Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
What if Obama had been white?
Republicans [maintained] they were going to block everything President Obama tried to gain partisan points and make it easier to defeat him in 2012it occurred to me that this set of circumstances was made so much easier by the fact that Obama is an African-American. That is, the hoi polloi willing to listen to the nonsense Repubicans have been spouting for the past number of years certainly are more willing to back any anti-Obama policy because they can't get past the fact of Obama's heritage. Even when it comes to such an advantageous perk as health care, the Republican lackeys can't get past their prejudice. To be sure, there's a reason Repubs have opposed every single beneficial proposal BO has made, but it's clear (to me, at least) how their followers have accepted their foolish and disadvantageous contrariness.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Two degrees of separation
Friday, March 15, 2013
When the political becomes personal
"As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples," Portman writes in an editorial published today in the Columbus Dispatch. "Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way." In 2011 Will, then in his first year at Yale, told his parents that he is gay; that knowledge, Portman writes, "prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective." Deciding that the Bible's "overarching themes of love and compassion" and gay couples' status as a "a potential source of renewed strength" for the conservative instution of marriage overrode his faith-based objections, Portman had a "change of heart": "I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage."Portman's reference to the Bible is almost laughable as it seems that only now has he discovered love and compassion in his Christianity. I.e., there really is more to the issue than Leviticus 18:22. In a nutsehell, this pretty much demonstrates the narrow mindedness of Republicans. Viz., only when an issue becomes personal can they be counted on to show any kind of integrity. Arthur Miller wrote an entire play regarding a similar issue and came to the same conclusion: It isn't enough to zero in on one's own comforts; rather, one must regard everyone (or, at the very least, one's constituents) as "all of our sons and daughters."
Monday, December 03, 2012
The Stax/Motown/King, etc. Records One Shouldn't Be Without
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Today's morning song is "Time Is On My Side" (a video of which can be found here.)
In my opinion, this is a pretty crappy cover of a terrific song originally recorded by the Queen of New Orleans Blues, Irma Thomas. Alas, the Stones were young when they recorded the song, and at the time their musicianship was, ahem, incipient.
Anyway, on this date in 1964, I watched the Stones perform this song on the Ed Sullivan Show in front of a bunch of adoring screaming fans. In fact, the fans were so obstreperous that they
practically [tore] the studio seats apart. Sullivan declare[d] to reporters: "I promise you they'll never be back on our show. It took me 17 years to build this up, I'm not going to have it destroyed in a matter of weeks. We won't book any more rock 'n' roll groups. Frankly, I didn't see the group until the day before the broadcast. I was shocked when I saw them." The group return[ed] to the program five times.(Furthermore, I see that
all 17 of the Rolling Stones' performances on "The Ed Sullivan Show" will be released Nov. 1 in a deluxe package from Universal Music Enterprises and Sofa Entertainment. An abridged version of the Stones on "Sullivan" [was] released Oct. 4.)
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
George Washington: Prophet
On this day in 1796, George Washington had published his Farewell Address and retired to Mt. Vernon to live out his final brief years.
I've always gotten a kick out of the piece (I taught it for two decades.) for its tenets that are so contrary to what the US has become.
Especially interesting in these times of virtually incredible partisanship are his warnings about the dangers of party politics. Viz.,
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests ...Take that, Dems and Repubs.
This spirit [of factionalism], unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.