First of all -- and this "first of all" part of this post is pretty partisan, which is out of character for this blog -- Republicans have NO ROOM TO CRITICIZE the Administration or congressional Democrats when it comes to these AIG bonuses. It is the failed economic policies of the Republican party that have gotten us into this economic mess, and Republican pockets have long been stuffed with donations from major corporations and CEOs. For these reasons, hearing lame Republican representatives ranting on shows like Hardball with Chris Matthews makes me want to hurl.
HOWEVER...one thing I really do not understand is the Obama Administration's commitment to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. I just don't get it. Geithner seems to have struggled in getting public confidence since he was first appointed, and now there is suspicion that the Treasury department went along with these bonuses or at the very least didn't resist them. If true, this worries me...why didn't Geithner push back?
Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Dustin Lance Black
I wanted to post this soon after the Oscars but was a little slow. Here Tis.
My favorite speech during Oscar night was that of Dustin Lance Black, who won the Oscar for best original screenplay for Milk. He was warm and endearing in his promise to America's gay youth that they will soon have equal rights.
He also pointed out that, contrary to what their churches may tell them, God does love them.
I especially appreciate the spiritual aspect of Black's speech. Rarely is there religious or spiritual validation of homosexuality. My own political socialization has caused me to draw a hard line between religion and run of the mill leftist issues that I support, like reproductive justice and gay rights.
But there is not an inherent divide between spirituality and gay rights, or spirituality and reproductive justice. People have created this divide. Divorcing these issues from spirituality only serves to alienate people who face difficult circumstances, when these are the very people that religious communities ought to be reaching out to. This is particularly troublesome for young people who may be living in religious households or communities, where they probably experience a constant message that they are sinful, bad people, and are at risk of committing suicide.
Even more valuable was that Black’s speech had a leftist message, directed at a leftist crowd, at a leftist event, but emphasized spiritual inclusion. (As an aside, contrasting Black's speech with Sean Penn’s speech kind of makes me laugh. Instead of using his celebrity bully pulpit to be inclusive, Penn shamed everyone who voted for Proposition 8, California’s anti gay marriage initiative that was enacted during the November 2008 election. His admonishment just made me chuckle, while Black’s speech actually made me pause.)
Expressions of spirituality within progressive circles are difficult to come by, but gradually these expressions will help progressives build their movements.
My favorite speech during Oscar night was that of Dustin Lance Black, who won the Oscar for best original screenplay for Milk. He was warm and endearing in his promise to America's gay youth that they will soon have equal rights.
He also pointed out that, contrary to what their churches may tell them, God does love them.
I especially appreciate the spiritual aspect of Black's speech. Rarely is there religious or spiritual validation of homosexuality. My own political socialization has caused me to draw a hard line between religion and run of the mill leftist issues that I support, like reproductive justice and gay rights.
But there is not an inherent divide between spirituality and gay rights, or spirituality and reproductive justice. People have created this divide. Divorcing these issues from spirituality only serves to alienate people who face difficult circumstances, when these are the very people that religious communities ought to be reaching out to. This is particularly troublesome for young people who may be living in religious households or communities, where they probably experience a constant message that they are sinful, bad people, and are at risk of committing suicide.
Even more valuable was that Black’s speech had a leftist message, directed at a leftist crowd, at a leftist event, but emphasized spiritual inclusion. (As an aside, contrasting Black's speech with Sean Penn’s speech kind of makes me laugh. Instead of using his celebrity bully pulpit to be inclusive, Penn shamed everyone who voted for Proposition 8, California’s anti gay marriage initiative that was enacted during the November 2008 election. His admonishment just made me chuckle, while Black’s speech actually made me pause.)
Expressions of spirituality within progressive circles are difficult to come by, but gradually these expressions will help progressives build their movements.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
the impact of inclusive messaging...
This article discusses the defeat of a fetal personhood initiative in Colorado. Reproductive rights groups collaborated with labor unions and Latino voters to defeat this initiative, along with four anti-labor initiatives. It reflects the power of inclusive messaging, which is key to the future of the reproductive justice movement.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/18/defeating-amendment-48-mobilizing-latino-communities-union-workers-against-personhood-measure
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/18/defeating-amendment-48-mobilizing-latino-communities-union-workers-against-personhood-measure
Monday, November 17, 2008
In Praise of Rachel Maddow
This blog entry is dedicated to the MSNBC and Air America talk show host, Rachel Maddow.
This is not just gushing fan mail misplaced on my blog. It is a tribute to her because she embodies what this blog is all about: transformational politics.
Most of the pundits, really most of the newscasters, who I see on television are white guys. Older white guys. Let’s call them out: Keith Olbermann. Chris Matthews. Joe Scarborough. David Gergen. Bill O’Reilly. Anderson Cooper. Paul Begala. Tucker Carlson. Sean Hannity. Shep Smith. The list goes on and on. CNN boasts Campbell Brown’s show called “No Bias, No Bull” but this show didn’t kick off until Maddow was already soaring in the ratings…I have a feeling that the folks at CNN noticed how good Rachel’s show is and realized they needed to add a little estrogen to their pundit lineup.
It is not just being a woman in a sea of male pundits that makes Rachel a transformational figure in the mainstream media world. Her background and personal experience factor in as well. Rachel is the only pundit that I know of who is a Rhodes scholar. (And what I really dig about her-she is the first openly gay Rhodes scholar.) She has dedicated her life to political commentating and activist work. She has a pretty face that she isn’t afraid to contort when being silly (which she often is) when delivering her top stories of the day.
But above all of the labels and categories and notches on her resume, Rachel is transforming punditland because of what she talks about on her show and the way she talks about it. Most pundits don’t stretch their arms very wide when commenting on the news of the day. Most of them are certainly intelligent and articulate, but they limit the scope of what they discuss to what I like to call pop politics — topics like the Obama family dog, Obama being stripped of his blackberry, and the political future and book deals of the Train Wreck In Chief, Sarah Palin. These hosts aren’t contributing much to our knowledge and understanding of the news.
Maddow, by contrast, is making her viewers smarter, as New York Magazine pointed out in their November 2 piece about the talk show host (see link to the article at the bottom of this post). Maddow talks about pop politics too, but she also talks about underreported issues that mainstream punditland does not care about/care to talk about. Her program featured a segment about how the United States lost a nuclear bomb in Greenland forty years ago and how the contents of one piece of the bomb may have dissolved in the ocean. She has found a way to weave the obscure anti-bourgeois cultural movement Dadaism into her program. When interviewing President-elect Obama just days before the election (which, by the way, was a real coup of an opportunity for a relative cable TV rookie) Maddow asked tough foreign policy questions and brought up the very astute point that Obama refused to criticize the entire Republican party during the campaign, but rather had limited his criticism to McCain. The guests she brings in to help her talk about the news stretch beyond the standard cookie cutter mix of commentators like Bill Maher or Hillary Rosen — she brings in creative bloggers like Shannyn Moore and history professors like Douglas Brinkley – articulate and relative unknowns in the cable news world. The entire theme of Maddow’s show is “mind over chatter,” and she walks the talk.
Bottom line: Maddow is amazing, and really is the future of smart political commentating. My only complaint? When she’s gone for the night and a guest host takes her place – very weak sauce.
http://nymag.com/news/media/51822/
This is not just gushing fan mail misplaced on my blog. It is a tribute to her because she embodies what this blog is all about: transformational politics.
Most of the pundits, really most of the newscasters, who I see on television are white guys. Older white guys. Let’s call them out: Keith Olbermann. Chris Matthews. Joe Scarborough. David Gergen. Bill O’Reilly. Anderson Cooper. Paul Begala. Tucker Carlson. Sean Hannity. Shep Smith. The list goes on and on. CNN boasts Campbell Brown’s show called “No Bias, No Bull” but this show didn’t kick off until Maddow was already soaring in the ratings…I have a feeling that the folks at CNN noticed how good Rachel’s show is and realized they needed to add a little estrogen to their pundit lineup.
It is not just being a woman in a sea of male pundits that makes Rachel a transformational figure in the mainstream media world. Her background and personal experience factor in as well. Rachel is the only pundit that I know of who is a Rhodes scholar. (And what I really dig about her-she is the first openly gay Rhodes scholar.) She has dedicated her life to political commentating and activist work. She has a pretty face that she isn’t afraid to contort when being silly (which she often is) when delivering her top stories of the day.
But above all of the labels and categories and notches on her resume, Rachel is transforming punditland because of what she talks about on her show and the way she talks about it. Most pundits don’t stretch their arms very wide when commenting on the news of the day. Most of them are certainly intelligent and articulate, but they limit the scope of what they discuss to what I like to call pop politics — topics like the Obama family dog, Obama being stripped of his blackberry, and the political future and book deals of the Train Wreck In Chief, Sarah Palin. These hosts aren’t contributing much to our knowledge and understanding of the news.
Maddow, by contrast, is making her viewers smarter, as New York Magazine pointed out in their November 2 piece about the talk show host (see link to the article at the bottom of this post). Maddow talks about pop politics too, but she also talks about underreported issues that mainstream punditland does not care about/care to talk about. Her program featured a segment about how the United States lost a nuclear bomb in Greenland forty years ago and how the contents of one piece of the bomb may have dissolved in the ocean. She has found a way to weave the obscure anti-bourgeois cultural movement Dadaism into her program. When interviewing President-elect Obama just days before the election (which, by the way, was a real coup of an opportunity for a relative cable TV rookie) Maddow asked tough foreign policy questions and brought up the very astute point that Obama refused to criticize the entire Republican party during the campaign, but rather had limited his criticism to McCain. The guests she brings in to help her talk about the news stretch beyond the standard cookie cutter mix of commentators like Bill Maher or Hillary Rosen — she brings in creative bloggers like Shannyn Moore and history professors like Douglas Brinkley – articulate and relative unknowns in the cable news world. The entire theme of Maddow’s show is “mind over chatter,” and she walks the talk.
Bottom line: Maddow is amazing, and really is the future of smart political commentating. My only complaint? When she’s gone for the night and a guest host takes her place – very weak sauce.
http://nymag.com/news/media/51822/
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Reframing the abortion debate
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/11/roundup-antichoice-movement-confrontation-or-compromise#comment-10832
I agree that abortion is still a personal liberty issue, and that we should work to reframe the assumption that it is "tragic." Those of us who have been patriots in the pro choice movement won't ever forget that, and that will always inform our activism. But I also believe that the abortion issue has become so divisive because we have focused so much on the personal liberty piece of the issue. We won't gain ground in the movement by focusing on personal liberty when the tide is probably turning in Rev. Joel Hunter's direction; that is, the "new" pro-life agenda that focuses on environmental issues and poverty and recognizes that abortion becomes dangerous and will actually harm life if illegalized. The new pro-life viewpoint is going to gain traction in our new, post-partisan, transformational political climate. I do believe that we can preserve women's individual rights and liberties through talking their talk, at least for now.
I agree that abortion is still a personal liberty issue, and that we should work to reframe the assumption that it is "tragic." Those of us who have been patriots in the pro choice movement won't ever forget that, and that will always inform our activism. But I also believe that the abortion issue has become so divisive because we have focused so much on the personal liberty piece of the issue. We won't gain ground in the movement by focusing on personal liberty when the tide is probably turning in Rev. Joel Hunter's direction; that is, the "new" pro-life agenda that focuses on environmental issues and poverty and recognizes that abortion becomes dangerous and will actually harm life if illegalized. The new pro-life viewpoint is going to gain traction in our new, post-partisan, transformational political climate. I do believe that we can preserve women's individual rights and liberties through talking their talk, at least for now.
Framing a Reproductive Justice Agenda for the Obama Administration
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/10/31/the-future-sexual-and-reproductive-health
A good summary of what ought to take place for the health of women in America and globally.
A good summary of what ought to take place for the health of women in America and globally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)