I think there’s got to be a little bit of dignity to the presidency. [...] I think there are some shows. I wouldn’t put him on “Jerry Springer,” too, right? … I think the president of the United States has to go on serious shows. And “The View” is, you can make a case that it’s a serious show, but it also rocks and rolls a little bit. I’m not sure he has to go on “The View” to be open to questions.

Right-wing Extremists have picked this up and run with it of course. But, they and Rendell miss the Big Picture. They don’t get it.

Back in 1993, President Clinton was heavily criticized for deciding to appear on MTV. It too was seen as “unpresidential”. But, at the time, and in retrospect, it was a brilliant stroke of media genius. And, through an entirely unscripted moment of unexpected “intimacy”, a new media world was born. Love it, hate it, it’s here. And, it’s important to remember, Obama is working in that world. The Museum of Television has this to say about that past media moment for Clinton, snd how it changed politics and the Presidency:

April 20, 1993 — Bill Clinton’s MTV Appearance

Not a historic date, perhaps, but a suggestive one. It was on this date that Bill Clinton discussed his underwear with the American people (briefs, not boxers, as it turned out). Why would the leader of the free world unburden himself like this? Why not? In television’s increasingly postmodern world, all texts–serious and sophomoric–swirl together in the same discontinuous field of experience. To be sure, Mr. Clinton made his disclosure because he had been asked to do so by a member of the MTV generation, not because he felt a sudden need to purge himself. But in doing so Clinton exposed several rules connected to the new phenomenology of politics: (1) because of television’s celebrity system, presidents are losing their distinctiveness as social actors and hence are often judged by standards formerly used to assess rock singers and movie stars; (2) because of television’s sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their presidents as persons and hence no longer feel the need for party guidance; (3) because of the medium’s archly cynical worldview, those who watch politics on television are increasingly turning away from the policy sphere, years of hyper-familiarity having finally bred contempt for politics itself. For good and ill, then, presidential television grew apace between 1952 and the present. It began as a little-used, somewhat feared, medium of exchange and transformed itself into a central aspect of American political culture. In doing so, television changed almost everything about life in the White House. It changed what presidents do and how they do it. (Emphasis added)

Rendell doesn’t get it. The View is the perfect venue for Obama to communicate and reach out to the audience.

The idea that a show isn’t “presidential” enough is a matter of how the president behaves on that show. And, while I’m not a fan of The View, it’s clearly not Jerry Springer. It’s a show for moms, young women and older women. And, it’s a casual venue. As the Clinton example shows, even something potentially unpresidential can become a historical moment of presidential restraint, humor and connectedness to the people. And, a casual venue is the way to go to bring Obama to the people, give him more humanity and appeal, which media exposure tends to eat away.

I’d expect that is what many Conservatives fear.

…radical sociologist David Harvey asks if it is time to look beyond capitalism, towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that could be responsible, just and humane.

Very much worth watching. My comments are below the video.

The trigger to the financial mess is greed. The idea that the system is open-ended, that the sky is the limit, is simply irresponsible. All systems have limits. We’ve reached the limit of capitalsim. And, to be sure, many will simply dismiss this argument as “socialism”. But, as Harvey’s argument posits, there are important points to be gleaned from a socialist approach. You can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue. This doesn’t mean that people don’t have the right to pursue financial success. What it does mean is that the way that success should be measured needs to change. Warren Buffett has the right idea. There’s a responsibility that comes with financial success. It’s good economics. And, Buffett understands that. The problem is, it’s become a political football.

The tragedy for the USA is that the political atmosphere is super-charged with partisan political nonsense. True discussion is almost impossible. At the moment, Conservatives have shown themselves  to be more interested in refuting their core beliefs, at the expense of the stability of the country, for political power. Liberals are lost in an over reactive loop of fixing failed Conservative policies with overreaching programs that miss the big picture. The result is inconsistent economics. Add to this the polarized atmosphere of the poltics of fear that dominate, and it’s a mess.

Engaging in a coherent debate under these circumstances is impossible, let alone implementing a cogent economic plan.

I fear that something truly horrendous will have to occur for people to break free of their ideological constraints and deal with the issues at hand properly with intellect and maturity.

We shall see.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, there was a lot of melodramatic consternation on the left about Bush’s playing golf during a time of war and / or national criss. A lot of it was no doubt due to this unfortunate moment. There were even unfounded rumors of his playing golf during the Katrina disaster, as if taking personal time to golf during crisis were proof of incompetence. It was all rather silly for a number of reasons, the foremost being that living a life of constant crisis management like the presidency requires does not also require that life simply stop. Life goes on, even during wartime. Down time is important.

Ike golfs in England prior to D-Day

During World War II, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was a well known golf enthusiast, and took as much time as he could during the war to indulge his passion for the game.

From the section “Ike and Golf” at the Eisenhower Commission website:

His problem was, of course, how to fit golf into a very busy schedule. When he went to London in May of 1942 he picked living quarters some distance from the city so he could find some peace and quiet.  The house he rented near Kingston was named Telegraph Cottage and the backyard fence luckily opened on the 13th hole at Coombe Hill Golf Club.  During his stay in England Ike never played a full round at Coombe Hill, but he often played three or four holes before going to work in the morning. After the Allied invasion of Normandy, Ike placed his offices in a school house at Reims in the Champagne region of France – but he chose the Guex Golf Course clubhouse as his living quarters.  Once again he had little time for golf, but he practiced through a few holes when he could.

Thus, it stands to reason that if it was okay for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force – the man who planned D-Day – to golf during arguably the greatest crisis in modern history, then it’s probably okay for a president to golf during the “War on Terror” or to golf during the Gulf Spill Crisis and other presidential moments of crisis. Ike continued his love of playing golf during his presidency.

Mayor Vaughn: [to reporter] I’m pleased and happy to repeat the news that we have, in fact, caught and killed a large predator that supposedly injured some bathers. But, as you see, it’s a beautiful day, the beaches are open and people are having a wonderful time. Amity, as you know, means “friendship”. – From the movie “Jaws“.

and…

But we haven’t had, really, any impact. I mean, we haven’t had enough oil hit Mississippi’s beaches to fill up a milk jug. Now, we’re prepared and we’re prepared for the worst. But thus far, we haven’t had any kind of incursion, except the news coverage is killing our tourist business. – Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

More on Barbour’s links to big oil over at Think Progress.

A seven-month old baby girl survived a shot to the chest after her parents shot themselves and their two-year-old in a global warming murder-suicide pact. [...] Someone should sue Al Gore. He played on their fears and now a whole family is dead.

We’ll let it slide that if the seven-month old baby survived it would technically mean that the “whole family” was not actually dead, since it’s obvious that Jim is blinded by his grief. So, just as I was considering the warped logic of suing Al Gore for the motive and actions of two obviously mentally deranged persons, when the following came over the AP:

The leader of a household described as a religious cult was convicted of second-degree murder Tuesday along with two of her followers for starving a 1-year-old boy to death because he did not say “Amen” during a mealtime prayer.

The logic of Hoft’s thinking is laid out in all it’s bare nekkid silliness. Given that Jim believes Al Gore should be sued because he “played on their fears and now a whole family is dead” because of global warming, doesn’t it make sense that someone should be sued for the death of the little boy because he wouldn’t say “Amen”? Who inspired this cult to murder? Let’s start with Jesus Christ and end with every Christian church on the planet.

You can see where this is going.

It’s ridiculous of course, but Hoft has never been known for his intellect or integrity nor his consistency. He’s a propagandist, and a good one.
So, anything to taint Al Gore in the eyes of the true believers, even the patently ridiculous, is fair game.

His name was Al Weisel and he passed away the other day at the age of 46. Skippy has a nice write up that sums it all up amd has a list of memorials to Al.

Al became tired of blogging and his output became less and less. Two years ago he stopped suddenly and I wrote and asked if he was okay, a few of us were wondering, and he wrote back saying that he just got caught up in life and that he would be blogging again soon. And, he did for about a year, then he stopped again early in 2009. His interest waning yet again. I missed him the past year. His views were sorely missed. And, I figured that like many of us, the blog was simply becoming a burden and I simply hoped that one day he’d start again and we’d all be laughing out loud once again. Then came the sad news in an email from Brendan Keefe that Jon Swift /Al was gone.

Sometimes there are no words. Except thanks Al. You were a prince. It was a pleasure fighting the good fight with you, and sharing a laugh across the internet.

Now go read some of the best satire anywhere. You will laugh out loud. Trust me.

• Cheney: Waterboarding should have been an option for underbomber – “I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques,” he said. Of course, for years the CIA has maintained that torture does not produce actionable intel. And, of course, the public practice of torture (they went public with this remember) is more PR than anything. I am of the opinion that Cheney understands that torture does not create actionable intel. But, the propaganda value is simply too great in his view. This is the discussion we should be having…
• Cheney Struggles To Explain Terror Contradictions – Dick Cheney has never been one for consistency of message, nor of adhering to the established facts. It’s unfortunate that he now feels comfortable undermining a sitting president (no matter his political affiliation) in order to secure his own personal legacy and save his ass.
• Biden: Cheney ‘not entitled to re-write history’ – See above.
• A Terrorist Tried In Federal Court: The Case Of Aafia Siddiqui – When we examine the facts, it becomes clear that the GOP is using terrorism as political fodder. So, facts such as this get brushed under the carpet. It’s bad for the coutnry and it’s bad politics. But, they are a party in decline after all…I am for trying terrorists in civilian courts. So is the Pentagon.
• Critical Mass: Dem Agenda Opens Right-Wing Doors – Mandatory reading…

…the purpose of the [Olympics] attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government.

President George W. Bush in January 2008 on bringing the 2016 Olympics to Chicago:

They say that the Olympics will come to Chicago if we’re fortunate enough to be selected, but really it’s coming to America, and I can’t think of a better city to represent the United States than Chicago… This country supports your bid, strongly.

Conservative blogger Erik Erickson on the failed bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago which President Obama (like Bush) supported and lobbied heavily for: (via Washington Monthly)

Hahahahaha. I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone. I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen. Apparently not.

So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him. So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.

Karl Rove today via Twitter:

Instead of serving as pitchman for Chicago, Obama should focus on crafting a winning strategy in Afghanistan.

(One can safely assume that Rove is referring to creating a winning strategy in Afghanistan to replace the losing one he and the Bush Admin created.)

And, last but not least… upon news that the 2016 Olympics was not coming to Chicago, they cheered in the offices of the Weekly Standard and then felt the need to delete that fact from the official record.

Conservative Charles Johnson – who has of late seen that extremist lunatics run the conservative movement – has this to say:

This is where the rhetoric of “FAIL” leads — they’re openly celebrating when America loses, just because Barack Obama is President. And even though this Olympic bid was also promoted by George W. Bush.

This completely puts the lie to the excuse that those who say they want Obama to fail really mean they want his policies to fail.

No, they want Obama himself to fail, and if that means America fails too, they’re just fine with that.

In other words, conservatives, like Eric Rudolph, want to “confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government.”

Interesting….

The mother of a Kentucky high school football player is furious over the Christian baptism of her son during what he said was supposed to be a school outing to eat a steak dinner and see a “motivational speaker.”

Instead, Breckinridge County High School football coach Scott Mooney took 20 of his players on a trip to a Baptist revival, where eight or nine of the students underwent the Christian ritual of baptism, according to published reports.

Michelle Ammons, mother of 16-year-old Robert Coffee, said she’s upset that nobody ever asked her consent to take her son to the August 26 religious ceremony. She added that she’s even more upset with the school district superintendent Janet Meeks, who was at the revival and did not object to the coach including his students.

“Nobody should push their faith on anybody else,” Ammons told the Louisville Courier-Journal.

The Simpson’s:

From the New York Times:

It was a rare breach of the protocol that governs ritualistic events in the Capitol.

In an angry and very audible outburst, Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, interrupted President Obama’s speech Wednesday night with a shout of “You lie!”

His eruption — in response to Mr. Obama’s statement that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants — stunned members of both parties in the House chamber.

Democrats said it showed lack of respect for the office of the presidency and was reminiscent of Republican disruptions at recent public forums on health care.

Right wing bloggers are trying to make the case that since Democrats booed loudly and shouted “No! No!” during George W. Bush’s 2005 SOTU speech, it’s okay for Rep. Joe Wilson to shout “You lie!” at Obama during his speech.

Now, it’s a real shame this has to even be clarified: there’s a huge difference between booing or yelling “No! No!” during a speech and shouting “You lie!”

Yelling “No! No!” or booing during a speech is merely an expression of disagreement with the speech itself. It’s a time honored form of disagreement in such circumstance, even within the walls of the capitol. It may be a breech of protocol, but one that is practiced nonetheless, from time to time.

But, shouting “You lie!” is more than an expression of disagreement with the speech by the president.

Shouting “You lie!” is an accusation. And, it was directed squarely at the president.

It’s a historically important moment that would have provoked riotous wailing from conservatives if done by a Democrat to a Republican president. Since when are accusations of lying okay?

The fact that conservatives simply do not get that is yet one more example of how deep down the rabbit hole they have crawled.

Rep. Wilson was right to apologize, even if he did so and then tried to immediately back pedal.

Anyway, it’s great for the cause.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly really sums this one up nicely:

There are a few important angles to this. The first is substantive. When Wilson accused the president of lying, Wilson was, in fact, lying. Even in Congress, facts should matter, and the right-wing Republican wasn’t just obnoxious with his idiotic interruption, he was also wrong.

The second is personal. Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress, said, “Whoever shouted out that the president was lying is a dumbass.” John McCain denounced Wilson’s outburst as “totally disrespectful.” While right-wing blogs were thrilled, Republican lawmakers have been entirely unwilling to defend Wilson’s behavior.

The third is contextual. President Obama couldn’t have been more magnanimous last night, highlighting a plan that “incorporates ideas from many people in this room tonight, Democrats and Republicans.” He made frequent references to Republican lawmakers and even George W. Bush. Obama even talked up medical malpractice reform. It was in this context that Wilson decided to lash out? As Gail Collins noted this morning, “Let me go out on a limb and say that it is not a good plan to heckle the president of the United States when he’s making a speech about replacing acrimony with civility.”

The fourth is practical. While Dems have been divided of late on policy specifics, they were unified last night — they loved Obama and they hated Joe Wilson. Indeed, I’ve seen reports that Wilson’s Democratic opponent next year, Rob Miller, suddenly saw a wave of new campaign contributions in the wake of Wilson’s conduct.

It’s striking that Wilson, unable to find any support from his allies, quickly apologized. He said his emotions got the best of him, and issued a statement that said, “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.” He spoke directly to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last night to express his regret.

But the damage has been done. Indeed, Wilson’s outburst is an almost perfect summation of 2009 — President Obama appears big, Republicans appear small. Democrat show class, Republicans act like children. One side is serious, one side is shrill. The White House says something true, Republicans lash out with falsehoods.

To be sure, Wilson is a buffoon, from whom very little is expected. He’s hosting Glenn Beck minions at his office this weekend, and is a reflexive, right-wing clown masquerading as a congressman. He embarrassed himself, his party, and his institution last night, but it’s unlikely Wilson actually cares whether he’s a disgrace or not. Bruce Bartlett noted this morning, “He’s become the new Sarah Palin of the Republican Party, where one’s popularity is in inverse proportion to one’s stupidity — the stupider a Republican is these days the more popular he or she becomes.”

What will be interesting to see if there are any real consequences. There’s been some talk of censure, or demanding that Wilson deliver a formal apology to the House itself.

Any return to civility is a good start. Whether we can carry such civility farther and get health care reform on track again, remains to be seen.

Ed Morrissey thinks he’s got it all figured out how the Obama education speech controversy went down. It makes for mediocre fiction. It needs a good scare in the third act. And some sex.

Ed tries to lay blame for the speech controversy on the Obama White House. He uses four different deceptions to pull it off. The first deception:

In fact, had the White House skipped the study guide and simply released the speech from the beginning, it seems unlikely that this would have created much controversy at all.

Essentially, Ed is saying: “if Obama had done what conservatives wanted in the first place – dump the liberal stuff we hate and release the speech in advance so we could vet it and criticize it at face value  – the controversy could have been avoided.” It’s bully logic, since we all know that liberal presidents base their agenda on what conservatives want and vet their upcoming speeches with right wing bloggers and right wing pundits all the time!

It’s all about the right wing asserting its role in the White House. They don’t care that a liberal is in the chair. They want the access and the control they had back, by hook or by crook. Rove and Co. listened to them. This White House does not. (Well, now they do.)

The second deception: (Emphasis added)

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush both gave similar speeches in similar circumstances to students without creating a lot of hard feelings. That isn’t to say that their political opponents all yawned…

Ed then cites several unhappy Democratic responses to Bush’s 1991 speech at Alice Deal Junior High School. Ed’s assumption is that “They did it, so we can do it too.”

The thing is, and this is important: the Democratic responses to Bush’s speech were made after the speech was delivered at the school, not before the speech was even released. Ed is making a really ham-handed attempt at defending the controversy over Obama’s unreleased speech by saying “Democrat’s trashed Bush’s speech too”. It’s apples and oranges. You can’t equate attacking a speech before it is released with attacking a speech after it is released. Not the same thing at all.

The third deception is a bit of historical revisionism:

I think the White House and Obama fouled this up from the beginning, making it look much more political than necessary, and gave their critics a boatload of ammunition with which to attack them. The speech, included in its entirety below, turned out to be entirely innocuous.

Which is amusing since everything Obama does is political to conservatives. Everything. They are so paranoid that not releasing the speech as they demanded meant it was sure to contain an opus indoctrination of our children.

The fourth deception shines a light into the deep rooted paranoia that pervades so much of conservative thought these days. Ed writes:

But by asking teachers to impress upon children the need to “help President Obama,” they made it look blatantly political. They seem to have forgotten that they’re the public servants, and that the people do not live to serve political masters.

Apparently, the difference between a president asking citizens to help and a president ordering citizens to help is simply too nuanced a concept to grasp.

Here’s George W. Bush in a speech and press conference on October 1, 2001:

We are asking every child in America to earn or give a dollar that will be used to provide food and medical help for the children of Afghanistan. [...]

This is an opportunity to help others while teaching our own children a valuable lesson about service and character. [...]

Ultimately, one of the best weapons, one of the truest weapons that we have against terrorism is to show the world the true strength of character and kindness of the American people.

Americans are united in this fight against terrorism. We’re also united in our concern for the innocent people of Afghanistan.

One could certainly categorize that as indoctrination of children into the “fight against terrorism”. Where were the conservatives screaming about indoctrination then?

Both Bush and Reagan used school children in a much more partisan manner than Obama’s speech even hints at. Where were conservatives then?

Asking school students to help is a long standing tradition. It instills a sense of public duty into their lives. In the least they get to do something different that day. And speeches to students are always more about the presidency than about the president. By the time the students he will be addressing are able to vote, Obama will be long gone from the White House, and that seems to be a hard truth that is lost on conservatives like Ed: President’s come and go. The presidency does not come and go.  And, one of the essential strengths of a democracy lay in the citizenry working with elected officials on everything from governmental oversight to contracts for construction of roads and bridges. Anyone who knows government and democracy understands that it’s mostly citizens, and very few elected officials.

The people are the government. And, sometimes, those in the public chairs ask the people for help. What’s the big deal? Conservatives make it sound like a bad thing. But, of course, they bend light and reality to make everything not of the conservative mind set a bad thing.

The power struggle between Obama and conservatives is about ideology, so they see every forward movement by Obama as a threat. As they’ve said many many times: they want Obama to fail. Damn the consequences. And, that’s the important point to be made here.

When Bush asked American citizens to help (on a number of occasions) by going shopping, conservatives did their patriotic duty by trumpeting this news over hill and dale and then sauntered down to the Mall and bought some stuff they probably didn’t really need. Conservatives certainly didn’t object and scream that Bush was overreaching in his authority as president by asking citizens to (gulp!) help with the economy. And, the argument could have been made (and probably was made) that going out and shopping -most likely with a credit card – was not what most Americans needed to be doing at the time.

The mere hint of a liberal president asking for anything is just too much for conservatives to handle. They’ve been fed a steady diet of “liberals are evil” for so long, they jump straight into paranoia and fear. And, there are plenty of propagandists out there to stoke the fire once it’s been ignited.

Word games and disinformation has replaced cogent discussion and the simple reading of a speech after it comes out. Why wait until you know what a speech says to attack it? It’s pre-empitve disinformation! And, once the deed is done, they don’t even have the balls to take credit for it, so they try to blame the other guy.

It just shows how ridiculous conservatives have become.

But, what is most alarming and rather new is the shrill fear based attacks on standard ceremonial presidential duties like giving a speech about staying in school to students.

The polarized atmosphere is so bad that arch conservative Newt Gingrich – who one might usually expect to be fully on board with an all out attack on Obama – felt compelled to state the blindingly obvious:

It is good to have the president of the United States saying to young people across America stay in school and do your homework. It’s good for America.

It’s staggering to think that we’ve come to a point where that actually has to be said out loud in an effort to refute ignorance and blatant disinformation. Gingrich is the consummate politician, so I expect he is playing both sides, or sees the deep hole that is being dug by a rudderless conservative movement and plans to be the rudder to bring it back from the abyss. But, I think it’s a rogue ship. No captain can steer her at this point. The base has gone off the rails.

Therein lay the disconnect: conservatives are engaging in lies like “word frequency” analysis of a speech,  choosing hypocrisy over higher values such as instilling a strong desire to be educated in our children – all in the name of their ideology – which by most modern metrics very likely caused the current economic debacle which is endangering national security.  And they pound away on a historically minor speech to school students like it was a matter of life and death.

The speech controversy comes down to this: why is it wrong for students to see and hear a great example of a successful American student – the president of the United States- talk about his experience and offer himself up as an example to be followed no matter what his political affiliation?

Conservative answer: “Obama is a Muslim extremist radical Black Christian, an illegal alien Manchurian Candidate,  a 1/2 black, 1/2 white racist who hates whites but wants to be white, a Marxist, a Communist, a Socialist, a Nazi, a  and the Antichrist all-in-one.”

That is where the conservative movement is at in the year 2009.  What can any rational and intelligent human being say in response to such an onslaught of completely asinine nonsense except that they are bat shit crazy.

By attacking Obama in a fear mongering, paranoid and blatantly deceptive manner, conservatives are hurting the presidency – and it could be argued – hurting the country in the long run, because their tactics are shutting down the debate and thus the information structure that makes government work. It’s also creating an atmosphere of hatred.

Perhaps that is the point.

Of course, it’s a disinformation exercise meant to push Ed’s own conservative agenda in regard to the speech – “it’s all about Obama (and that means Obama is not to be trusted)” -  as revealed by his choice of words to zoom in on and his “supporting” statements.  It is also worth noting that Ed offers nary a comment on the actual theme, subject or text of the speech beyond trying to ignite some type of fight between Obama and Atheists.

The tally of important words in Obama’s speech according to Ed: (Emphasis added)

56 iterations of “I”
19 iterations of “school”
10 iterations of “education”
8 iterations of “responsibility”
7 iterations of “country”
5 iterations each of “parents”, “teachers”
3 iterations of “nation”

In other words, Barack Obama referenced himself more than school, education, responsibility, country/nation, parents, and teachers combined. And to think that people accused Obama of self-promotion!

So, what happens if you put George H.W. Bush’s speech to the faculty and students at Alice Deal Junior High School on October 1, 1991 into the word frequency generator? The tally for the exact same words chosen by Ed:

32 iterations of “I”
24 iterations of “school”
8 iterations of “education”
0 iterations of “responsibility”
5 iterations of “country”
6 iterations of “parents”
7 iterations of “teachers”
1 iteration of “nation”

Bush also used “I” more than any of the other words chosen by Ed, just like Obama did. And, what can we infer about Bush’s complete lack of using “responsibility”? It’s silly.

It’s not about the word count frequency, it’s about what the words say as sentences and as a whole speech. And, if you read both speeches, neither is self promoting beyond making it clear “this is what I went through” or “I did this”  etc. Here’s a pertinent example from Obama’s speech. It’s immediately clear why conservatives such as Ed don’t want to talk about the content, but only about totally mindless diversions such as “word frequency”. This is powerful, personal and important stuff for kids to hear:

Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.

I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school.

That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

The use of first person is meant to be inspiring! That’s the importance of a president using first person in a speech such as this. “I” is an important literary device. And, juxtaposed with “you”, it has import, especially with children. And, there’s the rub:

What was the most used word in Obama’s speech? “You”.

Way out in the lead at 145 times. (Bush used it 85 times, second behind “the”.) Ed didn’t write about that did he? Just what can we infer about Bush using “the” more than any other word? It’s ridiculous. But, that’s Ed’s “logic”.

What Ed is avoiding is that presidential speeches to children are traditionally of the “Hi, I’m president and you can be too some day if you stay in school” variety. Thus, “I” is used. And, as a writer, if you are being personal, you have to use “I”. It doesn’t necessarily mean the speech is “all about Obama” as Ed is stating. Such speeches are often about the president and the presidency, and Obama is president. Ed takes the context completely out of the speech by breaking it down to frequency of each word and it only serves to alter the real meaning of the speech, obscuring Obama’s message thereby obstructing any forward movement.

We are going to be hearing a lot of the word “obstructionist” in the days and years ahead.

People bound by fear will stand frozen on the tracks as the train rushes upon them.

Could have been written today. Scary.

Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues

Well, I was feelin’ sad and feelin’ blue,
I didn’t know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin’ around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn’t gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin’ down the road.
Yee-hoo, I’m a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers’ views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don’t matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can’t say he was a Communist!
That’s to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin’ everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin’ ‘n’ looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn’t find ‘em . . .

I wus lookin’ high an’ low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin’ in the sink an’ underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin’ home alone an’ started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin’ right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol’ Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of ‘em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he’s a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there’s just one man
That’s really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin’ly started thinkin’ straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn’t imagine doin’ anything else,
So now I’m sittin’ home investigatin’ myself!
Hope I don’t find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

Part 2

Part 3

• Who is paying for the Iraqis to have universal single payer health care? You are.
• Glenn Beck Watch: ‘Is Obama The Anti-Christ?’ – An oldie but goodie. Glenn Beck wondering aloud if Obama is the Prince of Darkness come to end the world. Fear of a black planet at play.
• Johann Hari: Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason – “The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right’s view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.” Read the entire thing…

• Five Symptoms of Republican Schizophrenia – Lots of illogical minds out there… that’s what happens when hate dominates….
• Revealing Hate: Inside White Supremacist World – Much of the current political atmosphere in the USA can be traced to the increase in hate based thought…. It’s more common than you think….
• Health Care Reform: Sorting Facts From Fiction…. – Good facts versus fiction… much needed in these times…
• Why the deficit hysteria? I only wish we’d borrow more… – Robert Reich’s interesting take on the deficit…