Reflecting Obama

Nonviolent Guerilla Tactics Are Now Needed in Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:44:00 +0000

Today, the Iranian protesters have met the most ferocious brutality thus far. Reports indicate the Basiji have begun to kill protesters in massive numbers. Certainly, this has instilled fear in the hearts of those who have been putting their lives on the line every day hour of every day.

Over the past several days, I have posted about the conflict in Iran, especially regarding nonviolent methods that can be used to shake the system into profound change:

If what I have read and seen via video clips is actually true, it appears that Sayed Mohammed Khatami's plan is not being followed. The swift and violent response by security forces has been potentially overwhelming against the protesters, who are still attempting to demonstrate in the same way as before. The Basiji have known exactly what was planned and, with their superior forces, they have beaten, arrested, and killed many people.

Unfortunately, the protesters are mistaken that large demonstrations are going to bring about change at this point. They must look closely at their strategic organization and begin to redirect their efforts using a broader variety of methods, something Khatami was trying to propose yesterday.

How should they do this? I will try to list a variety of approaches and methods that will lead to confusion and frustration within the government.

Here is my list of recommendations:

Spread out the leadership - utilize adults and students of all types, not politicians
Stop visible protests. Announce this publicly before the government expects it.
Go underground
Go low-tech: Stop cell phone usage and limit Internet usage
Print out thousands of leaflets outlining the illegitimacy of the government, state demands and goals for the future
Drop the leaflets from the tops of buildings in busy locations. Don't stay around. Leave quickly, so as not to be arrested.
Print up posters with a large green tsunami wave and "Allahu Akbar" printed in the center.
Quickly put up the posters throughout Iran, including on the walls of homes of the Basiji.
Develop an internal "Radio Free Iran." I would call it "Green Wave Radio." Broadcast for 1/2 to 1 hour per night, explaining the same information as on the leaflets. Move the broadcast location each night.
Avoid government agencies in whatever way possible.
In factories and offices, s-l-o-w the work down to a crawl...

If the brutality of the government continues during large protests, eventually an emotional fatigue and a sense of disempowerment will set in among the opponents. The government will then have a greater chance for success.

The opponents' leaders need to regain the upper hand. Now is the time to redirect the passionate energy that has grown over the past several days. Don't let the energy die! Simply recalibrate it for now because, when the time is right, large demonstrations will again play a role.

Then back off again. Redirect. Vary the methods. Nonviolent guerilla tactics are needed at this time - hit and hide, hit and hide, hit and hide.

With smaller, empowering methods, the Sea of Green can keep the government off balance. Eventually, once they recognize that their power is completely false and goes unheeded, they will capitulate.

Sea of Green, go for smaller victories. Empower yourselves! Never give up!

Khatami: "We Shall Only Think of Victory" in Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:23:00 +0000

Iran's security forces have clamped down ferociously on large-scale demonstrations in the last couple days, so the opposition is now in a place of shifting direction. This morning, cleric Sayed Mohammed Khatami presented a new strategic plan for Iranian protesters to follow.

Khatami, president of Iran from 1997 to 2005 and current member of the Supreme Council, is perhaps the strongest voice for liberalization and reform in Iran. He has also been Mir-Hossein Mousavi's greatest supporter. Some of his family members were arrested recently and then released, sending a threat to all the leaders of the movement for change.

In his statement, Khatami points out, "We are no longer going to waste our energy [on large demonstrations]." He outlines how Iranians can move in the direction of "divide and conquer" through nonviolent means.

He asks all Iranians to go to their local bazaars (outdoor markets) and protest as a group there. There are some key differences from the group behavior of the large demonstrations: the protesters are not to carry signs, they are not to wear green, and they are encouraged to bring their children with them.

In other words, the protesters should bring no identifying markers that they are protesters when they enter the bazaar and meld into the shopping crowds, as if on a family outing. This should make identification of the protesters more difficult.

Khatami states, "We shall leave no marks or traces behind ourselves, not even the victory sign with our hands."

There is one more central strategy to be followed: the protesters are to buy nothing.

Khatami makes it clear that this is a political and economic event. "[E]very morning we shall protest towards the main bazaars of every single city in Iran. Should the revolutionary guards try to avoid the situation, the bazaar will be shut down. Should they don’t react to our protests, due to the mayhem caused by protesters, the bazaar will automatically shut down. Should they try to cut the phone lines around the country, yet again there will be a massive conflict within all the activities, resulting in the bazaar shutting down.

Theoretically, the methods of nonviolent conflict are simple to understand. In my post yesterday I listed 198 Nonviolent Methods for systemic change. You may have been overwhelmed with the quantity of actions available to a movement. There are so many ways to confront a tyrannical system! Organizers can also be overwhelmed. The difficult part is to select the right methods, at the right time, and with the right people.

We can use this list to understand a specific movement's approach to change. Khatami's strategy, for example, employs several elements from the list of 198:

#71 Consumers' boycott of goods. Khatami is now using the economy to place more pressure on the regime in power by bringing this movement into the realm of shop keepers. We'll see what their reaction is.
#121 Refusal of public support of the regime. This is an ongoing element of the Sea of Green movement and will play out in a variety of ways over the coming weeks and months.
#137 Refusal to disperse. The protesters have stood their ground and are finding new ways to confront the regime in public, even though the Supreme Leader has forbade them to do so.
#166 Mill-in. One of the primary purposes of Khatami's strategy is to continue a public presence. It is not a March (#38), but it is still visual. It spreads out the protesters, and therefore the Basiji (secret police) will also be spread out, lowering the risk for casualties. It also communicates to the government that the protesters are without fear and still going strong.
#172 Nonviolent obstruction (generally temporary). This type of protest could bring normal activity and economic transactions to a temporary hault. The act of protest in a location where normal, daily activity takes place will make this movement and its complaints more personal to more Iranians.

So, what are the effects of Khatami's strategic plan?

It spreads out the protesting groups, making is much harder for officials to monitor, identify and target individuals for reprisal.
There should be fewer casualties.
Economic pressure should be felt by the Iranian society (and therefore by the government) via the chaos in the bazaars.
Psychological pressure will be place back on the government.
If successful, the protesters should feel an improvement in morale, which will lead to further struggle in a variety of forms.

Many mainstream media commentators have said that the decreased protester involvement in the last couple of days is due to fear. They are not aware that Khatami and the opposition are beginning to shift gears - something that is always necessary for success.

Some may ask, "How long will this take?" The correct response: "As long as it takes."

As Khatami exhorted, "We shall only think of Victory!"

198 Nonviolent Ways to Bring Down the Iranian Regime

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:58:00 +0000

Today, due to the elevated threat of violent force against the protesters, the numbers on the street decreased somewhat.

No one should be fooled, however, by a relative downturn in the demonstrations. The opposition is planning how to confront the Iranian leadership in ways that go beyond demonstrations and public protests.

Yesterday, I shared the large picture of how a tyrannical regime can be brought down by removing the pillars of support for an unjust system.

Today, I'd like to offer a closer look at specific ways those pillars of support can be chipped away. There is an incredible variety of nonviolent actions the Sea of Green opponents can choose from. As Gene Sharp states in Waging Nonviolent Struggle, "The technique of nonviolent action consists of numerous specific "methods," or forms of action. Such methods are the weapons of nonviolent struggle. They are used to conduct the conflict by psychological, social, economic, or political pressure." (49)

I offer below a list of 198 specific nonviolent actions, most of which go beyond protests and demonstrations, that the people of Iran could implement. Not all actions fit every context, so I encourage you to read through the list below to see which ones you think might be applied to the ongoing struggle in Iran. I also encourage you to visit Gene Sharp's website at the Albert Einstein Institution, which contains many materials that are free and downloadable.

Let me know what you think of this list. Which of the 198 would be most applicable to Iran?

THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION

(from Gene Sharp, The Methods of Nonviolent Action, Boston 1973 and posted at: Peace Magazine)

THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT PROTEST AND PERSUASION

FORMAL STATEMENTS

1. Public speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public declarations
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions

COMMUNICATIONS WITH A WIDER AUDIENCE

7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio, and television
12. Skywriting and earthwriting

GROUP REPRESENTATIONS

13. Deputations
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
16. Picketing
17. Mock elections

SYMBOLIC PUBLIC ACTS

18. Displays of flags and symbolic colours
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobings
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures

PRESSURES ON INDIVIDUALS

31. "Haunting" officials
32. Taunting officials
33. Fraternization
34. Vigils

DRAMA AND MUSIC

35. Humourous skits and pranks
36. Performances of plays and music
37. Singing

PROCESSIONS

38. Marches
39. Parades
40. Religious processions
41. Pilgrimages
42. Motorcades

HONOURING THE DEAD

43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places

PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
50. Teach-ins

WITHDRAWAL AND RENUNCIATION

51. Walk-outs
52. Silence
53. Renouncing honours
54. Turning one's back

THE METHODS OF SOCIAL NONCOOPERATION

OSTRACISM OF PERSONS

55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
58. Excommunication
59. Interdict

NONCOOPERATION WITH SOCIAL EVENTS, CUSTOMS, AND INSTITUTIONS

60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions

WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SOCIAL SYSTEM

65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. "Flight" of workers
68. Sanctuary
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (hijrat)

THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS

ACTION BY CONSUMERS

71. Consumers' boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers' boycott
77. International consumers' boycott

ACTION BY WORKERS AND PRODUCERS

78. Workers' boycott
79. Producers' boycott

ACTION BY MIDDLEMEN

80. Suppliers' and handlers' boycott

ACTION BY OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

81. Traders' boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants' "general strike"

ACTION BY HOLDERS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES

86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government's money

ACTION BY GOVERNMENTS

92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers' embargo
95. International buyers' embargo
96. International trade embargo

THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOOPERATION: THE STRIKE

SYMBOLIC STRIKES

97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

AGRICULTURAL STRIKES

99. Peasant strike
100. Farm workers' strike

STRIKES BY SPECIAL GROUPS

101. Refusal of impressed labour
102. Prisoners' strike
103. Craft strike
104. Professional strike

ORDINARY INDUSTRIAL STRIKES

105. Establishment strike
106. Industry strike
107. Sympathy strike

RESTRICTED STRIKES

108. Detailed strike
109. Bumper strike
110. Slowdown strike
111. Working-to-rule strike
112. Reporting "sick" (sick-in)
113. Strike by resignation
114. Limited strike
115. Selective strike

MULTI-INDUSTRY STRIKES

116. Generalised strike
117. General strike

COMBINATION OF STRIKES AND ECONOMIC CLOSURES

118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown

THE METHODS OF POLITICAL NONCOOPERATION

REJECTION OF AUTHORITY

120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance

CITIZENS' NONCOOPERATION WITH GOVERNMENT

123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government departments, agencies, and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from governmental educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported institutions
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

CITIZENS' ALTERNATIVES TO OBEDIENCE

133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse
138. Sitdown
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation
140. Hiding, escape, and false identities
141. Civil disobedience of "illegitimate" laws

ACTION BY GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL

142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny

DOMESTIC GOVERNMENTAL ACTION

149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION

151. Changes in diplomatic and other representation
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition
154. Severance of diplomatic relations
155. Withdrawal from international organisations
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies
157. Expulsion from international organisations

THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT INTERVENTION

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTION

158. Self-exposure to the elements
159. The fast
160. a) Fast of moral pressure
161. b) Hunger strike
162. c) Satyagrahic fast
163. Reverse trial
164. Nonviolent harassment

PHYSICAL INTERVENTION

162. Sit-in
163. Stand-in
164. Ride-in
165. Wade-in
166. Mill-in
167. Pray-in
168. Nonviolent raids
169. Nonviolent air raids
170. Nonviolent invasion
171. Nonviolent interjection
172. Nonviolent obstruction
173. Nonviolent occupation

SOCIAL INTERVENTION

174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
177. Speak-in
178. Guerrilla theatre
179. Alternative social institutions
180. Alternative communication system

ECONOMIC INTERVENTION

181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions

POLITICAL INTERVENTION

193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government

The Perfect Storm: How to Sink the Iranian Regime

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:07:00 +0000

Barack Obama's speech in Egypt set the tone for change in the Middle East. His words and admonitions for the Iranian leadership since its recent election have also provided a guarded, yet serious, warning for Iranian oppressors.

Although Obama and the rest of the world may inject their perspectives and thinly veiled threats for change to occur in Iran, it is important to understand that the mission for change is the Iranian people's responsibility. This will require much struggle, suffering and even death. It will require, as well, much organization and strategy, elements we do not read about very much.

Neda Soltan is a young woman killed by security forces, and hers has become the face of the movement. Her name in Farsi means "voice" or "calling." Indeed, her face as she lay dying has become the "voice" of this movement. Through her death, she has become a martyr for freedom. It is not a cosmic coincidence that Neda is a woman and young. Her face, her voice, and her person represent the future that Iranians are struggling for.

Neda's face is an extremely powerful symbol, but what is actually sought by the demonstrators in Iran, this Sea of Green? There are three possible levels of change that may be sought, and all these forms of change have been shared by various analysts of the Iranian situation:

Policy - more openness domestically and internationally
Leadership - Remove Ahmadinejad or, even, Khamenei from power
Systemic - Dismantle the Islamic republic and replace with a modern democracy

I believe that the first two are more probable than the final option. If the protests continue to grow and swell beyond the supporters of Moussavi and the demand for a repeat of the election, greater change may occur. If this is to take place, the strategic approach of the opposition must be carefully structured using nonviolent tactics. If they were to turn to violent approaches on a mass level, they would be crushed and thirty years from now they would be remembered as brave, but ineffectual, souls.

If the Sea of Green truly wishes to bring down the current, unjust system, there are various nonviolent strategies that can be applied. What needs to be developed is a "Perfect Storm" of nonviolent strategies and actions to sink the Iranian regime.

First, the organization and tactics of the movement must be developed in a "horizontal" fashion. In other words, many people at various levels must be "in the know" regarding how to organize and confront the Iranian power structure, which will attempt to destroy the movement's leadership.

If there exists only one leader or a few, the powers that be will have no trouble "cut off the head of the 'serpent.'" Already the government is arresting journalists and bloggers to try to undermine the negative communications coming out of the country. They have also already arrested or threatened to arrest primary leaders, such as candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi and Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter.

On the other hand, if plans, tactics and training have taken place among various levels of the movement (the 'serpent'), it will have a greater chance of survival. And, the movement's simply surviving will frustrate the government leadership, which will ultimately make tactical mistakes.

So, how can the Iranian system fall or, at least, be pushed to make profound changes?

According to Gene Sharp in Waging Nonviolent Struggle, the "pillars of support" for the unjust system must be brought down. First, how are they upheld and continued? Through the obedience and consent of the people. Once the people refuse to consent to the power of the tyrant and unjust system, eventually they must fall.

What are the "pillars of support" for the Iranian system? There are four that typically uphold an unjust system:

Politics
Communication
Military/Police
Economy/Finance/Commerce

Picture four individuals holding up a mattress on the four corners. These folks represent the pillars of support for the mattress (the unjust system). As these pillars are brought down one at a time, the balancing act of holding up the mattress (maintaining the system) moves from difficult to precarious to impossible. This is what happens when the public consent of these pillars is removed in reality. The tumbling of the pillars in quick order can become a perfect storm for the unjust government. The question is: Will such a perfect storm occur in the case of Iran?

So, where has the Iranian opposition fared regarding these pillars of support? It has basically brought the government into question in the political realm. The political support has not yet been brought down, but it is certainly toppling.

The opponents have taken control regarding the communication of events on an international level. It is not clear yet how that has played out within Iran itself, however. This is something that we may learn at a later date, after the fact.

Thus far, militarily, it appears the movement has the advantage at this point. Yes, there have been people killed, but the numbers are far fewer than those that could have been suffered if there had been a full-fledged military reprisal. So, why hasn't this occurred? There are reports of division within the military, to such an extent that some generals have refused to retaliate against the protesters.

This is a huge reality if it is so! If the military continues to refuse to attack the demonstrators, the current system has lost tremendous credibility within Iran and allows for the relatively smooth continuation of the movement for change.

Finally, any economic impact has yet to be developed and realized. Moussavi has reportedly called for a general strike if he were to be arrested, but neither has yet occurred. What should we look for in this area of finances? Oil and shopkeepers. Oil is Iran's large moneymaker. If there were to be a strike in the oil industry, it could cripple the government.

In addition, if everyday shopkeepers were to support a general strike, the economic impact would be large, but the demographic impact would be even greater on the government and its survival. Khameini and the other supreme leaders would then understand that they have lost the middle, fairly conservative, support that sustains them.

Iranians have shown enormous courage and a willingness to die for their cause of freedom. At this point, however, the pillars of support for the unjust regime have only been shaken, but not toppled. There is much more work to do. The journey is still long and arduous for the opponents.

Do I hope that they come tumbling down? Yes! But I also hope that strategies are being enacted to bring them down, as well as to implement a just, democratic system in its place after they have come down. This will require the incredible courage displayed so far, plus enormous creativity to make it happen and to rebuild afterward.

Is there currently a perfect storm brewing in Iran? I believe it's developing. We are currently in the early phase of bringing down the the pillars of injustice. Nonetheless, the pieces are beginning to fall into place.

The storm is certainly forming. May the Iranian Sea of Green remember Neda Soltan and meld her memory with their emotional and spiritual power to continue to move forward. May they also find creative, nonviolent means to pull down the pillars of support to sink the autocratic system and to bring about a just and long lasting democratic society for the future.

President Obama's Statement on Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:52:00 +0000

This is the President's statement on the Iranian situation. It is so important and carefully crafted that I felt it important to re-post it here.

****************
My analysis here.

Statement from the President on Iran

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

****************
http://govne.ws/item/Statement-from-the-President-on-Iran

Sea of Green in Iran...and Obama's Response

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:54:00 +0000

Due to my medical situation and a variety of complex personal elements, it's been a long time since I've posted a new article. Today, however, I am moved to write about the post-election conflict in Iran.

I am very supportive of the movement for change in Iran. I have particularly been following #iranelection on Twitter, where I have learned of the non-violent demonstrations and the strategies and counter-strategies that have been employed by both the Sea of Green protesters and the leadership.

Here I will share:

Clips of protests today (Sat., 20.6.09) that give a visual sense of the demonstrations
Tactics used by the police/military
Important symbolic tactics employed by the protesters
My perspective on President Obama's stance on the events in Iran

This first clip is from an apartment balcony and shows the general unrest. Embedding has been blocked,but here is the url:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGcSU7FcgQw

This second clip is from Shiraz University, an indication that the protests are not simply located in Tehran:

Finally, this is the clip that moved me to tears. I warn you that this clip of a young woman dying after being shot in the street is hard to watch:

People have, indeed, given their lives for this freedom movement, this Sea of Green.

The Iranian government has used many strategies to combat their opponents:

Although there are reports of some military generals refusing to fire on the protesters, people like the young woman above have been shot and killed - by police, military or Revolutionary Guard.
There are also reports that the injured have been forcibly removed from hospitals. Therefore, there are reports that they are now being taken to embassies that have opened their doors to them for medical assistance.
Beatings have been routine, with batons and wire. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader, was threatened that he would be held responsible for any illegal (i.e., any) protests.
Tear gas has been extensively used, including from helicopters. (Some tweeters have reported it as acid or boiling water...)
As has also been reported extensively, the mainstream media have been directly told not to report from Iran right now, and they have complied.
Attempts have been made at closing down the Internet, but first-hand reporting and videos have leaked out via social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook. In many ways, Twitter has proven its raison d'etre over the past several days by providing opportunities for the whole world to witness this struggle unfold.

How have the opponents confronted the Iranian leadership?

Pure numbers. When hundreds of thousands of protesters march, they are impossible to ignore.
When they come out in such numbers, these protesters are know as a "Sea of Green." Green is a positive, empowering color in Islam. Some say it was Muhammad's favorite color. These protesters are using their Muslim identities to bring out the Truth, rather than separating themselves from it.
"Allahu-Akbar!" God is Great! Has become the chant of the opposition. This moving poem the night of the 19th is filled with Muslim imagery and wording, including the calling of "Allahu-Akbar" from the surrounding rooftops:
Many protesters have covered their heads with the Qur'an, a spiritual protection for themselves, as well as a strategic protection, since attackers would be less will to hit their own holy book.
Chants from the protesters have moved into another, surprising realm. They are now shouting: "Death to Khameini" - a reference to the Supreme Leader of Iran. This indicates that the goal is no longer simply voting justice, but also the toppling of the regime in power.
Opposition leader Moussavi has stated that he is ready for martyrdom. He has stated that he is willing to go to jail or die for this cause. He has called for a general strike (an extremely important event if it were to take place) if he is arrested.

President Obama has appropriately taken a measured approach to the Iranian conflict thus far. He has voiced his concern for violent repression and stated, "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." (Entire text may be found here.)

John McCain and others on the political right can make all the pronouncements they want against the Iranian government, but they are not our head of state. I am sure that once things have settled down and Iranian society has focused itself once again, Obama will share a more in-depth perspective of where we, as a nation, stand regarding Iran. At this time, it would be irresponsible for him to do more.

Will this Sea of Green bring about central changes in Iran? Many questions need to asked: Who are their leaders? (In many ways, it's a positive for the opponents that there is probably not just one leader.) Will there be the strength to continue over many more days or weeks? Will this movement expand - such as to a general strike? Will the military crack down even more sharply? (Or, are there as reported some generals who have refused to follow orders?) Will Supreme Leader Khamenei shift and offer a concession?

The following is attributed to Mahatma Gandhi about movements for change:

"First, they ignore us.
Then, they mock us.
Then, they fight us.
Finally, we win."

Time will tell if Gandhi's paradigm plays itself out in Iran for the Sea of Green.

Obama: The Good, The Bad, The Grotesque

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:59:00 +0000

Barack Obama has now been in office 100 days, plus about a month. Everyone was impressed with all that he accomplished in those first few months. I've noticed that the Obama administration is facing a flurry of legislative battles, Republican challenges and news cycles that spin quickly until the next day dawns and they all go at it again.

In the past month, Obama has maintained his 65% approval rating, despite being faced with challenges from both his opponents and his friends, sometimes inadvertently and sometimes direct and in your face.

I will outline those issues Obama has faced that have had everything from a positive impact on his legacy to those that could drag it down.

The Good:

Auto mpg: Seeds planted and pressure applied earlier have given Obama the wherewithal to push for the auto industry to produce cars that get 39 miles per gallon by 2016. This was a helluva coup for the president.
Healthcare Reform: The medical industry got behind the need for change last week. After past efforts, they decided they'd prefer to be in the room while decisions are made.
Credit card legislation: Although this legislation tacked on an addendum that allows gun possession in a national parks, millions of Americans will be protected while they hold their credit cards due to this bill, which Obama should sign before the weekend.
Timing: Not only did our president display incredible timing during his comedy routine at the annual reporters dinner, he is losing no time moving through the many changes he promised during his campaign.

The Bad:

Mexico border: Remember when this hit the news and some Republicans were pushing for a military presence along the border? Obama handled it coolly, and somehow it's lost its impact since the flu broke out.
Swine flu: This is serious and was raised to a high level of importance. Things have calmed down, but could peak again next fall. Nonetheless, the Obama government, again, demonstrated the scientific approach lacking in the past.
Israel/Palestine: Obama and Benyamin Netanyahu met this week. I would be amazed if Barack and Hillary can work out something lasting, especially considering Netanyahu's right wing coalition. Unfortunately, this means a lot more ugliness on both sides of the wall. Now, if for some ungodly reason, Iran were to send a rocket into Israel, all bets are off. This becomes an area of grave, grave concern, since the next large conflagration could then occur throughout the Middle East.

The Ugly:

Iraq: Violence is up. There is the agreed upon date for us to get completely out, but we'll be leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves. My projection is that the democracy we imposed upon them will disintegrate and civil war will be a possibility. The end result will be a federation or a religious state, like Iran.
Iran: Iran just sent up a long-range missile, which has raised lots of eye-brows, as well as hairs on many people's arms. I pray the talks Obama has begun will grow into open negotiations that will bear fruit. Such a process will be easier if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loses, and a new leader is elected into power in the middle of June.

The Really Ugly:

Guantanamo: Is Obama going to close it? Probably, but it won't be done this year. Personally, I believe there was a sort of collusion between Rahm Emmanuel and the Democratic Caucus, which tacitly allowed the legislators to say "Not in my backyard" and deny Obama the $80 million to close it down. First, it's true a plan has not been developed to shut it down. Second, more time is needed than the year initially anticipated. It sucks, but the Obama timing factor was off on this one. Gitmo will close, though. I'm sure of it.
Military tribunals: Will there be any transparency here? How will it play out? I'm not a lawyer and don't get all the legal intricacies, but these military trials must be fair, or else there could be more negative impact in the Muslim world.
Torture Photos: Obama was right on this one, but the courts may overturn his decision not to release more disgusting photos to the public.
Torture: It's like a cancer spreading. First, the question: Did they torture? Well, as long as the MSM use enhanced interrogation techniques, it'll never end up what it truly was: t-o-r-t-u-r-e. Then, who did it? CIA employees were exonerated. The lawyers who deemed the torture not torture were exonerated. Dick Cheney finally admitted that it was "waterboarding" that was used, and that Bush was aware of it. Then, the Republicans try to spin torture away from "Who did it?" to "Who knew?" Nancy Pelosi has handed them a gift on a platter with her hemming and hawing. Somehow, this issue must be dealt with by an independent group, who should publish a report like the 9/11 Commission. Trying the creators, approvers, and instigators is no longer an option, but this is just dragging on, with only the perpetrators winning out.

All of these negatives remain, festering from the Bush administration, and Dick Cheney's doing all he can to keep the putrid mess he left behind slopping up on Obama. Unfortunately, some it's beginning to stick.

The Outright Grotesque:

Economy: Are we seeing just a blip of improvement that heads south again? When will unemployment turn around? This is, again, a problem Obama inherited from Bush. But, after the first 100 days, it's now Obama's problem. If he can't turn it around, he's toast.
Af-Pak: No end game in sight. This is a quagmire and Bob Gates' change of the military leadership last week was an indication of just that. What is the mission? I'm not certain they're certain.

President Barack Obama's first 100 days may have seemed like a whirlwind of activity. From here on out, it's all going to get faster and more chaotic. I know that he can take on any challenge. I'll do my best to keep up.

President Obama: 100 Days and Sailing

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:53:00 +0000

Today marks President Barack Hussein Obama's 100th day in office, and the mainstream media are all gaga over this arbitrarily selected date. The pundits will argue how he has done, and many will ultimately give him a grade, as if they were the teacher and he the student.

Part of me would like to avoid the issue completely, but I won't. However, instead of embracing this date, I will shake hands with it and try to address the progress Obama has made since his inauguration last January 20th.

Before I share my perspective, I encourage you to check out a marvelous, Pulitzer-awarded website - the Saint Petersburg Times-created Politifact. It keeps track of how well Obama is doing, especially regarding holding to his campaign promises. At this point, the President is doing quite well, even though Politifact points out some important areas where he has fallen short.

So, how do I feel about Obama at this 100-day mark?

THE DOMESTIC FRONT

S-CHIP: As under Bush, this bill providing health care to children passed both houses of Congress. Obama signed it, though.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009: the first act of congress signed by President Obama, which moved us in the right direction regarding equal pay for women in the workplace
Economic Stimulus: Obama's first big test in Congress. It passed, but only along party lines. Many of Obama's campaign promises for domestic change are financed here. The jury is still out on the major impact of this package, but reports have been drifting in that they are making a difference in staunching the bleeding of the recession.
Budget: The three legs of the stool - health care, education, energy - for progress into the future. Republicans said no, blue dog dems negociated modifications. It passed today, along party lines (again).
Justice Department: Eric Holder was noble and smart to drop the Ted Stevens case. The CIA torture documents were released. Nothing concrete regarding the prosecution of responsible parties. Obama is leaving it to Justice - Congress may move forward on their own. I wouldn't be surprised to see a special "9/11-type" committee designated to investigate the torture done under Bush's watch. If nothing comes of it, progressives will become a burr under Obama's saddle. Obama has promised to close Guantanamo, but he has made no move to close Bagram, where torture also occurred.
Veteran Affairs: After years of negligence, wounded soldiers will be given appropriate care when and where they need it.
Stem Cell Research: After Bush put down the breaks, Obama has given the green light for using embryonic stem cells to seek cures for many serious health problems.
Swine Flu: Obama is correct in communicating "concern" and not "alarm" at this time. The MSM are almost pushing the alarm button, unfortunately. Let's hope this outbreak dissipates as the weather invites more people outdoors, making the spread of the virus more difficult.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan: Obama's move out of Iraq is an extremely positive development. Unfortunately, soldiers are being re-deployed to Afghanistan, which is the region Obama promised to focus on. I believe that "AfPak" has the potential for becoming a quagmire, not dissimilar to Vietnam. We've been there eight years already and have now upped the ante, without defining an endgame. I find it interesting that many progressives do not confronted Obama here, or on anything else. I have questioned this military mission before on this website and a cross-posting on Daily Kos, and I have been flamed for it.

Other than "Af-Pak" I believe that Obama has done amazingly well in rebuilding America's relationship with the world:

Discussions with Syria and projected with Iran
Shifts in relations with Cuba
Showing real cojones, along with smarts, in taking out Somalian pirates
North Korea is still an area of concern. I'm sure backdoor discussion are going on, but Obama may be pushed into a direct confrontation at some point.
The G-20 Summit: Obama showed poise and wisdom during his first international exposure.
Mexico: As the American President, Obama will do his best to stem the violence along the border and deal with the flu that has predominantly come from there.
Some people, especially Republicans, were concerned that Obama did not stand up to Chavez and Ortega during the Latin America Summit. Obama's approach will, ultimately, pay dividends for the U.S. Just watch...

POLITICS

To check how Obama has done in following through with his 500+ campaign promises, I encourage you to visit Politifact. One hundred days are simply not enough to get more than a taste of how things are going, but over all Obama's doing quite well. Except in one area where Politifact nails him: lobbyists. He campaigned against having them enter his administration, but so far he's been more than welcoming to former lobbyists and they've become central members in his administration.

Democrats: The Blue Dogs have become a thorn in Obama's side, but it seems they have moved forward since he has had talks with them directly. Arlen Specter's shift back to the Democratic Party is huge, since once Al Franken finally becomes Minnesota's second senator, the Dems will have sixty members in the Senate, eliminating the potential for a Republican filibuster. It is yet to be seen if Democrats can become as united as the Republicans have.

Republicans: The party of "No," pure and simple. They have no message that's caught on (including the 'tea parties'). The American people are tired of the GOP's negativity and lack of leadership. Fewer than 20% of Americans self-identify as Republican. For a while, Rush Limbaugh's voice was central, but his hot air has dissipated. Eric Cantor has shown himself to be but a whiner. He complains and cries but no one is listening to him any more. As an intellectual, Newt Gingrich is potentially a leader, but his recent comments have shown him to be anything but thoughtful in foreign policy. He's like McCain, he's a knee-jerk reactionary and a blowhard who would only harm us abroad. Along the way the names Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin popped up. Who are they?

Bipartisanship: Obama learned early on that if he offered his hand to the Republicans they would bite it. So, he's abandoned those efforts. Expect this trend to continue, since the large majorities in both houses of Congress mean he needs to rely less and less on Republican support. Should he try to reach out again? No, there's a new game in town, and they don't have a chance of controlling it. If they move in Obama's direction, true bipartisanship is possible. I think hell will freeze over first, though.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION

President Obama gets high poll ratings for his policies. His personal popularity is even higher. He's riding a huge wave right now, which is why he's pushing so quickly to get as much of his platform passed now, before the inevitable slide downward arrives.

First Family Mystique: The Obama family holds the attention of the American people to the greatest extent since the Kennedy family in the early 60's. Michelle's popularity is in the stratosphere, and everyone follows the lives of the girls (and the dog, Bo). America can't get enough photos and articles about the First Family. Indeed, they are fun, energetic, young, smart and - importantly - nice. All of them. Until and unless some scandal hits, we are in for tons of daily news feeding the Obama Family Frenzy we are all eagerly a part of.

Barack Obama, Teacher in Chief: I couldn't cover all the issues here, but one thing is for sure: Obama is in charge and guiding our country to a more optimistic mindset. He has done this by communicating clearly and firmly what the issues are and how he will address them. His teaching and community organizing backgrounds regularly poke through whenever he addresses the nation or works with a group of individuals.

Barack Obama, The Personality: His popularity has only grown since the election. His powerful speaking abilities have not yet hit a boring note here at home. He even raised interest in NCAA bracket competitions by completing his own on television. In this way, he portrays himself as an ordinary American, not the policy wonk he becomes during the day. Over seas, millions wait and watch whenever he speaks to them. It is simply incredible that he is able to criticize and yet still be loved. He has become, finally!, the new face of America abroad. He is new, fresh, thoughtful and respectful. Time will tell if world opinion of Americans as individuals changes as well. Obama the Leader is firm, yet calm and steady. He brings confidence to us all, something we lacked for too long.

How long can Obama's popularity last? He has done an amazing job, but he could fall fast with one surprising, devastating event. From where might such a tragedy come?

For different reasons: North Korea, Iran, Mexico.

Or, Obama could die a political death by a thousand cuts. Either a continuing withering economy or an unending, bloody military mission in "Af-Pak" could bring it about.

Obama has said that one hundred days is too short a time to judge him. He says that 1000 days would give a better reflection of the job he's done.

Nonetheless, Americans are obsessed with the number 100, which is why today is so significant. So, how has Obama done in his first 100 days?

Have there been mistakes? Yes. But he has admitted them (a novel concept to Dubya). Do I love every one of his policies? No. But I knew that would be the case. He is steady and thoughtful in guiding America toward the change we wanted.

So, how has he done? I will not give him a traditional grade, which diminishes the enormity of the presidency. Suffice it to say that in these rough and treacherous seas we are currently traveling, I would not want anyone else than President Barack Hussein Obama at the helm of our ship.

It's Tax Day: Do You Know Where Your Money Is?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:29:00 +0000

Happy April 15h - Tax Day!

Like many Americans, I am concerned with my tax rate, and ultimately how much cash I'll need to pay Uncle Sam this year.

Today, there are supposed to be conservative "Tea Parties" around the country, expressing outrage over the tax policies and stimulus package of the Obama administration. At least, I think that's what they are protesting...

There is a lot of MSM clamor over these protests. I predict they'll get some news for a day or two and then any energy around them will simply dissipate.

These protests do push us to pay attention to where our tax dollars go. Personally, I am pleased with the stimulus funds, since they are used for a variety of important projects throughout the country in an attempt to create and save jobs.

While the media goes gaga over the tea parties' anger over TARP, little noise is made over the percentage of our taxes that go for military spending. Is there anyone out there that lets us know how much of our money goes for military expenditures?

Yes. Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby in Washington, D.C., has determined that this year 43% of our monies pay for war.

How do they determine this figure, which differs from the 21% outlined by the president?

FCNL is transparent in explaining their math. They state: "When the president’s proposal says that only 21% of the budget goes to the military, it includes Social Security and Medicare in his definition of the budget. Because this analysis starts with a bigger pie (called the “unified budget”), the military appears as a relatively smaller slice, and social spending looks larger."

FCNL, on the other hand, uses the federal funds budget. "This is the overall budget, including discretionary, entitlement, and mandatory spending, supported by general revenues, including income taxes and estate and gift taxes. Because the FCNL analysis aims to illustrate how our income dollars are spent, it does not include trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare, which have their own dedicated revenues."

They discuss which parts of the budget they apply to their math: "When FCNL talks about military spending, we talk about two slices – current military spending and spending due to past wars and military activity."

Overall, these are the items that are included in FCNL's calculations:

all spending for the Department of Defense (DOD).
the “050 function,” a categorizing number that OMB uses to identify defense-related spending, regardless of the agency that spends the funds. This category includes funding in many “independent agencies” as well some parts of the Department of Homeland Security, parts of the Coast Guard, and other bits and pieces sprinkled through the budget.
responsibility for the Defense Department retirees as a military expense, although it is not listed as such by OMB.
portions of the foreign aid budget that are, in fact, military programs. These include the foreign military assistance accounts and international military training.

One thing is for sure. Add it all up, and we're all paying through the nose for that 43% - which directly and indirectly ties us to the military-industrial complex.

Hmmm... maybe that's something we should actually be protesting.

You Go, Bo!

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:49:00 +0000

Pix of the First Family & The New First Dog, Bo!

Obama Reads - The Breakthrough

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:16:00 +0000

"Obama Reads" is the second in a series of reviews of books about Barack Obama and his politics. The first review was on How Obama Won by Chuck Todd.

The Breakthrough :Politics and Race in the Age of Obama
by Gwen Ifill
Doubleday
288 pages
$24.95

Early in the new year, Gwen Ifill - PBS senior correspondent for The News Hour, and managing editor and moderator of Washington Week, published The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

Interestingly, the book received some advanced, unintended publicity a couple days before the vice presidential debate. Ifill was preparing to moderate the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden when some Republicans called for Ifill to basically "recuse" herself. Because her book had Obama as one of the principle topics, McCain supporters believed Ifill would not maintain her journalistic distance and asked her to removed herself from her role in the debate.

As history demonstrated, the Republicans had little to fear from Ifill because she did her job professionally and maintained her neutrality. Sarah Palin, though, posed a much greater threat to the McCain campaign than any reporter could.

The Breakthrough is Ifill's analysis of contemporary African American politics, which have developed a new identity and M.O. in recent years. The book is based on her long-term observations, as well as interviews she completed with significant African American politicians.

The structure of this book creates helpful alternating tones. The author focuses on current trends and themes in African American politics. She alternates her thematic chapters, however, by delving deeply into the political stories of several prominent African Americans:

Barack Obama (U.S. President)
Artur Davis (U.S. Representative from Alabama)
Cory Booker (Mayor of Newark, NJ)
Deval Patrick (Governor of Massachusetts).

The themes Ifill analyzes are:

Breaking Through: How African Americans have become increasingly successful, especially in elections where the majority is not African American
The Generational Divide: How the younger generation of politicians has bucked the African American norm by not "waiting their turn" to run. Ifill identifies different tactics used today compared to those of politicians who came out of the the civil rights movement.
The Race-Gender Clash : Ifill investigates tension that arose during the democratic primary of Obama v. Clinton. She clearly explains that the race-gender line was complex and constantly shifting - which of course added to the confusion and complexity for all concerned.
Legacy Politics: The author discusses the relatively new phenomenon of the inheritance of power among African Americans. She focuses especially on the Jackson of Illinois, the Fords of Tennessee, and the Clays of Missouri to look below the surface of how this political power exchange has developed.
The Politics of Identity: "Is he black enough?" This is the question that haunted Barack Obama early in his campaign. Ifill thoroughly explains why such a question might be asked. She covers physical (skin color), linguistic (how a politician talks), cultural (how a politician acts), and political ("What will s/he do for us?") attributes in looking at the subtleties of how current African American candidates walk the treacherous tight-rope of racial identity.
The Next Wave- Ifill quickly discusses a range of young, up-and-coming black politicians who hold a wide range of local and state positions. A few examples are : San Francisco D.A. Kamala Harris, California State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

In addition to Ifill's useful structure, she included the metaphor of "sandpaper," which helped me internalize and remember her concepts. "Sandpaper," as in "sandpaper politics" or "sandpaper moments," was used to explain the tension or discomfort that existed between traditional allies, such as younger and older generations of African Americans. The outcome of the application of such "sandpaper" may ultimately lead to a transformation in perception and/or behavior - a new reality, if you will - becoming a new political M.O.

I highly recommend The Breakthrough. It is a must read for anyone who wishes to to gain a clearer understanding of today's new generation of African American politics, which, in fact, is increasingly making itself a powerful, central dynamic in American politics as a whole.

Please Sign Global Zero's Nuclear Weapon Ban Petition

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:56:00 +0000

Dear Friends,

President Obama of the U.S. and his Russian counterpart, President Medvedev, met at the G20 Summit last week. The primary topic of the summit was our economic crisis, but Obama and Mdvedev have decided to meet again this summer to sign a treaty to reduce our two countries' stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Indeed, President Obama spoke at the NATO summit in Prague and lifted multi-lateral elimination of nuclear weapons as a goal for the entire world. This is excellent news!

As ordinary citizens, we must continue to let our leaders know that nuclear disarmament needs to be a priority for the 21st century. I have recently become aware of an organization whose purpose is to convince world leaders to completely ban nuclear weapons. It is called Global Zero, and Queen Noor of Jordan is the spokeswoman for this effort. In addition to presiding over the World Colleges Union and advising the U.N. on global peace-building efforts, she has been a leading voice in recent years for the elimination of land mines and cluster bombs, which have caused so much senseless killing of innocents around the world.

Through Global Zero, Queen Noor is now speaking out for ridding our world of nuclear weapons. I encourage you to visit Global Zero's website to see which world leaders have signed on in support of Global Zero's initiative. There you will see that these leaders, of all backgrounds and political affiliations, support the Global Zero's plan to reduce and eliminate U.S.-Russia and world-wide arsenals, as well as to manage the fuel cycle to prevent future development of nuclear weaponry.

Please add your voice to those from around the world by signing Global Zero's petition.

Please feel free to pass this information along to others in your organization, so they may take part in Global Zero's important initiative as well. We cannot afford not to take advantage of this growing momentum.

In Peace,
Mike

Obama and U.S. Policy at G-20 Summit

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:51:00 +0000

I must admit it. Although I am a huge Barack Obama fan, I have been disappointed in his administration's first steps in the foreign policy realm.

I was very excited that Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State, but she and her staff made an embarrassing translation error before the Russian foreign minister. Clinton was quick to show her embarrassment and laughed it off, and it may have been a small detail, but it showed momentary incompetence at a high diplomatic level.

I was pleased that Obama announced our withdrawal from Iraq. Yet many of the troops will simply be shifted to Afghanistan, which is where I have my greatest trouble. I have posted on this concern more than once. My greatest fear is that Afghanistan will simply become a quagmire, and that thousands more soldiers and civilians will die in the process. In addition, I am not convinced that an endgame has been developed, which means we could be there a long, long time.

Obama's experience at the G-20 summit gave me mixed hopes for our foreign policy future. First, it was announced that Obama would visit President Medvedev and discuss the joint reduction of both countries' nuclear arsenal. Nice step!

Then, word came out that late this summer, Obama will visit China, where I am sure the economic relationship will be discussed in depth. In a shifting economic world, this is a crucial direction to move in, particularly since China is the number one banker for the U.S.

French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Obama for seeking too much economic stimulus. I rolled my eyes when Sarkozy threatened to walk out if world banking regulations were not changed to his liking - his manipulation quickly got under my skin.

I was more understanding of Chancellor Merkel's fears of excessive stimulus leading to high inflation, since German society has historically been ravaged by inflationary practices. Indeed, many would say that Hitler was a result of such policy.

Obama understood that European economic systems differ from America's. They have greater entitlements, which have protected their citizens from the effects of the crisis to a greater degree than ours has.

Therefore, Sarkozy and Merkel's calls for greater banking regulation made sense. In addition, Europeans felt that the U.S. should be more contrite, since this crisis began in America, they say. Plus, they didn't want the United States to dominate the conversation or the economy, as it has since World War II.

Obama pushed for more economic stimulus infusion on international fronts, yet he also agreed to greater regulatory oversight and controls. Somehow, the world's leaders reached the middle ground Obama desired with a multi-pronged agreement, and Sarkozy kept his little feet from walking out.

They agreed to $750 dollars from the International Monetary Fund to support seriously troubled economies and $250 billion to boost foreign trade. In addition they decided:

Bankers' pay and bonuses will be subject to stricter controls
A new Financial Stability Board will be set up to work with the IMF to ensure co-operation across borders and provide an early warning mechanism for the financial system
There will be greater regulation of hedge funds and credit ratings agencies
A common approach to cleaning up banks' toxic assets has been agreed
The world's poorest countries will receive extra aid.

Unfortunately, American pundits treated this entire process as a football season, focusing on who was "winning or losing." "Will Obama be pushed around?" they asked.

Give it a rest, folks! This process was not zero-sum, as Dubya always approached it. He swaggered around the world stage and refused to cooperate with other leaders. Obama, though, moved in another direction by modeling cooperation and positive engagement. He said he was there to listen - he couldn't force others to do something they didn't want to do.

Nonetheless, he stood firm in his directing America's leadership, and both our international reputation and influence improved. For the moment, though, we must work to find ways to solve this international crisis. And it didn't come from either the Europeans pointing fingers at the U.S. or from the U.S. throwing its weight around.

The irony is that, once he moves on to NATO discussions, Obama may be able to convinced more countries to join us in Afghanistan. That move would put more people in danger, increase civilian death and destruction, and potentially place everyone in the throes of another interminable Asian war. The positive reputation that Obama so carefully nourished at the G-20 would then find itself flushed down the toilet, of not only international opinion, but of history itself.

Obama's Press Conference: Chuck Todd's Stupid Question

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:14:00 +0000

Usually, I post here first and then cross post at Daily Kos. This evening I did the reverse. I knew I'd get quick feedback at Daily Kos, so I started there. This is my diary, as it's called on that site, and if you'd like to see the comments that the Kos community added, you may go here.

With a few additional points, here is my response to MSNBC's Chuck Todd's stupid question during President Obama's Press Conference:

As Chris Matthews said, the reporters were "zombies" during the Obama news conference tonight.

And there was none "stupider" (my academic term) than Chuck Todd.

After a lot of lead up to Chuck's asking a question that had been solicited from "the public," all he could come up with was a question that compared the economic crisis to "war" and asked the American public for sacrifice.

Who asked this question? I was enraged with it.

Obama answered by stating that the American people, especially the military, have sacrificed an awful lot already.

It was a good answer.

If we're in this war, however, it's the economy against us! Americans suffer and sacrifice each and every day. How can we be asked to sacrifice more when we are the victims?!

Sacrifice? Give me a damn break. Get us out of this "war" and I will then make whatever "sacrifice" is requested.

Americans have lost their jobs, homes and health insurance, and Chuck is asking them to give up more?

I wonder what Chuck had in mind - something he'd be willing to give up? Where does he live? How much does he make? What kind of health insurance does he have to protect his family?

Give it up, Chuck. Once you make the sacrifice your talking about for this "war," then come back and see if you have the gall to ask that same question.

Is Anybody Listening to Our Children?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:03:00 +0000

Last night, The News Hour reported on the video project of Michael Steinman's AP English class at Village Academy High School in Pomona, California. Steinman sensed that the economic downturn was impacting the lives of his students. So, when he asked them to write about their experiences with the current recession, he was stunned by the emotions and fear that filled their essays.

Steinman asked them if they would agree to be filmed while sharing their experiences on camera. They did so, and when the project was completed, he posted the result, "Is Anybody Listening?," on YouTube:

The students' fears for their families and their sense of abandonment personalize the unemployment and foreclosures in a state with some of the worst statistics in the country. After the New Hour's presentation of Steinman's video, Mark Shields stated a truism: "Unemployment rates don't bleed; statistics don't cry."

The response to "Is Anybody Listening?" has been extraordinary. Not only have national newscasts covered the story, but President Obama also referred to the project in his address to the Hispanic Chamber of Congress.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As a follow up to his speech, the president met with the students of Village Academy this week during his trip to California, and he personally answered their questions concerning the economy.

One thing that is clear to me is that President Obama is listening because he has presented plans to change the way we operate in our country regarding energy, health care and education.

But are other politicians and pundits listening? Or, are they only looking at the quantitative effects of the recession? Are they proposing failed approaches, such as tax cuts for the wealthy, which have failed in the past?

Many of those same politicos have stated that, as a country, we must confront the recession as "war." I would beg them not to treat our country's children as expendable, "collateral damage," in this "war of economics." If that were to happen, our country would continue to suffer the following long-term negative effects on this generation of children:

school absenteeism
low graduation rates
high teen pregnancy
high unemployment
low taxes
shattered dreams

The recent Japanese recession is often referred to as a "lost decade". Our country's economy is also in danger of suffering long-term negative consequences. On top of years of negative economic growth, I fear that we will continue the legacy of "lost generations" of young people.

But, how long will the recession last? How long will it be until the parents of these children once again have the security of a job and comfort of their own home? I am confident that the president is on the right path to solving our economic woes, but many - Republicans and Democrats - oppose him.

I encourage all politicians to watch this video, especially those Republican governors who have refused stimulus funds for their states and those Democrats who are threatening to block the changes President Obama is proposing. If they were to watch it, they would understand that their political decisions are failing those who need our care most desperately: our children.

What is particularly sad is that such a video could have been filmed in any state, any congressional district, of our country. The Village Academy students' tears grip our hearts and remind us that we must never ignore the faces of those who are suffering through this economic crisis, wherever they may reside.

We must lobby our congressional representatives to support President Obama's budget to bring about the change he has promised. I, for one, do not want to experience more lost generations of children.

Recommendation: "Literary Obama"

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:18:00 +0000

Several weeks ago I wrote my first book review for Reflecting Obama. My plans are to write another one as soon as I've finished Gwen Ifill's The Breakthrough.

If you are interested in following Obama in the literary world, you don't need to wait for me to get through my reading list. I was very pleasantly surprised to find a blog that dedicates itself entirely to Obama in the written word. When I first visited Literary Obama, Qiana Whitted's beautifully organized blog, I found myself scrolling from top to bottom and from page to page, savoring one morsel after another.

Qiana states that Literary Obama is "about President Barack Obama and the creative works that he inspires (or that have inspired him). My goal is simply to keep track of original writing by notable authors and everyday citizens as well as book reviews and essays, links, quotes, videos, and photographs that celebrate our 44th President’s love of reading. When possible, I also hope to include literary news about our First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha."

A university professor, Qiana writes in a clear, yet enjoyable fashion. Her articles are intelligently written and regularly vary in their topics.

Some of Literary Obama's recent posts include the following titles:

I feel very lucky to have found Literary Obama. I'll be returning on a regular basis, especially since I've already added it to my Google Reader RSS feed. I'm also following Qiana on Twitter. In addition, she invites her readers to find out what she's reading on Goodreads. I suggest you take her up on her offer!

One thing is certain, when you're hungry for information about our new president that goes beyond the usual punditry, head on over to Qiana Whitted's Literary Obama.

Cramer Contrition on Daily Show

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:56:00 +0000

I feel I owe readers of "Reflecting Obama" an explanation as to why I have spent time writing about CNBC and their pundits. After all, what do they have to do with Obama, the theme of this blog?

In my extremely humble opinion, CNBC and pundits like Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett have been unfairly attacking President Obama regarding the downward trend in the stock market. They've blamed him for not exuding confidence (therefore the dow dropped) and for not focusing only on the economy (as if health care, budget and housing were not connected to our economic crisis).

One of the things I like about Obama is his ability to work in an organic, nonlinear, fashion. Unfortunately, the pundits are often unable to do that. Indeed, some of their approach is what got us into this crisis.

Yesterday, I discussed the questionable journalistic abilities of CNBC pundits Erin Burnett and Jim Cramer. At the end of my article I wondered out loud how the Jim Cramer visit to The Daily Show would actually play out. The "war of words" between Cramer, CNBC and Jon Stewart and been ongoing for eight days, so the direct confrontation was something to really look forward to.

I was somewhat surprised to find, hours in advance, reviews online in Huffington Post and USA Today. Neither article gave a lot of details, but they did say that Stewart had gotten the better of Cramer. This is exactly what I was waiting for.

Frankly, I was a bit disappointed that the articles were published ahead of the event, since the anticipation was sort of destroyed - kind of like hearing the outcome of a ball game before it's actually played (although the show was taped yesterday afternoon). Nonetheless, I was still eager to watch the show, especially to see all the "plays" and the nuances and reactions of the "players."

So, how did it really play out, watching it live?

If you are interested in watching, check out this Daily Kos article by Jed Lewison that contains the links to the entire show. Basically, Stewart took Cramer "to school." Indeed, as Lewison states:

"Sometimes listening to Jon Stewart is like what you'd imagine it would be like to listen to a great journalism professor...except you're laughing so hard you've fallen out of your chair. In tonight's interview, Stewart makes the case for what CNBC should have been doing over the past few years: actual business reporting, instead of acting like they were an entertainment channel for the stock market."

This is exactly the point that I made yesterday: CNBC and its pundits have not been reporting about Wall Street, but rather they've been playing Wall Street cheerleaders. And, along the way, they watched the house of cards tumbled down around everyone.

The problem is that CNBC has tried to exonerate themselves from any responsibility for contributing to the mess we're in. My article -- and to a much greater extent The Daily Show -- has tried to criticize their brand of reporting and bring their irresponsible actions into the light.

My take on the interview has several angles: what was said, the psychological exchange, and the impact.

After the humorous and gracious start to the show, Stewart explained how the whole thing began with his criticism of CNBC's Rick Santelli for calling foreclosed home owners "losers." To Cramer's credit he criticized Santelli and called those folks "fighters."

Jim Cramer's approach was one of denial, justification and contrition. His message was to offer a mea culpa along with a justification of the way CNBC operates. He tried to hide behind a wall of innocence: "I would think you'd want people like me to reveal what is going on." Stewart answered that Cramer and CNBC had known all along what had been going on and remained silent.

Stewart fumed, "I know you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a fucking game. When I watch that it makes me so angry because it tells me you all know... You can draw a straight line from these kinds of shenanigans to what went on at Bear [and] AIG..."

Once Stewart showed a 2006 clip of Cramer explaining off air how he manipulated his clients, it was all over. That clip was the "smoking gun" that destroyed any credibility Cramer may have been able to portray. The interview was, for all intents and purposes, over.

Each time that Cramer tried to explain what he does on his show, Stewart made a point of letting Cramer know, "It's not just about you." Early in the interview he said, "CNBC sells itself as financial experts... It's about the way your company does business."

Other memorable lines from Stewart were:

"At least we advertise our show as selling snake oil."
"You knew this was happening."
"The banking institutions were playing these games with our 401K's."
"You were promising something that couldn't be delivered."
"Who are you responsible to?"

Throughout, he returned to the issue of the question of responsibility - that CNBC needs to become more responsible in reporting information to the public.

In the end, Stewart told Cramer and CNBC not to live on the "commentator" laurel and become real reporters. And, with one last verbal swipe, Stewart asked CNBC to get rid of the show's promotional line: "In Cramer We Trust."

If my audio had gone out during the show, I still would have clearly picked up content of the interview. As a teacher, I've seen it a hundred times. A student shoves another to the ground in anger. I see the whole thing out my window and run out to confront the culprit. First, he denies having done it. When I say I saw the event, he says the other kid deserved it.

Then, after my prodding, he says he didn't mean to hurt the kid. Once he knows all's lost, he apologizes for his actions hoping the teacher will just drop it. But, it's not over, because there are still explanation of motive and personal change that must be dealt with. Once the student sees that I haven't just let go of the issue, he is forced to take these last steps.

All of these steps were evident last night, with Stewart playing the role of teacher dealing with Cramer, the culprit. Cramer was contrite, but like a good teacher, Stewart did not want to accept anything at face value. He delved deeper and deeper, until Cramer was wrung dry of excuses and had to move into the realm of personal change.

We'll see if the promised change actually comes about. For me, it will only be valid if Cramer and CNBC understand why it's important that they change.

First, they were involved in convincing the public to stay in the stock market game, even while it was tanking.

Second, all the emotion and hype of shows like Cramer's "Mad Money" actually coerce people into going further into the market, even though their rational mind says they should not.

Recently, Richard Peterson - a psychologist and economist - explained on "Radio Times" (on Philadelphia's public radio station, WHYY) - that it is not uncommon for the levels of dopamine to increase dramatically during multiple stock transactions. There is a physiological reaction to make people want to continue trading.

That's why, like with gambling, people must be extremely careful in the stock market. As Jon Stewart so brilliantly stated, "Its not a fucking game." Yet, for years it's been treated as a game, millions of people were getting high off it, and CNBC and its pundits simply added fuel to the fire - and made a bundle in the process.

Like Stewart, I implore CNBC to make the changes to bring honesty and professionalism to their financial programming, for their sake and ours. I also implore Americans to use this crisis to reconsider their own behavior, both with the stock market and televison shows that prod them along. As my wife - the wisest person I know - often says, "Just turn it off."

Jim Cramer, CNBC to Face Jon Stewart

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:51:00 +0000

When I was a senior at Elkhart Central High School in Indiana, I took a journalism course with Mr. Mongion. He insisted that we stick to the facts, the who?, what?, where?, when?, how?, how many?, when reporting a story. He told us to avoid editorializing, to keep our own opinions and emotions out of a story when reporting. What my teacher instilled in his students was the journalistic norm for those times.

Unfortunately, reporting has changed a lot since then. A few decades later, news reporters regularly break those rules, particularly in bringing their own emotions and opinions into a story. During the current economic crisis, this type of reporting, unfortunately, simply ends up adding fuel to the fire. Instead of reporting the story, too often, financial reporters are now becoming the story -- which is exactly what Mr. Mongion warned us about. In so doing, these "reporters" have moved from the realm of journalism to the world of entertainment and lost their credibility in the process.

Two CNBC reporters have been violators of the basics of journalism: Erin Burnett with her opining, and Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli and their constant emoting. Whenever I watch them, I set aside my need for information and wait for the moment when they will entertain me by (a) putting their foot in their mouth, (b) making a fool of themselves, or (c) making me cringe.

Burnett, host of "Squawk Box," has requently misused her role of reporter. In recent times, she has intimated that toxic toys and food are a boon to the economy:

Even on other people's shows, Burnett can make a fool of herself. On March 6th, as a guest on Bill Maher's "Real Time," she used chocolate cookies as an example of innovation during the Great Depression and followed that irrational point with nationalistic condescension towards the Japanese:

(check around 7:30 in this clip)

Cramer and Santelli are best known for their ranting and raving. You'd think that two screamers might get along, but true to form, all they can do is yell at one another:

Well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised because it's CNBC's MO. In fact, Gabriel Winant at Salon, found that it's all they do. His editor gave him the task of watching CNBC for an entire day. Winant got tired of being yelled at all the time.

Personally, I'm getting fed up with such nonesense. It's why I appreciated Bill Maher and his guest, Peter Singer, calling Burnett out on her inappropriate comments. It's why I have enjoyed Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show," calling out CNBC and stars Cramer and Santelli for their over-the-top rantings. (I'll spare you these overplayed video clips...)

Cent Uygur, of "The Young Turks," nails Cramer for a basic journalistic responsibility -- checking your facts. Yes, dear Mr. Mongion insisted that we high school students make sure we had our facts straight. Why can't CNBC insist on similar basics?

Tonight, Jim Cramer will visit Jon Stewart on his show (on Comedy Central, 11:00 pm, ET):

Will Cramer try to make amends with his enemy? Will he admit he made some mistakes in his reporting? Will he state that from here on out he will follow the basics of journalism? Doubtful.

What I do hope Jim Cramer could admit is that he and Stewart share a means: entertainment. For Stewart, though, entertainment is also the objective of his show.

Cramer, on the other hand, must fess up to the fact that the outcome of his show has been much more than entertainment -- and much more dire, as well. It has been a deep financial hole dug in red soil that many people are struggling to dig out of.

Who's Limbaugh?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:59:00 +0000

Josh Orton published an article on MyDD today called "Whose Limbaugh?" He discusses the argument that's all the rage right now as to whether the stinking Limbaugh mess is actually all a set up from the Democrats.

This is a fascinating discussion, but frankly I'm not up for all the finer points of political gamesmanship right now. I just look at Rush Limbaugh and my stomach begins to churn. He truly makes me sick to my innards.

But, hey, I should be somewhat fair, right? Let's look at what qualifies Rush for all this air time he's getting. Instead of Orton's question of "Whose Limbaugh," I need to answer the question "Who's Limbaugh?"

So, first a few facts about Rush's background. Born in 1951, he hails from Cape Girardeau, Missouri. His father was a lawyer and a fighter pilot who lived to the age of 104. Rush started in radio as a teenager in 1967, using the "air name" Rusty Sharpe. He graduated from high school in 1969 and attended Southeast Missouri State, but dropped out. His mother said, "He flunked everything. He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio." Hmm, some things never change. But, at least he's committed to a noble task.

These were the Vietnam years. Nobility and bravery would mean everything to our boy, Rush, right? Well, he ended up with a draft number of 175, so he was safe -- since no one over #125 was drafted. Nonetheless, our courageous talker would enlist, right? Too bad, he ended up 4-F, due to either a football injury or Pilonidal disease.

Huh?? In real terms, he either twisted his knee or had cysts on his butt.

I need go on and try to answer this simple question "Who's Limbaugh?" Instead, of reading the rest of his biography, I'd like to cut things short.

There's a question that's used on the street, when a kid's in the wrong neighborhood or when his head's getting a bit too big.

First, the kid's shoved in the chest and is simultaneously asked the confrontational questions: "Who are you?! Huh? Who do you think you are?!"

So, Limbaugh, "Who are you?! Who do you think you are?!"

What's the big deal??! You want Barack Obama and America to fail - so do Russia, Iran and N. Korea. You're keeping real good company, Rushie.

All the Dems are atwitter over your mouth, Rush. Isn't that great? You think you're now the leader of the Republicans? Go ahead, Punk! You're gettin' alotta air time on the cable channels. Real slick!

You got Republicans tripping over each other to apologize to you. Yeah, after Phil and Michael, who's next?

Hey, you're all tough over on your street, but here? Fuggeddit. You're a joke, man. There's even a site where your wingnut buddies, can go to make up apologies ahead of time for you. Easy, just like madlibs, fill in the blank. Real easy, Rushie, for guys like you.

Hey, Rush, David Brooks called Sarah Palin a "cancer on the Republican party." What's that make you, huh? Well, if Sarah's a cancer, Rushie, you're carryin' the friggin' casket, buddy! It's over...lights out.

What's your game, you loud mouth?! Whoo, you challenged the President to a debate - in your house. Wow, that takes courage. Real tough. Riiight.

There's only one word that describes you, Rush: Coward. You're a freakin' shame, man.

Yeah, you and your buddy, Billy O'Reilly, you're both the same. He screams and threatens, just like all you bigmouth wingnuts.

So, "Who's Limbaugh?" Huh??

Rush, you can rant all you want, but I'm a boy from Philly, and there's only one thing I have to say to you when you show up on my block:

"Get outta here. You ain't nobody, Punk."

Anti-Semitism and Racism from the Disingenuous Powerful

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:54:00 +0000

We need to be careful and very, very vigilant in these times. We are in the depths of an economic crisis, the likes of which we haven't seen in 80 years. We also have an African-American president, the first ever in the history of our country.

Any time you mix hard times with race or ethnicity, what you end up with is the potential for scapegoating. Somehow, in order to empower themselves, people blame, mock and attack others, simply because of the group they belong to.

Ironically, it has not been society's dis-empowered who have made the news recently. Instead, public individuals who hold considerable power have done or said things that have come into the racist/anti-Semitic spotlight. These acts have occurred all too regularly to be isolated incidents and must be considered scapegoating.

Typically, scapegoating comes from a sense of anger and frustration. Targeting scapegoats, using racist or anti-Semitic language or acts to take revenge upon the targeted group, ebbs and flows at the popular level. We have been in an era where educated and powerful in our society have increasingly repudiated such expression. However, if we are not careful and vigilant, we are seeing an increased amount of pointing at scapegoats, in a way that is often disguised through the strategy of "Innocent Ignorance" by those same educated and powerful individuals in our society.

For two months, Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson has been in the news after Pope Benedict XVI lifted Williamson's excommunication. Williamson, it is crucial to note, is a holocaust denier. Somehow the Pope was simply hoping the world wouldn't notice. Jewish and other human rights organizations expressed their outrage at such a papal move. Then, suddenly, the Pope began to put pressure on the Bishop to recant his "research."

It took until today for the Bishop to make a formal apology. It is wonderful that Williamson finally apologized after many years of denying the holocaust. But, why did it take so long? And, why didn't the Pope vet Williamson before lifting the excommunication? Because the Jews are scapegoats. As Abe Foxman, Director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated, "One of the constant classics of anti-Semitism is Jews and money. When an economic crisis comes, you look for whom to blame." [Italics mine]

Two easily-targeted groups in America are Jews and African-Americans. If you followed the link for the Foxman ADL quote, you might say, "Well, that took place in Venezuela." Indeed, in her article, Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Trudy Rubin did focus initially on the attack on a synagogue in Caracas. It was trashed, defaced, and computers were stolen, with lists of Jewish members on the hard drives. Anti-Semite Hugo Chavez, of course, blamed it all on Israeli intelligence. By the end of her piece, Rubin warns her readers of the potential for broadening scapegoating.

Was that an over-reaction? No. Anti-Semitism in the United States is growing. An example occurred in the Klein, Texas High School newspaper, the Klein Bearchat. A person of power, a teacher, allowed an anti-semitic article and an editorial to be published on January 30th. How could this happen? There are only 10-15 Jews among the 3000 students in the school. The only answer can be scapegoating.

During an economic crisis, there is no need to be careful and to teach young people properly. It's easier to let things slide. No one will know, particularly since it's a minority of people who care. And the strategy of Innocent Ignorance can be used to explain away the whole incident.

Unfortunately, the pattern is growing for African Americans also being targeted. The infamous New York Post chimpanzee cartoon is the first example. Fortunately, the Post offered an apology. Unfortunately, it was couched in terms of Innocent Ignorance. The wording included, "It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. Period. But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote a blog piece today, "Not Yet Human," reminding us of the history of psychology in engraving racism into our social psyche. The Post and Sean Delonas, the cartoonist, pretended not to be aware of any of the stereotypically racist images from our past. How convenient, instead, to use Innocent Ignorance.

The mayor of Los Alamitos, California mayor, Dean Grose, sent out an email with a fake photo of the White House with watermelons on the front lawn. The caption read, "No Easter Egg hunt this year." Once the mayor was informed of the offensive, racist interpretation of the email, he suddenly apologized by saying, "“It was just poor judgment on my part and I am deeply sorry.” Ah, yes, Innocent Ignorance. Once again.

Unfortunately, racism does not always appear through such supposedly "vague" means. Diversity, Inc. documents public displays of nooses on its Noose Watch map. In the last two years, seventy-eight reported incidents have occurred in the U.S. The vicious symbol of the noose is still too freely used.

Barack Obama was elected with sixty-seven million votes, 53 percent of the voters. Yet, each day in the news, Republicans - including powerful Alabama Senator Richard Shelby - drop hints that Obama should not be President because he is not an American citizen. In this manner, they plug into xenophobic and racist tendencies in our society. Always next day, the Republican official, of course, backs away and feigns innocence. "Oh, no, that's not what I meant to day." Voila, no harm, no foul. Innocent Ignorance employed.

But the seed has been planted. The scapegoat has been identified. In the Germany of the 1930's, the same seeds of distrust and hatred sown during difficult economic times led to Kristallnacht.

It could never happen here! Right? I wish I could remain totally optimistic and say, "No, of course not." Yet, I can't because I see the use of scapegoating gradually increasing.

I worry most about the children. Children easily learn to follow what they see and hear around them. What I've learned, however, is that adults tend to follow, as well. They see what is and is not acceptable. And those in power are the ones who lead in positive ways and negative, in how to be racist and how to appear not to be.

In these very difficult economic times, we must call out anti-Semitism and racism wherever we see them. We must not accept the Ignorant Innocence from anyone, especially the disingenuous powerful. And, if we don't stand against racism and the scapegoating growing around us, we deserve the "cowards" moniker Eric Holder gave us -- as well as the dire consequences that may follow.

Eric Holder and Our Racial Potential

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:23:00 +0000

Race in the United States is probably the most difficult topic to get our heads around as Americans. There is such a varied experience, plus such emotional history, that it is extremely difficult to develop a unified, national approach in handling the topic of race. Instead, we remain volcanic in our reactions to the role race has played and continues to play in our national history.

Indeed, in just the last few days three controversies about race took center stage. The New York Post published a cartoon mocking President Obama over his economic stimulus and comparing him to a chimpanzee. This morning U.S. Rep. James Clyburn (D, SC) stated that the refusal of federal stimulus funds by a group of southern governors is "a slap in the face" of African Americans in those states. Sandwiched in between Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, gave a speech in which he referred to Americans as a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing the topic of race.

As evidenced by the heated exchanges on news programs and angry retorts on editorial pages and in the blogs, none of these three cases has been easy for America to deal with. We have seen ugly, racist stereotypes (the cartoon) and systemic injustices (the refusal to spend stimulus funds in states where African Americans are disproportionately impoverished) resurface, and personal hurt and anger have followed. Once again , white and black fingers have pointed back and forth.

It is clear that the cartoon was racist - and to a certain extent the Post apologized - but only to those who were offended and not intent on taking revenge against them. Sure, there are some folks who would say that the cartoon was not meant to be racist, but the Post's "apology" is nothing but a smoke screen for continued racism.

Clyburn's concern, however, hits closer one of the central issues Holder was getting at, that of the history of race in America. The governors who so far are refusing the stimulus funds have stepped into a racial quagmire by forcing their political ideology upon the systemic historic racism endemic to the south.

Can we discuss the racial issues that persist within the fabric of our American society? Do we avoid these discussions? Do we react defensively?

Oh, how we personalize critique. I am a white man and have had to look inside of myself in looking at the question of power within our society. I have had to work hard to understand that who I am allows me to hold advantage for who I am - white, male, straight, middle-aged, etc.

Too often, white middle-aged men, especially on the news, are asked to respond to questions of race. All to often, they personalize the concern. We white men often take controversial statements personally. The gamut of negative responses to Holder's speech is here, here, and here. What we need to do is take a step back and attempt to develop a broader, deeper understanding of race and power in America.

So, are we a "nation of cowards"? I'd like to look at that for a moment. In order to do so, I would like look beyond that phrase and get a fuller understanding of Holder's speech.

Holder's speech focuses us on the entire discussion around race, as well as offers potential solutions to our racial conundrum. Yes, he referred to us as a "nation of cowards." But, let's look at why he says that. I find three primary terms - education,dialogue, and segregation - as potential elements within a solution to the problem of our ignorance surrounding race, as well as to the question of "cowardice."

Education is the grounding factor of Holder's speech. He is saying that we must no longer leave African American history on the sidelines. It is only through the study and understanding of the history of race in America that everyone, of any ethnic background, can gain a full understanding of who we are as Americans.

It takes courage to make the curricular changes necessary for this to occur because it requires more than just changing textbooks. It means changing the mind set of educational communities, administration, teachers, parents and students. Everyone would need to be brought into the process of making changes. Ultimately, part of the most difficult changes would come during teacher training, sessions that would guide teachers in how to talk about race openly and sensitively, as well how to guide their students in a similar process.

Historically, we have avoided this process. Why? Is there a true philosophical approach here? No, it's because of ignorance and cowardice. Pure and simple, it's hard. Holder is saying: "No cowards need apply." It would be difficult, but it could certainly be done with determination and courage.

Such a process could open up dialogue across communities, both geographically and racially. As this courageous conversation develops and especially as children become increasingly open to such dialogue, it becomes more natural and normal to talk about race. Once people from different races start to test their new skills out with one another, they will begin to see that instead of fearing or demeaning such conversation, they will understand that it can be transformational, on both a personal and group level.

Ultimately, this addresses the problem of self-segregation. Once people become more comfortable with one another, they will find ways to socialize and perhaps live near one another. Again, this requires courage, not cowardice. It would involved risk taking and a changed view of what the future entails for oneself and for ones family.

So, in the end, what do Holder's words mean? Let's look beyond the words "nation of cowards" to find that he is ultimately evoking a need for a new courage in our country. And once that courage, the rejection of cowardice, takes hold, our society has a chance of changing, moving into a new era of race in America.

What term would I have used - coward or courage? Unfortunately, it depends on my level of motivation. I would have probably avoided "coward" and used "courage." But I completely understand Eric Holder's use of the word "coward." He wanted to be provocative; I am less so, and can afford to be. He wanted to push the dialogue towards seeking a new modus operandi in our schools, homes and society.

And if we are unwilling to take risks, go beyond fear and emotions, and open ourselves to new personal and societal possibilities, we will, indeed, end up being - as we have been for far too long - a nation of cowards.

Eric Holder Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:53:00 +0000

Since my last posting, I've noticed a lot of commotion on the news about United States Attorney General Eric Holder's speech last night. Everyone is focusing on Holder's use of the words "nation of cowards" in describing who we are as a nation when it comes to race. Ideally, if I am able, tomorrow I would like to discuss Holder's words. In order to do so with integrity, I'd like to look at the entirety of his speech. Therefore, in preparation for my discussion and for future reference, I reprint his words here. Whether you follow future posts or not, I invite you to read Holder's entire speech.

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time and deal with the other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.

We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. And though the world in which we now live is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race. And so I would suggest that we use February of every year to not only commemorate black history but also to foster a period of dialogue among the races. This is admittedly an artificial device to generate discussion that should come more naturally, but our history is such that we must find ways to force ourselves to confront that which we have become expert at avoiding.

As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace. We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by "American instinct" and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.

As a nation we should use Black History month as a means to deal with this continuing problem. By creating what will admittedly be, at first, artificial opportunities to engage one another we can hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized. To respect one another we must have a basic understanding of one another. And so we should use events such as this to not only learn more about the facts of black history but also to learn more about each other. This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful but the rewards are potentially great. The alternative is to allow to continue the polite, restrained mixing that now passes as meaningful interaction but that accomplishes little. Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear. The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly diverse, would be greatly enhanced. I fear however, that we are taking steps that, rather than advancing us as a nation are actually dividing us even further. We still speak too much of "them" and not "us". There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted- and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years- the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization. We cannot allow this to happen and one way to prevent such an unwelcome outcome is to engage one another more routinely- and to do so now.

As I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.

It is also clear that if we are to better understand one another the study of black history is essential because the history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other. It is for this reason that the study of black history is important to everyone- black or white. For example, the history of the United States in the nineteenth century revolves around a resolution of the question of how America was going to deal with its black inhabitants. The great debates of that era and the war that was ultimately fought are all centered around the issue of, initially, slavery and then the reconstruction of the vanquished region. A dominant domestic issue throughout the twentieth century was, again, America's treatment of its black citizens. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's changed America in truly fundamental ways. Americans of all colors were forced to examine basic beliefs and long held views. Even so, most people, who are not conversant with history, still do not really comprehend the way in which that movement transformed America. In racial terms the country that existed before the civil rights struggle is almost unrecognizable to us today. Separate public facilities, separate entrances, poll taxes, legal discrimination, forced labor, in essence an American apartheid, all were part of an America that the movement destroyed. To attend her state’s taxpayer supported college in 1963 my late sister in law had to be escorted to class by United States Marshals and past the state’s governor, George Wallace. That frightening reality seems almost unthinkable to us now. The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, better.

In addition, the other major social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century- feminism, the nation's treatment of other minority groups, even the anti-war effort- were all tied in some way to the spirit that was set free by the quest for African American equality. Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. Further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement.

And today the link between the black experience and this country is still evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, present and future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.

Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.

I, like many in my generation, have been fortunate in my life and have had a great number of wonderful opportunities. Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation. I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. Admittedly, the identities of some of these people, through the passage of time, have become lost to us- the men, and women, who labored long in fields, who were later legally and systemically discriminated against, who were lynched by the hundreds in the century just past and those others who have been too long denied the fruits of our great American culture. The names of too many of these people, these heroes and heroines, are lost to us. But the names of others of these people should strike a resonant chord in the historical ear of all in our nation: Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till. These are just some of the people who should be generally recognized and are just some of the people to whom all of us, black and white, owe such a debt of gratitude. It is on their broad shoulders that I stand as I hope that others will some day stand on my more narrow ones.

Black history is a subject worthy of study by all our nation's people. Blacks have played a unique, productive role in the development of America. Perhaps the greatest strength of the United States is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have knowledge of its constituent parts. But an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force. An appreciation of the unique black past, acquired through the study of black history, will help lead to understanding and true compassion in the present, where it is still so sorely needed, and to a future where all of our people are truly valued.

Thank you.

###

Original link

Master of Hardball or Simply Pay-to-Play?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:20:00 +0000

Dear Readers,

At this time, I am in the midst of recuperating from surgery. Until I'm feeling better, I won't be able to put time or energy into a new article. Nonetheless, with Roland Burris back in the news again, I'd like to share at previous post, in which I quoted Jerry McGuire, "Show me the money!"

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich has since been impeached and removed from office. He has not yet been found guilty in a court of law, though. Well, have they found "the money" on Burris now? Did Burris lie regarding contact with Blogojevich staff or family and was there a pay to play approach to getting his senate position? If he did make that contact and if he was named to the senate position through questionable means, will he be removed from office? Remember, it take a 2/3 vote to do so. We'll see in the days ahead what ultimately happens.

Maybe by then, I'll be back up and on my feet...

B & B: The Masters of Hardball

Jan. 12. 2009

Today Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader confirmed Roland Burris's designation to the U. S. Senate: "The Secretary of the Senate has determined that the new credentials presented today on behalf of Mr. Burris now satisfy Senate Rules and validate his appointment to the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In addition, as we requested, Mr. Burris has provided sworn testimony before the Illinois House Committee on Impeachment regarding the circumstances of his appointment.

"We have spoken to Mr. Burris to let him know that he is now the Senator-designate from Illinois and as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a Senator-elect. Accordingly, barring objections from Senate Republicans, we expect Senator-designee Burris to be sworn in and formally seated later this week. We are working with him and the office of the Vice President to determine the date and time of the swearing-in. We congratulate Senator-designee Burris on his appointment, and we look forward to working with him in the 111th Congress."

This is exactly what I anticipated a few days ago. In that recent post I said he would be seated in the Senate, in spite of what most pundits were saying. Of course, what tilted things in Burris's favor was the law, not public and political opinion.

Now it'll be interesting to see what happens to Governor Rod Blagojevich. The bad boy of Illinois will see his day in court. I'd love to see the evidence against him, but it seems to so far, that what he's guilty of is (1) a potty mouth, and (2) saying he was going to do some illegal things, including something fairly out of line - selling the seat of former senator Barack Obama.

To quote the movie Jerry McGuire, "Show me the money!!" If the feds don't have the goods, Bad Boy Blago will walk. He'll then continue as the governor of Illinois until his term is finished.

Remember, B & B took politicians and pundits alike "to school." They have, thus far, shown themselves to be the teachers - the masters of hardball politics. I particularly don't like or respect Blagojevich, but when all is said and done he beat everyone at their own game.

As for Burris, it's his job now to roll up his sleeves and work hard to get our new president's agenda through the Senate.

I must say that after all the rigamarole in recent days, I'm looking forward to it.

Joan Walsh: A Wake-up Call for Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:21:00 +0000

In yesterday's post, Republicans Are the Rival Team, I outlined steps we need to take to make sure Republicans don't swindle themselves back into a position of power. Today, I am pleased to share with you a piece that comes from Joan Walsh, Editor in Chief of Salo n.com. Joan is both a wise and passionate journalist and an unabashed liberal, a champion for all Americans, especially the poor and dispossessed. We should certainly heed her voice in the months and years ahead.

Joan's article was published two days ago, on February 13th, before the Senate passed the stimulus bill. It complements my urging Progressives to remain loyal to Obama by urging the President to remain loyal to his progressive base. In other words, the question of loyalty is a two-way street, especially in a time when true bipartisanship has become so problematic.

Joan was very gracious in giving me permission to reprint her article in its entirety. Thank you, Joan, for allowing me to do so.

And you, Dear Reader, enjoy!

Mike

A Wak e-up call for Obama

By Joan Walsh

Friday February 13, 2009 17:15 EST

It shouldn't have been a shock that the stimulus bill got zero Republican votes in the House, but I was a little surprised anyway. There had been talk about somewhere between six and 12 GOP members in Obama-supporting districts bucking their party, and Salon's Mike Madden reports that even the House leadership didn't expect to hold its caucus without any dissent.

Of course the bill passed the Democrat-controlled House overwhelmingly anyway, but I imagine House Minority Leader John Boehner will have a giddier Friday night than speaker Nancy Pelosi. Party on, John!

The bill is still expected to pass the Senate tonight, but with ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy unable to return for a second vote, it may only get 60 votes -- and that's if Sen. Sherrod Brown makes it back early from attending his mother's funeral. As Atrios noted today, "You'd think in that backslapping love nest known as the US Senate, a Republican or two might tell Sherrod Brown that he doesn't have to rush back from his mother's funeral." But no. It's still possible, though unlikely, that one of three GOP Senate apostates who've supported the stimulus compromise could get cold feet. Obama will probably get the bill to his desk, but what will he have learned?

He better have learned that Washington bipartisanship is dead. If he hadn't already, he surely got the lesson last night, when GOP Sen. Judd Gregg publicly humiliated the president by withdrawing his bid to be Commerce secretary. Gregg, who'd voted to abolish his own agency but then lobbied Obama to get the job, had no business in this administration to begin with. But his disrespect for Obama, on a day that might have been hailed as a great victory with a House-Senate deal on the stimulus, was still shocking.

Nothing about Obama's policies changed between the time Gregg said yes and then suddenly said no. He recently backed a stimulus bill along the lines of the House-Senate compromise: "We need a robust one," Judd said after he was chosen last week. "I think the one that's pending is in the range we need. I do believe it's a good idea to do it at two levels, which this bill basically does, which is immediate stimulus and long-term initiatives which actually improve our competitiveness and our productivity." Then he rewarded Obama for reaching across the aisle with a political slap in the face. Classy.

Obama took political and economic risks trying to get Republican votes for his stimulus plan. His willingness to compromise by cutting spending and including massive tax cuts, most notably by reforming the alternative minimum tax, means the bill will be less stimulative than it should be. And even with those compromises, he still got almost zero GOP support. As he himself said in Fort Myers, Fla., this week, "You didn't send me to Washington to do nothing!" But if he continues to let Republicans shape his initiatives, and then obstruct even his attempts at compromise, that's exactly what he'll accomplish: nothing.

The compromise stimulus is probably better than nothing, with its expansion of food stamps and unemployment benefits, its tax rebates for low-income workers, aid to states and cities and billions for infrastructure projects. But it won't be as effective as a bigger spending bill would have been, and let's hope Obama doesn't come to regret how much he gave Republicans to get so little.

I still think it's possible Obama will earn some political capital among Republicans and independents outside of Washington with his efforts to reach across the aisle (yes, I also love puppies and kittens and romantic movies with happy endings). I enjoyed the symbolism of his hosting rollicking town halls in Elkhart, Ind. and Fort Myers., even though they didn't vote for him in November. That was actually the essence of his bipartisan approach during the campaign. A year ago, in Manchester, N.H., I noted the way he distinguished between Republican ideologues and Republican voters in his standard stump speech:

Acknowledging that "Republican operatives" will work to defeat his plans, he explained, "I'm more interested in Republicans and independents outside of Washington. We can reach out and create a working majority," and he added: "I'm in this race to win an election, but also to govern."

Well, he won the election with a few Republican votes (9 percent of GOP voters backed him, to John Kerry's 6 percent in 2004), but Washington Republicans are clearly going to make it hard for him to govern. GOP leaders are playing a game of chicken with Obama, and with the economy, by bucking a desperately needed stimulus package backed by a popular, newly elected president at a time of national emergency. They believe opposing Obama and his plans is the route back to power. I'm willing to grant that some Republican Congress members genuinely believe the stimulus is too expensive, but a lot of them voted against this bill because they put party loyalty ahead of the country. Let's hope more Republican voters reward Obama's faith in them by punishing GOP obstructionists in 2010.

In the meantime, let's hope Obama rewards Democrats' faith in him by being tougher on the GOP, by fighting harder for the policies and programs he believes will make a difference, not compromising their effectiveness for the sake of a handful of votes. Obama's party has only controlled the White House for 12 out of the last 40 years because Democrats routinely fail to deliver on their promises to voters (and also, paradoxically, because Lyndon Johnson did deliver on his civil rights promises, and left the door open to a racially divisive "Southern Strategy" that finally failed to work in 2008). He's a quick study; I assume he'll see what's gone on and change course. But if he doesn't, liberals need to remind him who elected him, and why. Judd Gregg sure as hell wasn't change we can believe in.

Republicans Are The Rival Team

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:44:00 +0000

The past couple days have been filled with disappointments, celebrations and good news. Good news first: Hallelujah! the stimulus bill was passed last night. In watching the process of this bill coming to fruition, it became very clear that, although it is possible to build a Team of Rivals, we must keep a very careful eye on the Rival Team.

Yesterday afternoon, the House passed the bill with, again, nary a Republican supporter. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy was too ill to travel back from Florida, so Sherrod Brown of Ohio had to return late from his mother's funeral to cast the 60th Aye vote. Three Republicans - Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania - crossed over and provided the necessary bipartisan support to move the bill onto Obama's desk for signing.

In the past few days, we've also had a chance to celebrate the 200th birthday of two champions from the past: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. "On the Origin of Species," Darwin's scientific masterpiece, gave the world the paradigm of 'natural selection,' - or 'evolution' - which has since caused an incredible clamor in many corners of society. Indeed, Gallup recently found that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution.

Nonetheless, Darwin's thought and work not only gave us a model for understanding where we came from, but they also provided modern scientists the conceptual framework to create new vaccines and other medicines that prevent so many of us from suffering.

We celebrated Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday not because of an invention or discovery but because of who he was. As our 16th president, he is remembered for being the Great Emancipator, as well as for refusing to accept the destruction of our country. He saved the union and, yet, after the Civil War refused to punish those fought for the South.

Lincoln was also a unifier by bringing together a Team of Rivals, a cabinet of diverse opponents, who ultimately served him well. Through much turmoil, Lincoln gave of himself in the service of his country and, in many ways, we enjoy our existence to his presidency and who he was an individual.

President Obama has, indeed, modeled his presidency after Lincoln, bringing in a wide range of individuals to serve in his cabinet. He has also reached out, attempting to build a bipartisan collection of Congressional supporters.

Unfortunately, Obama's extended hand - offered to build mutual effort - has been bloodied by Republicans in the process. The surprise of Republican Judd Gregg removing his name from the nomination for Secretary of Commerce and with the unbending GOP front have put Obama's bipartisan efforts into question.

Obama has to think less in terms of Lincoln's notion of a Team of Rivals and more in terms of Rival Teams. What the President urgently needs now, once his cabinet is completed, is a foundation of loyalty that will support him in the difficult days ahead. He needs a body of individuals that will keep an eye on him, challenge him when necessary and yet protect him from destructive forces around him.

Like the Secret Service watches for his physical safety, Obama's White House team must watch his political back. America is now heading into dangerous times in so many ways: economically, militarily, socially, and politically. Although the Republicans talk about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion, all they have done up to now is chop the President off at the knees. As Rush Limbaugh has suggested, Republicans ultimately want to see Obama and his presidency fail.

So, Obama had better watch himself and lose his naivete. The Republicans are desperate, they're losing their influence all over the country and are on the verge of extinction. Although the vast majority of them do not believe in Darwin's principles of evolution, they know in their gut that they are a part of the evolutionary process as a political party. And it don't look pretty for them because they are quickly moving towards the disappearance of their gene pool. Therefore, they are behaving like a cornered animal and are willing to die in the process of fighting not just for their outdated principles, but for their simple survival.

President Obama must pull back his proffered hand for a period, slow down, and not attempt to bring the Republicans over for awhile. Yes, this smacks of partisanship. But, he found out what happens when he reaches out to a cornered dog.

I am glad that Obama survived the bite he received during the stimulus process. Yet, he needs to learn from that and wait for Republicans to reach out to him. He needs to realize that the Republicans are NOT ON HIS TEAM and will attack him, slap him, hit and kick him without cause.

In the spirit of of confronting the Republicans, I consider myself to be a member of Obama's Team of Rivals. I, and other Democrats, have worked too hard and too long not to meet our goals. I believe we mustn't lower ourselves to their level for we are one nation, and the Republicans are not our enemies. But, make no mistake, they do mean us harm!

With that in mind, here is a list of principles for the Obama Team of Rivals:

We will respect our opponents, but we'll not be lured by them.
We will stand firm in our principles.
We will consider compromise only after they reach out to us.
We will respond directly and forcefully to any challenge presented us.
We will stay focused on the needs of the American people.
We will always move forward, intent on bringing about change.
We will learn from our mistakes but not reverse course.
We will rejoice in our victories yet remain cautious when faced with new adversity.
We will challenge one another, yet remain loyal to one another.
We will watch each other's back.

Remember, there are many Judd Greggs out there. As we've seen in Congress and across the country, there are very, very few Republican opponents capable of working for the change needed in our society. We must always be on our guard because, although Republicans may feign joining hands, they will ultimately bite ours. They may wish to be a member of the Team of Rivals, but they are not able to because, as has become apparent over the past, they are actually the Rival Team.