Not Dealing With It

"But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged," wrote the legendary Albert Camus. That is not Jon Stewart's favorite quotation. The sleight of hand he demonstrates, however, is quite impressive. Stewart tells Stephen Colbert

If the point of all this, then, is to heal people, the only way to healing a wound is to open it up and cleanse it and that stings. And I'm afraid that the general tenor of conversation of this country is cover it up, bury it, put it to the outskirts and don't deal with it.

That was the opportunity for Stewart to thank Colbert for having him on, smiling and waving to the audience, and walking off, having made a lot of sense. Instead, Stewart proceeded to contradict himself by cleverly demonstrating the disturbing- or what should be disturbing- impulse to subordinate truth to the desire to cause no discomfort. He states

And what I would say is, you know, look at it from a black perspective. It's a culture that feels that its wealth has been extracted by different groups- whites, Jews. Whether it's true or not isn't the issue.

Evidently, to Jon Stewart and others who whose allegiance to facts is narrow and qualified, whether something is true "isn't the issue." It should be.  Now that we know that what is real and what isn't real is barely inconsequential to Stewart, we are reminded that he can be as patronizing as he is indifferent to the truth. Fresh off advising us that "whether (something is) true or not isn't the issue," he continues

That's the feeling in that community. And if you don't understand that that's where it's coming from, then you can't deal with it, and you can't sit down with them and explain that being in an industry isn't the same as having a nefarious and controlling interest in that industry and intention, right?

Most of us "understand that that's where it's coming from." However, as Stewart addresses anti-Semitism, he argues that that blacks believe "wealth has been extracted by different groups," including Jews. Although Jews are among the individuals who have at times harmed the black community, he doesn't explain why blacks (allegedly) believe wealth is extracted from their community by Jews acting as Jews. Protestants per se aren't being blamed for extracting wealth. Catholics per se aren't being blamed for extracting wealth. (Nor should either be.)

If Jews are, that's a problem, yet not one of failing to understand the sentiment. The problem is the belief itself.  If Stewart accurately understands the perspective of the black community, the obstacle isn't in not being "understood." It's the mistaken impression. Feelings may be understandable and wrong, and need to be rebuked if wrong.

Stewart, who reminds us that he himself is Jewish, is presumably not anti-Semitic, as he claims he is accused of being. Nor is he necessarily hypocritical, at least not nearly as much as the jackals chanting USA! USA! at rallies celebrating an ex-President who has referred to the USA as "evil." 

So I'll maintain perspective. However, here we have a celebrity who recognizes the growing national  tendency when there is a problem to "cover it up, bury it, put it to the outskirts and don't deal with it."  Then practically in the same breath, he contends that the "black perspective" (as he sees it) must be condoned "whether it's true or not."  Stewart should have stuck with the first thought.

 

Black And White At The Frat

At least we have an unabashed feminist, or rather "Salon's politics writer,focusing on gender, sexuality and reproductive justice," putting the infamous chant (video below) of the SAE fraternity members in perspective. Katie McDonough writes

The University of Oklahoma has been in the spotlight in the days since a video showing members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity gleefully reciting racist chants was released to the public. School officials have already closed the fraternity chapter and expelled two students involved in the incident. They’ve also been clear that there may be more sanctions to come. University president David Boren called the students in the video “disgraceful” and said that the institution would become “an example to the entire country of how to deal with this issue.

However, Boren, she notes, "will have his work cut out for him" because

Government agencies responsible for ensuring equal access to education — like the Office of Civil Rights in its enforcement of Title IX, for example — are loath to revoke funding for schools that fail to address bigotry, discrimination and violence on campus. But angry parents and well-heeled donors who came out of the Greek system are much more willing to cut the purse strings if they think a school has stepped out of line and is coming down too hard on their boys.

She notes that given experiences at Oglethorpe University, Salisbury University, and Trinity College

a mass defection of the good old boys with fond memories of their days spent crushing beers (and hey, maybe singing racist chants) in a frat house could spell financial trouble for universities — or career trouble for university presidents — serious about reform. In 2013, 60 percent of donations to universities that topped $100 million came from fraternity alumni. Data shows that fraternity men account for 85 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, and they populate other powerful institutions — from Wall Street to the White House.

Until colleges start finding the prospect of preventable death, rape and assault more frightening than a network of angry donors, nothing will change in the Greek system. And while fraternities are not singularly responsible for — or home to — a culture of violence, white privilege and male entitlement, a long tradition of permissiveness around dangerous and bigoted frat “antics” has allowed these problems to continue largely unchallenged at an institutional level. Discipline is often administered whack-a-mole-style rather than going at the roots of a system of class privilege, misogyny and racism. A system that is propped up by wealthy donors.

Racist chants or rumors about “sexual assault expected” aren’t isolated to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. These problems are structural. The solutions, then, have to be, too. Boren and the University of Oklahoma seem united, for now, on the issue of addressing the kind of racism captured in that video. According to statements from the black student group Unheard, Boren is also working with them to institute reforms beyond the Greek system. But if the school wants to take on more than a single frat or a particularly odious example of racist college dudes, it will have to take on the institutional structures that condone the racism and misogyny that is so often played for laughs in fraternity culture. And while it appears the university’s donors have so far been silent about the expulsions and evictions that have come about in the wake of the video, they may not stay quiet for long.








On a less serious level, we have our work cut out for us convincing the elite that there is racism.... and there is racism.  Salon's Sarah Gray (video of segment she refers to, below) sets us up with

On Wednesday night’s “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart discussed the racist chant caught on video being sung by SAE fraternity boys at the University of Oklahoma. Stewart also ripped into the “Morning Joe” panel’s outrageous explanation for the racist chant, which they blamed on hip-hop.

“Two things,” Stewart said. “One, the kids on that bus were not repeating rap song they had heard. They were gleefully performing one of their fraternity’s old, let’s call them anti-negro spirituals, featuring a word the predates rap and probably folk and thought. Black rappers did not introduce that word into the vernacular.”









Two (or more) pundits (o.k., o.k.; Jon Stewart is just a comedian, he will protest) and they both get it wrong.

The "n word" was not introduced by black rappers into the vernacular, the latter defined by Merriam Webster as "of, relating to, or using the language of ordinary speech rather than formal writing." Clearly, it existed from early on or, as Stewart put it, "predates rap and probably folk and thought."

But it was re-introduced into the vernacular by rappers. It had lost its legitimacy a few decades ago when rap music emerged to lend it credibility.  (Stewart, who is 52, should  be old enough to remember this.)  When one begins to recognize a term is reprehensible because it is offensive to a group of people, and a subset of the cultural leaders of that group routinely employs it, the message is insinuated that the term is acceptable. It may still be understood intellectually as improper but human beings absorb a lot on the subconscious level. If the prolific use of the "n word" did not somewhat legitimize it in the larger society, it would have set back our understanding of human nature immeasurably.

We should be pleased that neocon William Kristol (segment below) pointed out "Popular culture becomes a cesspool, a lot corporations profit off of it, and then people are surprised that some drunk 19-year-old kids repeat what they’ve been hearing.”(Were Kristol as much a conservative as a neo-conservative, he would have choked on the words "a lot of corporations profit off of it.")  However, it was left to Willie Geist to sort it all out when lamented that the term frequently is used in rap music. "I'm not defending it," he continued, "but there is a distinction between white kids on a bus talking about hanging and Wocka-Flocka" repeating the term.








Would it that Jon Stewart recognized that. It is easier (and far more humorous) to condemn the video, simply as racist while denying any connection whatsoever to the use of the "n word" in popular culture. Easier too, for the right to link use of the term by the fraternity members to its use in rap music and leave it at that  Despite the connection, the video goes beyond racism. Some things, as Geist presumably understands, are worse than racism. One of those is lynching.

Share |

Imagine What Happens If Bruce Springsteen Retires

Despite being- no, because- he is an unabashed liberal, E.J. Dionne is typically fair-minded. After the "dueling stories" of Jon Stewart and Brian Williams hit recently, the columnist wrote

Be a media critic and ask: why did I put Steart first? Because he embodies so many of the changes I’m talking about. He is a gifted comedian, of course, but more than anything else, he is a media critic. He constantly upbraids journalists for how they’ve covered stories, and perhaps more significantly, what they’ve failed to report.

Dionne notes that  "Stewart's ridicule almost single-handedly killed CNN’s 'Crossfire' for a while" and was "a mistake" because "All the clever irony in the world can’t get us past the fact that passionate, if sometimes contrived, disagreement is an essential part of democracy."    (It should be seen as an even greater mistake given its eventual metamorphosis, since mercifully cancelled.) However, Dionne adds

Nonetheless, Stewart is more often right than wrong. He excels at poking at pomposity. What’s not to like about that? He explains complicated matters when regular journalism doesn’t. And he has drawn people into politics through the medium of laughter — a blessing when so much of our political discussion is grim and angry.

Never mind that Stewart, a skillful interviewer and prodigious reader, long ago ceased being amusing, except to viewers drawn to frequent contortions of the face and voice.  That escaped the attention of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which in its embarrassing idolatry neglected the complexity Dionne  recognized.  On Wednesday evening, it sent out an e-mail gushing

The Daily Show set the bar for making politics funny, combining hard-hitting news analysis with a large dose of humor. In his nearly two decades on the air, Jon has never been afraid to take hypocritical politicians and their outrageous agendas to task. We’ll miss looking forward to 11 p.m. on weeknights to see how he responds to the day’s news.

The DSCC added "Sign our card to thank Jon and wish him luck in whatever he does next- you can even add a personal note!"

Thanks, Jon, for making that sacrifice- and at only $25 million per year! You always will be our heartthrob.

Slate's Jamelle Bouie defends Stewart's temper tantrum on Crossfire but, more importantly, adds

Cable, however, isn’t the only forum for debate, and most political conversations aren’t as shallow as the ones you see on TV. On op-ed pages and around dinner tables, Americans have substantive conversations about politics. And while the facts aren’t always right, the discussion is often valuable. Stewart gives short shrift to that kind of talk. Instead, in the world of The Daily Show, the only politics is cable politics, where venality rules, serious disputes are obscured, and cynicism is the only response that works.

Then Bouie gets at the main problem with Stewart's approach- which, while the DSCC seems not to notice, characterizes the Republican-excusing mainstream media. Bouie adds

Not only does this discourage people who want to make a difference—like the earnest young viewers of Stewart’s audience—but it blurs the picture and makes it hard to see when those arguments really matter. It’s how we get the spectacle of Stewart’s rally, when tens of thousands of liberals gathered on the National Mall in Washington to hear an ode to civility—with an extended metaphor about the Lincoln Tunnel—as if Washington gridlock were a case of bad manners and not deep-seated ideological differences about government and its place in the world.

The DSCC plea highlights the caricature by conservative Republicans of  Democrats as captive to the entertainment industry.  Instead of sending a card to a near-billionaire who is positioned to make lots and lots more now, perhaps the DSCC ought to encourage supporters send condolences to the parents of this individual:

Share |

Christie Being Christie

"Last night Jon Stewart tore into the state level response to the first Ebola patient in New York City, writes Salon's Sarah Gray, "starting with the knee-jerk quarantines set up by Governors Christie and Cuomo."

"'Why does Christie have to be such a dick about everything!” (Jon) Stewart exclaimed" (video below).

Well, because he's set to run for the Repub nomination for President, silly man.

As found in the video below, Christie had self-righteously patronized caretaker and nurse Kaci Hickox by remarking "I know she didn't want to be there. No one ever wants to be in the hospital. I suspect,and so I understand that. But the fact is I have a much greater, bigger responsibility to the people and the public, and so I think when she has time to reflect she will understand that as well." Digby responded

No, she is not a silly bimbo who didn't understand her situation and "upon reflection" will understand that Daddy Knew Best. She is a medical professional, an epidemiology specialist, who knows very well that Chris Christie is completely ignorant about protecting the public from this disease and had no business spending several days talking about her as if she was a spoiled child who needed to go to bed without her supper. He betrayed his ignorance by repeatedly saying she was "ill" and hoping that she "recovered" even tough she has tested negative and has no symptoms at all.  (It was assumed that he meant she had Ebola but looking more closely at his comments it's possible that he was saying she was having a mental breakdown. That's what gaslighting pigs like Christie commonly do...)

That hospital quarantine actually took place in an unheated tent with a portable toilet for a bathroom. Will Bunch termed the move "bone-headed, tone-deaf and cowardly." Now that the policy has been reversed, apparently with a nudge by the Obama Administration, it appears bone-headed, and it was clearly cowardly.

As quintessential Chris Christie, however, it was hardly tone-deaf. .Simultaneously defending his initial move and attacking his opponents, Mr. Macho threw some red meat to the base, declaring "I will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the public health of the people of New Jersey, and if someone wants to sue me over it, they can."  Hickox hired a legal team, it threatened to sue, and promptly the governor had a change of heart.

But of course Christie wouldn't concede he had budged an inch. "I didn't reverse any decision," contended the Governor, because a Republican can never be seen as unsure, indecisive,or admitting to a mistake.  And now, he may be able to avoid a lawsuit and still not be held accountable for a bone-headed move.

Prior to Christie reversing but not reversing his policy, Digby had added

Judging from what I read around the internet this week-end, the right-wingers think Christie's jackboots are awesome. He can lock up nurses in FEMA camps all day long on a whim and it's fine with them. All it takes for their little authoritarian skirts to show is a little tough guy action toward a woman and they're on board. 

It helps if it is a woman, but this is a character who once called a former Navy SEAL an "idiot" (video below). It's what he does, and he does it well, exciting conservative voters and impressing much of mainstream media.










Nonetheless, Steve M. believes Christie made a tactical error in claiming "There’s been no reversal or change in any way to our policy or to our approach" because it will prevent him from

actively playing the victim card. If he were whining now that he was forced to do this by jackbooted Obama administration thugs, or possibly by evil trial lawyers (as Newell notes, Hickox was threatening a federal lawsuit), he might be looking good right now in the eyes of Limbaugh and his crowd whining now that he was forced to do this by jackbooted Obama administration thugs, or possibly by evil trial lawyers (as Newell notes, Hickox was threatening a federal lawsuit).

At worse, however, Christie did himself no harm among Repub primary voters because he will be seen as doing whatever he reasonably could to make at least one liberal Democrat and member of Doctors Without Borders suffer.  He can be seen as standing up to the Obama Administration as much as reasonably possible and, just as importantly, maintaining his manhood.  And if he can derail Scott Walker from being derailed in his gubernatorial re-election bid in Wisconsin, it will indeed have been a fine election season for Governor Christie.



Share |

American History Disappears

This week, it's South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. Next week, or next month, it could be a couple of other conservatives.

Haley is a Republican and O'Reilly a registered Independent, but is no more an independent than is the Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.  

Raw Story has the story that

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) on Tuesday said that there was no need to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse grounds because it was not an issue for CEOs, and the state had “fixed” racist perceptions by electing an Indian-American governor.

During a South Carolina gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Sen. Vincent Sheheen called on the flag to be retired to a museum.

“I think the people of South Carolina are tired of having an image across America that’s not truly who we are,” Sheheen explained, adding that everyone should “rally together under a flag that unites us all, the American flag, that looks toward the future, and not the past.”

Haley responded that the Confederate flag was a “sensitive issue.”

“What I can tell you is over the last three and a half years, I spent a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state,” the governor noted. “I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag.”

Haley said that she had tried to improve the perception of the state by ordering employees to answer the phone with the phrase “it’s a great day in South Carolina.”

“But we really kind of fixed all that when you elected the first Indian-American female governor,” she insisted. “When we appointed the first African-American U.S. senator, that sent a huge message.”

There are so many things wrong with a Governor supporting the Confederate flag being flown at the Statehouse because, she says, it doesn't offend chief economic officers and America proved it isn't racist because it has a black President and South Carolina a black Senator.  the statement does, however, encapsulate Repub philosophy brilliantly, suggesting

Screw what all you other people might think, the governor has talked with lots of CEO's—they are people too, you know, but better people, ones with nicer watches and private jets—and none of them think it's an issue. What the hell are the rest of you still going on about?

But let's be honest. The sheer elitism, as captured eloquently above by Hunter of Daily Kos, will be little noted in the corporate media.  Hopefully, at least, there will be an onslaught of criticism for the adoration of the Confederate flag, which is offensive to blacks and should be to all people who are pleased the USA came out on top against the the Confederate States of America.

There is a third disturbing aspect to Haley's remarks, one in common with a comment by O'Reilly when he faced off last night (video, below) with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.  The synopsis by Salon's Joanna Rothkopf of the event includes

On Wednesday evening’s edition of “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart invited Bill O’Reilly on the program with the sole intention of getting O’Reilly to admit that there was such a thing as white privilege, but under the pretense of discussing O’Reilly’s new book, “Killing Patton.”

Stewart begins by saying that there is a system of subjugation in the country when it comes to anyone who isn’t white.

“That was then. This now,” O’Reilly responds. “Maybe you haven’t figured out that there is no more slavery, no more Jim Crow…”

“Ooh. Alright,” Stewart says, casually sneaking O’Reilly’s book under the desk.

“And the most powerful man in the world is a black American, and the most powerful woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey, is black,” O’Reilly says.

“Being able to give people a free car does not make you the most powerful woman in the world,” Stewart retorts.

Rothkopf's post is very brief, leaving her insufficient space to note the most significant- yet bound to be overlooked- remark made by O'Reilly. While denying white privilege, he demeaned a wide swath of Americans when he lectured "Let me repeat this, and I'll do it slowly so even you can understand it: If you work hard, if you get educated, if you're an honest person, you can make it in America!"

We'd all like to believe that of course. However, there are Americans from the wrong side of the tracks- and increasingly from the right side of the tracks- who are stuck in dead-end jobs and have not made it in America. Usually, those individuals are ill-educated- but often not.  They are disproportionately minority, but far from exclusively.  And to Bill O'Reilly, they have not made it because they're lazy or dishonest. 

Yet what ties together the claims of O'Reilly and Haley is  the idea that, if there is a minority who has been given a position of authority, the USA has ridden itself of bigotry. He doesn't even have to be elected, for Tim Scott was appointed to the US Senate by Haley, who now appears to have made the choice so she can say racism has ended.   

It is even on its face ludicrous, though with power and lasting influence among Republicans. When O'Reilly exclaimed "the most powerful man in the world is a black American and the most powerful woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey, is black," Stewart's quick, witty response was decisive- in the moment, and as to Winfrey herself.

More, however, is needed.  If the likes of O'Reilly are to brag, on behalf of country, that the nation has elected a black man (Barack Obama) as President, he ought to be congratulated for having voted for Obama.  After (honestly) denying that he did so, he ought to be asked why he declined the opportunity to help demonstrate how great the country is.  That would make for interesting- even "exceptional"- conversation.

Share |

Charity Begins With One's Enemies

Democrats and Independents who lean Democratic, David Atkins observes, are significantly less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than are Republicans. The "professional left," critical of the White House's approach and derided (at least until recently) by the Administration, seems to have been right all along.

Atkins cites three reasons for the enthusiasm gap: 1) "playing nice with Republicans is a fool's errand;" 2) "playing nice with Wall Street is pointless;" and 3) "abandoning the base is a very dangerous thing to do politically."

Whoa. Let's go back to #2.

Atkins points out that Wall Street has turned against the President, switching allegiance to the Repub Party (as it did in 2010) and especially to Mitt Romney. The Los Angeles Times cites hurt feelings when Obama referred to "fat cat bankers." But as Joan Walsh writes (and with which Atkins surely would agree), little has been effectuated to reform the financial sector, given

whether it’s “Volcker’s Rule” keeping banks out of speculative, proprietary trading; Gensler’s effort to force the trading of poorly understood derivatives on “exchanges” where their shady contents could be better examined; or Bair’s push for a contingency plan to force the toxic behemoth Citibank into bankruptcy; the tough reforms never materialized. They were watered down to insignificance, or as in the case of the Citi breakup, abandoned completely.

Jon Stewart, therefore, asked on September 20 of Ron Suskind, author of Confidence Men, the key question (video below):

We keep hearing that the Wall Street guys hate Obama, and my sense is ‘why?’ They’ve had it as good as anyone in this country over the past two and a half years, probably better. What’s their beef?

That elicited the answer that sums up this Administration better than has almost anything. Suskind responded

I asked the same question. I talked to a senior Wall Street guy. I said '"what gives with this thing with Obama? You're after him; he's anti-business. God, he couldn't have done more. He basically opened the federal purse for you guys. He saved your skin." This guy says "you bet, you bet.'" And he says "no, no, you see. Of course, he's not anti-business. But when we say he's anti-business, he just ends up dong more for us. So we're going to keep saying it."

You, the reader, suspected this. But now we know it.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Share|

Hoisted By Their Own Petard


Don't blame Ron Paul, who is a mere member of the U.S. House of Representatives with as much chance of being the next GOP presidential nominee as you or I have. Better to call out Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the other influential conservative Republicans who don't want to acknowledge the role of Wall Street in precipitating the Great Recession.

But it was Paul who on Monday said (beginning at approximately 1:00 of video, part 2) on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show federal regulators "had a big bubble and they made a lot of money because we wanted to make sure that everybody had a house."

Uh, no. In September, 2008 Aaron Pressman explained

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Servicesthat 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Many Republicans complain that President Obama and other Democrats blame George W. Bush for everything. It is, of course, easy to do because Americans are more prone to attribute the economic crisis to President Bush than to President Obama. But that probably wouldn't be the case if the GOP (with little pushback from the Democratic Party and less from the mainstream media) hadn't built a wall around corporate America, shielding it from blame while fingering the federal government. Somebody was responsible. It was primarily the titans of Wall Street- but if the GOP wishes to absolve any part of their base (corporate, ultimately) of responsibility, the American people will blame a President. In their wisdom, more have chosen GWB than BHO.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Share|

Only A Foreshadowing

In the category of It's Going To Be A Long Two Years (till the next congressional election), we have Rush Limbaugh today claiming

I don't know about Chris Coons' voters being harassed, but I do know the New Black Panther Party is out in force in Philadelphia again.

A little detail, from TPM Muckraker

A member of the New Black Panther Party was spotted by a local Fox station today at the same polling location at which he was videotaped two years ago. His presence at that facility in 2008, along with a nightstick-wielding colleague, led to a controversial voter intimidation case that has dogged the Obama administration for over a year and a half.

Fox provided a photo of the individual and reported that he was seen outside the polling place "wearing a pin that indicated his party affiliation, along with a black hat, sunglasses and leather coat." The polling location, Guild House West, is located in a majority African-American neighborhood in northern Philadelphia.

The individual appears to be Jerry Jackson, who had a poll-watching certificate back in 2008 and was originally named in the civil voter intimidation case bought in the waning days of the Bush administration. The Obama administration did not pursue the case against Jackson or the national party, but did obtain an injunction against fellow NBPP member King Samir Shabazz, who carried a nightstick.

Charles Mirarchi of the City of Philadelphia confirmed to TPMMuckraker on Tuesday that Jackson holds a poll-watching certificate for 2010. <

Late update: Fred Voigt, a deputy city commissioner in Philadelphia, told TPMMuckraker that the District Attorney went out to the polling location and found nothing illegal. "There was one guy there, doing nothing. The DA was out there, the judge of elections," Voigt said. "There wasn't anything last time by the way, other than the film clip by the two performers. There wasn't even anything like that this time, there was a guy standing there doing nothing."

A man, a black hat, a poll watching certificate, and "The New Black Panther Party is out in force." Democratic victories will be fewer than Republican victories today but that won't stop leading Republicans from doing what they can to delegitimize the Democrats who do withstand the tide. Much of the activist right agrees "the people who support Obama have a vastly different view of this country, its past, its present, and its future, than the vast majority of the people of the country. We're being ruled and governed by a minority of people who have an active, ongoing, and increasing dislike for this country." Tea Party sympathizers or not, they will not be satiated by their gains in this election and their vitriol will only increase.

This should, however, satisfy such bold opinion leaders like David Broder or Jon Stewart, who will be glad to tell us that partisans on both sides are equally to blame.

Share|

Missing From Stewart's Admonition


Last week, Rush Limbaugh returned to a favorite theme of his and an awful lot of conservative Republicans:

What should be done about this? Every election we hear about this, every election. I've got a whole stack here of stories about election fraud. I don't have one in which Republicans are being accused of it. Not one.

No doubt this was true. Limbaugh probably didn't have in his stack anything about the voter caging, voter intimidation, and other strands of voter suppression described by Project Vote and reported by this website:

In Harris County, Texas, early voting has begun, and, as the Houston Chronicle reports, there are complaints that a Tea Party group has been hovering over voters, interfering with election workers, and disrupting lines of voters waiting to vote in minority neighborhoods. The Justice Department is investigating and interviewing witnesses.

Also in Texas, a fraudulent flyer being distributed in African American neighborhoods in Houston by the "Black Democratic Trust of Texas," a nonexistent group, advises voters not to vote for the Democratic ticket because their votes will instead go to the Republicans.

In Illinois, Senate candidate Mark Kirk has proudly claimed that he has mounted the state's largest "voter integrity program in 15 years"—aimed at four largely African-American precincts. Coincidentally (or maybe not), the Republican National Lawyers Association, a group closely affiliated with the Republican National Committee, is conducting trainings for lawyers in Illinois to assist on Election Day and "ensure that the elections are open, fair and honest." Additionally, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has linked a key figure in Kirk's "voter integrity squad" to voter intimidation that occurred in black communities while President Bush was in office.

A voter suppression plan in Wisconsin (a combined effort of the state Republican Party, Americans for Prosperity, and Tea Party organizations) is targeting, among others, 16,000 Milwaukee County voters. As the Wisconsin-Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, the organization One Wisconsin Now says it has obtained an audio recording of a tea party leader "outlining plans to work with the state Republican Party and another group, Americans for Prosperity, and use postcards to verify voters' addresses as well as provide volunteer poll workers to challenge voters on Election Day." A leader of a Tea Party group emailed "All Group Leaders" with instructions—including directions for photographing the homes of people targeted for voter suppression activities. The voter caging mailing allegedly targeted the 16th Assembly District, the district with the third-highest African-American voting population in the state.

A coalition of right-wing groups in Minnesota has been unsuccessful in its efforts to require photo ID at the polls, so they've redirected their energies to creating "voter surveillance teams." As Minnesota Public Radio reports, their planned activities include videotaping and tracking buses that bring voters to the polls (to ensure—they say—that buses are not taking their passengers to multiple polling places). Their materials also castigate Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson for failing to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

One of the most publicized and explicit campaigns to suppress the minority vote has been in Nevada, where "Latinos for Reform," a group headed by a conservative Republican activist, is urging Hispanic voters to stay home on Election Day in order to "demand some attention." President Obama called the tactic a "cynical political ploy," and the ads have been denounced by the Latino Coalition. The Hispanic television network Univision has announced it will not broadcast the ad.

And everywhere, the conservative website "Pajamas Media" is trying to "develop a network of citizen journalists/poll watchers" to monitor as many polling places as possible and report back, preferably with video or still photographs, on cases of voter fraud or intimidation. They're looking for cases of electioneering too close to the polls, "forced assistance," registration fraud, multiple voting, and "dead voters." As Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice says in an Associated Press article, "unfounded fears cannot serve as prevention of actual voters casting actual votes."

I do not come to bury Rush (or others like him) but to praise him. Look over the the closing speech of Jon Stewart at his Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear on Saturday. Ten paragraphs and not one sentence about voting. Not to vote for Democrats, or liberals, or sane candidates- but simply to vote. Not even "vote for the candidate of your choice- Democrat, Republican, or any other because in so doing you strengthen American democracy." Nothing suggesting, in the manner of Stewart's theme, that however one chooses to express his/her sentiments on Tuesday only enhjances the citizen's contribution to cooperation, bipartisanship, sanity or "sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done."

Three days before the election and a rally of a couple of hundred thousand individuals takes place on the mall at the center of the American experiment and one of the nation's leading public figures cannot muster the courage to utter the word "vote."

It might have been the only safe course for Stewart and comedic sidekick Stephen Colbert. It's only only Rush fixating on mythical Democratic voter fraud but is widespread across the GOP spectrum. On Monday morning, talk show Michael Smerconish, a centrist whose audience is overwhelmingly Republican and conservative, remarked that he was pleasantly surprised that the rally did not turn into a Democratic get out the vote gathering. That would, apparently, be scandalous- encouraging people actually to vote.

Nothing- nothing- in 2010 will make a Republican head explode more dramatically than encouraging people to vote. It's really not necessary to ask them to cast a ballot for a Democrat; merely asking them to vote is frightening to Republicans. Stewart, if seemingly naive in his world of moral equivalence, is highly informed, intelligent and insightful. He is hardly unaware of the ongoing effort on the part of conservatives to tamp down the vote and of the danger of anyone inciting the GOP bear by hinting that masses of individuals should vote.

It is easy to bend to intimidation and Stewart should not shoulder the entire blame, of course. The Democratic Party, which seemingly has a motive in calling out the opposite party for its active, or at least passive, subversion of democracy, generally has been silent. The left blogosphere would have Stewart's back on this- but, as anyone listening to the mainsteam media or the Administration, knows, the professional left is only a bunch of self-important whiners.

Still, if not Jon Stewart (and Colbert), then who (or whom)? If not someone with an adoring base and the adoration of the mainstream media, then who (or whom)? If not someone who could take a few body blows and remain standing- and still rich and powerful- then who (or whom)? Jon Stewart has outstanding attributes. Courage is not one of them.

Share|

If No Compromise, No Equivalence


At his Rally to Restore Sanity Saturday, comedian/celebrity/political pundit/egomaniac Jon Stewart made an excellent point when he noted

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.

Most Americans don't live their lives solely as Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives nor even primarily as Dems, Reps, libs, or cons. We leave that up to political officials, generally elected, and almost exclusively Republican or Democratic, most of them conservative or liberal. Stewart assesses these national politicians:

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!

Here is a sampling of the GOP's approach to the President, according to Think Progress:

– Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) was forced to apologize for “calling President-elect Barack Obama a ‘Marxist’ and comparing him to Adolf Hitler.” [11/12/08]

– Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) also compared Obama not only to Hitler, but also Hugo Chavez. [07/09/09]

– Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) questioned whether President Obama was an American, saying: “Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president.” [02/23/09]

– Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) also questioned Obama’s citizenship, saying birthers “have a point” and that “I don’t discourage it.” [07/29/09]

– Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said she was “very concerned that [Obama] may have anti-American views.” [10/17/08]

– Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called Obama “an enemy of humanity” for his pro-choice views. [09/26/09]

– Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called Obama “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda,” and said he was “a dedicated enemy of the Constitution.” [07/22/10]

– Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said that the Obama administration was a “gangster government.” [11/12/09]

– Bachmann, too, accuses Obama of heading a “gangster government.” [06/10/09]

– As Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin famously said Obama is “palling around with terrorists.” [10/04/10]

– Palin also said the president was being advised by “thugs” from Chicago. [06/10/10]

And those are Republican politicians, the guys and gals who have to submit themselves to voters of all stripes and to their local, and sometimes the national, media. The comments do not include the more extreme and more common remarks of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Gallagher, and others of the right-wing and highly partisan blogosphere. Those are actual members of Congress. (The one exception is Tancredo, who as a third-party candidate, is running a strong second in the race for governor of Colorado, despite competition from the (more moderate) Republican, whose candidacy he has decimated.

In the last few weeeks, GOP congressional leaders Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Mike Pence all have said: no compromise. (Those were Pence's exact words: "no compromise." Meanwhile, President Obama, in an interview with radio talk show host Michael Smerconish:

Asked how he would govern for the next two years should control of the House shift, Obama said he expected that Republicans, should they "be in a position to hopefully take more responsibility working with us, are going to say to themselves that it's important for us to show some accomplishments over the next couple of years."

Unless Jon Stewart can show us Repub leaders whose public position is similar to that of Barack Obama, his perception of moral equivalency is simply false equivalency.

Share|