Passion Redux - RFK, Jr. Rocks!

We know I have a thing about passion. I can't help myself. I have it in abundance ..and am profoundly moved by it in another person. Last night, I spent 2 hours in the presence of a deeply commited and passionate man: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I'm still feeling buoyed by the experience.

This man epitomizes what it means to be an engaged citizen. His intellectual range is enormous -- environmental pollution, voter fraud, children's health, constitutional law, to name a few. He can articulate fact-based positions on each and every one of these, with humor and depth. I was mesmerized as he described entrepreneurial initiatives that could significantly alter the way we use energy. He deftly walked through the true cost of faux "free-market" capitalism as practiced by Republicans since Reagan. He argued cogently for why true partriotism and democracy are dependent on an informed citizenry, and how at-risk we are with a toadying Beltway press. He described the machinations of K Street lobbyists who occupy posts in key government regulatory agencies, where they work tirelessly against the public interest.

It was enough to make me give up on Democracy. Let's be honest: the Democrats embrace the culture of D.C. influence peddlers as much as their Republican cohorts. Liberals like me, count on the influencers having values and an agenda that meshes with mine. Somehow, that seems like a naive mindset to hold, given the peril we find ourselves in today. While it was immensely reassuring to know that people like Bobby are out there working tirelessly on our behalf, we have an individual obligation to hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire. To make them live up to their promises. This is not a time for incremental change -- that will be lethal. Our problems require substantive and transformative change. Whether or not our new President has the cojones to proceed fearlessly and boldly, remains in question. But I know where I stand. And where Bobby stands. And where the grassroots stands that helped elect the current administration. Much like the '60s, when activists brought down a president and ended a war, we will only get the change we need if we mobilize the people, put pressure on Congress and the President, and insist that they work in the public interest.

We cannot rely on the press to keep us well-informed. We must do the work ourselves. Think critically. Dig up the facts. Read relentlessly. Be a patriot. Be inspired.

Then, we will get the country we truly deserve.

Thanks to Kevin McCarrison, from UMKC, for the great photo!

My Heroine

I've been sick in bed for the last three days...and during one of my brief ventures out to eat, I watched a short documentary on HBO about Helen Thomas. It's playing "On Demand" and I strongly encourage you all to watch it. I've known who she was for most of my adult life but never knew her personal story. The film was an eye-opener.

Here is a clip I found from a recent interview with her that gives a peek into some of the material she shared in the HBO film:




Helen is living proof of how someone can be rational and passionate, able to straddle the apparent gap between them. For 57 years she was a reporter and believes she never revealed her liberal bias. Now she is a columnist for Hearst, and she is free to say, in print, exactly how she feels about people and issues.

She confesses in both the film and the above interview, that she has always had opinions, that she is passionate, a liberal, and has gone her own way. She blazed a trail in journalism for women, never had a family, married at 51, and was/and is totally dedicated to her career of asking hard questions.

Helen Thomas is a role model for all of us. At 88, she inspires me to believe that at 60, I still have much to contribute in the years ahead. She has survived hate mail, Bill O'Reilley, and George Bush. She supports Obama, but is skeptical and prepared to ask him hard questions as well. She may be a liberal, but she doesn't suspend her critical thinking skills to be one.

Here's hoping she will be blessed with many more years to share her public commentary. She is a model of positive aging, living by one's ideals, and the benefit of passion and purpose.

Rational Passion

This weekend, Glen Greenwald wrote a series of posts here on Salon.com that got my attention. I read his columns intermittently but have been a philosophical fan of his since his book How Would a Patriot Act?. That book examined the constitutional assault by key provisions of the Patriot Act and the attempts to marginalize anyone as unpatriotic if they opposed some of the draconian measures enacted under it. Glen is about as liberal/progressive as they come, and is one of the few within my political base who has been willing to lead a public charge against some of Obama’s policies. One of the others in that league is Paul Krugman, a hero of mine.

But on to Glen and some thoughts he triggered in me today. In his post yesterday, Greenwald called the media to account (specifically, David Brooks) over their agenda to preserve the status quo and their special place of influence. A New York Times columnist quickly accused Glen of “shrillness”. In a response to the label, Greenwald wrote:

One is guilty of the sin of "shrillness" if one: (a) argues that there is something fundamentally -- rather than marginally -- wrong with our political and media establishment and/or (b) fails to use suitably restrained, muted and respectful language when expressing those critiques. Thus, one is "shrill" if one says that George Bush committed felonies by spying on Americans without warrants and torturing people and should be treated like any other accused criminal (rather than saying: "Bush might have circumvented some legal constraints and gone a little too far in trying to keep us safe"). One is "shrill" if one says that establishment journalism, at its core and by design, is principally devoted to serving the interests and amplifying the claims of the Washington establishment (rather than saying: "Journalists could do a better job of reporting some stories"), etc. etc.

"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of
demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:

Sure, they've made some mistakes; nobody's perfect. But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about. And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.

By definition, only people who are "shrill" would do that.

Here’s what hit me when I read this: those are the same tactics that are consistently used against women who take any position against the establishment. Men aren’t shrill unless you are trying to feminize them, which instantly discredits them. For still, in 21st century America, one of the quickest ways to discredit someone is to feminize (in a negative way) their opposition to policies or ideas, as “shrill” and irrational. And isn’t this another way of attacking the passionate, the forces for substantive change?

So it got me thinking, are rationality and passion — which is often intense and insistent — opposite forces? Is more accomplished with cool rationality that doesn’t directly take on the issue, or passionate arguments that make it abundantly clear what is wrong and what should be done about it?

My take? Passion is essential to moving humanity forward. Yes, there can be a dark side to passion (Hitler is a prime example), but to negate passion, to label it as “shrill” and female, ensures that society stays stuck in its dysfunctionality. Passion can be rational when the ideas and positions undergirding it are well thought out and logical. A well-honed argument in support of an ideal that is expressed dispassionately may appeal to the intellectual elite, but it won’t do much to mobilize the masses or bring about transformative change. Martin Luther King, Jr. was passionate in holding America accountable for how it lived its ideal of “equality”. As LBJ was said to have told him, enacting legislation to right the wrongs of racism, required a mass revolt against the status quo. You don’t get that kind of movement from a dispassionate argument at a debate lectern.

I’m frankly tired of the bad wrap that passion gets when it is expressed on the Left (interestingly, I don’t hear that epithet hurled at Rush, or Boehner, or Palin). I’m really pissed that it is disloyal and “shrill” to hold Obama or the Democratic leadership accountable for enacting a progressive agenda. If progressives abandon their passion for accountability to progressive ideals, then we are no better than the cult of personality that surrounded the last president. We must develop rational, progressive, supportable positions and then we need to passionately mobilize large blocks of the American people to speak out, to hold their elected officials’ feet to the fire. If we Liberals abandon passionate, outspoken support for our ideals, we are doomed.

I Have a Very Bad Feeling ...

South Carolina results are in. We took a whoopin'. There is just no way to dismiss these results as aberrant or a reflection of the black vote alone. I truly believe this is a message to Bill and Hillary that their hardball politics were repugnant to voters. When S.C. white voters line up behind Barack, you have to be willing to entertain the idea that he just might be able to mobilize white voters in the south and west.

We have a long way to go yet, but one thing is clear: Bill needs to get out of the way. He is suddenly making this contest about him, not about Hillary. I'm deeply concerned that she will not be able to stand on her own now, not because she doesn't know how, but because his messages overshadow her. It is also possible that the tactics of their well-oiled machine are no longer appropriate to this time and place.


I have been mighty pissed at Obama supporters over the last two weeks. Their insistence that he is the second coming borders on a faith-based ardor that some days scares the piss out of me. They are intolerant of any facts that fly in the face of the reality they have constructed. That is perilously close to the dynamic we've lived with for the last 7 years. I do not think that Obama is promoting this; I think it is a reflection of the youth that dominate his campaign.

I'm a pragmatist and have said I would support our nominee, regardless who that might be. Since I declared myself one week ago, the universe shifted. The MSM has decisively lined up behind the Obama campaign and defined the narrative. The increasingly subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Obama, that stirred up the spectre of racial divides, have been toxic beyond imagining. But the bad feeling I'm having isn't about Obama supporters or Obama himself, it's the feeling that I have that S.C. was the tipping point. Hillary just might be done.

Coulter-Geist Sticks It to the Jews

In case you missed this:



So, Ann Coulter, the darling of the Right, thinks Jews should be 'perfected'. America would be better off if we were a Christian-only country.

This woman makes millions spewing her hate. Media men, in particular, seemed charmed by this anorexic, unredeemable bitch and feature her repeatedly on their shows. Her current book is in the top 10 on many best seller lists. While her existence demonstrates that the Constitution can protect even hateful bigots, I'm troubled, disgusted, and enraged that:

• There is a large contingent of Americans who think she has something valid to say
• Right-wing pundits and politicians are silent when she spits her venomous lies
• My so-called compassionate Christian friends don't vocally reject her
• The MSM continues to give her free air-time

What is most amazing about this current hateful episode is that she made her remarks to a Jew, and even excused them because she assumed that he wasn't 'practicing', so he had no right to be offended. Her arrogance and ignorance are astounding. To his credit, the host struck back -- vocally, definitively, and effectively. I, of a more volatile temper, would have knocked the bitch on her bony little ass. But that's just me.

You know, we Lefties are supposed to pride ourselves on tolerance and a preference for non-violence. But there are times when to be tolerant is to be complicit in spreading hate that has the potential to fan violence against The Other, whether that "other" be Muslims, Jews, gays, Blacks, Asians, Hispanic immigrants...anyone who isn't a white Christian.

A core tenet of the Jewish faith is to be welcoming to those who are not like us. We have an obligation to heal the fractured world, without regard to whether or not those living in it are like us or not. Nowhere does our faith suggest we be for ourselves alone. In fact, that is counter to everything we are supposed to stand for. Christians like Coulter (and she is a surrogate for those who lack her mainstream platform) are exclusivists. Her vision is to have a world where everyone is a white, Christian, Republican. Period.

She sickens me. And yes, I hate her. I have a moral obligation to stand against her. And you can bet that I will. Hopefully, whatever your faith, you will too.