Here's wishing you all a very Happy New Year from all of us at The Reaction. We hope you have a great 2011.
All my love to my loved ones, to all my friends and family.
Be safe out there, everyone, and take care of one another.
Friday, December 31, 2010
New Year, New Hope
A Prosperous New Year to my family, friends, neighbors, readers and bloggers. I'm praying and hoping that the year 2011 will bring some improvement in our economy and uplift the life of our less privilege brothers and sisters. We just tried to stay for the countdown at Paseo but the music is too loud for Mutti. We welcome 2011 with a friends gatherings at Osang's house. Its already the third year and it becomes a tradition for the family to host the after 12 party.
New Year, New Hope
A Prosperous New Year to my family, friends, neighbors, readers and bloggers. I'm praying and hoping that the year 2011 will bring some improvement in our economy and uplift the life of our less privilege brothers and sisters. We just tried to stay for the countdown at Paseo but the music is too loud for Mutti. We welcome 2011 with a friends gatherings at Osang's house. Its already the third year and it becomes a tradition for the family to host the after 12 party.
Is Jon Stewart the new Edward R. Murrow?
There has been much ado recently, and justifiably so, about Jon Stewart's admirable advocacy in support of 9/11 First Responders, demanding passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act and shaming both Congress (Democrats for not being aggressive enough and Republicans for obstructing the bill) and the news media (which, with the exception of Aljazeera, was neglecting the story entirely) into action.
Stewart has repeated denied that he is a political player, let alone a partisan, preferring to present himself as a comedian first and foremost, but there is no denying that he has become a major political figure. His rally with Colbert back at the end of October was a sign of his significant reach, but those of us who adore him, if I may put it so lovingly, have known about his influence for a long time. So, for that matter, have his critics.
While a huge fan, I have been deeply critical of Stewart's anti-partisan claims, and so, while supporting 9/11 First Reponders is hardly a partisan thing to do (even if Republicans like Tom Coburn made it partisan), I do welcome Stewart's aggressive foray into legislative politics. Without necessarily turning into an overt partisan, and without endangering his comedy (and his broad appeal across the left into the center, and especially with liberal-minded but independent young people), he should do more of it.
But the question is, is he, as no less an authority than the Times has suggested, the new Edward R. Murrow, the legendary journalist and CBS commentator who famously stood up to McCarthyism and, in the process, became the icon of journalism itself?
It's a silly question, in a way, even as it asks us to put Stewart into perspective, to figure out just what he's all about. No longer just a self-deprecating comedian with an obscure late-night cable faux news show appealing to collegiate stoners, Stewart has become a sort of icon himself, the essential progressive voice of the engaged but generally powerless, a voice speaking truth to political and media power, but doing so not as a member of the insider ranks, like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, but as a justifiably cynical outsider pointing out the very absurdity of it all while holding those on the inside to account, catching them in their various foibles, sometimes criminal, often unethical, usually counter to the public good.
If he isn't quite Murrow, it's because he refuses to be that serious, because he remains a comedian above all, and because, honestly, Murrow was a man of his time and place. In today's media landscape, a Murrow just isn't possible, just as, say, a Cronkite isn't possible. The world is too fractured for such a singular giant. Now it's all about granular niches and multiple platforms, not overarching media figures wielding immense influence on a limited number of channels, the entire nation tuned in.
But that doesn't mean the comparison is without merit. Murrow was a man of exceptional determination and courage. Stewart is much less sure of himself, and much more of a funny man who thrives on being out there on the fringe, poking fun at the establishment, but his willingness to take on the establishment even as he and his fans are laughing at it suggests a courage that is sorely lacking in American society today, both in politics and in the media. He may not have the revolutionary aims of a Julian Assange, but, then, neither did Murrow. And like Murrow, what Stewart is ultimately fighting for is for America to live up to its professed values and principles. He doesn't go about it quite the same way Murrow did, but the similarities are there.
For more on this, see this fine piece by Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic, which has influenced much of what I've written here. Here's part of it:
Jon Stewart may or may not be the most important journalist of the 21th Century -- it's early still, plus he'd have to cop to the label and I'm not sure he would. But it should be clear from this episode, if it somehow weren't before, that Stewart (Murrow-like, you might say) wields enormous power and prestige through the medium of television (and the Internet). He showed it this fall with his well-attended Washington rally, he shows it each week with his ratings among younger viewers and the nation's political elite, and he clearly raised his game a notch with his searing light on how official Washington was screwing up the responders' health bill. I give credit to the Times and others for at least trying to cover that aspect of this story. The comparison to Murrow, which came off as facile in the Times piece, has some merit. It just wasn't explained well enough. Nor, alas, was the mainstream media's generally miserable failure -- also highlighted by Stewart -- in covering the 9/11 responders' legislation before Stewart's broadcasts. Stewart didn't just blast the Congress, remember, he blasted news organizations, too, for the latest example of their chronically short attention spans.
When Murrow took on Sen. Joseph McCarthy nearly half a century ago, he had far more to lose than Stewart did when he lobbied for the federal legislation. Murrow was standing up to bullies -- horrible, powerful bullies -- who might have ended his career and destroyed his network. By comparison, Stewart was merely speaking out against the way politics and journalism too often works in Washington. But both Murrow and Stewart dramatically changed public perceptions about a current event. Both men stuck their necks out. Both went first into a sort of no-man's-land. It is probably true that only Murrow in his time had the bona fides to stand up to McCarthy (and don't forget, Murrow waited years before doing so). But of all the media people who could have stood up in late 2010 for the brave, sick men and women who went into the rubble of September 11, 2001 only Stewart had both the will and the chops to do so in earnest. Does that make his courage any less impressive? Not in my book. Not when compared with so many other broadcasters and journalists who thought they had more important stories to file.
Courage in broadcasting, or in journalism in general, is not a zero sum game. Praising Stewart for his "mad as hell ain't gonna take it anymore" moment is no slight to Murrow or any other journalist who risks criticism and vitriol for speaking truth to power. Any comparison between the men diminishes neither. Let the historians and biographers correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Murrow would have applauded Stewart's role in redirecting public opinion back to some of the heroes who ran toward the rubble in Lower Manhattan in September 2001. And I believe Murrow would have endorsed Stewart's critical view of the media's role in the affair -- especially the navel-gazing that has occurred since the passage of the legislation. Murrow may have searched for light but he is known today for the passion, the heat, he brought to his best work. I believe history will judge Stewart similarly, in this instance and hopefully again in the future.
GOP theater: Now starring the U.S. Constitution
By Nicholas Wilbur
Republicans take control of the lower branch of Congress on January 5. On January 6, members of the new Republican-controlled House will do what no Congress member has done in the entire history of the country: they will read the United States Constitution from start to finish.
If it sounds like a new age of honor and accountability in politics is on the horizon, don't be fooled.
Republican leaders plan to emphasize their vigor in carrying the water for this nouveau wave of patriotism by instituting a mandatory practice of attaching a citation of constitutional authority to every piece of legislation presented in the 112th Congress. But that too should be taken with a grain – or possibly an entire box – of salt.
Republicans take control of the lower branch of Congress on January 5. On January 6, members of the new Republican-controlled House will do what no Congress member has done in the entire history of the country: they will read the United States Constitution from start to finish.
If it sounds like a new age of honor and accountability in politics is on the horizon, don't be fooled.
Republican leaders plan to emphasize their vigor in carrying the water for this nouveau wave of patriotism by instituting a mandatory practice of attaching a citation of constitutional authority to every piece of legislation presented in the 112th Congress. But that too should be taken with a grain – or possibly an entire box – of salt.
Tea Partiers across the country are howling a victory song over these surface-level gestures, and I'm beginning to feel that unpleasantly familiar tingle in the back of my throat that usually precedes the uncontrollable outpouring of vomit from my mouth.
"It appears that the Republicans have been listening," Jeff Luecke, a Tea Party organizer in Dubuque, Iowa, told The Washington Post. "We're so far away from our founding principles that, absolutely, this is the very, very tip of the iceberg. We need to talk about and learn about the Constitution daily."
Indeed.
No one could argue against learning. Education is the backbone of American enterprise, the foundation of individual liberty, the necessary prerequisite for responsible media consumption and informed voting.
This is not that. This is the GOP wrapping a bow around a cheap, as-seen-on-TV gimmick. This is an embarrassment to all who are capable of distinguishing between real progress and mere shadows dancing nude in front of a perpetually digressing and intellectually devolving populace. This is entertainment broadcast for the masses at the expense of actual, measurable enlightenment.
And, sadly but not surprisingly, no one seems to notice.
A wise man once told me that extremism is borne of ignorance, while intelligence is necessarily cultivated, instructed, and nurtured over time.
"Whenever we wish to understand something other than ourselves, we must remember that we never really escape ourselves, our place and time, saturated as they are with a multitude of experiences and assumptions."
The subject of this quotation was Islam, but the core of this man's statement is a timeless and universal maxim for approaching education in general.
Knowledge is not innate, but particularly during the learning process itself, an individual's perceptions, stereotypes, experiences, and assumptions undoubtedly influence the way new information is absorbed and understood.
Do you know what Muslim terrorists read in order to justify blowing up buildings, planes, and marketplaces? (Hint: It's the same book that billions of moderate, peace-loving Muslims read daily.)
Do you know what extremist Christians read before hosting book-burning parties, protesting the funerals of U.S. military service members, and murdering abortion doctors? (Hint: It's the same "good news" that billions of moderate, peace-loving Christians read daily.)
Hearing verbatim recitations of the Constitution isn't akin to terrorism. To claim such would be idiotic beyond measure. But exactly what purpose is served by the GOP's bright idea to have story time with the American people?
Is it possible that reading the U.S. Constitution will prove only to reinforce the radical ideas of a group of revolutionists suffering from intellectual retardation (per its actual definition: delayed, slow, inhibited, hampered)?
Considering that the Tea Party believes that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is therefore unconstitutional, then yes.
Health-care reform, for example, isn't in the Constitution.
The Internal Revenue Service isn't in the Constitution.
Public schools, specifically, are not in the Constitution, and neither are unemployment benefits, anti-discrimination laws or women's rights.
There are millions of reams of case law defining and interpreting probably every sentence of this historic document. Without the context provided by centuries of interpretation, analysis, and application, reading the Constitution and/or citing the Constitution will do nothing to bring America back around to what the Founding Fathers intended (assuming we're so far off base that such a revolution is necessary at all).
Republicans are planning a reality show for the ages, and it's sure to be full of the same sensational, headline-grabbing theatrics that helped rally the base in the 2010 midterm election. But it won't mean anything. It won't change anything. And it won't fix any of the problems we're faced with as a nation.
Like many of the Republican Party's tactics, it's good politics, as it appeals to the masses who believe America is straying from the intentions of its Founding Fathers. But in practice, such histrionic displays of alleged patriotism will only further enrage the blindly faithful and context-averse followers of the GOP by giving Republicans a seemingly legitimate reason to block Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 112th Congress.
That is what this nouveau wave of patriotism is all about – not education, not enlightenment, just more smoke, mirrors, and entertaining shadows on the wall.
Skidamarink a dinky dink, Skidamarink a doo. Welcome to the Elephant Show!
"It appears that the Republicans have been listening," Jeff Luecke, a Tea Party organizer in Dubuque, Iowa, told The Washington Post. "We're so far away from our founding principles that, absolutely, this is the very, very tip of the iceberg. We need to talk about and learn about the Constitution daily."
Indeed.
No one could argue against learning. Education is the backbone of American enterprise, the foundation of individual liberty, the necessary prerequisite for responsible media consumption and informed voting.
This is not that. This is the GOP wrapping a bow around a cheap, as-seen-on-TV gimmick. This is an embarrassment to all who are capable of distinguishing between real progress and mere shadows dancing nude in front of a perpetually digressing and intellectually devolving populace. This is entertainment broadcast for the masses at the expense of actual, measurable enlightenment.
And, sadly but not surprisingly, no one seems to notice.
A wise man once told me that extremism is borne of ignorance, while intelligence is necessarily cultivated, instructed, and nurtured over time.
"Whenever we wish to understand something other than ourselves, we must remember that we never really escape ourselves, our place and time, saturated as they are with a multitude of experiences and assumptions."
The subject of this quotation was Islam, but the core of this man's statement is a timeless and universal maxim for approaching education in general.
Knowledge is not innate, but particularly during the learning process itself, an individual's perceptions, stereotypes, experiences, and assumptions undoubtedly influence the way new information is absorbed and understood.
Do you know what Muslim terrorists read in order to justify blowing up buildings, planes, and marketplaces? (Hint: It's the same book that billions of moderate, peace-loving Muslims read daily.)
Do you know what extremist Christians read before hosting book-burning parties, protesting the funerals of U.S. military service members, and murdering abortion doctors? (Hint: It's the same "good news" that billions of moderate, peace-loving Christians read daily.)
Hearing verbatim recitations of the Constitution isn't akin to terrorism. To claim such would be idiotic beyond measure. But exactly what purpose is served by the GOP's bright idea to have story time with the American people?
Is it possible that reading the U.S. Constitution will prove only to reinforce the radical ideas of a group of revolutionists suffering from intellectual retardation (per its actual definition: delayed, slow, inhibited, hampered)?
Considering that the Tea Party believes that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is therefore unconstitutional, then yes.
Health-care reform, for example, isn't in the Constitution.
The Internal Revenue Service isn't in the Constitution.
Public schools, specifically, are not in the Constitution, and neither are unemployment benefits, anti-discrimination laws or women's rights.
There are millions of reams of case law defining and interpreting probably every sentence of this historic document. Without the context provided by centuries of interpretation, analysis, and application, reading the Constitution and/or citing the Constitution will do nothing to bring America back around to what the Founding Fathers intended (assuming we're so far off base that such a revolution is necessary at all).
Republicans are planning a reality show for the ages, and it's sure to be full of the same sensational, headline-grabbing theatrics that helped rally the base in the 2010 midterm election. But it won't mean anything. It won't change anything. And it won't fix any of the problems we're faced with as a nation.
Like many of the Republican Party's tactics, it's good politics, as it appeals to the masses who believe America is straying from the intentions of its Founding Fathers. But in practice, such histrionic displays of alleged patriotism will only further enrage the blindly faithful and context-averse followers of the GOP by giving Republicans a seemingly legitimate reason to block Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 112th Congress.
That is what this nouveau wave of patriotism is all about – not education, not enlightenment, just more smoke, mirrors, and entertaining shadows on the wall.
Skidamarink a dinky dink, Skidamarink a doo. Welcome to the Elephant Show!
Obama's recess appointments and the faux outrage of Republicans
Republicans are outraged -- outraged, they scream at us! -- over President Obama's recess appointments (six on Wednesday alone!). How dare he? Is he a tyrant or something? A Republican president would never ever ever do such a thing. Never ever!
(Ahem... John Bolton... ahem. And, no, I did not scream bloody murder when Bush appointed him. While I vehemently opposed Bolton, I recognized Bush's move as perfectly legal. As you may remember, Bolton was never confirmed and ended up resigning several months after his appointment.)
And, of course, all Republicans care about is bipartisanship. They just want to help out, to work productively with Democrats to get things done. They'd never ever ever act in a partisan way. Never ever!
Or am I to believe that WaPo's "Right Turn" columnist, Jennifer Rubin, is just full of shit?
On Wednesday, Obama shed any pretense of bipartisanship in making six recess appointments. As were his previous recess appointments, this batch included two individuals whose records are so controversial that they could not obtain confirmation even with 59 Democratic senators.
Thankfully, our good friend Steve Benen has taken the time to wade into the muck to set the record straight:
President Obama nominated six qualified officials to fill a variety of executive branch vacancies. These nominations were considered in the respective Senate committees, and approved by committee members. If brought to the floor, each of the six would have been confirmed, most with more than 60 votes. (When Rubin claims they were too "controversial" to "obtain confirmation," this has no relation to reality. She's simply wrong.)
Knowing this, conservative Republicans, who've engaged in obstructionist tactics unseen in American history, placed anonymous holds on the nominees. They could have simply voted against the nominees and urged their colleagues to follow suit, but that wasn't good enough -- Republicans had to shut down the advise-and-consent process altogether.
This, in turn, left the president with a choice: (a) leave the positions vacant until a Senate minority agreed to let the chamber vote up or down; or (b) fill the vacancies with qualified nominees who enjoyed the support of a Senate majority. He wisely chose the latter.
In other words, Rubin is indeed full of shit.
Plain and simple, this is about Republican obstructionism (a partisan effort by the disloyal opposition to prevent Obama from being able to govern effectively), and Obama's response to it, not Democratic partisanship or a presidential abuse of power.
Plain and simple, this is about Republican obstructionism (a partisan effort by the disloyal opposition to prevent Obama from being able to govern effectively), and Obama's response to it, not Democratic partisanship or a presidential abuse of power.
And these supposed Constitution fetishists of the right ought to read the Constitution, along with some history:
Every president since George Washington has used recess appointments; it's a power explicitly given to the president in the Constitution.
Game. Set. Match.
**********
The appointment Rubin most objects to is James Cole as deputy attorney general. She points to his supposed "controversial stance on the War on Terror" as justification for blocking him. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), that loathsome and utterly hypocritical supporter of terrorism, called his appointment "absolutely shocking."
Really?
As David Waldman points out at Daily Kos, Cole supports civilian trials for terror suspects. Republicans do not, of course, but Cole's "stance" is hardly all that "controversial," and certainly not so beyond the pale that he doesn't deserve a high-ranking job in the Justice Department -- which, of course, is a political job, and one should expect the person who holds it to have some views that the other side may not agree with. And, again, he was only blocked because a senator put a hold on him, not because he didn't have solid support in the Senate.
Waldman also notes that Cole has targeted political corruption, including among Republicans, most notably Newt Gingrich. But that can't have anything to do with it, right?
Because Republicans are so very honest, so very helpful, so very bipartisan. They say so themselves!!!
**********
Our Yearend
End of the year is usually the time when everyone is looking back at what happened in the year but also a time where many are looking forward to what is going to happen in the future. The weather seems to be very cooperative today. As usual, many people are in the shopping mode to prepare for the coming of 2010 tonight. By the way here are our activities that partially complete our 2010.
Shopping for foods and watching people in their last minute preparation for new year
We visited the St. Benedict church and took photos of churches on the way to MOA.
Driving to Mall of Asia to shop and observe the preparation for the countdown to 2010
Browsing around Mall of Asia
Wishing you all a blessed New Year !!!!
Shopping for foods and watching people in their last minute preparation for new year
We visited the St. Benedict church and took photos of churches on the way to MOA.
Driving to Mall of Asia to shop and observe the preparation for the countdown to 2010
Browsing around Mall of Asia
Wishing you all a blessed New Year !!!!
Our Yearend
End of the year is usually the time when everyone is looking back at what happened in the year but also a time where many are looking forward to what is going to happen in the future. The weather seems to be very cooperative today. As usual, many people are in the shopping mode to prepare for the coming of 2010 tonight. By the way here are our activities that partially complete our 2010.
Shopping for foods and watching people in their last minute preparation for new year
We visited the St. Benedict church and took photos of churches on the way to MOA.
Driving to Mall of Asia to shop and observe the preparation for the countdown to 2010
Browsing around Mall of Asia
Wishing you all a blessed New Year !!!!
Shopping for foods and watching people in their last minute preparation for new year
We visited the St. Benedict church and took photos of churches on the way to MOA.
Driving to Mall of Asia to shop and observe the preparation for the countdown to 2010
Browsing around Mall of Asia
Wishing you all a blessed New Year !!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
