Sunday, October 25, 2015

Phil Donahue was interviewed on TV today

Seeing Phil Donahue interviewed this morning and talking about the terrible blunder of the Iraq war made me realize how much he is missed on our TV screens since he was fired by MSNBC for speaking "negatively" about the Cheney-Bush decision to go to war in Iraq.  Chris Matthews (a man I absolutely can't stand!) was a large part of the reason for Phil's being fired.  The big mouth Matthews, who never lets anyone get a word in edgewise, saw Donahue as a threat to Matthews' goal to become the face of MSNBC.  There was also great animosity between Matthews and Keith Olbermann, who was another journalist on MSNBC at the time.  We can see who won in the war of the titans.  Matthews alone remains, having succeeded in shoving both of his perceived competitors off the channel.  I wonder what he has planned for Rachel Maddow, whose popularity on MSNBC has surpassed his.  So far, Rachel has managed to dodge any blows he is sending her way.  I can't understand Why MSNBC keeps Matthews on and pays him over $5 million in salary!  He is an actual embarrassment on the channel, and I refuse to watch him. 

I went online to find some information about Phil Donahue and found a link to the following 2013 interview, which was similar to the interview conducted with him today on CNN.  It is worth watching to remember when we actually had someone on TV telling us the truth.  As Phil said today, the giant corporations who own all of our access to TV news, are in control of what we see and hear.  If anyone deviates from the rules they set down, well....we see what happened to Phil.  Read more about this in the article, The Day That TV News Died, by Chris Hedges, which I've included below.  If you want to see Phil's 2013 interview, go to the following link:


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-msnbc-host-phil-donahue-chris-matthews-saw-me-as-threat-to-his-supremacy/ 

The Day That TV News Died


Phil Donahue produced the documentary Body of War with Ellen Spiro.

I am not sure exactly when the death of television news took place. The descent was gradual — a slide into the tawdry, the trivial and the inane, into the charade on cable news channels such as Fox and MSNBC in which hosts hold up corporate political puppets to laud or ridicule, and treat celebrity foibles as legitimate news. But if I had to pick a date when commercial television decided amassing corporate money and providing entertainment were its central mission, when it consciously chose to become a carnival act, it would probably be Feb. 25, 2003, when MSNBC took Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq. 

Donahue and Bill Moyers, the last honest men on national television, were the only two major TV news personalities who presented the viewpoints of those of us who challenged the rush to war in Iraq. General Electric and Microsoft — MSNBC's founders and defense contractors that went on to make tremendous profits from the war — were not about to tolerate a dissenting voice. Donahue was fired, and at PBS Moyers was subjected to tremendous pressure. An internal MSNBC memo leaked to the press stated that Donahue was hurting the image of the network. He would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war," the memo read. Donahue never returned to the airwaves.

The celebrity trolls who currently reign on commercial television, who bill themselves as liberal or conservative, read from the same corporate script. They spin the same court gossip. They ignore what the corporate state wants ignored. They champion what the corporate state wants championed. They do not challenge or acknowledge the structures of corporate power. Their role is to funnel viewer energy back into our dead political system — to make us believe that Democrats or Republicans are not corporate pawns. The cable shows, whose hyperbolic hosts work to make us afraid of self-identified liberals or self-identified conservatives, are part of a rigged political system, one in which it is impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, General Electric or ExxonMobil. These corporations, in return for the fear-based propaganda, pay the lavish salaries of celebrity news people, usually in the millions of dollars. They make their shows profitable. And when there is war these news personalities assume their "patriotic" roles as cheerleaders, as Chris Matthews — who makes an estimated $5 million a year — did, along with the other MSNBC and Fox hosts.

It does not matter that these celebrities and their guests, usually retired generals or government officials, got the war terribly wrong. Just as it does not matter that Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman were wrong on the wonders of unfettered corporate capitalism and globalization. What mattered then and what matters now is likability — known in television and advertising as the Q score — not honesty and truth. Television news celebrities are in the business of sales, not journalism. They peddle the ideology of the corporate state. And too many of us are buying.

President Bush, center, pauses during remarks about the Middle East at the State Department on Aug. 14, 2006.

The lie of omission is still a lie. It is what these news celebrities do not mention that exposes their complicity with corporate power. They do not speak about Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, a provision that allows the government to use the military to hold U.S. citizens and strip them of due process. They do not decry the trashing of our most basic civil liberties, allowing acts such as warrantless wiretapping and executive orders for the assassination of U.S. citizens. They do not devote significant time to climate scientists to explain the crisis that is enveloping our planet. They do not confront the reckless assault of the fossil fuel industry on the ecosystem. They very rarely produce long-form documentaries or news reports on our urban and rural poor, who have been rendered invisible, or on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or on corporate corruption on Wall Street. That is not why they are paid. They are paid to stymie meaningful debate. They are paid to discredit or ignore the nation's most astute critics of corporatism, among them Cornel West, Medea Benjamin, Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky. They are paid to chatter mindlessly, hour after hour, filling our heads with the theater of the absurd. They play clips of their television rivals ridiculing them and ridicule their rivals in return. Television news looks as if it was lifted from Rudyard Kipling's portrait of the Bandar-log monkeys in "The Jungle Book." The Bandar-log, considered insane by the other animals in the jungle because of their complete self-absorption, lack of discipline and outsized vanity, chant in unison: "We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true."

When I reached him by phone recently in New York, Donahue said of the pressure the network put on him near the end, "It evolved into an absurdity." He continued: "We were told we had to have two conservatives for every liberal on the show. I was considered a liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone but not Dennis Kucinich. You felt the tremendous fear corporate media had for being on an unpopular side during the ramp-up for a war. And let's not forget that General Electric's biggest customer at the time was Donald Rumsfeld [then the secretary of defense]. Elite media features elite power. No other voices are heard."

Donahue spent four years after leaving MSNBC making the movie documentary "Body of War" with fellow director/producer Ellen Spiro, about the paralyzed Iraq War veteran Tomas Young. The film, which Donahue funded himself, began when he accompanied Nader to visit Young in the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

"Here is this kid lying there whacked on morphine," Donahue said. "His mother, as we are standing by the bed looking down, explained his injuries. 'He is a T-4. The bullet came through the collarbone and exited between the shoulder blades. He is paralyzed from the nipples down.' He was emaciated. His cheekbones were sticking out. He was as white as the sheets he was lying on. He was 24 years old. … I thought, 'People should see this. This is awful.' "

Donahue noted that only a very small percentage of Americans have a close relative who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan and an even smaller number make the personal sacrifice of a Tomas Young. "Nobody sees the pain," he said. "The war is sanitized."

"I said, 'Tomas, I want to make a movie that shows the pain, I want to make a movie that shows up close what war really means, but I can't do it without your permission,' " Donahue remembered. "Tomas said, 'I do too.' "

But once again Donahue ran into the corporate monolith: Commercial distributors proved reluctant to pick up the film. Donahue was told that the film, although it had received great critical acclaim, was too depressing and not uplifting. Distributors asked him who would go to see a film about someone in a wheelchair. Donahue managed to get openings in Chicago, Seattle, Palm Springs, New York, Washington and Boston, but the runs were painfully brief.

"I didn't have the money to run full-page ads," he said. "Hollywood often spends more on promotion than it does on the movie. And so we died. What happens now is that peace groups are showing it. We opened the Veterans for Peace convention in Miami. Failure is not unfamiliar to me. And yet, I am stunned at how many Americans stand mute."

Read Chris Hedges' interview with Tomas Young on Truthdig.

Watch Bill Moyers's 2008 interview with Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro about Body of War.

Watch Bill Moyers's 2012 interview with Chris Hedges about his new book, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt a collaboration with comics artist and journalist Joe Sacco.

Share:

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Water is Boiling and the Frog Doesn't Know It. Guess who is the frog?



Oh, the absurdity of it all...

The Water Is Boiling Now And The Frog Doesn't Know It

By Dave Johnson

Thursday's Clinton-bashing hearing in Congress carried with it that "frog in heating water" feeling. The water is boiling and the country is the frog. This is a period where the country has gone crazy.  This has been slowly building since the ascendency of the corporate-funded "conservative movement" and then the presidential election of Ronald Reagan. The 24/7/12/365 drumbeat of corporate/conservative propaganda started then. The intentional defunding of government started then. The refusal to maintain our infrastructure started then. The continuing trade deficit that has drained our economy of jobs started then. The "volunteer army" perpetual-war machine got revved up then. The privatization of publicly held wealth started then. The collapse of the middle class started then. So many things started going wrong then. And after a slow, decades-long buildup, the country is threatening to collapse like an unmaintained bridge.

The planet is heating (the strongest western-hemisphere hurricane ever is heading toward Mexico as I write this). We are on the verge of a debt-ceiling crisis that could throw the world into something far worse than 2008 or the 1930s Depression. The corporate/conservative/billionaire money is flowing so freely into elections that almost all of the Republican candidates voice the concerns of the billionaires funding their campaigns and don't say a word about what the public needs. No wonder Republicans have turned to Donald Trump.

"Were You Alone All Night?"

The gerrymandered-into-office Republican Congress is completely dysfunctional for governing, and instead of addressing the country's problems we got this: An 11-hour long hearing asking a former first lady, senator and Secretary of State, "Were you alone all night?"

What the country experienced Thursday is SO FAR from any kind of normal, reasonable operation of a Congress or a country that I can't believe it could even happen. The Republicans have fallen SO FAR down into a hole of their own propaganda machine that reality is lost completely for them.

But it's like the alcoholic in the family that no one dares talk about. The elite pundit and news media class is so mired in a "both sides do it," and their careers are so tied to boosting Republican corporatism, that they can not scream about the situation.

Systemic collapse builds slowly and then happens very quickly. The water is boiling rapidly now. It's clearly a question of when, not if.


Share:

Friday, October 23, 2015

The Ellen Show: Amy and Andy in the Walking Dead Haunted House

What a riot!  TOO FUNNY!  A laugh every second...but glad it wasn't me making this trip (~.~)
Happy Halloween!!!  Enjoy the fun!

http://www.ellentv.com/videos/0-c6lap1q5/
Share:

Thursday, October 22, 2015

The Benghazi hearing is over


"No hearing should be conducted in this way.  It was really embarrassing what the Republicans did here today."  -- John Dean  (And who would know better than this Nixon-era Republican who has had more than his taste of hearings in his own life?)

I watched most of today's hearing and applaud Hillary Clinton for keeping her cool and showing how Presidential she can be.  The Republicans did her a favor, albeit in an unintended backwards manner, by baiting and bullying her throughout the day (and even in conducting this hearing at all).  In getting the viewer to empathize with Clinton, they no doubt earned her many more votes for the presidential election than she would have had before -- from voters in both parties. 

Except, of course, for those who listen to Fox news to learn what happened according to the right wing perception.  Over there in the Bubble World, they were treated to an ALERT--ALERT--ALERT ribbon constantly appearing on screen as the hearing continued. That's par for the course at Fox, where EVERYTHING is either an ALERT!!! or a BREAKING NEWS!!!!  Evidently, Fox viewers are not thought of as intelligent enough to know when something in the news is important.  They must be urged to pay attention with big bold warnings--constantly, continuously.  The after-the-hearing reports from their journalists were the exact opposite of what everyone else in the world was hearing from reporters.  But if they stay with their heads buried in the right wing sand dunes and don't read any other mainstream news, they can effectively keep from finding out what really happened.


As chairman of the committee Trey Gowdy said in an interview after the 11-hour marathon hearing was finally over, "We didn't really learn anything new."  Yes. True.  In all the other investigations and hearings into Benghazi, with all the information collected over the past 17 months, it appears there was nothing new to emerge from this almost 5 million dollar debacle (paid for by us, the taxpayers, thank you very much).  But we the people do owe gratitude to Gowdy and his cohorts who persistently and obnoxiously questioned Clinton in loud, shouting voices filled with frustration because they weren't getting the "Gotcha!" they were going for.  In the process of their contemptible hammering at her, they garnered sympathy and support for Hillary--and that is sure to translate into votes for her presidential run. 

Yes, they were offensive and insufferable in their witch hunt tactics against her.  But the tables were turned on them as she maintained her cool and showed her presidential disposition and extreme intelligence. She and the Democrats on the committee showed class -- and the Repugs looked like low lives in contrast. 

Fox viewers will not agree, but we have to remember that they are daily exposed to much lower intelligence standards in the ways they are manipulated by Murdoch and company.

Just my opinion, of course. But I think Clinton will end up being President -- and she can thank the Repugs conducting this hearing for giving her a great big boost in that direction.

Share:

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Encouraging article about Bernie Sanders and the conservatives

I think most conservatives are actually not aware that they are voting against their own interests when they cast Republican votes.  If they listen only to Fox and Limbaugh and other right wing water carriers for the Republican Tea Party, they are not getting the truth -- but they don't realize it.  This article talks about conservative voters who are beginning to listen to Bernie Sanders and recognize that he honestly, sincerely wants to help them and their families. What a concept.  A man running for President who really cares for the people.  His authenticity is winning over new converts every day.  He's got my vote! 

Some conservatives are FEELING THE BERN

This story first appeared at the Washington Spectator.

Nate Silver has the Bernie Sanders campaign figured out. Ignore what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, the "data-driven" prognostication wizard wrote back in July, when Sanders was polling a healthy 30 percent to Clinton's 46 percent in both contests. That's only, Silver says, because "Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire are liberal and white, and that's the core of Sanders' support."

Silver has a chart. It shows that when you multiply the number of liberals and whites among state electorates, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa rank first, second, and third. Texas is near the bottom—a place where Bernie Sanders should feel about as welcome as a La Raza convention at the Alamo, right?

I have a new friend who begs to differ.

It's July 20, and my airplane seat mate asks what brought me to Texas. He is a construction company sales executive from Houston. He's watching Fox News on his cell phone. He tells me he considers himself a conservative. I tell him I'm a political reporter covering the Bernie Sanders campaign. He perks up: "I like what I've heard from him. Kind of middle of the road."

Eleven days later, I'm at a Bernie Sanders house party in the depressed steel town of Griffith, Indiana, in a state that places in the bottom quartile on Silver's chart. I approach a young man in his twenties wearing a thrift store T-shirt. I ask him what brings him here tonight.

"I'm just helping out my friends because they asked me to help out," he tells me. He adds that he's a conservative: "But I approve of some of the stuff that Bernie stands for. Like appealing to more than just the one percent and just trying to give everybody a leg up who's needing it these days." Data-driven analysis is only as good as the categories by which you sift the information. If you've already decided that "liberals" are the people who prefer locally sourced arugula to eating at McDonald's, or are the people who don't watch Fox News, it is a reasonable conclusion that there aren't enough "liberals" out there to elect Bernie Sanders. Yet political categories shift. One of the things the best politicians do is work to shift them.

Sanders has been extraordinarily clear about the kind of shift he'd like to effect: Republicans "divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it's not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful."

The theory that economic populism unites voters is hardly new. Lyndon Johnson, in New Orleans and about to lose the South to Barry Goldwater in 1964, expressed it in one of the most remarkable campaign speeches in history. A Southern Democratic politician was on his deathbed, Johnson said. "He was talking about the economy and what a great future we could have in the South, if we could just meet our economic problems. . . 'I would like to go back down there and make them one more Democratic speech. I just feel like I have one in me. The poor old state, they haven't heard a Democratic speech in 30 years. All they ever hear at election time is nigger! nigger! nigger!'"

The theory suggests that when upwards of 60 percent of voters consistently agree that rich people should have their taxes raised, a candidate who promises to do so might be identified as what he actually is: middle of the road. That if Democrats give Democratic speeches on economic issues, voters suckered into Republicanism by refrains like Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! just might try something else. And that new voters might be attracted into politics if they could just hear a candidate cut to the radical quick of the actual problems that are ruining their lives. My new Republican friends didn't know they were not "supposed" to like a "liberal" like Bernie Sanders. Then they heard what he was saying, and liked what they heard. How many are there like them? That's what I've been trying to begin to find out.

A populist moment in Dallas

Dallas is Dallas. At Love Field, a middle-aged woman sports a "Mrs." T-shirt—1970s-style antifeminist trolling. I pass the Dallas Country Club, which made news last year for admitting its first black member after he spent 13 years on a waiting list. The Holocaust Museum features a "Ground Zero 360: Never Forget" exhibit on 9/11. (Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!)

Hillary Clinton had recently been to Texas. She did a fundraiser here in a gated community where guests were told the address only after delivering their $2,700 checks. For nationally prominent Democrats, one of the donors complained, "All Texas is to anyone is a stop to pick up money."

Not all nationally prominent Democrats. When I talk with a bunch of old hippies after an afternoon Sanders rally at a downtown convention center in Dallas, their minds are blown. Long-haired Zen Biasco is a professional "creativity teacher"; Morris Fried first picketed against apartheid in 1965. The only non-Jew in the group, and the only native Southerner, explains Texas politics: "The states that came up throughout the plantation economy did not really believe" in democracy. "It was the elites running things, and basically the GOP here in the South, especially in Texas, has inherited that basis of understanding. In Texas we are not
necessarily a red state. We are a non-voting state."

These are the people you'd see at any lefty rally anywhere. But this lefty rally was unlike any they've seen in their adopted hometown. "I'm shocked at such a draw on a Sunday afternoon!" one offers. "I'm shocked at all the young people in this crowd!"

Before Sanders began speaking, I had spoken to two of those young people, a married couple, who represent a liberal holy grail: kids who had grown up conservative—Mormons!—and reasoned their way to the left. "Thanks to people like Bernie," as one put it. They try to spread the gospel to professional circles saturated with Republicans and to their families back home.

The husband unspools a splendid version of the Sanders argument:

"I don't think the values of those communities are really represented in their politics, family values, the ideology they profess to have. . . doesn't match up with the words or things [the politicians they align themselves with] actually represent. I don't think people realize that if they actually were for family values, and were for the working family, that Republican policies are not going to move you closer."

Sanders on the stump

The speech begins. I've rarely heard one more electric. Bernie gets to the part about how America could increase its competitiveness and move toward full employment by spending a trillion dollars rebuilding bridges and roads, and a fashionably dressed young woman next to me with a swallow tattoo on her wrist cries out like a cheerleader.

"INNNNNNNFRASTRUCTURE!!!!"

The senator follows with a disquisition about the Sherman Act.

"ANTI-TRUSSSSTTT!" she shouts.

When he gets to reinstating the Glass-Steagell act, she lets out a "WHOOOOOOOO!"

At the 21-minute mark comes something extraordinary. After a reverberating ovation for a call for pay equity for women, a promise to fight for 12 weeks of paid family leave, and an excoriation of the fact that "the American people work more hours than any other major country on Earth." Then the senator announces his marquee platform plank.

"To make every public college and university tuition-free."

The crowd's response is so ecstatic it overdrives my tape recorder. It continues into a chant: "BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE!"

And when the show ends, a crowd in a nearly post-coital mood of sated exhilaration doesn't want to leave, doesn't leave, until Bernie returns to to the podium for something I've never witnessed at a political event, an encore, and announces that the crowd numbered 6,000.

I followed the campaign that evening to the University of Houston, where he got the same thunderous reception before 5,200 college students. Both events got prominent play in the local media, where hundreds of thousands of Texans heard heretical ideas that they might not have read in their newspapers before: like raising taxes on the rich isn't crazy, even if 62 percent of Americans agree.

Some things polls have a hard time recording. They may miss kids like these, who only carry cell phones, as pollsters rely mostly on landlines. Or the intensity of support, how many people are willing to knock on doors for a candidate. And, last but very much not least, novel issues and how constituencies respond to them.

In 1965, for instance, when he began running for governor, Ronald Reagan made the focal point of his speeches the student uprising at Berkeley. His consultants told him to knock it off because it wasn't showing up in their polls as a public concern. Reagan ignored them, reading the response of crowds that didn't yet think that students tearing up their college campuses was a "political issue" to bring up when pollsters called.

Similarly, in the late 1970s, when the Equal Rights Amendment began failing in state after state though polls showed it had majority support, a sociologist named Ruth Murray Brown polled anti-ERA women activists in North Carolina and found that more than half of them had never participated in politics before. The pundits didn't know how to count what they didn't know was out there

Rust belt populism

That's what I thought of when I met Gypsy and David Milenic, whose front lawn had hosted that house party on July 30. I had read an interview with Sanders in which he said the campaign was hosting these parties around the country, which he would address via a live video feed. I chose one as far afield as possible from the places where "liberals" are supposed to congregate. Ten miles past a creationist museum billboard on I-90, there was no arugula, but there were crackers, pretzels, and store-bought gingersnaps. Griffith, Indiana, population 16,619, has a per capita income of $21,866.

"My history of political volunteering is that this is the first political volunteering I have done," Gypsy tells me, taking a break from directing traffic and packing her two small children off to grandma's. "But, to be honest, Bernie is the first person who's gotten me out of my chair and out doing things."

From her front porch, she casts her nervous eye over a lawn that keeps filling, and filling, and filling. (In the interview Sanders said the campaign was planning for 30,000 participants across the nation; the final number turned out to be 100,000.)

"This home was paid for by union dues," Gypsy says. "That matters. Keeping it in the family: that matters. Being able to have a small town like this that was a mix of blue-collar and white-collar matters."

At 6:30 a political meeting unfolds unlike any I have ever seen. Bernie is to speak on a live feed at 8:00. David, an accountant, welcomes us, and invites people to stand up and introduce themselves.

A young man who has been busily setting up the AV system volunteers to go first.
"Both my parents together made barely over the poverty line, and I can tell you that life sucks," he begins.

"I have no financial support from my family. I get very little from the government. I am on my own, trying to make it, trying to thrive, just like everybody behind me. And it's hard. And I am currently about 50 grand in debt between student loans, car loans. . . and I am trying so damned hard. And working so damned hard."

The crowd responds with an ovation.

"I see all my friends, and all of my friends who suffer the same way I do, and they can't make ends meet. They work three jobs. . . and they still struggle! And it just burns me. Because it wasn't like this! Now, you go to college for four years and you're in debt 20, 30 years. Sometimes for life. . ."

He trails off. Applause encourages him on. "I want to see change. And I believe Bernie Sanders is the one to do it."

And on it went. For an hour and a half, testimony after testimony after testimony. The issue of student debt dominated. So did the consensus that together they could do something about it.

In Griffith, I met a remarkable black retiree named Martha Harris. Her grandparents were slaves, and she remembers going into hiding at the age of three when her father was run off by the Klan for being "uppity." She had been following the story of Sanders's public encounters with Black Life Matters activists at the Netroots Nation gathering in Phoenix. She just wondered why people were still going on about it. "I saw him flub. And like any white man, his staff put him out there without his underwear on. So he ran home and he got his long johns on. And I'm okay with that. He's learning."

Harris was one of the Sanders supporters who, following that evening in Griffith, set up a storefront Sanders office in Hammond, Indiana. She had recently been a guest on a radio show in Gary, where the African-American population is 85 percent and one third of the houses are abandoned. She was scheduled for a half hour. The response was so enthusiastic the interview went on for an hour and a half.

Among the political class, the discussion of the supposed reverberations that followed Sanders's encounter with Black Lives Matter activists in Phoenix was incessant. That kind of conflict is something the political media knows how to talk about. So they talk about it. What happened on the radio in Gary, not so much.

Responsive politics

The question is, what else is happening that they aren't talking about?

Maybe this. In 2005, MSNBC's Chris Hayes published some remarkable journalism on his experience canvassing for John Kerry in Wisconsin, where voters didn't seem to have any idea that their economic distress was something for which voting could make a difference.

"When I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief—not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue," Hayes reported. "It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December."

Hayes wondered what a more responsive Democratic politics would look like.

"One thing that nearly all Americans share is debt." His idea? "Building a movement around credit reform—through the formation of local 'debt clubs' that would be part of a national campaign, for example—would be one way for progressives to reach out to non-believers."

Now "debt clubs" are being formed. They're being formed around the Sanders campaign. I wouldn't argue that this will add up to a presidential nomination. But I've seen enough in places like Dallas, Houston, and on David and Gypsy Milenic's front lawn in Griffith to know that something is happening here, something that reminds us that our existing models for predicting winners and losers in politics need always be subject to revision.
Share:

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

TRUTH: A movie must-see!


http://variety.com/2015/film/festivals/truth-review-cate-blanchett-robert-redford-toronto-film-festival-1201592326/ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/movies/review-truth-treads-a-perilous-political-tightrope.html?referrer=google_kp&_r=0


Finally, in a movie entitled TRUTH, real truth is being told about the fall of Dan Rather and how absolute power often controls what we are allowed to see and hear, keeping truth away from us.  In Machiavellian manipulation, presidents are chosen for us (Bush/Cheney) while we the people and our supposed watchdogs in the fourth estate sleep at the switch. 

At the same time that Kerry was being swift-boated in lies, facts were being discovered about Dubya Bush's non-appearances for military duty during the Vietnam years. Dubya's powerful "Poppy" and friends arranged things so Dubya didn't have to actually fight in the war and instead was given a plush position
stateside in the National Guard. But Dubya, in fits-and-starts appearances, eventually didn't see the need to show up at all.  He avoided service almost completely and suffered no punishment.  The powers that be couldn't allow that truthful information to come out, especially when they were looking forward to another four years of control in the Cheney/Bush presidency.  (Amazing, isn't it, how that presidency was forced on us, even though they were really never voted in by the populace?)

And so...they arranged to destroy the messengers, Dan Rather and his producer/investigator Mary Mapes (just as in the movie "Killing the Messenger,"which told about investigative reporter Gary Webb, who was defamed and his career destroyed because his story "Dark Alliance," of CIA involvement in bringing crack-cocaine to the LA inner city, contained too much truth. Can't have that kind of information getting out to the public. Gary, who persisted in telling the truth about what his investigations showed, died of "suicide" in 2004, with TWO bullet wounds to his head).

The powers that be (read: Bush family and powerful friends in high places, journalistically and otherwise) succeeded in defaming Dan Rather and destroying his career and that of Mary Mapes, even though those two brave journalists were reporting truth about Dubya's dodging military duty.  This movie tells that story, with Cate Blanchette as Mary Mapes and Robert Redford as Dan Rather. 

Read the following reviews of the movie and decide for yourself if it is something you will want to see. Right wingers of the Tea Party type will want to avoid it -- actual truth is not on their agenda.  As one reviewer summed it up:

In the end, "Truth" is not unlike a veteran news program—solidly made, interesting, and worthy of sparking discussion, whether you agree with its political bent or not. It encourages people to start talking about the purpose of journalism, and seeing the greater picture. If it's not too late to do so.  (What a sad last comment--so true.  Read the book "Into the Buzzsaw" if you don't believe me.)

Share:

Monday, October 19, 2015

"Buddha" Rock discovered on Mars

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/mars-buddha-rock-formation-sends-imaginations-running-wild/story?id=34571631

It sure looks like a statue -- everything else around it just looks like naturally formed rock, but this thing stands out.  Very curious.
Share:

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Great little poem: I'm Nobody! Who are You?


This has been one of my favorites ever since I was a kid.... It's just the way I like living my life -- as a nobody. (~.~)  I feel sorry for the politicians who want to be Somebody.

I'm Nobody! Who are You?

I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us -don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

~ Emily Dickinson





Share:

Friday, October 16, 2015

A WISE OLD SOUL in a tiny body

A little boy starts hitting a pinata -- and his conscience takes over -- What a beautiful child!  May his tribe increase! (~.~)

Share:

WHAT MATTERS: BERNIE SANDERS IS BECOMING BETTER KNOWN

And the more people who see and hear him, the more they like him and his authentic message.  Yay, Bernie!  A real man of the people!!!

The 'Winner' Of The Debate Doesn't Matter - Here's What Does

October 15, 2015
Akira Watts

As soon as the first Democratic debate ended, on 10/13, the race was on to declare the winner. For columnists and pundits, the answer was obvious: Hillary Clinton. She was "confident and poised," depicted herself as a "progressive who likes to get things done," and came across as the most "competent" candidate on the stage.

On the other hand, social media and online polls were unanimous in calling the debate for Bernie Sanders. It's a puzzling split though there are those who are quick to point out the inherent unreliability of online polling. And there is a grain of truth in that argument. Online polling is naturally self-selective; it lacks the randomness of traditional polling and, to an extent, serves mostly to gauge the enthusiasm of a candidate's supporters. By that measure, while Sanders's supporters were the most enthusiastic crowd when reacting to the debate, that doesn't indicate that Sanders was, in fact, the "winner."

That said, while online polling may not be terribly reliable, is it any less so than the opinions of a few score pundits and commentators? Perhaps not. But we have some additional evidence to take into consideration. For one, focus groups, which are a bit more aligned to the average voter than the collective wisdom of columnists and talking heads, declared Sanders the unequivocal winner. From Fox News to CNN focus groups overwhelmingly preferred the performance of Bernie Sanders. But again, as with online polling and media consensus, focus groups, while telling a useful tale, are hardly scientific evidence of a win.

Who "won" the debate is a meaningless question.

Then there is the financial race. Since the debate, the Sanders campaign has pulled in close to $2 million in donations, an impressive haul. But again, as with online polling, this may only serve to point out the enthusiasm of his supporters. It doesn't say how much of that money came from new donors, nor does it say how much comes from those who had initially supported Clinton.

For Democratic pundits, all that was required for a Clinton win is for her to demonstrate enough competence to come off as a plausible candidate.

The fact is, who "won" the debate is a meaningless question because we were really witnessing two separate debates. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton went into the debate with very different goals. And, in their own way, each candidate achieved what they set out to do. The problem for Clinton is what she set out to accomplish was essentially just to hold the line. Her campaign has been sputtering along, and the sheen of inevitability has long since worn off. The campaign has struggled to respond to Republican attacks and suffered a notable lack of enthusiasm. Her task in the debate was to try to change that narrative. She needed to appear, in that most intangible and useless of terms, "presidential." And she certainly did that, to the acclaim of Democratic pundits who have, in all honesty, never really taken the Sanders campaign very seriously. For them, all that was required for a Clinton win is for her to demonstrate enough competence to come off as a plausible candidate.

But Bernie Sanders had an entirely different goal: to introduce himself and his ideas to an audience that had not yet really begun to pay attention.  For political junkies, who have been following the race for months, it is very easy to miss the fact that the Sanders campaign isn't really on the radar of most of the electorate. We read dozens of stories on the Democratic primary every day, see Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton smeared across our Facebook news feeds, follow every poll. But we are a tiny minority of the electorate. For most, Bernie Sanders is a name who is recognized, but little more. Outside of the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where Sanders has been campaigning heavily, his name recognition is still quite low.

What Sanders needed to do, in the debate,  was to change his lack of recognition. And, I would submit, he more than succeeded at that goal. To that, there are two metrics that are more relevant than all the focus groups and fundraising and establishment opinions put together. The first of these is in the count of Google searches during the debate, where Sanders dominated from beginning to end:

"Sanders repeatedly saw spikes in Google interest after he spoke. After his intro. After he talked about guns. After basically everything else he said. About an hour after the debate began, Jim Webb attracted some attention after he complained about not having an opportunity to speak. But it was Sanders that drew attention the whole time. What's more, Sanders actually overpowered the long-term king of Google, Donald Trump. During the debate, Sanders continually attracted more Google interest than Trump."

That tells us that, as Sanders began to introduce himself to the broader electorate, they were interested enough in what he had to say to dig a little deeper. It is notable that, none of the other three candidates - Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, and Martin O'Malley - who also needed to break out to a wider audience, even came close to generating the level of interest that Sanders did. The second metric is in Twitter followers. Sanders racked up 35K new followers during the debate, nearly three times as many as did Clinton. So, not only were those new to Sanders interested in what he had to say, they liked it enough to follow him. And that is good news for the Sanders campaign. As he and his ideas reach a broader audience, they may prove to have real traction.  (Which is probably why he is polling rather well in both Iowa and New Hampshire, where most voters have seen a lot more of him than the nation as a whole.)

There were two debates on Tuesday night and two winners. In her quest to reassure the establishment that yes, she is a viable candidate, Hillary Clinton clearly won. But Bernie Sanders achieved a more impressive feat: reaching 15 million or so voters who didn't know him and piquing their interest. In that debate, Sanders was the clear winner. Time will tell which of these wins counts for more.

Share:

Fox News and the "Trumpster" Monster that is Eating Them Alive


Fox News is learning...Be careful what you create because it could turn on you!  Karmic justice is happening over at Fox, and Rupert is tearing his hair out!

Battle between Rupert Murdoch and 'orangutoid' Donald Trump creates a nightmare for Fox News



Rupert Murdoch gets a hammering in a new article by a Rolling Stone writer. Nothing too unusual about that. But Matt Taibbi's colorful piece is well worth reading.

He spends some time over Murdoch's "real black president" tweet about his favoured candidate, Ben Carson. It resulted in the News Corp chieftain issuing an apology .

Then Taibbi gets into more entertaining stuff about the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News.

Once the channel's favourite, he argues that Trump "is fast becoming the network's arch enemy… a traitor" for denouncing Fox "as a false conservative god." He writes:

"The orangutoid real estate mogul's presence in this presidential race is a real and hilarious threat to Murdoch's political influence…

Until Trump arrived, Murdoch owned the lowest common denominator in the media space. He didn't just play to our worst instincts, he wrapped both arms around them and squeezed as hard as he could…

Murdoch sold political coverage that could be digested directly by the stomach, bypassing the mind. He fed viewers a steady diet of southern strategy bromides about minorities and foreigners and queers and feminists and Sean Penn, all working together to steal the minivan out of Middle America's driveway.

From a production standpoint, this coverage strategy is a beautifully utilitarian thing. The stuff writes itself… You win by picking five to six news stories each week that fit the narrative, and just hammering the hell out of them…

Murdoch's genius is that he always found ways to hit new lows without hitting absolute bottom."

Then The Don came along, and – pun alert – he is set on trumping Murdoch. And the clash between right-wing ideologues seeking to be top dog with America's conservative audiences presents Fox News with a problem. "He's pitching voters on the idea that Rupert's news network is a sellout establishment plant," writes Taibbi.

Matters came to a head when Trump clashed with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly who questioned him about his apparent misogyny during the Republican candidates' debate in August.

Then, according to a report in New York magazine , Trump was called by Fox News chairman Roger Ailes to assure him that the channel would cover him "fairly" in future. Why? Because of concern that Trump's views were more popular than those of Fox News.

"Fox was deluged with pro-Trump emails", said the report while Megyn Kelly got the thumbs down. It cited a Fox source who said: "Roger was not happy. Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump's side."

Taibbi is scathing about how that problem is perceived by Ailes and Murdoch who, he remarks, have "spent a generation building an audience of morons". He adds:

"Their business model depends on morons; morons are the raw materials of their industry… The problem with morons is that you… have to keep upping the ante to make it work.

Trump is doing his best, but he's going to places now that make even Rupert Murdoch nervous. Meanwhile the 'respectable' candidate is Fox's own Ben Carson, a man who continues to be living proof that you don't need to have a brain in order to operate on one."

Taibbi argues that Murdoch senses his "beloved audience of idiots" are drifting away and "beginning to suspect the truth about him, i.e. that he isn't really one of them.

"Murdoch could go lower to prove his devotion, but that next step down is Trump. If he balks at that, he might lose his audience. Beautiful."

Source: Rolling Stone



Share:

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Bernie Sanders WON the Debate -- no question about it!

The American people know Bernie was the real winner -- and when it comes time to vote, they will prove it at the polls.
Despite the cable TV pundits' bowing and scraping to Hillary, many online articles tell the truth about the real winner of the debate -- it was Bernie without a doubt.  Here is a link to one of those articles -- and a copy reprint of another one below it.

http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reasons-bernie-sanders-actually-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/

Why Sanders Won the Debate

By David Edmund Moody

Bernie Sanders won the Democratic Presidential debate before the first question was even asked. He won it in the first ten minutes, when the five candidates were each asked to introduce themselves. The other four candidates all considered this an opportunity to talk about themselves. They each bragged about their background, their credentials, and their family. Hillary Clinton fit right in with this self-centered approach, right down to touting her grandmother and grandchild.

Only Bernie Sanders broke this mold. He used his entire two minutes to talk not about himself, but about the issues that matter: income inequality, campaign finance, climate change, and the excessive incarceration of blacks and Latinos. His positions on the issues themselves were his introduction to the people. He spoke with passion and clarity. He set himself apart, above and beyond the conventional approach of the other four candidates. The entire rest of the debate was nothing but an extended series of footnotes to this decisive moment.

Why, then, did all the Washington insiders declare that Clinton won the debate? They did so because they evaluated it by the same conventional, superficial standards which Clinton abided by. Was she friendly and personable? Check. Was she at times tough and aggressive? Check. Was she confident and in command of her facts? Check. But was she decisively dedicated to articulating passionate positions on policy, rather than to making a "good impression"? No way. As palatable as she made herself seem, she was nothing more than vanilla ice cream, through and through. Sanders was chocolate rocky road, the authentic personification of progressive values, and the difference was unmistakable.

This is why the focus groups of actual voters on CNN, Fox, and elsewhere declared Sanders the winner of the debate, not Clinton. Actual voters are not looking for conformity to a conventional standard, however appealing it may appear. Actual voters want the real thing, not the appearance of it. Sanders' authenticity was unmistakable.


Share:

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

WHAT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TONIGHT'S DEBATE AND THE 2 REPUBLICAN DEBATES!!!!


It sure was wonderful tonight to see and hear some intelligent, articulate adults actually address some of the incredibly important issues our nation is facing.  The contrast between this debate and the 2 juvenile Republican debates couldn't have been greater! 

It will be interesting to see Hillary Clinton debate whichever of the Republicans wins in the primaries...it will be like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland wielding a verbal sword and shouting, "Off with their heads!"  There isn't a one of them who could stand up to her in a debate.

Personally, I thought Bernie Sanders did the best presentation, but realize that barring a revolutionary miracle, Hillary will be the Democratic candidate.  The big money backs her.  I am for REVOLUTION AND BERNIE!!!!



Share:

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Good Essay: Our Dreams and Hope Still Live On

When I Grow too Old to Dream
By Jaime O'Neill

An Essay for the Day After John Lennon's Birthday

Back when I was a teenage boy, ardently seeking the shedding of my hapless status as a skinny kid unacquainted with the mystery of sexual congress, I took a job as a grocery delivery boy. I was 16, I had a new driver's license, and a head full of fanciful stories about things that happened in the world of grown ups. One such story was that grocery delivery boys were commonly met at the door by lovely bored housewives wearing negligees. Lacking any handy cash, these women were said to quite frequently offer sex in lieu of a tip.

I didn't like that job much. The owner of the store was grouchy, and he liked to take out his frustrations on the lowliest of his employees. That was me. And the pay wasn't good, nor were the monetary tips very generous. As for the more carnal tips, they just never materialized. After one summer, I gave up my quest for those horny housewives. Perhaps if I'd made a career of being a grocery delivery boy, I might have realized that dream by now, but I kinda doubt it.

A similar dream, the dream of inheriting a fortune from a distant relative I didn't know I had, also failed to materialize, and I didn't abandon that fantasy until a couple of years ago.

Ditto the dream of winning the lottery, Irish or otherwise.

Once in awhile, I envisioned myself on a TV game show, winning the kind of prize that would set a record for such prizes. And I often dreamt of an unbeatable run at baccarat in Monte Carlo, or a similarly stupendous night on the craps table in Vegas. I've been to Monte Carlo and to Vegas, played baccarat and craps on more than a few occasions, but that big unbeatable run never happened, and time for it to come true is about up.

I might also include the dream I once had of living in a castle, smoking a pipe by a fire in my beautiful book-lined library, with the wind outside howling across the heath. Though I have a lot of books, my abode is nothing like a castle, and the view out my window is not a stormy, moon-kissed heath, but a drought-stricken forest in California. It ain't bad, but it's not exactly a dream.

Though I don't play a music instrument, I used to dream of being asked to sit in with guys like Miles Davis or the Rolling Stones, and being rewarded with the looks of astonishment on their faces when I began to play.

Though I don't speak a foreign language, I often dreamed of being addressed in Mandarin Chinese, or Farsi, and startling the person who had spoken to me by answering, quite eloquently, in their language.

Though I was a blond kid, I dreamt that when I got to be the age I am now, I would have the head of hair I'd seen on my Italian barber, dark, lush, and full, with just a dash of distinguished gray at the temples. That dream has not been fulfilled in the fullness of time.

And there were times, lots of them, when I dreamed more broadly and less selfishly, times when I dreamt of a two-party system of governing in America where one side didn't so frequently seem weak and uncommitted, and the other side didn't so frequently seem venal and/or insane. I dreamt of a Democratic Party populated by politicians and operatives with less fungible values, with more courage, and with less willingness to pander to the same sources of money that caused their Republican opponents to go down on their knees to the rich and powerful, the oligarchs who seemed unconcerned about nearly everything except profit and the elusive attempt to satisfy their insatiable greed.

There were other dreams, too, probably more than I'll ever recall. But once, a long time ago, I took my little girl to see the Moscow Circus. It was at the height of the Cold War, and when the circus performers entered, they were led by two men on two flanking elephants, one carrying an American flag, and one carrying the flag of the Soviet Union. With my daughter beside me, I teared up. My dream of peace was symbolized by the flags preceding that processional, and I was moved, both by the dream, and by how far it always was from being realized. The dream of the reconciliation between these two countries seemed essential to the future of the smiling and innocent little girl who sat beside me.

And now that little girl has grown to middle age. The Soviet Union is no more. But still her future is imperiled by tensions now arising between Russia and the U.S. in the tinderbox that is Syria.

And now I don't know what kind of dream I should dream that will quiet the fears and the horrors being generated from that place. I don't know what flags I can envision, marching side by side.

I once dreamt, too, of an America where the racial rift was healed, where the races—black, white, brown, red, and yellow—all lived in proximity, in harmony, with mutual respect and even affection, in equality under the law.

I dreamt that I would grow old in a nation where poverty had become a thing of the past, with a populace governed by politicians who served the good of all, rather than the profits of a select few.

I dreamt of living in a nation where at least as much was spent on things like education and pubic works as on the military.

I dreamt of a less fearful place to live, where being armed was not a prerequisite for walking the streets, or going to the store, or getting on the bus to go school, or setting out to worship in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque.

As a boy, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was sowing fear, hate, and division, I dreamt of a time when our politicians inspired the best in us, rather than the worst. Alas, Joe McCarthy would seem moderate in today's loony bin.

No, I don't live in the America I so often dreamt my generation would create back when some of us were marching against the war in Viet Nam, or leafletting on behalf of farm workers, or campaigning in the American south for voting rights for blacks.

Like generations of dreamers before me, the nightmare overwhelmed the dream, and now new dreamers must begin dreaming anew. I dream they will make more headway than my generation made, that they will stay focused, will be infused with the passion they will need to sustain them, and will produce leaders who are up to the increasingly daunting challenges they face.

I've always been a dreamer.

But I'm not the only one.
Share:

Stephen Colbert on the Speaker chaos in the House of Representatives

Colbert is the best! (~.~) I always get a good laugh watching him -- and the Republican party just keeps giving great comedy material to him and all other comedians....
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/colbert-makes-mockery-chaos-being-caused
Share:

Friday, October 09, 2015

Ben Carson: The Nutty Neurosurgeon

Carson is the right wing's idea of intelligence and brilliance. Yet...he doesn't believe in evolution and denies climate change.  (Which is exactly why he is the right wing's idea of intelligence and brilliance.)  Sigh. 

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marty-kaplan/64219/ben-carson-the-nutty-neurosurgeon

EXCERPT: The simple yet appalling fact is that we have at least some solid evidence that a top scientific education and a distinguished career in medicine does not make a man any less capable of believing untruths to be true and truths to be false.

BEN CARSON, THE NUTTY NEUROSURGEON
By Marty Kaplan

What does it say about higher education that you can graduate from Yale and still believe that the devil made Darwin do it? What does it say about medicine that you can both be a gifted neurosurgeon and also declare, "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away"?

Along with Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson is way ahead of the pack for the Republican presidential nomination. When Trump, an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says that climate change is a hoax, I can believe it's a cynical lie pandering to the Republican base, rather than an index of his ignorance. But when Carson, a retired Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, denies that climate change is man-made, or calls the Big Bang a fairy tale, or blames gun control for the extent of the Holocaust, I think he truly believes it.

It's conceivable that the exceptional hand-eye coordination and 3D vision that enabled Carson to separate conjoined twins is a compartmentalized gift, wholly independent of his intellectual acuity. But he could not have risen to the top of his profession without learning the Second Law of Thermodynamics (pre-meds have to take physics), without knowing that life on earth began more than 6,000 years ago (pre-meds have to take biology), without understanding the scientific method (an author of more than 120 articles in peer-reviewed journals can't make up his own rules of evidence). Yet what does it mean to learn such things, if they don't stop you from spouting scientific nonsense?

This hasn't hindered his campaign. Participants in focus groups of Republican caucus and primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, conducted in recent days by Bloomberg's Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, used these words to describe Carson: "deep," "thoughtful," "intelligent," "smart," "brilliant," a "top mind." I get this. According to a recent Public Policy Polling report, 46 percent of Carson supporters (and 61 percent of Trump supporters) think President Obama was not born in the U.S., and 61 percent of Carson supporters (and 66 percent of Trump supporters) think the president is a Muslim. Carson's being called brilliant by that base ain't baffling.

What I don't get is how his rigorous scientific education and professional training gave Carson's blind spots a pass. Was it, in George W. Bush's memorable phrase, "the soft tyranny of low expectations"? Or was it the tyranny of fundamentalism over facts?

In the humanities, the equivalent conundrum is the failure of a deep appreciation for masterworks of art, literature and music to instill virtue. I first came across this disturbing indictment when I was an undergraduate at the chief rival of Carson's alma mater. My field of concentration (Harvard's pretentious term for "major") was molecular biology, and I would have quickly flamed out if I'd maintained that science was consistent with creationism, or any of the other canards that survived Carson's education. But I was also in love with literature, and ended up with a doctorate in it. On the way there, what troubled me about my studies was an essay called "To Civilize Our Gentlemen" by George Steiner. Its thesis ran so counter to the bedrock of an elite education -- the belief that the humanities humanize -- that I went to England for two years to study at Cambridge with Steiner, as passionate an embodiment of academic high culture as could be, in order to reconcile my love for humanistic learning with its apparent inability to prevent barbarism.

My copy of the essay, and the book it appeared in, Language and Silence, is full of a 20-year-old's underlining and marginalia ("right on!"). These are some of the passages that jangled me:

We know now that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to the day's work at Auschwitz in the morning. To say that he has read them without understanding or that his ear is gross, is cant... The simple yet appalling fact is that we have very little solid evidence that literary studies do very much to enrich or stabilize moral perception, that they humanize... Indeed, I would go further: it is at least conceivable that the focusing of consciousness on a written text... diminishes the sharpness and readiness of our actual moral response... The capacity for [moral response]... is not limitless; on the contrary, it can be rapidly absorbed by fictions, and thus the cry in the poem may come to sound louder, more urgent, more real than the cry in the street outside. The death in the novel may move us more potently than the death in the next room... [S]urely there is something terrible in our doubt whether the study and delight a man finds in Shakespeare makes him any less capable of organizing a concentration camp.

When Wolf Blitzer asked Carson if he wanted to amend or take back his comparison of Obama's America to Nazi Germany, he replied, "Absolutely not." Am I comparing Carson to Nazis? Absolutely not. I'm comparing the compatibility of a scientific education and intellectual ignorance with the compatibility of a humanistic education and moral ignorance.

The simple yet appalling fact is that we have at least some solid evidence that a top scientific education and a distinguished career in medicine does not make a man any less capable of believing untruths to be true and truths to be false.

I don't know how I'd react if a shooter opened fire in my classroom. Maybe I'd risk my safety to protect others. Maybe I'd be too petrified do anything. But I do know the feeling that would devastate me if someone I loved became "a body with bullet holes"; it would not be the feeling that the Second Amendment is in jeopardy. It is at least conceivable that the clinical detachment required by a doctor to deal with the deaths in this room makes the deaths in the next room less urgent, less real.

I know plenty of physicians of whom that is not true. But when Ben Carson blames a mass murderer's victims for failing to foil him, I know of at least one man of science whose capacity for moral response has been absorbed by fictions.


Share:

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Einstein: A very wise man

Share:

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Good online site: Collective Evolution

http://www.collective-evolution.com/about-us/

Many great articles on this site, a good one to subscribe to.  Its mission:
CE inspires us to begin expanding our way of thinking so we can take conscious steps towards creating BIG change on the planet.

Offering
news, health, science, technology and an accessible, non-new-agey understanding to benefit our world.  (Good TED talks, etc.)
Share:

Thoughtful essay about Contentment -- a good pass-along

THE HABIT OF BEING CONTENT
By Joe Martino

This is something I feel is very important for each of us and I'm going to get a bit personal about it because I have seen what it can do to lives, including my own at times.

My long-time girlfriend and I recently mutually ended a relationship that we experienced together for 5 years. During that relationship I had gone through moments of feeling like "Is this it? Is this what a long-term relationship should feel like?" I was 22 years old when the relationship began, so learning how long-term relationships felt was something I wasn't accustomed to yet.

Not knowing what something should truly feel like, especially since everyone is different and in the end it only comes down to your own true feelings about something, I allowed my mind to play at various points over the 5 years. Sometimes I would feel like I wanted more, that maybe I wasn't getting enough out of the relationship and so it wasn't right for me. Maybe there wasn't enough excitement or things to do or to talk about. Should there be more? I reflected on this and remained open to how I felt. But of course at times that feeling of discontentment would creep in.

On the flip side, from my perspective, my partner had challenges in the relationship as well. At times she would experience similar thoughts as myself but also she felt like not enough was happening in life for it to be enjoyable or fun. That more needed to happen and needed to be happening often or else things would be boring. I think this is actually something many of us go through in life and it can be the reason why we're always searching for external stimulation.

To be clear, it isn't that we should be doing nothing, a look at my own life would suggest I do not feel that way at all, but I believe we shouldn't have such a hard time finding peace and joy within ourselves just because we aren't "doing" anything.

Struggles With Discontentment

How many times have you heard people look at others and say "I wish I was like that." Or "I wish I had that, was doing that or could have that." Behind many of these statements is a feeling that emerges that makes it clear that the person is not content with their current life and situation. You might be asking, what is so bad about that? I'll explain the never-ending challenge with this mindset.

For the purposes of this piece I want to clearly define contentment. I'm not saying we should settle or not strive for something we dream of or love to do, but I believe we should ultimately find peace within ourselves as we go or we will forever be searching for excitement or stimulation outside ourselves. If we don't do this, our minds and egos will always be searching for more, and things we have or experience will never be enough.

Instead of going through an experience fully, taking it in and enjoying it from a place of peace, we will instead go through that experience as a means to experience enjoyment but also to fill a void. Although we may not recognize it, that's often a big part of why we get caught up in wanting to do things that everyone else is doing. You could say our entire consumer culture, including the "American dream" stems around preying on the discontentment people feel inside.

Again, I believe in doing things, experiencing life, having adventure and trying new things, but I believe we will experience a lot more peace and joy from these experiences, and regular day life, when we are able to do them from a place of contentment within ourselves as opposed to doing them because we are not content with our current lives.

Unlearning Discontentment

I say 'unlearning' because I believe deep down, beneath all the stories and struggles we each have within us, we are already at peace -are content and are experiencing joy. These feelings and states of being are simply covered up by all of our ego desires and belief systems of what we must do to experience these states.

I've learned over the years of exploring myself that the only things I can control about life is how I feel about what is going on in my life. I'm not talking about emotions here, more so feelings. I, and we, are not a victim to our emotions and what belief systems run throughout the course of our lives. We have a choice as to what we want to believe is 'us' and the more we recognize that, the more power we have in finding peace and joy in our lives.

As we become aware of how this all plays out within ourselves, we have a chance to unlearn these emotions and states of being that are stuck in discontentment. When we unlearn it, we reveal the peace that is already there. To me, this is the simplest way to experience peace as opposed to artificially trying to create it in other ways. Simply remove the source of the issue.

What To Take From This

  • Much of the discontentment we feel comes from comparing our lives and situations to other people.
  • Feeling like you want to change your life or do something you are passionate about isn't the same as not being content. Discontentment is only the state of mind you are in when looking at your current situation.
  • Make it a habit to become aware of your discontentment and work to remove the stories that cover up the natural contentment we already have within us.
  • If we do not take the time to move beyond the stories of discontentment we will forever be stuck in the perpetual chase for more. We will never attain true happiness.

Share:

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Torvill and Dean exquisite ice dancing -- Bolero and Song of India

It's wonderful to see perfection in motion!  Most exquisitely beautiful ice dancing ever!   This team always received perfect scores--and no wonder!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNwAC1vV38Y    BOLERO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zcOyzAqHeA      SONG OF INDIA

Want to see more of them?  Here's another great routine, telling a story with spectacular movements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mlMb8HsPFc


Share: