendly skies don’t seem so friendly.
The topper came on June 30 (1987) when a 27-year veteran pilot, shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, mistakenly cut off fuel to both engines of his craft. The plane glided from 1,500 feet to within 600 feet of the Pacific Ocean, and passengers warned to prepare for a crash went into mass hysteria.
It’s mass hysteria which separates the Cessnas from the big ones. What I really fear is not flying, but sharing that moment of reckoning with hundreds. One-on-one, it doesn’t seem so bad.
When the big ones go down, they go down as poet Walter Benton puts it: “Without a rain check or a parachute, a key to Heaven or a last long look.”
My friends are right. Flying has to beat long treks by car or bus. (Amtrak has its own problems.) Statistically, flying is safer than driving. But, I’m serious about this. So much so that in 1982, to avoid flying, I drove a necessary 1,000 miles from Plattville, Wisc., to Jackson, Miss., in 24 hours – without sleep! So, I offer one last excuse:
Our dear Grandma Trotter is a lovely, bright woman. She gave me a better argument for not flying than any when she soothingly advised: “Remember, our Lord said, ‘Lo, I am with you always.’”
(Column photo, 1987)
4/09/2008
A giant of a man
PHOTO: Paul Harper Hill & Mary Bell Turner Hill, 2000.
***
I remember a hot August day in Mississippi, a day so hot that photos show white tapers in candelabra warped from the heat. The setting was our home, and my sister Mary was marrying a tall, dark and handsome sailor.
To a 5-year-old girl Paul Harper Hill at 6’6” looked like the giants of my fairy tales, and he has remained a giant of a man for 61 years – a good man with a zest for life who never met a stranger.
Paul was a baker in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers and a destroyer in the battle zones of WWII. True to his duty of feeding the men who flew the planes and manned the decks, Paul’s love of cooking and baking remained one of life’s great joys.
One of the happiest summers of my life was spent with Mary and Paul and their little boy Johnny on Chincoteague Island in Chesapeake Bay while Paul was stationed a ferry ride away in Norfolk, Va. That summer was filled with catching crabs, steaming clams and watching the “Penny Pony Roundup” as wild Spanish ponies made the annual swim from nearby Assoteague Island. (Mary’s Sunday School teacher, Marguerite Henry, wrote of such days in her children’s classic, “Misty of Chincoteague.”)
Upon leaving the Navy in 1951, Paul worked at Colonial Bakery. To prepare himself for a career with the postal service, he attended college. He liked to joke that he took math courses to learn to convert his Navy recipes, like biscuits calling for a hundred pounds of flour, down to family size.
We had all ended up in Jackson, Miss., and I remember one day in the 50s when Paul drove up with a metal contraption which he set up in our backyard. For the first time in our lives we tasted barbecued chicken halves, and they remain the best I’ve ever eaten.
While continuing his work with the post office, Paul became a baker and cook at the Mississippi National Guard Armory. Out came the old recipes.
In 1975, Paul was awarded the Mississippi Commendation Medal, awarded to any member or former member of the Mississippi National Guard for “meritorious service.”
Gov. William Winter, a childhood friend of Paul’s in Grenada, in 1982 presented him the Mississippi Magnolia Medal for “distinguishing himself through outstanding service and extraordinary achievement in behalf of the Mississippi National Guard.”
Upon retirement, he began to bake in earnest, making mult-tiered wedding cakes for young folks in the church he served as deacon. Always there was good food, candies, cakes and pies. He was happiest in his kitchen.
When I was at the Jackson newspaper with access to free press passes, Paul and I had great fun attending plays and art auctions and the International Ballet Competition.
One Christmas Paul conspired with his grandson Phillip Hill, now working on his PhD in opera at UT-Austin, to publish a cookbook – a combination of his WWII recollections and favorite recipes titled “The Measured History of Paul Hill.” The books were surprise gifts for every member of the family, and the two guys pulled it off.
During one of those 50th anniversaries of WWII, the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., ran a full-page feature story about Paul and his cookbook. There are photos of Paul surrounded by freshly baked breads and cakes and pies. The reporter, Gary Pettus, told me he had never had a tastier assignment.
Several years ago Paul had a leg amputated. He hitched up his prosthesis and never slowed up. Then, about three years ago, he was diagnosed with a stomach aneurysm – a ticking time bomb within. I told him he was like a Timex watch: “Takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.” He got a kick out of my wry sense of humor!
On the day the aneurysm ruptured he had been by the store to buy ingredients for a baking session with his daughter the next day. Miracle of miracles, he survived the aneurysm after paramedics shocked his heart and administered CPR.
Then, this 85-year-old man put up a fight, demanding surgery. His zest for life refused to yield to the inevitable.
Paul and Mary, who died in 2005 after 58 years his bride, have four children – John, Robert, Jeanette and Dovie – and they were at his bedside when he died Monday, 7 April. He leaves nine grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by two young granddaughters and two great-grandchildren.
Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions. …” I’d like to think there’s a kitchen in one where a happy reunion is taking place.
Paul will be buried today at high noon with full military honors and a 21-gun salute.
***
Family and friends will gather following this service at the Mary and Paul Hill Fellowship Hall at Flag Chapel Baptist Church in Jackson, named in honor of service to their church and community.
I will be there in spirit.
***
PAUL HARPER HILL
August 4, 1922 – April 7, 2008
OBITUARY
***
I remember a hot August day in Mississippi, a day so hot that photos show white tapers in candelabra warped from the heat. The setting was our home, and my sister Mary was marrying a tall, dark and handsome sailor.
To a 5-year-old girl Paul Harper Hill at 6’6” looked like the giants of my fairy tales, and he has remained a giant of a man for 61 years – a good man with a zest for life who never met a stranger.
Paul was a baker in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers and a destroyer in the battle zones of WWII. True to his duty of feeding the men who flew the planes and manned the decks, Paul’s love of cooking and baking remained one of life’s great joys.
One of the happiest summers of my life was spent with Mary and Paul and their little boy Johnny on Chincoteague Island in Chesapeake Bay while Paul was stationed a ferry ride away in Norfolk, Va. That summer was filled with catching crabs, steaming clams and watching the “Penny Pony Roundup” as wild Spanish ponies made the annual swim from nearby Assoteague Island. (Mary’s Sunday School teacher, Marguerite Henry, wrote of such days in her children’s classic, “Misty of Chincoteague.”)
Upon leaving the Navy in 1951, Paul worked at Colonial Bakery. To prepare himself for a career with the postal service, he attended college. He liked to joke that he took math courses to learn to convert his Navy recipes, like biscuits calling for a hundred pounds of flour, down to family size.
We had all ended up in Jackson, Miss., and I remember one day in the 50s when Paul drove up with a metal contraption which he set up in our backyard. For the first time in our lives we tasted barbecued chicken halves, and they remain the best I’ve ever eaten.
While continuing his work with the post office, Paul became a baker and cook at the Mississippi National Guard Armory. Out came the old recipes.
In 1975, Paul was awarded the Mississippi Commendation Medal, awarded to any member or former member of the Mississippi National Guard for “meritorious service.”
Gov. William Winter, a childhood friend of Paul’s in Grenada, in 1982 presented him the Mississippi Magnolia Medal for “distinguishing himself through outstanding service and extraordinary achievement in behalf of the Mississippi National Guard.”
Upon retirement, he began to bake in earnest, making mult-tiered wedding cakes for young folks in the church he served as deacon. Always there was good food, candies, cakes and pies. He was happiest in his kitchen.
When I was at the Jackson newspaper with access to free press passes, Paul and I had great fun attending plays and art auctions and the International Ballet Competition.
One Christmas Paul conspired with his grandson Phillip Hill, now working on his PhD in opera at UT-Austin, to publish a cookbook – a combination of his WWII recollections and favorite recipes titled “The Measured History of Paul Hill.” The books were surprise gifts for every member of the family, and the two guys pulled it off.
During one of those 50th anniversaries of WWII, the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., ran a full-page feature story about Paul and his cookbook. There are photos of Paul surrounded by freshly baked breads and cakes and pies. The reporter, Gary Pettus, told me he had never had a tastier assignment.
Several years ago Paul had a leg amputated. He hitched up his prosthesis and never slowed up. Then, about three years ago, he was diagnosed with a stomach aneurysm – a ticking time bomb within. I told him he was like a Timex watch: “Takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.” He got a kick out of my wry sense of humor!
On the day the aneurysm ruptured he had been by the store to buy ingredients for a baking session with his daughter the next day. Miracle of miracles, he survived the aneurysm after paramedics shocked his heart and administered CPR.
Then, this 85-year-old man put up a fight, demanding surgery. His zest for life refused to yield to the inevitable.
Paul and Mary, who died in 2005 after 58 years his bride, have four children – John, Robert, Jeanette and Dovie – and they were at his bedside when he died Monday, 7 April. He leaves nine grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by two young granddaughters and two great-grandchildren.
Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions. …” I’d like to think there’s a kitchen in one where a happy reunion is taking place.
Paul will be buried today at high noon with full military honors and a 21-gun salute.
***
Family and friends will gather following this service at the Mary and Paul Hill Fellowship Hall at Flag Chapel Baptist Church in Jackson, named in honor of service to their church and community.
I will be there in spirit.
***
PAUL HARPER HILL
August 4, 1922 – April 7, 2008
OBITUARY
4/07/2008
Sweeping reality under the rug
There are times when I probably get a tad too personal for my readers, and this will be one such post. You know: it’s my blog, and I’ll cry if I want to!
Thanks to a friend’s generous Christmas gift several years ago I have a little “slush fund” which I dare not touch. The peace of mind it brings is priceless. Occasionally, when I’ve been able to add to it, it has allowed me to give a little to charity or lend someone a helping hand.
For months I have saved what little money I have left in “B.J.’s Boojay” (my monthly budget) toward some essential logistical changes. I have a friend coming to visit the first week in July, and she will help me rearrange my living room so I can continue to live independently.
It really does come down to that as I have lost most of my eyesight.
A shopping trip is planned for a new desk, a computer chair and a surge protector, which will allow me to move my huge videomagnifier from the opposite side of the living room to flank my computer desk.
These two wonders of technology – the computer and the videomagnifier – have allowed me to continue business and correspondence as usual. With a growing dependence on both, it has become necessary to move them to one spot so I can work from them in tandem.
Have been feeling really great about saving the necessary funds to implement these changes.
Now, for Part Two of this tale.
Red tape and forms are the BANE of the blind, and after a whole year of such activity, I was blessed to qualify for state Medicaid, which, finally, would cover the Medicare premiums for physician insurance.
I am incredibly blessed with good health, haven’t had a cold in 20 years and cannot remember the last time I had a prescription filled.
In order to qualify for the wonderful visual aids received from the South Carolina Commission for the Bling, I paid an initial visit to a “retina specialist.” There’s absolutely nothing he can do for retinitis pigmentos (RP), but he is monitoring my “good” left eye for cataracts and my blind right eye for a mole inside which “could develop into melanoma.” This monitoring has cost $270 for each yearly visit.
Nine months passed before I learned, after all the red tape, that there’s a yearly deductible to be met, and none of his fees have been covered.
Enter the health problem.
Remember the public service ad which stated “The five most dangerous words in the English language: maybe it will go away”?
About three months ago, I began to have a problem with the left eye, wherein lies my dwindling vision, possibly a cornea scratch or tear which is causing constant irritation, mucus and blurred vision.
Selfishly, I’ve clung to the “shopping savings” earmarked for July in the hopes that this problem would just “go away.” Working on the computer is becoming increasingly difficult. You would be amazed at the tricks one uses to do so.
So, having just paid the last doctor’s visit and with another check-up scheduled for August, I am looking at an unforeseen visit. Doing the math, that’s gonna get costly, a large portion of which I will pay.
Is there a point to all this, besides bitching? Yes, there is.
Much has been made over Hillary Clinton’s story of the pregnant woman who died because she didn’t have the money to be treated by a hospital. Few replays of her telling of the story have included the interview with the Ohio deputy sheriff, who related the story to Clinton during a visit in his home. Clinton merely repeated verbatim what the law enforcement officer told her. Yet, few people saw his interview.
Should Clinton’s team have vetted the story? Yes.
Here is the point of this post:
What can be deduced from the many pundits discussing this Clinton faux pas – on cable TV and the Internet - is that medical care problems like this don’t exist – a sweeping under the rug of the realities of health care in this country.
These talking heads, perched atop their comfortable pedestals, choose to ignore millions of such stories – true stories – which are happening across this country.
This, while relatively insignificant, has been one of them.
UPDATE: The Washington Post reports Hillary Clinton's story was true, after all, 7 April 2008: LINK
Thanks to a friend’s generous Christmas gift several years ago I have a little “slush fund” which I dare not touch. The peace of mind it brings is priceless. Occasionally, when I’ve been able to add to it, it has allowed me to give a little to charity or lend someone a helping hand.
For months I have saved what little money I have left in “B.J.’s Boojay” (my monthly budget) toward some essential logistical changes. I have a friend coming to visit the first week in July, and she will help me rearrange my living room so I can continue to live independently.
It really does come down to that as I have lost most of my eyesight.
A shopping trip is planned for a new desk, a computer chair and a surge protector, which will allow me to move my huge videomagnifier from the opposite side of the living room to flank my computer desk.
These two wonders of technology – the computer and the videomagnifier – have allowed me to continue business and correspondence as usual. With a growing dependence on both, it has become necessary to move them to one spot so I can work from them in tandem.
Have been feeling really great about saving the necessary funds to implement these changes.
Now, for Part Two of this tale.
Red tape and forms are the BANE of the blind, and after a whole year of such activity, I was blessed to qualify for state Medicaid, which, finally, would cover the Medicare premiums for physician insurance.
I am incredibly blessed with good health, haven’t had a cold in 20 years and cannot remember the last time I had a prescription filled.
In order to qualify for the wonderful visual aids received from the South Carolina Commission for the Bling, I paid an initial visit to a “retina specialist.” There’s absolutely nothing he can do for retinitis pigmentos (RP), but he is monitoring my “good” left eye for cataracts and my blind right eye for a mole inside which “could develop into melanoma.” This monitoring has cost $270 for each yearly visit.
Nine months passed before I learned, after all the red tape, that there’s a yearly deductible to be met, and none of his fees have been covered.
Enter the health problem.
Remember the public service ad which stated “The five most dangerous words in the English language: maybe it will go away”?
About three months ago, I began to have a problem with the left eye, wherein lies my dwindling vision, possibly a cornea scratch or tear which is causing constant irritation, mucus and blurred vision.
Selfishly, I’ve clung to the “shopping savings” earmarked for July in the hopes that this problem would just “go away.” Working on the computer is becoming increasingly difficult. You would be amazed at the tricks one uses to do so.
So, having just paid the last doctor’s visit and with another check-up scheduled for August, I am looking at an unforeseen visit. Doing the math, that’s gonna get costly, a large portion of which I will pay.
Is there a point to all this, besides bitching? Yes, there is.
Much has been made over Hillary Clinton’s story of the pregnant woman who died because she didn’t have the money to be treated by a hospital. Few replays of her telling of the story have included the interview with the Ohio deputy sheriff, who related the story to Clinton during a visit in his home. Clinton merely repeated verbatim what the law enforcement officer told her. Yet, few people saw his interview.
Should Clinton’s team have vetted the story? Yes.
Here is the point of this post:
What can be deduced from the many pundits discussing this Clinton faux pas – on cable TV and the Internet - is that medical care problems like this don’t exist – a sweeping under the rug of the realities of health care in this country.
These talking heads, perched atop their comfortable pedestals, choose to ignore millions of such stories – true stories – which are happening across this country.
This, while relatively insignificant, has been one of them.
UPDATE: The Washington Post reports Hillary Clinton's story was true, after all, 7 April 2008: LINK
4/04/2008
He can't win
“He can’t win,” the media quoted Hillary Clinton. Hillary said her “I can win” statements have morphed into “He can’t win.”
Another racial slur by the Clintons, the media are claiming.
First, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racist. I have said all along that he can’t win, and it sure has nothing to do with race.
What I have said, to make it very clear, is: this country does not elect a candidate perceived to be far left and anti-war. For far too many Americans, “liberal” is a curse word.
Of the following Democratic nominees, which ones most closely resemble Barack Obama’s political stance, and which resemble Hillary Clinton’s?
1968 – Hubert Humphrey (Richard Nixon won)
1972 – George McGovern (Richard Nixon won)
1976 – Jimmy Carter (Gerald Ford lost)
1980 – Jimmy Carter (Ronald Reagan won)
1984 – Walter Mondale (Ronald Reagan won)
1988 – Michael Dukakis (George H. W. Bush won)
1992 – Bill Clinton (George H. W. Bush lost)
1996 – Bill Clinton (Bob Dole lost)
2000 – Al Gore (George W. Bush won*)
2004 – John Kerry (George W. Bush won)
Now, look back over the Republicans to see how many losers closely resemble John McCain. With all due respect for McCain’s POW years, an examination of the winners shows military service hasn't always mattered in the voting booth.
Notice who won and who lost?
Carter, in retrospect, seems the lone exception. At the time, though, he was the bright young chairman of the Democratic National Campaign Committee, a former Naval lieutenant who had worked with Admiral Rickover in developing our nuclear submarine program, a farmer and former Georgia governor. Like Obi-wan Kenobi, “our only hope.” (Now, like Bill Clinton, Carter is the brunt of right-wing attacks and media jokes, despite his post-presidential good works.)
Here’s a quote at the time by Carter campaign pollster Patrick Caddell (LINK):
"If it weren't for the country looking for something in '76, Carter could never have gotten elected. He would never have been allowed out of the box. No one would have paid attention to him."
This country definitely is “looking for something” after Bush and Cheney, and Obama might ride that wave to the White House.
Frankly, after voting for seven losers in the last 10 elections, I am ready to vote for a winner again!
In my heart, I just don’t think Obama can pull it off.
Overriding all these considerations is the fact that this country is facing hard times, and we had better think long and hard about who is best qualified and most capable to guide us through them.
(Footnote: In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by 540,520 votes, but SCOTUS gave the election to Bush.)
Another racial slur by the Clintons, the media are claiming.
First, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racist. I have said all along that he can’t win, and it sure has nothing to do with race.
What I have said, to make it very clear, is: this country does not elect a candidate perceived to be far left and anti-war. For far too many Americans, “liberal” is a curse word.
Of the following Democratic nominees, which ones most closely resemble Barack Obama’s political stance, and which resemble Hillary Clinton’s?
1968 – Hubert Humphrey (Richard Nixon won)
1972 – George McGovern (Richard Nixon won)
1976 – Jimmy Carter (Gerald Ford lost)
1980 – Jimmy Carter (Ronald Reagan won)
1984 – Walter Mondale (Ronald Reagan won)
1988 – Michael Dukakis (George H. W. Bush won)
1992 – Bill Clinton (George H. W. Bush lost)
1996 – Bill Clinton (Bob Dole lost)
2000 – Al Gore (George W. Bush won*)
2004 – John Kerry (George W. Bush won)
Now, look back over the Republicans to see how many losers closely resemble John McCain. With all due respect for McCain’s POW years, an examination of the winners shows military service hasn't always mattered in the voting booth.
Notice who won and who lost?
Carter, in retrospect, seems the lone exception. At the time, though, he was the bright young chairman of the Democratic National Campaign Committee, a former Naval lieutenant who had worked with Admiral Rickover in developing our nuclear submarine program, a farmer and former Georgia governor. Like Obi-wan Kenobi, “our only hope.” (Now, like Bill Clinton, Carter is the brunt of right-wing attacks and media jokes, despite his post-presidential good works.)
Here’s a quote at the time by Carter campaign pollster Patrick Caddell (LINK):
"If it weren't for the country looking for something in '76, Carter could never have gotten elected. He would never have been allowed out of the box. No one would have paid attention to him."
This country definitely is “looking for something” after Bush and Cheney, and Obama might ride that wave to the White House.
Frankly, after voting for seven losers in the last 10 elections, I am ready to vote for a winner again!
In my heart, I just don’t think Obama can pull it off.
Overriding all these considerations is the fact that this country is facing hard times, and we had better think long and hard about who is best qualified and most capable to guide us through them.
(Footnote: In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by 540,520 votes, but SCOTUS gave the election to Bush.)
4/03/2008
I met a man with six wives
“Nature wronged her by not making her a man. But for her sex she would have surpassed all the rulers of history.” - Oliver Cromwell, upon the death of Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England, divorced from Henry VIII.
***
Remember the riddle about going to St. Ives and meeting a man with seven wives? Well, on my way to my blog this morning, I stumbled across such a man on a great Web site.
Althogh I thought I knew all there was to know about his wives, I found excellent biographical sketches on each.
No deep thoughts or frivolous froufrou to offer you today. I’m still thinking about the above quote and am knee-deep in history.
Here they are, complete with portraits: the six wives of Henry VIII. Some things you just can’t get enogh of!
TUDORHISTORY.ORG
***
Remember the riddle about going to St. Ives and meeting a man with seven wives? Well, on my way to my blog this morning, I stumbled across such a man on a great Web site.
Althogh I thought I knew all there was to know about his wives, I found excellent biographical sketches on each.
No deep thoughts or frivolous froufrou to offer you today. I’m still thinking about the above quote and am knee-deep in history.
Here they are, complete with portraits: the six wives of Henry VIII. Some things you just can’t get enogh of!
TUDORHISTORY.ORG
4/02/2008
John Cleese settles U.S. election
This came from a friend who got it from a friend, Syd, who got it from a friend “whom I must describe as now a senile Ozark hillbilly,” who got it from a friend “who is an Englishman living in Canada.”
I didn’t check snopes.com to see if John Cleese, now retired from films, really is the author, because I like mentioning him. “Monty Python,” “A Fish Called Wanda” and all those brilliantly crafted “Fawlty Towers” episodes (“Basil!”) merit his mention. Enjoy!
Britain Repossessing the USA: A Message from John Cleese.
To the citizens of the United States of America
In light of your failure to acknowledge officially the incompetence and arrogance of George W. “Dubya” Bush and the evil heart of Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney, and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and territories (except Texas, which she does not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then, look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as “favour,” “colour” and “neighbour.” Likewise, you will learn to spell “doughnut” without skipping half the letters. And, the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up “vocabulary”).
3. Using the same 27 words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, now “God Save The Queen.”
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a potato peeler. And, a permit will be required if you wish to carry a potato peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are useless; and this is for your own good. When we show you European cars, you will understand what we mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric (with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables). Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
9. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) - roughly $6/US per gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call french fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat and dressed not with catsup (you know it as ketchup), but with malt vinegar.
11. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on Earth, and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood now also will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby, which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every 20 seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies. Don't try rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1 percent of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.
God save the Queen. (Only He can.)
John Cleese
I didn’t check snopes.com to see if John Cleese, now retired from films, really is the author, because I like mentioning him. “Monty Python,” “A Fish Called Wanda” and all those brilliantly crafted “Fawlty Towers” episodes (“Basil!”) merit his mention. Enjoy!
Britain Repossessing the USA: A Message from John Cleese.
To the citizens of the United States of America
In light of your failure to acknowledge officially the incompetence and arrogance of George W. “Dubya” Bush and the evil heart of Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney, and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and territories (except Texas, which she does not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then, look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as “favour,” “colour” and “neighbour.” Likewise, you will learn to spell “doughnut” without skipping half the letters. And, the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up “vocabulary”).
3. Using the same 27 words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, now “God Save The Queen.”
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a potato peeler. And, a permit will be required if you wish to carry a potato peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are useless; and this is for your own good. When we show you European cars, you will understand what we mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric (with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables). Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
9. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) - roughly $6/US per gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call french fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat and dressed not with catsup (you know it as ketchup), but with malt vinegar.
11. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on Earth, and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood now also will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby, which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every 20 seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies. Don't try rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1 percent of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.
God save the Queen. (Only He can.)
John Cleese
4/01/2008
No fooling, a bit of good news
This election cycle might be one of the greatest red herrings of our time, drawing the politically engaged away from the continuing day-to-day shenanigans of the Bush administration.
Whether it’s Bush attempting to ram through a pro-torture Justice Department nominee or just the lack of attention to the many unresolved scandals which have permeated his administration, some of us are missing a beat or two when it comes to keeping up.
Not so with the folks at the Center for American Progress, whose daily newsletter “The Progress Report” makes every effort to stay on top of all current issues.
This morning I took some time to catch up on several editions of the Report and found, among the on-going Iraq and economic woes, a bit of good news.
Reuters reported on 27 March (LINK):
“New Orleans, abandoned by thousands of residents after destructive floods and hurricanes in 2005, was one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States last year, according to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau Thursday.
“The Louisiana city's population climbed by 4 percent, with an increase of 39,885 residents between July 2006 and July 2007, making it the eighth fastest growing metro area in the country, the bureau said.”
A 2006 study estimated fewer than 200,000 people were living in New Orleans, down from 485,000 in 2000.
According to the bureau, eight of the 10 cities with the highest population growth are located in the South, a fact that bodes well for the re-emergence of the Crescent City as a major U.S. port and commerce hub.
Let’s hope, with growth, the culture and cuisine which has made New Orleans one of America’s great tourist destinations is preserved.
Laissez le bon temps roulet!
Whether it’s Bush attempting to ram through a pro-torture Justice Department nominee or just the lack of attention to the many unresolved scandals which have permeated his administration, some of us are missing a beat or two when it comes to keeping up.
Not so with the folks at the Center for American Progress, whose daily newsletter “The Progress Report” makes every effort to stay on top of all current issues.
This morning I took some time to catch up on several editions of the Report and found, among the on-going Iraq and economic woes, a bit of good news.
Reuters reported on 27 March (LINK):
“New Orleans, abandoned by thousands of residents after destructive floods and hurricanes in 2005, was one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States last year, according to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau Thursday.
“The Louisiana city's population climbed by 4 percent, with an increase of 39,885 residents between July 2006 and July 2007, making it the eighth fastest growing metro area in the country, the bureau said.”
A 2006 study estimated fewer than 200,000 people were living in New Orleans, down from 485,000 in 2000.
According to the bureau, eight of the 10 cities with the highest population growth are located in the South, a fact that bodes well for the re-emergence of the Crescent City as a major U.S. port and commerce hub.
Let’s hope, with growth, the culture and cuisine which has made New Orleans one of America’s great tourist destinations is preserved.
Laissez le bon temps roulet!
3/28/2008
In it to win it
I can tell you why Hillary Clinton supporters are sick of Obama mania, because I am one of them.
After month upon month of bashing this woman, who owes it to her supporters to win the Democratic nomination, two new mantras – accompanied by a constant drumbeat from the media and Obama supporters - have emerged:
· Hillary needs to get out of the race.
· Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party.
To put it nicely, that is esoteric bullshit.
If you don’t want facts to get in your way, you are on the wrong blog. The following post will take about 10 minutes of your time, but you might come away better informed.
FACT: The Rasmussen poll released 26 March 2008 (LINK) found that 66 percent of registered Democratic voters want both candidates to stay in the race for the nomination. The poll shows there’s equal dislike on either side of the Democratic race for the rival candidate: 22 percent of both Clinton and Obama supporters said they believe the other candidate should drop out of the race.
FACT: In calling for either candidate to drop out of the race, there is an assumption that the other can defeat John McCain in November – despite unknown developments over the next eight months.
FACT: To win the Democratic Party nomination, a candidate must have won 2,025 pledged delegates. It is mathematically impossible for EITHER Clinton or Obama to achieve this number.
FACT: In the event the required number is not achieved, the rules of the Party, established in 1984, state that the “superdelegates” – a media term - will intervene.
FACT: The superdelegate rule was created to strengthen the role of party leaders and elected officials and to cover the possibility of the unforeseen - something going terribly wrong with a Party frontrunner in the lead-up to the convention. In the nick of time, the major contenders in the 1984 primary were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each won some primaries and caucuses. Mondale was only slightly ahead of Hart in the total number of votes cast, but won the support of almost all superdelegates and became the nominee after Hart’s “Monkey Business.”
(What the rules say: The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate." The term refers to unpledged delegates, who fall into two categories: 1) delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are described in Rule 9.A as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" (PLEOs); and 2) additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party, in a fixed, predetermined number, who are described in Rule 9.B as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates. Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses. While the number of pledged PLEOs is fixed and predetermined, the number of the unpledged PLEOs is not set. Pledged PLEOs generally support their state’s primary or caucus winner, but they are not required to do so.)
FACT: You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
FACT: In light of the mathematics, a call for either candidate to drop out at this point is just a bit of silliness. After all, the official race against John McCain is not going to begin until the Democratic National Convention in August. So much for the hue and cry that it must begin NOW.
FACT: While the Republicans have accomplished the deification of former President Ronald Reagan, Obama supporters, to my chagrin, have joined the right-wing and the media in marginalizing Bill Clinton. Progressive and liberal blogs which support Obama are exhibiting the blue-dress syndrome and denying the many accomplishments of the Clinton administration.
FACT: Throughout his administration Clinton’s job approval rating was, on average, higher than Reagan’s, and he left office with a 66 percent approval rating. So, why the circular firing squad?
FACT: Despite media mockery, Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” was real, and it still exists. It will go after either candidate in the general election. For full, documented accounts of such a “conspiracy,” I highly recommend David Brock’s book “Blinded by the Right” and “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Berstein. All Democrats will be better prepared for the general election campaign having read these two books.
FACT: If we play by the rules of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination are as good as Barack Obama’s.
A BIT OF DIALOGUE FROM THE OBAMA-LEANING MEDIA:
From “The Race for the White House with David Gregory,” MSNBC, 26 March 2008 (TRANSCRIPT):
DAVID GREGORY, host: Finally tonight, the Clinton camp is hammering home the message inside their war room that she is still in it to win it, laying out their case in a press release listing a series of myths and facts.
Among the myths … the delegate math works decisively against Hillary. But they claim the fact is that the delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win. They went further to say, “The math is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination, and either candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable.”
Rachel, what is also indisputable is that she would really have to change the dynamic in this campaign and win something on the order of 70 percent of the rest of the delegates. That is hard math.
RACHEL MADDOW, “Air America” host: The real - realistic way to put this is that NEITHER candidate can win with the remaining state-based contests. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates. The question for Democrats is not whether or not they want the superdelegates to decide this; the superdelegates are going to decide this, as gross as that may seem to a lot of Democratic voters. And so, therefore, we should stop worrying about the ethics of that. We‘re faced with that now. And, the real question on the people, when should the superdelegates decide? Do we wait until Denver, or do we force them to do some sort of superdelegate primary sometime more soon like in June, which has been proposed by the governor of Tennessee?
GREGORY: But, Richard, is there anything beyond rhetoric here in saying, no, there really is a path to victory here that‘s real, that is actual arithmetic?
RICHARD WOLFFE, “Newsweek” senior White House correspondent: No, it‘s rhetoric. It‘s the department of voodoo math. Look, the pledged delegates are the way we assess the will of the people in these races. There are all sorts of caucus states that we still don‘t know where the popular vote is. So, we can argue out percentages of this or that or the other. He has a 150-odd lead in pledged delegates, that‘s 10 percent more than Hillary Clinton has. It‘s a significant measure.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe:” We? You said that’s how we decide it? If that‘s the way we decided it—if that‘s the way the Democratic Party decided it, then they wouldn‘t have superdelegates. That‘s the thing.
Let me tell you what we love to do. We in the media love to tell everybody - which we have been telling everybody for months - that the numbers don‘t add up for Hillary Clinton ,,,
WOLFFE: So, Joe …
SCARBOROUGH: … She can‘t get enough delegates by Denver. Well, guess what: the numbers don‘t add up for Barack Obama, but we don‘t tell that side of the story, do we?
WOLFFE: No, we don‘t. That happens to be the rules of the Democratic Party, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: The superdelegates are the rules of the Democratic Party.
WOLFFE: And, the pledged delegates.
SCARBOROUGH: And, they can go any way they want.
WOLFFE: The pledged delegates are how people assess the votes of the people, the voters, what else is there?
SCARBOROUGH: There are superdelegates. And, if the superdelegates decide between now and Denver, which I hate to remind people but, my God, that is months and months away, that Barack Obama cannot win because of things that happened after Pennsylvania, in May, June, July, that is a lifetime. Harold McMillan said a week in politics is a lifetime. We‘ve got months and months and months. –END-
All you Democrats in either camp who fall into the “22 percent” and are stuck in Abraham Maslow’s “instant gratification” stage of development, go fix yourself a cup of instant coffee.
We have two great candidates. Let’s let this primary process play out – as it always has in the past.
“Saddle up!” (CORRECTION: The cited Rasmussen poll showed 56 percent of Democrats surveyed think both candidates should stay in the race. The error is mine. Fighting for truth can be very tiring these days.)
After month upon month of bashing this woman, who owes it to her supporters to win the Democratic nomination, two new mantras – accompanied by a constant drumbeat from the media and Obama supporters - have emerged:
· Hillary needs to get out of the race.
· Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party.
To put it nicely, that is esoteric bullshit.
If you don’t want facts to get in your way, you are on the wrong blog. The following post will take about 10 minutes of your time, but you might come away better informed.
FACT: The Rasmussen poll released 26 March 2008 (LINK) found that 66 percent of registered Democratic voters want both candidates to stay in the race for the nomination. The poll shows there’s equal dislike on either side of the Democratic race for the rival candidate: 22 percent of both Clinton and Obama supporters said they believe the other candidate should drop out of the race.
FACT: In calling for either candidate to drop out of the race, there is an assumption that the other can defeat John McCain in November – despite unknown developments over the next eight months.
FACT: To win the Democratic Party nomination, a candidate must have won 2,025 pledged delegates. It is mathematically impossible for EITHER Clinton or Obama to achieve this number.
FACT: In the event the required number is not achieved, the rules of the Party, established in 1984, state that the “superdelegates” – a media term - will intervene.
FACT: The superdelegate rule was created to strengthen the role of party leaders and elected officials and to cover the possibility of the unforeseen - something going terribly wrong with a Party frontrunner in the lead-up to the convention. In the nick of time, the major contenders in the 1984 primary were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each won some primaries and caucuses. Mondale was only slightly ahead of Hart in the total number of votes cast, but won the support of almost all superdelegates and became the nominee after Hart’s “Monkey Business.”
(What the rules say: The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate." The term refers to unpledged delegates, who fall into two categories: 1) delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are described in Rule 9.A as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" (PLEOs); and 2) additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party, in a fixed, predetermined number, who are described in Rule 9.B as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates. Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses. While the number of pledged PLEOs is fixed and predetermined, the number of the unpledged PLEOs is not set. Pledged PLEOs generally support their state’s primary or caucus winner, but they are not required to do so.)
FACT: You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
FACT: In light of the mathematics, a call for either candidate to drop out at this point is just a bit of silliness. After all, the official race against John McCain is not going to begin until the Democratic National Convention in August. So much for the hue and cry that it must begin NOW.
FACT: While the Republicans have accomplished the deification of former President Ronald Reagan, Obama supporters, to my chagrin, have joined the right-wing and the media in marginalizing Bill Clinton. Progressive and liberal blogs which support Obama are exhibiting the blue-dress syndrome and denying the many accomplishments of the Clinton administration.
FACT: Throughout his administration Clinton’s job approval rating was, on average, higher than Reagan’s, and he left office with a 66 percent approval rating. So, why the circular firing squad?
FACT: Despite media mockery, Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” was real, and it still exists. It will go after either candidate in the general election. For full, documented accounts of such a “conspiracy,” I highly recommend David Brock’s book “Blinded by the Right” and “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Berstein. All Democrats will be better prepared for the general election campaign having read these two books.
FACT: If we play by the rules of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination are as good as Barack Obama’s.
A BIT OF DIALOGUE FROM THE OBAMA-LEANING MEDIA:
From “The Race for the White House with David Gregory,” MSNBC, 26 March 2008 (TRANSCRIPT):
DAVID GREGORY, host: Finally tonight, the Clinton camp is hammering home the message inside their war room that she is still in it to win it, laying out their case in a press release listing a series of myths and facts.
Among the myths … the delegate math works decisively against Hillary. But they claim the fact is that the delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win. They went further to say, “The math is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination, and either candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable.”
Rachel, what is also indisputable is that she would really have to change the dynamic in this campaign and win something on the order of 70 percent of the rest of the delegates. That is hard math.
RACHEL MADDOW, “Air America” host: The real - realistic way to put this is that NEITHER candidate can win with the remaining state-based contests. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates. The question for Democrats is not whether or not they want the superdelegates to decide this; the superdelegates are going to decide this, as gross as that may seem to a lot of Democratic voters. And so, therefore, we should stop worrying about the ethics of that. We‘re faced with that now. And, the real question on the people, when should the superdelegates decide? Do we wait until Denver, or do we force them to do some sort of superdelegate primary sometime more soon like in June, which has been proposed by the governor of Tennessee?
GREGORY: But, Richard, is there anything beyond rhetoric here in saying, no, there really is a path to victory here that‘s real, that is actual arithmetic?
RICHARD WOLFFE, “Newsweek” senior White House correspondent: No, it‘s rhetoric. It‘s the department of voodoo math. Look, the pledged delegates are the way we assess the will of the people in these races. There are all sorts of caucus states that we still don‘t know where the popular vote is. So, we can argue out percentages of this or that or the other. He has a 150-odd lead in pledged delegates, that‘s 10 percent more than Hillary Clinton has. It‘s a significant measure.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe:” We? You said that’s how we decide it? If that‘s the way we decided it—if that‘s the way the Democratic Party decided it, then they wouldn‘t have superdelegates. That‘s the thing.
Let me tell you what we love to do. We in the media love to tell everybody - which we have been telling everybody for months - that the numbers don‘t add up for Hillary Clinton ,,,
WOLFFE: So, Joe …
SCARBOROUGH: … She can‘t get enough delegates by Denver. Well, guess what: the numbers don‘t add up for Barack Obama, but we don‘t tell that side of the story, do we?
WOLFFE: No, we don‘t. That happens to be the rules of the Democratic Party, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: The superdelegates are the rules of the Democratic Party.
WOLFFE: And, the pledged delegates.
SCARBOROUGH: And, they can go any way they want.
WOLFFE: The pledged delegates are how people assess the votes of the people, the voters, what else is there?
SCARBOROUGH: There are superdelegates. And, if the superdelegates decide between now and Denver, which I hate to remind people but, my God, that is months and months away, that Barack Obama cannot win because of things that happened after Pennsylvania, in May, June, July, that is a lifetime. Harold McMillan said a week in politics is a lifetime. We‘ve got months and months and months. –END-
All you Democrats in either camp who fall into the “22 percent” and are stuck in Abraham Maslow’s “instant gratification” stage of development, go fix yourself a cup of instant coffee.
We have two great candidates. Let’s let this primary process play out – as it always has in the past.
“Saddle up!” (CORRECTION: The cited Rasmussen poll showed 56 percent of Democrats surveyed think both candidates should stay in the race. The error is mine. Fighting for truth can be very tiring these days.)
3/26/2008
Capital punishment
PROMISE:
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are ready from “day one” with platforms which hold the promise of benefiting all Americans, of changing the direction of our country, of restoring competence to the presidency.
Both are uniquely qualified to do so. Once sworn in, our new president will hit a wall. Only one candidate has experienced its effects.
On 23 January 1993, a couple with an established life goal of helping others took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They, and the Americans who sent them there, had high hopes.
Bill Clinton would soon find out that his predecessor had “cooked the books,” that the deficit was far higher than was previously known – the biggest dollar deficit in American history. The reality: many of his campaign promises would be put on hold because of inherited economic woes.
The $290 billion deficit Clinton inherited is chump change compared with what our new president will face, so don’t expect campaign promises to materialize miraculously.
POISONED DARTS
Carl Bernstein, of Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein, brings his best investigative reporting skills to his book, “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
The Clintons learned early on how tough it is to go up against the Washington establishment.
Bernstein quotes the following “welcome to Washington” article:
"Making Capital Gains: Welcome to Washington, But Play By Our Rules," Sally Quinn, The Washington Post, Outlook section, p. 01, Nov. 15, 1992, 1,965 words. (Buy archived article)
Ms. Quinn is the wife of former Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin Bradlee and a noted Washington hostess. She offered 1,965 words of advice from the “in-crowd” to the incoming president and first lady, but none were so incisive as these:
“Think of it this way: your plane has crashlanded in the middle of Brazil, and you find yourself surrounded by a curious and possibly hostile tribe. Instead of giving them beads and eating the monkey tongues they’ve offered you, you decide that you don’t need their help. Fine. But, don’t be surprised if you end up with poisoned darts in your backside. Like any other culture, Washington has its own totems and taboos. It would serve the newcomers well to learn to abide by them.”
The Clintons and their transplanted Arkansans learned the hard way – and fast – what happens when you don’t play by the rules of the Washington elite. Bernstein brilliantly documents their saga.
Once more, Hillary holds the experience card.
Obama is running on a promise of changing Washington, of somehow transporting his cheering rally-goers into a position of power in D.C. Let’s hope, if elected, he – and all his true believers – don’t end up with poisoned darts in their backsides.
Just as she was told to do when flying into Bosnia, Hillary has learned to sit on her flak jacket. Perhaps experience has taught her that diplomacy and compromise work best - from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.
It’s becoming clearer every day that the alternative to a Democratic win in November is unthinkable.
So, let’s hope beyond hope that once the votes are counted and the inherent and inherited obstacles are overcome, the core values of the Democratic Party will once more emerge to lift an America left foundering.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are ready from “day one” with platforms which hold the promise of benefiting all Americans, of changing the direction of our country, of restoring competence to the presidency.
Both are uniquely qualified to do so. Once sworn in, our new president will hit a wall. Only one candidate has experienced its effects.
On 23 January 1993, a couple with an established life goal of helping others took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They, and the Americans who sent them there, had high hopes.
Bill Clinton would soon find out that his predecessor had “cooked the books,” that the deficit was far higher than was previously known – the biggest dollar deficit in American history. The reality: many of his campaign promises would be put on hold because of inherited economic woes.
The $290 billion deficit Clinton inherited is chump change compared with what our new president will face, so don’t expect campaign promises to materialize miraculously.
POISONED DARTS
Carl Bernstein, of Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein, brings his best investigative reporting skills to his book, “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
The Clintons learned early on how tough it is to go up against the Washington establishment.
Bernstein quotes the following “welcome to Washington” article:
"Making Capital Gains: Welcome to Washington, But Play By Our Rules," Sally Quinn, The Washington Post, Outlook section, p. 01, Nov. 15, 1992, 1,965 words. (Buy archived article)
Ms. Quinn is the wife of former Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin Bradlee and a noted Washington hostess. She offered 1,965 words of advice from the “in-crowd” to the incoming president and first lady, but none were so incisive as these:
“Think of it this way: your plane has crashlanded in the middle of Brazil, and you find yourself surrounded by a curious and possibly hostile tribe. Instead of giving them beads and eating the monkey tongues they’ve offered you, you decide that you don’t need their help. Fine. But, don’t be surprised if you end up with poisoned darts in your backside. Like any other culture, Washington has its own totems and taboos. It would serve the newcomers well to learn to abide by them.”
The Clintons and their transplanted Arkansans learned the hard way – and fast – what happens when you don’t play by the rules of the Washington elite. Bernstein brilliantly documents their saga.
Once more, Hillary holds the experience card.
Obama is running on a promise of changing Washington, of somehow transporting his cheering rally-goers into a position of power in D.C. Let’s hope, if elected, he – and all his true believers – don’t end up with poisoned darts in their backsides.
Just as she was told to do when flying into Bosnia, Hillary has learned to sit on her flak jacket. Perhaps experience has taught her that diplomacy and compromise work best - from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.
It’s becoming clearer every day that the alternative to a Democratic win in November is unthinkable.
So, let’s hope beyond hope that once the votes are counted and the inherent and inherited obstacles are overcome, the core values of the Democratic Party will once more emerge to lift an America left foundering.
3/24/2008
Two sad numbers
A recent Pew Research survey (LINK) revealed only 28 percent of Americans were aware that the U.S. death toll in Iraq was nearing 4,000 – a tragic figure reached Sunday with the deaths of four U.S. soldiers killed by a roadside bomb.
3/21/2008
The Big Uneasy
It’s Good Friday. Easter and spring are upon us. I want to think of joy and faith and renewal.
Racism (and sexism) keep getting in the way.
Over at Papamoka Straight Talk, he, too, is wondering why such prejudices exist. Read his post: “Obama on Racial Tension in America,” LINK
You always write from your heart, Papamaoka, and that’s the essential quality of good writing which draws me to your blog.
I admit I am one of those persons made uncomfortable when racial tensions reach a boiling point in America. I have believed, naïvely I suppose, that things had gotten better.
That belief was jarred when the scab on this festering condition was knocked off - and should have gained a national forum - with the racial and class injustices in the aftermath of Katrina.
In an ironic twist, the person who raised the most hell, in Katrina’s wake, about race and class injustice in New Orleans was himself a victim in this struggle: Don Imus, a man I greatly admire. I believe to this day that Imus is not a racist and might have been a force in airing this issue if he himself had not uttered three words.
Yes, words matter. The very persons who now defend Obama’s allegiance to his pastor are those “friends” of Imus who turned their backs on him when he needed them most. Imus’ words of unintended consequence cannot compare with those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Or, for that matter, those of McCain endorsers John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
On a very personal level, my discomfort when racial tension arises comes from its intrusion into my own life. In my life there are no racial tensions. I am not in a “racial stalemate:” I do not hesitate to let othrs know if their prejudices offend me.
I have lived my life believing all “are precious in His sight.”
Early on, there were simple lessons, other than those from my parents and my church:
· A little song which goes, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.”
· The simple words of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
· Sitting in a Saturday matinee with my kid brother and watcheing the 1951 movie “The Well” with Harry Morgan. Available on video and DVD, the movie is described by Yahoo!: “An incisive study of crowd psychology, focusing on the effects of the townsfolk when a black child gets lodged in a deep well. Academy Award Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay and Best Film Editing.”
For almost 23 years I have lived in a large apartment complex where the majority of my neighbors and friends, some of whom have remained my friends after moving on, has been black. Sure, there have been problem neighbors, white and black, and distancing myself from them was based on their conduct.
So, yes, to be frank, it makes me nervous, it makes me uncomfortable to be drawn into a larger world where hatred and prejudice exist. I was drawn into that world as I sat comfortably in my living room for five days watching my fellow Americans in New Orleans suffer in unspeakable ways while our federal government did nothing.
And, I am drawn into it when I feel the hatred in the heart of the Rev. Wright. I agree that, essentially, some of his statements are based in fact, but many are nothing more than vitriolic reverse racism against his fellow Americans.
Arguments about all the good Wright has done fall on deaf ears. Imus proved that.
Many have asked me why I bother to monitor Fox News and other outlets of right-wing propaganda. Well, read “The Art of War.” The issue of whether Barack Obama should distance himself from his mentor is not going away. The media will not let it. It is, after all, tantamount to the very dialogue Sen. Obama has called for.
How this dialogue will affect the Democratic nomination and, more importantly, the general election in November, remains to be seen.
Boy, talk about naïve, when a womn and a black man entered this presidential race, I didn’t see this coming.
Have I distanced myself from certain persons in my own life? Tp be sure, Such choices were based on individual evaluations of personal conduct. That’s a lesson our mothers taught us.
The long-needed national forum is apparently upon us.
In the meantime, I want my secure, harmonious and peaceful little world to remain intact. It is a world where my closest friends are color-blind and do not give thought to the color of each other’s skin. If that makes me selfish, sobeit.
Papamoka and I share a common quandary: why prejudice exists in the first place.
Racism (and sexism) keep getting in the way.
Over at Papamoka Straight Talk, he, too, is wondering why such prejudices exist. Read his post: “Obama on Racial Tension in America,” LINK
You always write from your heart, Papamaoka, and that’s the essential quality of good writing which draws me to your blog.
I admit I am one of those persons made uncomfortable when racial tensions reach a boiling point in America. I have believed, naïvely I suppose, that things had gotten better.
That belief was jarred when the scab on this festering condition was knocked off - and should have gained a national forum - with the racial and class injustices in the aftermath of Katrina.
In an ironic twist, the person who raised the most hell, in Katrina’s wake, about race and class injustice in New Orleans was himself a victim in this struggle: Don Imus, a man I greatly admire. I believe to this day that Imus is not a racist and might have been a force in airing this issue if he himself had not uttered three words.
Yes, words matter. The very persons who now defend Obama’s allegiance to his pastor are those “friends” of Imus who turned their backs on him when he needed them most. Imus’ words of unintended consequence cannot compare with those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Or, for that matter, those of McCain endorsers John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
On a very personal level, my discomfort when racial tension arises comes from its intrusion into my own life. In my life there are no racial tensions. I am not in a “racial stalemate:” I do not hesitate to let othrs know if their prejudices offend me.
I have lived my life believing all “are precious in His sight.”
Early on, there were simple lessons, other than those from my parents and my church:
· A little song which goes, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.”
· The simple words of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
· Sitting in a Saturday matinee with my kid brother and watcheing the 1951 movie “The Well” with Harry Morgan. Available on video and DVD, the movie is described by Yahoo!: “An incisive study of crowd psychology, focusing on the effects of the townsfolk when a black child gets lodged in a deep well. Academy Award Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay and Best Film Editing.”
For almost 23 years I have lived in a large apartment complex where the majority of my neighbors and friends, some of whom have remained my friends after moving on, has been black. Sure, there have been problem neighbors, white and black, and distancing myself from them was based on their conduct.
So, yes, to be frank, it makes me nervous, it makes me uncomfortable to be drawn into a larger world where hatred and prejudice exist. I was drawn into that world as I sat comfortably in my living room for five days watching my fellow Americans in New Orleans suffer in unspeakable ways while our federal government did nothing.
And, I am drawn into it when I feel the hatred in the heart of the Rev. Wright. I agree that, essentially, some of his statements are based in fact, but many are nothing more than vitriolic reverse racism against his fellow Americans.
Arguments about all the good Wright has done fall on deaf ears. Imus proved that.
Many have asked me why I bother to monitor Fox News and other outlets of right-wing propaganda. Well, read “The Art of War.” The issue of whether Barack Obama should distance himself from his mentor is not going away. The media will not let it. It is, after all, tantamount to the very dialogue Sen. Obama has called for.
How this dialogue will affect the Democratic nomination and, more importantly, the general election in November, remains to be seen.
Boy, talk about naïve, when a womn and a black man entered this presidential race, I didn’t see this coming.
Have I distanced myself from certain persons in my own life? Tp be sure, Such choices were based on individual evaluations of personal conduct. That’s a lesson our mothers taught us.
The long-needed national forum is apparently upon us.
In the meantime, I want my secure, harmonious and peaceful little world to remain intact. It is a world where my closest friends are color-blind and do not give thought to the color of each other’s skin. If that makes me selfish, sobeit.
Papamoka and I share a common quandary: why prejudice exists in the first place.
3/19/2008
'A More Perfect Union'
1912 OVERTURE - Women march in NYC to win the right to vote.
WHAT IS THE name of that little stick men use to stop the bleeding when they nick themselves shaving?
Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on race relations in America was memorable, perhaps one of the most memorable speeches of our time, but will it be a catalyst that will stop the hemorrhaging of his campaign and bring about a healing of prejudiced hearts, or is it like that little stick, merely staunching, for the moment, a flesh wound?
If you missed the speech, by all means view the video or read the transcript HERE.
Soundbites won’t work, because Obama built his speech point upon point.
His words were brilliant in linking bygone wounds to the anger they’ve produced among all races in this country. He is right that if we don’t start now to concede the scars of our own history, confront our differences and coalesce around our common needs, these problems will exist in perpetuity.
I could not see Obama or the setting where he spoke, but in better times I stood in the same spot in Philadelphia and walked the streets where this country took form.
Obama is correct in pointing out that the men who created this Republic made concessions on slavery. Better, they thought, to break the ties of English tyranny than to risk not doing so by excluding the Southern colonies.
Benjamin Franklin told his peers (I could make the argument Ben had no peers): “We will hear of this (slavery) problem 100 years hence.” Indeed, we heard it loudly on the battlefields of the War between the States.
A half-century later, on 6 May 1912, the tramp, tramp, tramp of tens of thousands of high-buttoned shoes marching through New York City was heard loud and clear. In 1920, the suffragettes who marched so bravely that day were granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment.
It got louder in WWII as we fought to stop a racist lunatic whose armies were conquering Europe.
Over another two decades, the cries for equality and justice grew louder and louder until, on 28 August 1963, loudspeakers blared out the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., across our nation’s capital and into our collective conscience:
“Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.”
(Click HERE for video and transcript of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.)
Prejudices and “man’s inhumanity towards man” will not cease to exist. These human failures have been around since Cain slew Abel. They will be around when, as William Faulkner put it, “the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded.”
Years ago, I read this quote and can’t recall who said it, “Tyranny is the natural form of government. Freedom must be won with each new generation.”
The long struggle for civil rights and civil liberties is being reversed in the name of security.
It’s our turn.
***
For those of you who heard Sen. Obama’s speech or have viewed it online, I would like your comments, pro or con, on these questions posed on cable news networks, in newspapers and by blogs:
· Reportedly, Obama’s team was onstage before the speech, which began some 30 minutes behind schedule, trying to decide how many flags to display behind him. Do you think the flags, the setting and the evocation of our Founding Fathers were a skillful propaganda device to draw ALL Americans into the speech? Was Obama’s subdued delivery aimed at contrasting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s fiery speech?
· Do you believe Obama’s words were heartfelt or were they simply an attempt to “cover his ass” in the wake of devastating publicity?
· Do you agree that some “knuckleheads,” as Newsweek’s Howard Fineman put it, are unable to grasp the meaning and complexity of Obama’s brilliantly crafted call for racial harmony? (Certainly, a case in point is Sean Hannity’s performan on last night’s edition of “Hannity and Colmes.”)
· Finally, as inspiring as I found Obama’s speech and as deeply as I desire the fruition of his thesis, is it not true that the hateful words of a Rev. Wright, a Rev. Hagee, a Rev. Parsley remain an echo long after the flags were folded in Philadelphia?
***
The “comments” link below is your portal to a fair and open discussion. If you do not have a log-in, simply select “name/URL,” and when the new screen comes up, scroll UP until you see a window on the right to type in your name. Or, you may select “anonymous.” Then, click “publish.”
Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on race relations in America was memorable, perhaps one of the most memorable speeches of our time, but will it be a catalyst that will stop the hemorrhaging of his campaign and bring about a healing of prejudiced hearts, or is it like that little stick, merely staunching, for the moment, a flesh wound?
If you missed the speech, by all means view the video or read the transcript HERE.
Soundbites won’t work, because Obama built his speech point upon point.
His words were brilliant in linking bygone wounds to the anger they’ve produced among all races in this country. He is right that if we don’t start now to concede the scars of our own history, confront our differences and coalesce around our common needs, these problems will exist in perpetuity.
I could not see Obama or the setting where he spoke, but in better times I stood in the same spot in Philadelphia and walked the streets where this country took form.
Obama is correct in pointing out that the men who created this Republic made concessions on slavery. Better, they thought, to break the ties of English tyranny than to risk not doing so by excluding the Southern colonies.
Benjamin Franklin told his peers (I could make the argument Ben had no peers): “We will hear of this (slavery) problem 100 years hence.” Indeed, we heard it loudly on the battlefields of the War between the States.
A half-century later, on 6 May 1912, the tramp, tramp, tramp of tens of thousands of high-buttoned shoes marching through New York City was heard loud and clear. In 1920, the suffragettes who marched so bravely that day were granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment.
It got louder in WWII as we fought to stop a racist lunatic whose armies were conquering Europe.
Over another two decades, the cries for equality and justice grew louder and louder until, on 28 August 1963, loudspeakers blared out the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., across our nation’s capital and into our collective conscience:
“Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.”
(Click HERE for video and transcript of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.)
Prejudices and “man’s inhumanity towards man” will not cease to exist. These human failures have been around since Cain slew Abel. They will be around when, as William Faulkner put it, “the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded.”
Years ago, I read this quote and can’t recall who said it, “Tyranny is the natural form of government. Freedom must be won with each new generation.”
The long struggle for civil rights and civil liberties is being reversed in the name of security.
It’s our turn.
***
For those of you who heard Sen. Obama’s speech or have viewed it online, I would like your comments, pro or con, on these questions posed on cable news networks, in newspapers and by blogs:
· Reportedly, Obama’s team was onstage before the speech, which began some 30 minutes behind schedule, trying to decide how many flags to display behind him. Do you think the flags, the setting and the evocation of our Founding Fathers were a skillful propaganda device to draw ALL Americans into the speech? Was Obama’s subdued delivery aimed at contrasting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s fiery speech?
· Do you believe Obama’s words were heartfelt or were they simply an attempt to “cover his ass” in the wake of devastating publicity?
· Do you agree that some “knuckleheads,” as Newsweek’s Howard Fineman put it, are unable to grasp the meaning and complexity of Obama’s brilliantly crafted call for racial harmony? (Certainly, a case in point is Sean Hannity’s performan on last night’s edition of “Hannity and Colmes.”)
· Finally, as inspiring as I found Obama’s speech and as deeply as I desire the fruition of his thesis, is it not true that the hateful words of a Rev. Wright, a Rev. Hagee, a Rev. Parsley remain an echo long after the flags were folded in Philadelphia?
***
The “comments” link below is your portal to a fair and open discussion. If you do not have a log-in, simply select “name/URL,” and when the new screen comes up, scroll UP until you see a window on the right to type in your name. Or, you may select “anonymous.” Then, click “publish.”
3/17/2008
Wright or wrong?
I have agonized over beginning this post and discarded “The Wright stuff” as too flippant a title for a matter of such seriousness to me. This is no time for inappropriate levity.
While I have supported Hillary Clinton, I have made it clear to my readers that I would support and vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.
I have friends who read my blog and are very dear to me who wholeheartedly support Obama’s candidacy. For that reason, I have tried to emphasize issues when discussing the two Democratic hopefuls.
Perhaps it was inevitable with the first African-American and the first woman among top contenders for the presidency that the media would smack their greedy, ratings-craving lips at any hint of racism or sexism.
No one can question that for more than 200 years this has been “white man’s country.”
I find it very hard to level criticism at a candidate who, if nominated, would get my vote in November, considering the alternative.
Simply put, I do not buy Obama’s claim that he has had no previous idea of the tone of his pastor and “spiritual adviser” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.
“Tone” is the key word.
Whether you agree or disagree with Wright’s words, there is an anger in his soul which cannot be denied.
Fox News’ Greta van Susteren devoted a large portion of her show Friday night to airing numerous videos of Wright’s diatribes, which I have not seen on CNN or MSNBC.
I found many patently offensive.
As a young woman, I had a pastor for 12 years who helped me in the development of my spirituality. His sermons and his friendship were as powerful an influence as that of my parents and siblings, providing me with an inner gyroscope which helps me keep my balance. I knew his mind and his heart.
There is incredulity in Obama’s sudden disdain for his pastor’s mind and heart – a dichotomy of divinity being heavily dissected.
Arguments can be made about endorsements John McCain has received from right-wing religious leaders like John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore,” and Rod Parsley, who says the Founding Fathers intended Americans to slay all followers of Islam. But, McCain has not had the relationship with either that Obama has had with Wright. I don’t know much about McCain’s spirituality, but I’ll bet I know who he talked to during three years of solitary confinement at the Hanoi Hiltn.
(For the record, numerous books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, including her autobiography, note her spirituality took form in her teenage years. Prevalent were: the influence of her church’s youth minister, who has remained her lifelong friend and adviser; the opportunity twice, as a young girl, to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preach; and Methodist leader John Wesley’s mantra, “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”)
Wright’s statements are the antithesis of Obama’s stump speeches, and, whether they have had influence on him and his family, cut right to the heart of his platform of hope, unity, change and good judgment.
If Obama faces McCain in the general election, there will be “swift-boating” by 527s like nothing John Kerry ever experienced.
In a worst-case scenario, McCain would win the presidency, and the ramifications of that are far too frightening.
Perhaps more frightening is what a McCain win would do to young people who have become energized in the political process; to blacks who, in my opinion, are long overdue for an MLK-like leader and role model; and to Obama himself.
I have conservative friends who are telling me the Democratic Party is “imploding.” Certainly, the media would have us believe we’re in trouble. But, in the end, the platforms of both senators Obama and Clinton offer far more help, far more hope for Americans and America than anything the Republican Party has offered in many a year.
I believe Barack Obama when he says he loves America. Questions arise about his judgment.
I believe Barack Obama when he says he is a Christian. No person can question another’s spiritual beliefs or what is in a person’s soul.
Essential to this discussion are the words of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
I just hope Obama’s little daughters were never in the pews when the Rev. Wright was spewing such fiery rhetoric as “No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America. The Bible says so.” across his congregation.
While I have supported Hillary Clinton, I have made it clear to my readers that I would support and vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.
I have friends who read my blog and are very dear to me who wholeheartedly support Obama’s candidacy. For that reason, I have tried to emphasize issues when discussing the two Democratic hopefuls.
Perhaps it was inevitable with the first African-American and the first woman among top contenders for the presidency that the media would smack their greedy, ratings-craving lips at any hint of racism or sexism.
No one can question that for more than 200 years this has been “white man’s country.”
I find it very hard to level criticism at a candidate who, if nominated, would get my vote in November, considering the alternative.
Simply put, I do not buy Obama’s claim that he has had no previous idea of the tone of his pastor and “spiritual adviser” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.
“Tone” is the key word.
Whether you agree or disagree with Wright’s words, there is an anger in his soul which cannot be denied.
Fox News’ Greta van Susteren devoted a large portion of her show Friday night to airing numerous videos of Wright’s diatribes, which I have not seen on CNN or MSNBC.
I found many patently offensive.
As a young woman, I had a pastor for 12 years who helped me in the development of my spirituality. His sermons and his friendship were as powerful an influence as that of my parents and siblings, providing me with an inner gyroscope which helps me keep my balance. I knew his mind and his heart.
There is incredulity in Obama’s sudden disdain for his pastor’s mind and heart – a dichotomy of divinity being heavily dissected.
Arguments can be made about endorsements John McCain has received from right-wing religious leaders like John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore,” and Rod Parsley, who says the Founding Fathers intended Americans to slay all followers of Islam. But, McCain has not had the relationship with either that Obama has had with Wright. I don’t know much about McCain’s spirituality, but I’ll bet I know who he talked to during three years of solitary confinement at the Hanoi Hiltn.
(For the record, numerous books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, including her autobiography, note her spirituality took form in her teenage years. Prevalent were: the influence of her church’s youth minister, who has remained her lifelong friend and adviser; the opportunity twice, as a young girl, to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preach; and Methodist leader John Wesley’s mantra, “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”)
Wright’s statements are the antithesis of Obama’s stump speeches, and, whether they have had influence on him and his family, cut right to the heart of his platform of hope, unity, change and good judgment.
If Obama faces McCain in the general election, there will be “swift-boating” by 527s like nothing John Kerry ever experienced.
In a worst-case scenario, McCain would win the presidency, and the ramifications of that are far too frightening.
Perhaps more frightening is what a McCain win would do to young people who have become energized in the political process; to blacks who, in my opinion, are long overdue for an MLK-like leader and role model; and to Obama himself.
I have conservative friends who are telling me the Democratic Party is “imploding.” Certainly, the media would have us believe we’re in trouble. But, in the end, the platforms of both senators Obama and Clinton offer far more help, far more hope for Americans and America than anything the Republican Party has offered in many a year.
I believe Barack Obama when he says he loves America. Questions arise about his judgment.
I believe Barack Obama when he says he is a Christian. No person can question another’s spiritual beliefs or what is in a person’s soul.
Essential to this discussion are the words of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
I just hope Obama’s little daughters were never in the pews when the Rev. Wright was spewing such fiery rhetoric as “No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America. The Bible says so.” across his congregation.
3/12/2008
Hillary's role in Irish peace
The quote you’ve heard all over TV and the blogosphere:
David Trimble, the former first minister of Northern Ireland and 1998 Nobel Peace Prize winner along with SDLP leader John Hume, had this to say about Hillary Clinton’s role in talks leading up to the Good Friday Agreement:
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said. He characterized her recent campaign statements as "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets. … She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Trimble said Hillary Clinton’s claims are “a wee bit silly.”
Just another incident of cherry-picking any “evidence” which sheds bad light on Sen. Clinton.
The above quotes appeared in London’s Daily Telegraph in an article dated 3/8/2008. The article, generally negative toward the former first lady, tamps down positive comments about her role in uniting the women who formed the Women’s Coalition, which participated in Ireland’s peace agreement.
Of the women’s role, the much-quoted Lord Trimble said: "The Women’s Coalition will think they were important. Other people beg to differ."
Read the full two-page article: LINK
And, John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), who shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize with Trimble? What has he to say about Hillary’s involvement?
"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.
"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion-makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."
Finally, in his book, “A Farther Shore: Ireland’s Long Road to Peace” (Random House, 2003), Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams wrote:
"On a number of occasions she (Hillary Clinton) sat in for discussions between us and the President. Her political instincts on issues of equality meant that she had a natural affinity with the struggle for justice and equity. I also think that she understood the dynamics of the peace process and the need for it to have both forward momentum and a capacity to deliver on issues which affected disadvantaged people in their daily lives. She was to bring a singular contribution to the process on the issue of empowerment of women but in my engagements with her it was obvious that her mind was busy on all the issues that required attention."
***
Still on my blog break, folks, but just couldn’t let this WEE BIT SILLY SELECTIVE SCRUTINY ride.
Later, BJ
David Trimble, the former first minister of Northern Ireland and 1998 Nobel Peace Prize winner along with SDLP leader John Hume, had this to say about Hillary Clinton’s role in talks leading up to the Good Friday Agreement:
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said. He characterized her recent campaign statements as "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets. … She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Trimble said Hillary Clinton’s claims are “a wee bit silly.”
Just another incident of cherry-picking any “evidence” which sheds bad light on Sen. Clinton.
The above quotes appeared in London’s Daily Telegraph in an article dated 3/8/2008. The article, generally negative toward the former first lady, tamps down positive comments about her role in uniting the women who formed the Women’s Coalition, which participated in Ireland’s peace agreement.
Of the women’s role, the much-quoted Lord Trimble said: "The Women’s Coalition will think they were important. Other people beg to differ."
Read the full two-page article: LINK
And, John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), who shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize with Trimble? What has he to say about Hillary’s involvement?
"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.
"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion-makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."
Finally, in his book, “A Farther Shore: Ireland’s Long Road to Peace” (Random House, 2003), Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams wrote:
"On a number of occasions she (Hillary Clinton) sat in for discussions between us and the President. Her political instincts on issues of equality meant that she had a natural affinity with the struggle for justice and equity. I also think that she understood the dynamics of the peace process and the need for it to have both forward momentum and a capacity to deliver on issues which affected disadvantaged people in their daily lives. She was to bring a singular contribution to the process on the issue of empowerment of women but in my engagements with her it was obvious that her mind was busy on all the issues that required attention."
***
Still on my blog break, folks, but just couldn’t let this WEE BIT SILLY SELECTIVE SCRUTINY ride.
Later, BJ
3/07/2008
'My heart will go on'
I’m a glass-half-full gal, a cockeyed optimist, and I’ve never let anything life has thrown at me get me down for long.
I just need to take a break, to back away from the “through the looking-glass” idiocy which is coming to characterize this Democratic campaign.
Last night I heard MSNBC’s Chris Matthews say, “I’m not a member of an organized party; I’m a Democrat.” Better put: that oft-quoted line from Walt Kelly’s “Pogo,” “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
I have regular readers who don’t want to hear any more about “perceived” media bias – bias which is slapping me in the face ‘round the clock. Never in my voting adulthood have I seen anything like it, and I simply do not understand why people are not bothered by its impact. If you don’t believe communications can cultivate groupthink, meet Joseph Goebbels.
Yesterday I left an innocuous little comment on a liberal blog, simply suggesting, in the end, that whoever the Democratic Party’s nominee is – Obama or Clinton – we must all pull together to ensure his or her election. My statement was followed by two lengthy comments denigrating Hillary. From an Obama supporter.
I’ve never considered myself naïve. I knew the far-right would trash a Clinton, but I never expected what is happening in the media and in my own Party.
Hillary Clinton is not a monster. She has spent her life in one form of public service or another. Her supporters are not uninformed anarchists, dashers of hope.
Yesterday I saw Ann Coulter telling an MSNBC anchor she will support and “even work for” Hillary Clinton against John McCain. We know Ann’s game: this pseudosupport might hurt Hillary and sell a few more books in the process.
Through the looking-glass.
As for rules, anything goes, as long as it benefits one’s chosen candidate. As I’ve noted before, the persons who claim rules cannot be broken when it comes to Michigan and Florida, despite the disenfranchisement of millions, are adamant that the rules governing superdelegates must go, because, well, they ignore the popular vote.
I have said repeatedly I will support the Democratic Party nominee, but I’m not getting that promise from fellow Democrats across the blogosphere.
The Democratic Party is blessed with two highly capable and dedicated hopefuls. Both are drawing new people into the political process – a good thing.
I have had both a total stranger and a person I thought I knew well suggest I’m racist because I don’t support Obama. I was not ready for that. To be frank, I have spent more time defending Obama to certain acquaintances than I have defending Hillary.
A comrade in arms of some duration spoke of my support for Hillary being “justified.” I don’t have to justify my support for any candidate. I am an American.
No one has called Hillary Clinton stupid. She has campaigned from the outset to appeal to the general electorate.
I believe this with all my heart: this country will not elect a candidate perceived as far left and anti-war. I hope I have to eat those words with a nice side dish of mint jelly. I base them on nothing less that U.S. election history.
Right now, I am heartsick.
But, as the Celine Dion song promises, my heart will go on, and so will this country. The path it takes depends, as it always has, on unity in diversity. Such unity is long overdue. The pendulum swings to the far left and to the far right, but it always comes back to the center. The time has come for a correction.
As I told a boss once, when personal tragedy hit my life, “I might be back in three months or in three days, but I’ll be back.”
I pray the same for my country.
I just need to take a break, to back away from the “through the looking-glass” idiocy which is coming to characterize this Democratic campaign.
Last night I heard MSNBC’s Chris Matthews say, “I’m not a member of an organized party; I’m a Democrat.” Better put: that oft-quoted line from Walt Kelly’s “Pogo,” “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
I have regular readers who don’t want to hear any more about “perceived” media bias – bias which is slapping me in the face ‘round the clock. Never in my voting adulthood have I seen anything like it, and I simply do not understand why people are not bothered by its impact. If you don’t believe communications can cultivate groupthink, meet Joseph Goebbels.
Yesterday I left an innocuous little comment on a liberal blog, simply suggesting, in the end, that whoever the Democratic Party’s nominee is – Obama or Clinton – we must all pull together to ensure his or her election. My statement was followed by two lengthy comments denigrating Hillary. From an Obama supporter.
I’ve never considered myself naïve. I knew the far-right would trash a Clinton, but I never expected what is happening in the media and in my own Party.
Hillary Clinton is not a monster. She has spent her life in one form of public service or another. Her supporters are not uninformed anarchists, dashers of hope.
Yesterday I saw Ann Coulter telling an MSNBC anchor she will support and “even work for” Hillary Clinton against John McCain. We know Ann’s game: this pseudosupport might hurt Hillary and sell a few more books in the process.
Through the looking-glass.
As for rules, anything goes, as long as it benefits one’s chosen candidate. As I’ve noted before, the persons who claim rules cannot be broken when it comes to Michigan and Florida, despite the disenfranchisement of millions, are adamant that the rules governing superdelegates must go, because, well, they ignore the popular vote.
I have said repeatedly I will support the Democratic Party nominee, but I’m not getting that promise from fellow Democrats across the blogosphere.
The Democratic Party is blessed with two highly capable and dedicated hopefuls. Both are drawing new people into the political process – a good thing.
I have had both a total stranger and a person I thought I knew well suggest I’m racist because I don’t support Obama. I was not ready for that. To be frank, I have spent more time defending Obama to certain acquaintances than I have defending Hillary.
A comrade in arms of some duration spoke of my support for Hillary being “justified.” I don’t have to justify my support for any candidate. I am an American.
No one has called Hillary Clinton stupid. She has campaigned from the outset to appeal to the general electorate.
I believe this with all my heart: this country will not elect a candidate perceived as far left and anti-war. I hope I have to eat those words with a nice side dish of mint jelly. I base them on nothing less that U.S. election history.
Right now, I am heartsick.
But, as the Celine Dion song promises, my heart will go on, and so will this country. The path it takes depends, as it always has, on unity in diversity. Such unity is long overdue. The pendulum swings to the far left and to the far right, but it always comes back to the center. The time has come for a correction.
As I told a boss once, when personal tragedy hit my life, “I might be back in three months or in three days, but I’ll be back.”
I pray the same for my country.
3/06/2008
The Hagee kiss
(Reprinted with permission of Matthew O’Keefe, Papmoka Straight Talk.)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Catholics, McCain & Hagee
We Catholic’s are a tough lot. Hell, we have to deal with the shame of the child- molesting priest issue that went underground for decades, but we all own that shame together as Catholics. It is a shame that should never be forgotten by every single Catholic.
Mind you as church organizations go the Catholic faith is very strict with its teachings but very liberal with its actions. Caring for the poor, feeding the homeless, clothing people, offering assistance in many areas of life without care as to whether you are a Catholic or not. There are no flares fired off to make notice of our churches’ response to people in need, it’s just done.
With that being said, there is a religious Christian war going on in American politics that is based in hate. Christian, and hate are two words that should never go together when talking about the American Christian experience of faith. Love thy brother does not have the word “except” in it. Down at the bottom of the page there is no italicized notes with a list of who is not to be loved. If you think this war is happening in both political parties then you would be dead wrong. This issue is totally owned by the “My God is better than your God” Republican Party and the Rev. John Hagee is heading up the battle with his endorsement of John McCain. Over at the Washington Post they have this great read on it:
Hagee Endorsement of McCain Has Risks
By LIBBY QUAID
The Associated Press, Monday, March 3, 2008; 6:23 PM
SEDONA, Ariz. -- Endorsed by an influential Texas televangelist, Republican John McCain endeared himself to one group of voters but risked alienating another with the pastor's anti-Catholic views.
The controversy has been mild so far, but still, every vote counts in a presidential election that is expected to be closely contested.
Evangelical or born-again Christian voters were key to George W. Bush's victories, but so were Roman Catholics, who chose Bush over their fellow Catholic John Kerry in 2004 and over Al Gore in 2000.
The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.
He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.
McCain said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments. "It's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views," McCain told reporters at a news conference Monday in Phoenix. - Washington Post
Just checking facts and we have this video from YouTube: LINK
John McCain needs to look in the rear view mirror of his campaign and think about this endorsement more clearly. No matter how McCain spins this in the desire to hold on to the Bush Evangelical right vote he will lose the Catholic vote in large blocs. That is where the weakness of the McCain campaign will be in the general election. Pitting one Christian-based religion against another Christian-based religion offers no hope or change from the Bush full speed ahead of separation of the people. Good luck with that one Johnny! Here is your cross, you earned it, wear it well.
My family was from the old school, marry an Irish girl and marry a Catholic girl. I got one out of two right but one thing is true of both my wife and me: our Catholic faith is one issue we never argue over. Our faith is our rock, and we stand on it many times to keep our heads above the tides of life. To have someone call our faith a bastardization of religion or a whore just bothers me.
As for John Hagee, from this die-hard Catholic, you, sir, are a money-grabbing hypocrite. You call my church a group of “whores.” You call my faith a “false cult.” Then, you call us a “Nazi” shaping tool of Adolf Hitler! I’ll turn the other cheek. Hit me again as you drive away from your multi-million dollar church and studios in your luxury car to go to your personal mansion paid for by believers only looking for any beacon of hope that is the beginning of their faith.
Two words for the most self-righteous Reverend John Hagee, “False Prophet.” Somewhere in the Bible is a story about being very aware of men preaching God’s word and directing hate towards our fellow man. Again, God and hate are two words that should not be used together if you are a minister, priest or a “Reverend.” In politics this endorsement is tantamount to forsaking an entire people for the favor of one.
In the battle for Christian voters, John McCain is selling out his own self respect for votes from just one religious political group. What would he do as president? In acceptance of this endorsement he has basically endorsed the same words of the Rev. John Hagee and called all of us in the Catholic faith “whores”! As a practicing Catholic I resent it. If this is what the Republican Party is all about, then I would suggest Catholic Republicans jump ship in the general election simply for this endorsement.
There is no backpedaling on this very central Catholic issue, and Sen. McCain will not back off or denounce John Hagee’s endorsement. That is the issue to stand and fight for as Catholics come November. Our faith is not a whore!
I have to run, as a Catholic I have to say a couple dozen Hail Marys and a ton of Our Fathers for this post …
Papamoka
For more Papamoka Straight Talk: LINK
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Catholics, McCain & Hagee
We Catholic’s are a tough lot. Hell, we have to deal with the shame of the child- molesting priest issue that went underground for decades, but we all own that shame together as Catholics. It is a shame that should never be forgotten by every single Catholic.
Mind you as church organizations go the Catholic faith is very strict with its teachings but very liberal with its actions. Caring for the poor, feeding the homeless, clothing people, offering assistance in many areas of life without care as to whether you are a Catholic or not. There are no flares fired off to make notice of our churches’ response to people in need, it’s just done.
With that being said, there is a religious Christian war going on in American politics that is based in hate. Christian, and hate are two words that should never go together when talking about the American Christian experience of faith. Love thy brother does not have the word “except” in it. Down at the bottom of the page there is no italicized notes with a list of who is not to be loved. If you think this war is happening in both political parties then you would be dead wrong. This issue is totally owned by the “My God is better than your God” Republican Party and the Rev. John Hagee is heading up the battle with his endorsement of John McCain. Over at the Washington Post they have this great read on it:
Hagee Endorsement of McCain Has Risks
By LIBBY QUAID
The Associated Press, Monday, March 3, 2008; 6:23 PM
SEDONA, Ariz. -- Endorsed by an influential Texas televangelist, Republican John McCain endeared himself to one group of voters but risked alienating another with the pastor's anti-Catholic views.
The controversy has been mild so far, but still, every vote counts in a presidential election that is expected to be closely contested.
Evangelical or born-again Christian voters were key to George W. Bush's victories, but so were Roman Catholics, who chose Bush over their fellow Catholic John Kerry in 2004 and over Al Gore in 2000.
The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.
He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.
McCain said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments. "It's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views," McCain told reporters at a news conference Monday in Phoenix. - Washington Post
Just checking facts and we have this video from YouTube: LINK
John McCain needs to look in the rear view mirror of his campaign and think about this endorsement more clearly. No matter how McCain spins this in the desire to hold on to the Bush Evangelical right vote he will lose the Catholic vote in large blocs. That is where the weakness of the McCain campaign will be in the general election. Pitting one Christian-based religion against another Christian-based religion offers no hope or change from the Bush full speed ahead of separation of the people. Good luck with that one Johnny! Here is your cross, you earned it, wear it well.
My family was from the old school, marry an Irish girl and marry a Catholic girl. I got one out of two right but one thing is true of both my wife and me: our Catholic faith is one issue we never argue over. Our faith is our rock, and we stand on it many times to keep our heads above the tides of life. To have someone call our faith a bastardization of religion or a whore just bothers me.
As for John Hagee, from this die-hard Catholic, you, sir, are a money-grabbing hypocrite. You call my church a group of “whores.” You call my faith a “false cult.” Then, you call us a “Nazi” shaping tool of Adolf Hitler! I’ll turn the other cheek. Hit me again as you drive away from your multi-million dollar church and studios in your luxury car to go to your personal mansion paid for by believers only looking for any beacon of hope that is the beginning of their faith.
Two words for the most self-righteous Reverend John Hagee, “False Prophet.” Somewhere in the Bible is a story about being very aware of men preaching God’s word and directing hate towards our fellow man. Again, God and hate are two words that should not be used together if you are a minister, priest or a “Reverend.” In politics this endorsement is tantamount to forsaking an entire people for the favor of one.
In the battle for Christian voters, John McCain is selling out his own self respect for votes from just one religious political group. What would he do as president? In acceptance of this endorsement he has basically endorsed the same words of the Rev. John Hagee and called all of us in the Catholic faith “whores”! As a practicing Catholic I resent it. If this is what the Republican Party is all about, then I would suggest Catholic Republicans jump ship in the general election simply for this endorsement.
There is no backpedaling on this very central Catholic issue, and Sen. McCain will not back off or denounce John Hagee’s endorsement. That is the issue to stand and fight for as Catholics come November. Our faith is not a whore!
I have to run, as a Catholic I have to say a couple dozen Hail Marys and a ton of Our Fathers for this post …
Papamoka
For more Papamoka Straight Talk: LINK
3/05/2008
Confetti
It was a happy night for Hillary supporters and, God know, we were due.
Thanks to my sweet niece Jeanette, who stayed on the phone reading me vote tallies off the TV as they came in. Nice to share the Texas moment with her!
Now, it’s 3 a.m.
Sweet dreams.
Thanks to my sweet niece Jeanette, who stayed on the phone reading me vote tallies off the TV as they came in. Nice to share the Texas moment with her!
Now, it’s 3 a.m.
Sweet dreams.
3/03/2008
'Our fixation on fantasies'
I am not a “feminista.” I have never burned a bra. I have learned in this election cycle that it’s perfectly all right for the media to attack a person on the basis of gender while broadcast licenses would be pulled if the same attacks were leveled on the basis of race.
I find that deeply troubling.
In many previous posts I have tried to address the role the media have played in putting up guideposts on the road to the White House. In so doing, there has been no way to avoid a discussion of sexism and racism – in the context of media coverage.
A friend who also has paid close attention to this 21st Century dichotomy of equality emailed me the link to “A Letter From Feminists on the Election,” which appears in the 17 March 2008 issue of The Nation – you know, the magazine that cuts “through layers of obfuscation.”
A couple of days after the Democratic debate in Texas an even dozen of the top feminist leaders in the country met for a breakfast discussion with one aim, and I quote:
“We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated.”
The split which threatens the work of these feminist leaders? Whether to vote for a black man or a woman?
I’m sorry, I thought, but these are not criteria for leadership, and they certainly do not address the all-important issues facing this country.
The letter addressed my beef with the media, as well as major setbacks by the Bush administration.
But, what about the issues?
When I decided Hillary Clinton is the best qualified and most capable candidate to be president, it did not enter my mind that I was supporting her because she’s a woman. When Barack Obama gave his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention and cemented his future in politics, I never saw him as an African-American. I see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as highly capable, intelligent and altruistic individuals.
The media have stoked the race and gender controversies by bringing them – vis-à-vis the Democratic contenders - to the forefront of this campaign. That they have done so with out-of-context quotes and distortion of facts, subtle innuendos and blatant bias are just tricks of the craft. Such tricks are not modern-day phenomena; they are just coming at us 24/7. The media thrive on conflict, and what more lucrative chance to stir racism and sexism – simultaneously?
Further, to see the media’s self-examination of whether coverage has favored Obama is both hypocritical and sickening. Do they forget it’s on tape and on the record?
But, media bias and Bush administration setbacks are not the crux of this open letter, and I am bothered with its opening words, because they suggest you have to choose between a woman and a black man – rather than vote for the best qualified candidate.
Clearly, women are voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, and blacks are voting for Obama because he’s black. Apparently, we Americans haven’t moved beyond discrimination.
A resolution of sorts, this statement of intent in the letter’s penultimate paragraph redeems its message:
“If we could get over our fixation on a fantasy that many of us hoped to see realized in our lifetimes, maybe we could finally turn to the issues that each of them brings to the table.”
The issues are real, dear reader. Arguably more critical than at any other time in American history.
This is no time for fantasy.
THE LETTER: LINK
“DemWit” today: “R.I.P.”
I find that deeply troubling.
In many previous posts I have tried to address the role the media have played in putting up guideposts on the road to the White House. In so doing, there has been no way to avoid a discussion of sexism and racism – in the context of media coverage.
A friend who also has paid close attention to this 21st Century dichotomy of equality emailed me the link to “A Letter From Feminists on the Election,” which appears in the 17 March 2008 issue of The Nation – you know, the magazine that cuts “through layers of obfuscation.”
A couple of days after the Democratic debate in Texas an even dozen of the top feminist leaders in the country met for a breakfast discussion with one aim, and I quote:
“We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated.”
The split which threatens the work of these feminist leaders? Whether to vote for a black man or a woman?
I’m sorry, I thought, but these are not criteria for leadership, and they certainly do not address the all-important issues facing this country.
The letter addressed my beef with the media, as well as major setbacks by the Bush administration.
But, what about the issues?
When I decided Hillary Clinton is the best qualified and most capable candidate to be president, it did not enter my mind that I was supporting her because she’s a woman. When Barack Obama gave his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention and cemented his future in politics, I never saw him as an African-American. I see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as highly capable, intelligent and altruistic individuals.
The media have stoked the race and gender controversies by bringing them – vis-à-vis the Democratic contenders - to the forefront of this campaign. That they have done so with out-of-context quotes and distortion of facts, subtle innuendos and blatant bias are just tricks of the craft. Such tricks are not modern-day phenomena; they are just coming at us 24/7. The media thrive on conflict, and what more lucrative chance to stir racism and sexism – simultaneously?
Further, to see the media’s self-examination of whether coverage has favored Obama is both hypocritical and sickening. Do they forget it’s on tape and on the record?
But, media bias and Bush administration setbacks are not the crux of this open letter, and I am bothered with its opening words, because they suggest you have to choose between a woman and a black man – rather than vote for the best qualified candidate.
Clearly, women are voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, and blacks are voting for Obama because he’s black. Apparently, we Americans haven’t moved beyond discrimination.
A resolution of sorts, this statement of intent in the letter’s penultimate paragraph redeems its message:
“If we could get over our fixation on a fantasy that many of us hoped to see realized in our lifetimes, maybe we could finally turn to the issues that each of them brings to the table.”
The issues are real, dear reader. Arguably more critical than at any other time in American history.
This is no time for fantasy.
THE LETTER: LINK
“DemWit” today: “R.I.P.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
