The Joy of Dictators

The current demonstrations in Egypt, hot on the heels of the ones that brought down Tunisia's government, put a glaring spotlight on America's foreign relations split personality. The US has always talked boldly about the need for more democracy around the world. It's a long running theme in our public persona. But this democratic fervor is at odds with our long history of supporting authoritarian regimes.

Don't get me wrong, compared with some of America's other past and present 'allies', Egypt is tame. After all, they are the only Arab nation to have formally accepted Israel's right to exist, signed a peace treaty with them and have maintained diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. Compared to many other regional powers, Egypt is fairly moderate. But the fact remains that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has held power for nearly 30 years behind the fiction of elections that always awarded him victory by absurd margins. You'd think these authoritarian regimes would learn after a while. If they really want to keep the illusion that they are being re-elected repeatedly, at least keep the numbers realistic. Any margin over about 60% is pretty much a guarantee of corruption yet Mubarak 'won' consistently with margins of 80% or more. Might as well drop the pretense and exchange the title 'President' for 'Dictator'. He could at least claim the high ground on honesty.

The root of the problem is that as much as America likes Democracies in theory, we find them rather problematic to deal with in practice. A great example of this was in the build up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US requested that Turkey let us move a large contingent of troops through their country to enable an advance into Iraq from the north. This tidy plan came apart, however, when Turkey's democratic government voted to deny the request forcing a delay as these troops were diverted to the Gulf. You see, the problem with a democracy is that it's not always predictable. Just look at the US Congress if you doubt that. But a dictatorship! Now that's a government deals are made of! There's nothing more efficient in foreign policy than to be able to sit down in a single office that can encompass the entire ruling government. Only in an authoritarian regime can the word of a few, or even just one, official guarantee the nation's lock-step agreement.

This is why the initial US response to the popular demonstrations in Egypt was so neutral. Ideologically we are strongly attracted to the Egyptian's calls for reform and a representative government. On the other hand we would lose a reasonably friendly partner with which we have a long history. Not to mention that any new government would be a rather chancy roll of the dice. What kind of government would replace Mubarak? Would they be more fundamentalist? Would they be friendly to America or not? We still have vivid memories from the late 70's when the US backed Shah of Iran was overthrown in a popular revolution and it didn't turn out too well for us as a nation or for the Americans held hostage for 444 days.

But this is what happens when we take the easy route and throw our support behind strong-arm regimes while turning a blind eye to their iron handed rule. Another outcome of this convenient arrangement is when a one time ally becomes an enemy. Anyone remember that in the early 80's we were buddies with a gentleman by the name of Saddam Hussein? Another one that didn't turn out so well. Personally I think it's time to stop taking the easy road when it comes to international relations because, just as in most things, easy often carries a rather steep price tag when all is said and done.

The Farce Continues

Am I the only one who wonders why the Republicans in the House, who were so gung-ho to rein in spending, are continuing to waste their time and our money in pursuit of the meaningless and the trivial? Only a few days ago the House passed a piece of legislation called "Repealing of the Job Killing Health Care Law". Subtle, eh? Also in the House, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), newly minted Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is making threats to start endless investigations into the Obama Administration. Not for any specific abuses, as far as I can tell, but more in the realm of a touchdown dance now that the GOP has retaken control of the House of Representatives.  Both are pointless, petty and completely out of touch with the real problems facing the country and more of a demonstration of political gamesmanship than anything else.

As far as health reform repeal is concerned, let's all remember that it is functionally impossible for Republicans to repeal health reform at this time. Maybe if they win the Presidency or the Senate in 2012 it would be feasible, but not now. They can pass any idiotic notion they want in the House and no doubt this item is only the first, but it will then go to the other side of the Capital and vanish from sight. The Senate will never debate it, much less pass it. And even if it were passed, the President will veto it and an override would require the support of two-thirds of both houses, which will not happen. Not to mention the question of why you would want to in the first place. It's not perfect and parts of it will be debated and challenged, but it includes a lot of good things. It's also true that the Congressional Budget Office and other non-aligned groups have consistently said that this law will save money over the next decade. I realize the GOP had to go through the formalities for those supporters too ignorant of how the government functions to realize what an empty promise repeal actually was, but the gesture has been made, now let's move on!

Then we have the oft voiced threat to hold a long series of vague and pointless House investigations of the Obama Administration. Really? So we went through 8 years of the Bush Administration redefining torture in such a way to make it legal, had the rendition of suspects to secret locations outside the reach of our laws and the maintenance of an offshore gulag. Then Obama tries to do exactly what he was elected to do and this is a problem. It is as transparent a political game as you are likely to see. And in DC that's saying something. But it's only the opening salvo of the newly GOP controlled House as they pursue their most important agenda item for the next couple years; prevent Obama from winning reelection in 2012. I do not exaggerate. Senate Minority Leader McConnell actually told a conservative gathering last year that preventing Obama from winning a second term was their top priority. He actually said that, even as we deal with rampant unemployment, economic desolation and a rising national debt. It is comforting to know that our elected officials continue to be focused on the future. Not America's, unfortunately, but certainly that of the GOP. To say this behavior angers me would be like saying that Hurricane Katrina got a few people wet.

It's way past time for the conservatives to stop acting like Obama is some far left radical. I use the term 'act' literally, as most of these people know full well that this President is the most centrist, pragmatic Chief Executive we've seen in over 30 years. He has consistently taken conservative ideas and incorporated them into his policy proposals. Consistently he's been open to GOP suggestions. Consistently he has irritated the more progressive wing of his party for not taking up the charge on many liberal causes, such as gay marriage. Yet he has consistently been portrayed among conservative politicians and talking heads as an out of control, frothing liberal. Why? Because a centrist, popular Democrat is a GOP nightmare. They didn't know what to do with him when he was elected. The last thing they wanted was to help him and thereby hurt their chances of beating him in 2012, so they did the only thing they could . . . they made things up. They began a narrative that was a lie. It was obvious to most of us who actually looked at the policies and ignored the rhetoric, but many have bought into it and that is a tragedy. It's depressing to imagine all that could have been done, if only America were more important than politics. It's also depressing that so many Americans actually believe the drivel being spouted to by those who have no reason whatsoever to cooperate with this Administration. That's how they won back the House. Some Americans are so shortsighted and impatient that they couldn't even give Obama his full term before throwing up their hands in frustration. Guess it's true, in a Democracy you do get the government you deserve.

Civilizing Literature One Word at a Time

Some may have heard that a scholar, Alan Gribben, is working on publishing a new version of Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn' & 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' in a single volume. I say version rather than edition, because it will have a few editorial changes. Specifically editing out the words "ni**er" and "injun". As you can tell by my carefully placed asterisks, the "N" word is not a word for polite conversation. The fact that these books included the term, along with the conversationally truncated word for 'indian', many times and thus have been disappearing from school reading lists is an excellent example of trying to hide reality from our kids.

I would add my voice to those who find the idea of retroactively 'cleaning up' past literary works a very bad idea. This is exceedingly stupid, no matter how eminent the scholar doing the work or how sound they think their reasoning is. Taking out words we find offensive is censorship, no matter the rationale. I don't think we want to teach students that censorship is OK as long as it's for a good cause. 

Gribben stated, from his Auburn University office that:

"This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind. Race matters in these books. It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century."

So it's alright to change the author's work to make it fit current social standards? Really? I was pretty sure that was all but the exact definition of censorship. How many living authors, do you think, would put up with having a celebrated work of theirs altered for delicate sensibilities? This strikes me as the same sort of simple minded drivel as draping clothing over semi-nude statuary. A professorship doesn't always equal level headed thinking, unfortunately.

Those books were written in a particular time and place and the language reflects that. How many other works are now going to be considered for this treatment? I'm sure many see it as a minor thing since it's just a couple of distasteful words, but where does it end? This is the proverbial 'slippery slope'. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, once you start doing this, someone will find another example to be purged, then another, then another. All for the Greater Good. All with the best intentions.

We cannot and should not child-proof the world to make everything in written history palatable for today's standards. Trying to do so is disrespectful of the authors and disrespectful of your student's intelligence. Don't change the words, teach your students why these words were used and teach them about the historical context. These words are an opportunity to enlighten your students.  A teacher's job is not to keep everyone happy and comfortable, it's to teach!

Oath to CSPAN Ruled Non-Binding

In an astounding moment in the GOP's first day on the job after taking control of the House of Representatives, two Congressmen somehow managed to skip the official swearing in. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a returning member, and Mike Fitzpatrick (R- Pennsylvania) a new arrival apparently decided that it was more important to be down the hall at a Fitzpatrick fundraiser/gathering than attending to the most basic of Constitutional duties, being sworn into office. In a leap of illogic that is particularly astounding for a veteran House member like Sessions, they 'took their oath' to CSPAN. Literally standing in front of a TV running the televised swearing in ceremony! No, really! Then proceeded to go about their business casting votes that, since they were not officially sworn in, were no legal. This of course caused a problem when it all came out and both geniuses had cast a number of votes that were meaningless. Oh, and did I mention that Sessions is on the House Rules Committee? Or that if the gathering actually met the definition of a 'fundraiser' than Fitzpatrick violated House rules again for hosting it in the Capital building?

In my opinion they should both have been barred from voting for 30 days, then have to go through a formal swearing in on the floor in front of the entire House of Representatives. A little public humiliation might do them both a world of good.

Lame Duck, Better than No Duck at All

A surprisingly productive 'Lame Duck' session of Congress has come to an end. It's been called the most productive Lame Duck session ever, though I can't speak to that myself. But it's without a doubt the most productive this Congress has been over the last year. That is the sad part. After a year of near absolute stone walling on even the most vanilla bills and nominations, it's astonishing how fast things can be passed under threat of being forced to work over the holidays. Democrats certainly have their issues, but I must say that the way the GOP crumbles like overcooked ginger snaps every Christmas is both pathetic and endlessly amusing. So much for integrity and sticking by your values.

"I will not compromise!" (Generic GOP Senator)

"We will stay and work through the holidays till we get this settled!" (Dem Majority Leader)

"Hey, look at the time! Let's ink this deal!" (Generic GOP Senator)

To add to the fun, there are a number of GOP Congresspersons really ticked off at how well they were played this Holiday season. This includes the ever amusing and often nonsensical Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R- Min). Seeing as they are deeply offended by pretty much anything that doesn't originate from their own spokesman, I generally ignore them both. A shame voters in their states failed to do the same. The general sentiment is that Democrats didn't play fair by actually trying to legislate after the mid-terms. How dare they continue to work till closing time! The GOP has this weird idea that Congressional work should stop the instant the elections are certified. I'm sure they wouldn't feel that way if the November results were reversed, but hypocrisy is a respected tradition for Republicans, so no surprise there. Democrats do it as well, but rarely with the same style and commitement. What is interesting is that at least one Republican House member, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas), has 'tweeted' her intention to re-introduce a motion to dismantle the Lame Duck altogether. In other words Congress would adjourn for the elections and not reconvene till January, thus giving us two months without a functioning Congress. Sorry, I meant to say sitting Congress. It hasn't really functioned consistently for several years now.

Talk about 'taking my ball and going home'! It's these stupid things that have wasted way too much political time lately. Ideas that are pointless and only matter to specific people or parties at this specific moment in time. I might, I stress might, understand if the Dems had rushed through a bunch of controversial bills in December over the unified opposition of Republicans, but they didn't. Remember the Dems only really controlled the House. The Senate, while having a Dem majority, has that wonderful filibuster rule that allows the minority to pretty much prevent anything they don't like from even being discussed. This has been invoked at least 136 times during the now ended session of Congress. More than doubling its use from any previous session. But the real kicker is that these bills that passed were only controversial politically. Polls showed Americans firmly behind them all and even most Republicans would admit that they supported them in principle. But they blocked them out of pure political calculation.

- Tax Cut Bill to extend the current tax rates for a further 2 years. Passed with 37 Republican votes. Not surprising considering it was made up heavily of pro-Republican tax provisions, many of which will grow the deficit significantly over the next few years. Typical of Republican 'fiscal responsibility'.

- 'New START' Treaty to renew the US-Russian nuclear inspection and arms reduction agreement. Passed with 13 Republican votes.

- 9/11 First Responder bill to provide healthcare assistance to those who developed serious illnesses as a direct result of their weeks and months breathing in toxic dust at the ground zero World Trade Center site. Incidentally this bill was fully paid for yet seemed to have been nearly killed by Republican obstruction till a last surge, led by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show among others, shamed Congress into action. In the end it garnered Yes votes from ALL Republican Senators.

- Bill to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', which had been fought tooth and nail despite as much as 70% public support and the support of the President, Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Passed with 8 Republican votes.

No Experts Needed

There are a lot of issues that require some level of expertise when you delve into the details. This is especially true with finance and economic related policies. However, it requires no specialized knowledge to see when theories defy logic itself. The recent debate over the so called 'Bush Tax Cuts' are a perfect example. They were originally enacted to help restart a sluggish economy, but really did very little in this regard. On top of that, they were unpaid for and therefore were mainlined directly into the deficit and ultimately the national debt. To add insult to stupidity, these cuts disproportionately helped those earning over a million dollars a year. Hardly the segment hurt most by economic troubles. This is what is known to Conservatives as the theory of Trickle Down Economics, made famous under the Reagan administration. To everyone else, it's simply known as Help the Wealthy and hope they feel generous towards the little people.

If there is one economic idea that should be run through the shredder it's Trickle Down Economics. Let's set aside the example of its abject failure in the mid-late '80s and instead just think for a moment. A capitalist based economy is powered by the engine of consumerism. People buy houses, cars, TVs, computers, beer, clothes, etc. That demand means companies who supply these items need to make more of them and create improved versions. To do this they hire workers to design and produce the items. Those workers get paid for this work and use that money to buy houses, cars, TVs and so on. With me so far? So the corporations make money by selling items to people who have money to spend. The more money consumers have to spend, the more they can buy and the more luxuries they will desire. Corporations make more money by providing these items. As demand rises, they find it profitable to add more factories, hire more workers and produce more. The new workers spend their paychecks on more items, from necessities to luxuries. From food to diamonds. The capitalist version of the circle of life. Simplified, but you get the idea.

Now for the Trickle Down Economics in this scenario. This theory says that to stimulate the economy you should give tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy so that they will use that money to expand factories and create jobs. What should be obvious by now is that this goes against even the most basic idea of capitalism. Wealthy individuals and corporations don't create factories and the resulting jobs because they have extra cash on hand this year, they do it when there is DEMAND! It doesn't matter how many tax cuts you give them, if there is no one shopping for jewelry, it's unlikely that Kay Jewelers is going to be opening any new stores anytime soon. You can 'trickle' all you want and all you'll accomplish is to make the corporations richer. This is not particle physics, it's logic on par with 1+1=2.

So here we are, two years into a colossal recession. Unemployment is pushing 10% and the credit markets might as well not exist for all the lending that's going on. Bankruptcies and foreclosures are at eye watering levels. The deficit, and therefore the national debt, is skyrocketing as the Federal government keeps pumping money into the economy like a winter driver trying desperately to keep the engine running on a December morning. So what is the plan being pushed by Conservatives? Trickle Down Economics in the form of the Bush administration's disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%! They spew forth all sorts of political babble to confuse us into thinking that keeping tax cuts in place for this tiny section of America is vital to reviving the economy.

Nobody seems capable of explaining how this would work in the real world. Don't forget that these tax cuts are already in force and have been for the better part of a decade. All we are debating is if they should expire or be renewed. But to hear Republicans tell it, maintaining these cuts for the top earners will magically boost the economy. Remember that if the rates were to return to what they were before the cuts were enacted in 2001, they would be at the level they were during the economic boom of the 1990s. Hardly a dire situation. In fact, I'd say that generic tax cuts usually have minimal stimulative effect at the best of times. For most of the country the cuts usually only add up to a few dollars a paycheck which is barely noticeable. Certainly not likely to keep a family out of foreclosure or encourage them to spend on luxuries.

If the GOP were really worried most about the deficit and actually cared about being fiscally responsible, they would be the first in line to call for the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. The next best option is to keep them in place for income less than a quarter million dollars and let the rest lapse. This would erase about $800 Billion in projected costs over the next decade. But what are they actually calling for, nay, demanding? Keep 'em all, especially the cuts for the top 2%. They are so desperate to keep the wealthy well looked after that they have gone for a scorched earth policy in the Senate, refusing to consider any legislation until the tax issue is resolved. And by resolved I mean, all GOP demands met. What is so amazing about this is that they can still say the words 'fiscal conservative' without collapsing in laughter. It certainly is a joke, albeit a very bad one.

As I write this, and wallow in disgust, Congress has just passed a deal struck between the White House and senior GOP leaders that would renew the entire Bush Tax package for two more years. What did Obama get for giving in on a stand he and the Democratic leadership have been harping on since before the elections? A stand supported by a majority of Americans, according to more than one poll. Well, he got an agreement for a one year extension of Unemployment benefits and, uh... nope, that's about it. There are some assorted other tax related cuts and such, but most of them were things the GOP liked anyway, so from my standpoint a very lopsided deal. Actually not just from my standpoint. A good number of Democrats are pretty put out by this agreement, as are a few Republicans who seem irritated that Obama didn't just surrender the Presidency outright. Worse, at least for the future of the Obama Presidency, is that it gave the GOP a huge, undeserved victory and inspired the Democratic base to a collective "WTF?!" Most importantly though, it shows that if Republicans pick the right hostage, in this case the long term unemployed, the White House is likely to capitulate. By the way, in a post deal press conference it was Obama who used the hostage metaphor to explain the deal. This is particularly odd since as far as I know, if the hostage takers demand a jet as a trade for the hostages, we usually don't whistle up a Gulfstream 200 and wave goodbye as they depart. But perhaps I'm misinformed on these sorts of negotiations.

There is so much about this deal in particular, as well as Congressional incompetence in general, that leaves me stunned. As far as I can tell, the only real stimulative part of the proposal is the extension of unemployment benefits. This will put cash in the hands of those who not only want to spend it, but absolutely must. Think unemployment benefits are just a waste of money? First, let's remember that these benefits are only for those who have been laid off through no fault of their own. So we aren't dealing with lazy people who quit their jobs. These are the casualties of recession level downsizing. Second, the money these people get through unemployment is often the only thing keeping them housed and fed. Stopping unemployment benefits isn't just non-stimulative, it actually contributes to the recession. Soon after losing this life-line, individuals and families will start defaulting on mortgage and car loans. Going delinquent on rent. Some who have held on as long as possible will finally give in to Bankruptcy. Do any of these things sound good for the economy?

I had a tiny sliver of hope that this deal would be modified enough to be at least vaguely palatable. But that was way too optimistic of me as, despite angry words on both sides of the aisle, it passed both houses of Congress this week. The 111th Congress, from GOP obstruction and the ongoing 'War on Logic' to Democratic incompetence and spinelessness, is a poster child for all that's wrong with our government. And I didn't even mention the Supreme Court's ruling to give corporations many of the rights of individual citizens! I suppose Corporate suffrage can't be far off. We are in tough times, but we are not going to get out of them by shoring up the coffers of the wealthy or of big corporations. Huge corporate profits have not managed to resuscitate the economy thus far. Why? Because it doesn't matter how nice the detailing or how clean the engine is, if there's no fuel in the tank then the car ain't moving. The economic fuel is consumer spending. Everything boils down to this. Without it, we aren't going anywhere. Outside of the unemployment extension, I don't see anything in this deal that will improve matters, though it will spike the national debt to greater heights. Once again political victory brings little help to those most harmed by the recession while continuing to reward the mindset that got us into it.

Rally to Restore Sanity/and or Fear

Yes, I made the pilgrimage from North Carolina to DC to attend the 'Rally to Restore Sanity/and or Fear'. It was quite the experience. I will say upfront that I will likely not do another rally of this size again. Don't get me wrong, the people were generally very nice and friendly, but any time you get several hundred thousand people crammed into one area, even the size of the National Mall, it gets a bit crowded. But aside from the shuffling crowd, difficulty seeing the screens at times and the very long metro back to the car I did enjoy the show. More on the show in a moment.

Before I attended I had come across a handful of articles, mostly proclaiming the problems the authors saw with the Rally. I was rather surprised actually by some of them. Now I never paid much attention to some of the various Tea Party, Second Amendment and Glenn Beck rallies that have been staged on or near the Mall the last year or so. At least not beyond noting their existence anyway. So maybe I missed all the pre-rally analysis and criticism leading up to and immediately after the events. But it sure felt like this event was under the microscope from the moment it was announced. What was even weirder was the strange arguments against it, especially before it had even happened.

One theme was the lament that Stewart and Colbert would ruin their 'brand'. That somehow leading a rally would magically transform them both into political pundits and make them unable to ever return to the comedy side of the street. Why? The rally was aggressively non-partisan and was promoted as pretty much an extension of the Daily Show/Colbert Report franchise. Nobody should have really expected either man of turning serious all of a sudden. In fact several weeks earlier, in an NPR interview, Stewart clearly stated that he had looked at Beck's 'Rally to Restore Honor' and had seen that as a great framework for the kind of thing that he and Colbert did already. And they wrapped it around the theme, also a constant on The Daily Show, of stepping down the rhetoric and the volume so we could actually exchange ideas.

The conservative media, of course, went with the old standard of considering any gathering that hinted at compromise or discussion as nothing but a bunch of cowardly liberals who didn't understand the real world. I've always found this to be shortsighted and ignorant. It goes back to the schoolyard philosophy that 'Strength' is the most important factor in the world. But their definition of strength has no room for strength of character or conviction. They usually define it as simply power to force or dictate to others. A view that 'Us or Them', 'Our way or the highway' and never admitting you're wrong are somehow admirable qualities. The truth is that, just as parents teach their kids, it takes courage and strength to admit to a mistake and teamwork does make you stronger. Bullying a weaker opponent is not strength, it's merely cruelty. And you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. So it's not surprising or at all illuminating that the conservatives who's careers rely on volume over substance would miss the point of a Rally for Sanity.

But the comments that struck me the oddest were from liberal activists who seemed to be completely unsure what to make of it. They wanted to fold it into a box labeled 'Protest', but it didn't fit. And for some liberals the idea of reasonable compromise was almost as alien as it was to the conservative fringes. Of course they didn't see themselves as 'extremists' even if they rejected the same calls to reason that the far Right ignored. I read two such articles on Huffington Post.

The first was by Mike Elk, a self described 'Labor Journalist' who spent the first few paragraphs describing how much of a Progressive rally it was and that "it is thus vital for progressive media outlets, including labor publications, to adequately cover the event." Apparently this is because any 'Progressive' event absolutely must be all about social justice and the rights of workers. I'm quite sure there are a lot of events that are somewhat progressive that do not focus on labor rights. So why get so worked up here? He then launched into a longwinded lament about how he and a number of journalists from other "major labor publications" were denied formal credentials to cover the event. Keep in mind that lack of formal credentials in no way bars them from covering the event, it's public after all, they just wouldn't have access to the press tent with internet access and power feeds. Inconvenient, but hardly crippling for a journalist. Yet he droned on and on about how important the labor movement was to progressives and how this denial was such a slap in the face to the labor movement. Huh? Whine much, Mike? Even when he stopped consoling himself for this insult to his pride and that of every blue collar working stiff he continued to rip into the rally. Apparently since this was only 'entertainment' then the whole thing was obviously just a Comedy Central plan to boost ad revenue. Thus Stewart and Colbert were just smiling shills for corporate America. I admit his leaps and bounds of logic, and I use the term loosely, are dizzying to read. The deeper you get the more snotty his narrative becomes and drips with scorn for the show's white liberal elites and their "slack activism" and tossing in digs at how The Daily Show lampooned a union that hired outside people to do the picketing for them during a wage dispute. And even though Mr. Elk notes that he agreed in this case, he can't get over how the show has 'refused' to cover major labor struggles. Let me get this straight, you are upset that The Daily Show, on Comedy Central, is not sending people out to cover labor rights struggles? When have you ever seen them do serious journalism? They are not a news organization, Mike! That's why they are on Comedy Central. Mr. Elk seems to be unable to reconcile how a show that uses humor to point up hypocrisy and political illogic doesn't do investigative journalism. If nothing else, Mr. Elk's article is an entertaining read, though I doubt that was his intention.

The other post that stood out to me was by the leader of the activist organization CODEPINK, Medea Benjamin. She pulled no punches and immediately dove into making sweeping generalizations and heaping insults on the "slacktivists" who she saw as  Stewart and Colbert's primary audience. Essentially she seems to have little but derision for anyone who isn't actually in the trenches of the protest movement. Taking offense at a statement on the rally website that said that Stewart was looking for people who've been "too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs)." Just like Elk, without the ego driven whining, she makes the mistake of expecting The Daily Show and the Colbert Report to be something they are not and railing at both for her own lack of understanding. Stewart doesn't invalidate the aims of CODEPINK and other activist organizations. His view is not that the cause isn't worth fighting for, it's that the manner of the protest is likely to drive away at least as many prospective supporters as it attracts. In other words, the more outlandish the stunt to get attention, the crazier you will seem to the public. Now this view is arguable, but it's still a valid critique.

During the Rally, one bit had Stewart and Colbert again arguing Fear vs. Reason, this time with montages of outrageous statements and over the top punditry from the entire spectrum of cable news. The following week, while the Fox folks simply pretended the Rally was just a publicity stunt with no actual value, several liberal hosts lashed out. Why? Because they had been included in some of the montages. But what most irritated them was that they had been lumped in with Fox and they felt that they were not equally at fault. This is a good reminder of the other side of the equation. Journalists and hosts who figure that as long as they are no worse than the guys across the street, then they shouldn't be expected to be responsible. One of the protesters was Keith Olbermann, who I generally like and often agree with. But if we are to be honest, he is also sometimes guilty of excessive hyperbole, such as his comments after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in January. I remember thinking at the time that many of his points were pretty thin and strained. While I will firmly maintain that Keith is far more even in his demeanor and fair in his reporting than most of the Fox luminaries, it shouldn't mean he's above reproach for his missteps.

Look, both shows certainly lean liberal-progressive, despite the declarations of Stephen Colbert's conservative character, but they aren't really news shows. They aren't Woodward and Bernstein. They fill the same niche as the likes of Mark Twain and Will Rogers did, by commenting on the absurdity of politics and those who report on it with a sharp wit. And like Shakespeare's often present Fool, who used humor to disguise his dangerously accurate observations of the vain and powerful. So judge them for what they are, not what you wish they were. As for the meaning of the Rally itself, Jon Stewart summed it up quite succinctly in his brief but direct moment of seriousness, which I am appending below. It is well worth a read. As he notes, the media and the mountain of pundits and self proclaimed experts did not create our problems, but they make solving them so very much harder. We work best as a nation when we stop yelling at each other and start talking to each other. That's when problems get solved.


Jon Stewart's closing remarks:

"So, uh, what exactly was this? I can't control what people think this was: I can only tell you my intentions.


This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith, or people of activism, or look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument, or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear--they are, and we do.


But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus, and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country's 24-hour, political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the dangerous, unexpected flaming ants epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.


There are terrorists, and racists, and Stalinists, and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned! You must have the resume! Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Party-ers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult--not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more.


The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything, we actually get sicker--and, perhaps, eczema. And yet... I feel good. Strangely, calmly, good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us, through a funhouse mirror--and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist, and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead, and an ass shaped like a month-old pumpkin, and one eyeball.


So why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle, to a pumpkin-assed forehead eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, of course our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable--why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution, and homophobes who see no one's humanity but their own?


We hear every damned day about how fragile our country is, on the brink of catastrophe, torn by polarizing hate, and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done. The truth is, we do! We work together to get things done every damned day! The only place we don't is here (in Washington) or on cable TV! But Americans don't live here, or on cable TV. Where we live, our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done--not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done.


Most Americans don't live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often something they do not want to do! But they do it. Impossible things, every day, that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make.


(Points to video screen, showing video of cars in traffic.) Look on the screen. This is where we are, this is who we are. These cars. That's a schoolteacher who probably think his taxes are too high, he's going to work. There's another car, a woman with two small kids, can't really think about anything else right now... A lady's in the NRA, loves Oprah. There's another car, an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. Another car's a Latino carpenter; another car, a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan.


But this is us. Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief, and principles they hold dear--often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers'. And yet, these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze, one by one, into a mile-long, 30-foot-wide tunnel, carved underneath a mighty river. And they do it, concession by concession: you go, then I'll go. You go, then I'll go. You go, then I'll go. 'Oh my God--is that an NRA sticker on your car?' 'Is that an Obama sticker on your car?' It's okay--you go, then I go.


And sure, at some point, there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder, and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare, and he is scorned, and he is not hired as an analyst!


Because we know, instinctively, as a people, that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we have to work together. And the truth is there will always be darkness, and sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn't the promised land. Sometimes, it's just New Jersey."