According to this story, ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp... ) men who backed McCain in the last election had a drop in testosterone levels when they learned their man had lost the election to Barack Obama. Further, Obama backers had no change in testosterone levels that night, despite the fact that men's testosterone levels usually drop at night. Hence, say experts, the "no change" result for Obama backers equates with an actual rise in the hormone.

Yeah, I think this explains a lot, especially all the b***ing since the election.

Sorry ladies, no offense intended.

Okay, okay. I just thought the story was funny. No baiting intended either, fellas!!

 Predictably, Conservatives have used Obama's suprise win of the Nobel Peace Prize of 2009 as grounds for dismissing the prize, those who award it and mostly of all, for decrying again the President's relative newcomer status in the world of politics.

The criticism has the advantage of being off the topic of Health Care reform, which is an area Conservatives are finding great difficulty in carving out an opposition stance for. It is also hard to respond to because if you compare Obama to other Nobel recipients, you run the risk of trivializing great people.

For example, imagine an Obama defender saying, "What did the Dalai Lama actually DO for his prize? He didn't achieve independence for Tibet; he didn't get the Chinese to back down even once. All he has been able to do is to get himself on some television shows and get his cause into the conversations of middle class folks everywhere."

Of course, this is exactly the critique of his prize that the Chinese themselves spouted in 1989. Their criticism of him then is the same as it is now:

"In an editorial titled "The Dalai's front for his splittist plot," the Communist Party's Tibet Daily newspaper accused him of conspiring with China's enemies in a bid to break up the country and impede its development.

"In seeking to internationalize the 'Tibet question,' the Dalai Lama simply wishes to bring about his evil plot of splitting China, sabotaging Tibet's stability and subverting socialist China," the paper said."

http://www.boston.com/news/...

A defense of Obama cannot be formed by comparing his accomplishments to theirs. It is an ugly business, indeed.

The only road is to try and puff up Obama's accomplishments, which anybody can see lie moreso before him than behind. This defense is hard to orchestrate. Therein lies the attraction to critics.

However, the Nobel committee DID defend their decision:

"In a rare public defense of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out Tuesday about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree. ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe. 

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe."

http://www.tennessean.com/a...

Though, "even seasoned Nobel watchers were surprised by Obama's Nobel — they hadn't expected the U.S. president, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Jagland said that was never an issue for the Nobel committee, which followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prize in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said.

"Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

(ibid)

The original press release from the Nobel committee describes their thinking at the time:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

http://nobelprize.org/nobel...

Clearly, they weren't thinking about domestic American politics. They had Obama's effect on the rest of the world in mind when they gave him the honor.

I submit that it is there, primarily, that his critics have most under-estimated Obama's importance. The GOP may wish to brush him aside in 2012, and to start writing the epitaph of his presidency in 2010, but to the rest of the world, his place in history is already secure. Why?

Why, indeed, do we love the Dalai Lama, whose nation is still ruled by foreigners?

Not for his accomplishments on the ground, or laid in stone and steel. Not because of the decrease of guns, or missiles or any machinery of warfare. Not even because his best ideas were ever even followed. We love him because he exists. His presence reminds us that moral truths made with peaceful hearts are timeless.

Please take the time to read this abridged version of his Nobel Prize speech, delivered in 1989:

Nobel Lecture

Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1989

Brothers and Sisters:

It is an honour and pleasure to be among you today. I am really happy to see so many old friends who have come from different corners of the world, and to make new friends, whom I hope to meet again in the future. When I meet people in different parts of the world, I am always reminded that we are all basically alike: we are all human beings. Maybe we have different clothes, our skin is of a different colour, or we speak different languages. That is on the surface. But basically, we are the same human beings. That is what binds us to each other. That is what makes it possible for us to understand each other and to develop friendship and closeness.

...

The realisation that we are all basically the same human beings, who seek happiness and try to avoid suffering, is very helpful in developing a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood; a warm feeling of love and compassion for others. This, in turn, is essential if we are to survive in this ever shrinking world we live in. For if we each selfishly pursue only what we believe to be in our own interest, without caring about the needs of others, we not only may end up harming others but also ourselves. This fact has become very clear during the course of this century. We know that to wage a nuclear war today, for example, would be a form of suicide; or that by polluting the air or the oceans, in order to achieve some short-term benefit, we are destroying the very basis for our survival. As interdependents, therefore, we have no other choice than to develop what I call a sense of universal responsibility.

Today, we are truly a global family. What happens in one part of the world may affect us all. This, of course, is not only true of the negative things that happen, but is equally valid for the positive developments. We not only know what happens elsewhere, thanks to the extraordinary modern communications technology. We are also directly affected by events that occur far away. We feel a sense of sadness when children are starving in Eastern Africa. Similarly, we feel a sense of joy when a family is reunited after decades of separation by the Berlin Wall. Our crops and livestock are contaminated and our health and livelihood threatened when a nuclear accident happens miles away in another country. Our own security is enhanced when peace breaks out between warring parties in other continents.

But war or peace; the destruction or the protection of nature; the violation or promotion of human rights and democratic freedoms; poverty or material well-being; the lack of moral and spiritual values or their existence and development; and the breakdown or development of human understanding, are not isolated phenomena that can be analysed and tackled independently of one another. In fact, they are very much interrelated at all levels and need to be approached with that understanding.

Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighbouring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free. True peace with oneself and with the world around us can only be achieved through the development of mental peace. The other phenomena mentioned above are similarly interrelated. Thus, for example, we see that a clean environment, wealth or democracy mean little in the face of war, especially nuclear war, and that material development is not sufficient to ensure human happiness.

Material progress is of course important for human advancement. In Tibet, we paid much too little attention to technological and economic development, and today we realise that this was a mistake. At the same time, material development without spiritual development can also cause serious problems, In some countries too much attention is paid to external things and very little importance is given to inner development. I believe both are important and must be developed side by side so as to achieve a good balance between them. Tibetans are always described by foreign visitors as being a happy, jovial people. This is part of our national character, formed by cultural and religious values that stress the importance of mental peace through the generation of love and kindness to all other living sentient beings, both human and animal. Inner peace is the key: if you have inner peace, the external problems do not affect your deep sense of peace and tranquility. In that state of mind you can deal with situations with calmness and reason, while keeping your inner happiness. That is very important. Without this inner peace, no matter how comfortable your life is materially, you may still be worried, disturbed or unhappy because of circumstances.

Clearly, it is of great importance, therefore, to understand the interrelationship among these and other phenomena, and to approach and attempt to solve problems in a balanced way that takes these different aspects into consideration. Of course it is not easy. But it is of little benefit to try to solve one problem if doing so creates an equally serious new one. So really we have no alternative: we must develop a sense of universal responsibility not only in the geographic sense, but also in respect to the different issues that confront our planet.

Responsibility does not only lie with the leaders of our countries or with those who have been appointed or elected to do a particular job. It lies with each one of us individually. Peace, for example, starts with each one of us. When we have inner peace, we can be at peace with those around us. When our community is in a state of peace, it can share that peace with neighbouring communities, and so on. When we feel love and kindness towards others, it not only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace. And there are ways in which we can consciously work to develop feelings of love and kindness. For some of us, the most effective way to do so is through religious practice. For others it may be non-religious practices. What is important is that we each make a sincere effort to take our responsibility for each other and for the natural environment we live in seriously.

...

Let me end with a personal note of thanks to all of you and our friends who are not here today. The concern and support which you have expressed for the plight of the Tibetans have touched us all greatly, and continue to give us courage to struggle for freedom and justice: not through the use of arms, but with the powerful weapons of truth and determination. I know that I speak on behalf of all the people of Tibet when I thank you and ask you not to forget Tibet at this critical time in our country's history. We too hope to contribute to the development of a more peaceful, more humane and more beautiful world. A future free Tibet will seek to help those in need throughout the world, to protect nature, and to promote peace. I believe that our Tibetan ability to combine spiritual qualities with a realistic and practical attitude enables us to make a special contribution, in however modest a way. This is my hope and prayer.

In conclusion, let me share with you a short prayer which gives me great inspiration and determination:

For as long as space endures,
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I, too, abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

Thank you."

His words are his weapons. His existence the proof of their worth.

When he was awarded the International Freedom Award earlier this year, he gave the money back to the National Civil Rights Museum, a gesture made by earlier recipients, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. On that occasion he said, ""Every conflict should be resolved through nonviolent way," he said. Asked how it is possible to deal with totalitarian regimes, he said, "Totalitarianism itself is always changing."

Education is a key factor in creating a better world, he said, but education alone is not enough. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Dalai Lama said, Russian friends have told him how Russian textbooks need to be revised because of "too much distortion."

Asked to compare his philosophy to King's, the Dalai Lama focused on his own respect for "human value, mainly compassion and human responsibility. Your individual future depends on the rest of the community." Most problems are caused by "negative emotions -- fear, anger, jealousy," he added."

http://www.commercialappeal...

Utterances like that make us love him. It is the same reason the world loves Obama.

Today, Obama was immortalized by a sand sculptor in India. http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

On the other hand, "Africans have always had divergent views on America, Mr. Otunnu said. On the one hand, Africans idolized the United States as the land of opportunity and unimaginable wealth, the place they could hope one day to see with their own eyes, or better, to live in. They welcomed initiatives like the billions of dollars President George W. Bush spent fighting AIDS. On the other hand, the United States also evoked the dictators it had supported, and what were seen as harsh, neocolonial policies.

But with Mr. Obama in office, Mr. Otunnu said, “that changed suddenly overnight. The U.S. now has a very different meaning to Africans.”

Some of this, of course, is that Barack Obama is seen as kin. But there’s also the fact that he was an underdog in a fierce campaign and a black man elected in a white country, validation that America was indeed the land of opportunity. More than anything, his triumph served as a sharp contrast to a continent where name, class and ethnicity are still destiny, and, just in case destiny is ever interrupted, where many elections are still blatantly rigged." http://www.nytimes.com/2009...

In Europe, " Intergovernmental cooperation has not been the issue.  In fact, since Sept. 11, 2001, one could argue that there has not been such deep and broad collaboration since the period immediately after World War II.  But, this common work was driven by necessity and not respect for U.S. policy or admiration for its president.   Europeans — the political elites and everyday citizens — were almost uniform in their dissatisfaction with George Bush and with many things American.   Some might try to explain how much they really do admire the United States and its economy and culture, but they would choke on the idea of saying something positive about President Bush or any other Republican for that matter.

What a difference an election makes!  GMF’s new Transatlantic Trends survey documents an almost euphoric level of support for the leadership of Barack Obama.  In 2008, only 19% of Europeans had a favorable view of George Bush’s foreign policy; 77% have a positive view of Barack Obama’s in 2009.  Over 90% of Germans have a favorable view of the President compared, an 80 percentage-point increase over last year’s number for the then-incumbent.  Even in Turkey, the new President received 50% support when his predecessor had less than 10% last year.

The European passion for Obama surely explains the changed views on the United States throughout the continent.  For the first time in six years, a majority of Europeans have a positive view of this country.  More importantly for transatlantic cooperation, a plurality of Europeans now want their political leaders to work with the United States rather than take a more independent course, which was the dominant opinion in 2008.  And, in all countries, American leadership on international challenges is viewed much more positively than it was under the previous administration." http://blog.gmfus.org/2009/...

In South America, Obama is more popular than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela http://blogs.abcnews.com/po... and in Brazil eight politicians had their name changed to his because of his insane popularity there. http://seattletimes.nwsourc...

In the MIddle East, ""Everyone is optimistic about this man," Nasser Abu Kwaik, a barber in the West Bank town of al-Beireh, said Wednesday. "He is different, and he could be a friend to the Muslim world."

'Like a fresh breeze'

Many in Muslim countries echoed the words of one Indonesian woman, "I believe him."

"For the Islamic world," Obama's comments "are like a fresh breeze," said Ikana Mardiastuti, who works at a Jakarta research institute." http://www.newsmax.com/inte...

The fact is, Obama has made himself and his country so popular around the world that maintaining that new, warm, pro-USA environment has been called one of his biggest challenges: http://edition.cnn.com/2009...

That, perhaps more than anything, tells the story.

The truth is that the rest of the world finds it very daunting to live with a USA that ignores them and seems willing to go galumphing around the neighborhood, stepping on toes and beating up people.  When we appear more like we will not only stop that behavior, but actually come over to play in a few backyards, share a sandwich or two, and speak politely to the parents, the world practically falls all over itself with glee. As they should. A USA that is playing nice is a powerful force, indeed.

Is such a change worthy of an international prize for its author? I think so. Should this particular prize been held off for some of the fruit to ripen? Perhaps. But that's the way it is with love affairs: the lovers really LIKE losing their heads.

 I am going to write this post very carefully because our conservative friends here at bako.com have let me know that my bullying ways are getting out of control. Not being sarcastic; I want to see if it is possible, in their eyes, to be critical and not hateful at the same time. The kid gloves are ON.

I have noticed, in blog posts, in Friend updates, in the media and around town, that there seems to be a general feeling that the video showing some elementary school children singing a song praising President Obama is really over the top. I have read comparisons of this to Stalinist   Russia (from Michael Steele, Chairman of the GOP) as well as Nazi and Maoist propaganda machines.

Others, notably here at bako.com, have noted that Bush 43 (the junior Bush, hence the number as a reminder) had songs sang for him by elementary school children, and the event was clearly set up (during the traditional Easter Day festivities on the White House lawn) to polish Bush's post-Katrina image: 

"To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:

Our country’s stood beside us

People have sent us aid.

Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.

Congress, Bush and FEMA

People across our land

Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwi...

On the other hand, Bush's image was used (and recorded in the film Jesus Camp) to indoctrinate children into a religio/politico confluence here:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

where the children are seen praising Bush, touching his feet (or the feet, rather, of a cutout of him), reminding him "One country under God!" while adults direct and hold a large American flag up behind him.

But this isn't meant to be a finger pointing "they do it too!!" affair. I start with the comparison only to hopefully calm some of the uproar over using children to sing the praises of Presidents. The meme being held up today as anathema today has happened before. Simple as that.

For the rest of this piece, I hope to contextualize the Obama song videotaped in New Jersey and the cause of all the recent uproar. In fact, I think the Obama song doesn't hold up well as an example of indoctrination or brainwashing, not nearly as well as the Bush incidents. Of course, I would think so. But consider the following:

According to the AP, who interviewed the principal of the school, the children were videotaped during February, the Black History Month, and the children had been celebrating different famous American Blacks throughout the month. Obama was just one of many. Neither of the Bush incidents had this kind of context. It was Bush, Bush, Bush. Not a celebration of famous Texans. Not a listing of all religious/political leaders. They were both singular in purpose and had a distinct subject. 

Furthermore, the lyrics to the Obama song were sent home to parents before the children were taught it. No video was made of the initial performance, but when Charisse Carney-Nunes, author of the children's book "I am Barack Obama" visited the school, the children performed for her. Her assistant videotaped it and posted it on the author's web page. It was the assistant's bad judgement that started the whole thing. She didn't bother to get parental permission before posting it, and took it down when informed of that necessity. By then, however, others had copied it and posted it on YouTube, where it remains in various forms, mostly derisive ones.

""There was no intention to make any political statement or promote a political agenda at all," Superintendent Christopher Manno said in the statement." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/...

So today, October 12, about 70, known Tea Party Anti-Tax protesters, showed up at the school - during school hours - and sang various political songs like "God Bless America", "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and chanted slogans like "No indoctrination" and "Free children, Free minds", and "Shame on You". Another, smaller group of counter-protesters showed up to heckle the first group. 

http://www.ledger-enquirer....

http://www.dailyrecord.com/...

One can only wonder what these same people would say about conservative indoctrination. Importantly, however, I think it should be noted that the school being picketed, the Bernice B. Young Elementary School,  is populated by children between kindergarten and second grade. 

Before the rally, protesters released a statement which said, in part, "Consider this a protest to squelch this trend to politicize our youth," organizers said in a prepared statement. "We are supporting the constitutional rights of our children and protest against the progressive social agenda promoted by the New Jersey Education Association and the National Education Association."

http://www.northjersey.com/...

So, in their statement at least, they seem clear that it is the progressive nature of the suspected indoctrination they object to, perhaps not indoctrination generally. Maybe this is where conservatives who have sympathies with the protesters can hang their hats. It does, however, take some of the zing out of the "OMG!" reactions on the web, and the Stalin/Hitler/Mao comparisons that have populated the commentary of Beck, Limbaugh and others.

Finally, a discussion of "Mmm, Mmm, Mmm". Those three syllables keep popping up in very derogatory fashion, as if the chanters/critics thought the repetition of "Mmm" signalled some kind of brainwashing mantra or worse.

Perhaps a little history would help. In southern spirituals, the crowd is expected to be quite active and respond to the musicians with exclamations and encouragement. Typical of these is "Mm-hmm", "Tell it!", and "Whoa Oooh".

The folks who would repeat this phrase with the intent to deride it should know, if they don't already, that such derision has the flavor, if not the actual substance, of some kind of rabid racism.

Here, for your elucidation, is an example of these exclamations in context:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I sincerely hope that this piece hurt no one and yet still made clear the point: not only was the Obama song not the indoctrination episode it was made out to be, but also that the most recent examples of such episodes exist back in the days of the Bush presidency. At that time there was appropriate criticism of the events. Not widespread and news-grabbing, but muted by comparison and relegated to second pages around the country.

Thanks for reading.

Recently a fellow blogger here on bako.com posted a George F. Will article which repeats the old saw about Conservatives and their superiority in charitableness. This is not only a recurrent myth, but a wholly strawman one, at that.

Here is what is happening: the data, (as reported in the supposedly anti-Conservative main stream media - how can we explain the incongruity?) all goes back to one author, a one Arthur Brooks. Brooks is a conservative researcher and President of the American Enterprise Institute. The "facts" in the Will article all come from the Brooks tome; none are to be found elsewhere nor are any replicated by any other authors.

Any reasonable student could tell you that this much information about the source brings the whole argument into doubt, but since it is near and dear to so many hearts, we forge onward.

Brooks' data counts all monetary donations equally, thus, giving to the church of one's choice is the same as giving to the World Wildlife Federation or to Alcoholics Anonymous. Doing so wraps the 10 percent tithe of all Mormons in Utah into the same package as every dime given to Save the Whales. It counts every penny in the collection basket the same as every pink ribbon sold during Breast Cancer Awareness Week. Having bundled all giving equally in this way, they find a $400 gap between Liberal and Conservative giving.

Yes, that's right. $400 on a scale measured in thousands. Brooks, though capable of the effort, didn't bother to test whether that level was statistically significant or not. It is quite possible, you see, for numbers to be greater or lesser than each other just because of random chance. One has to test the numbers against the hypothesis that the difference IS more than chance would predict for the observed difference to be "statistically significant". 

Take church-based charities out of the mix, however, and what result do you get? That's right. Liberals give more outside of churches than Conservatives. And should this count in the Liberal's favor? Should we care that non-church charities can count on Liberals moreso than Conservatives?

Since only 10 percent of charitable contributions leaves the community that raised it (i.e. the church spends much of it on the pastor, his family, the recreation hall and the Easter Gala) (http://www.huppi.com/kangar... and a third of all giving is to the church (http://www.prospect.org/csn... than it seems like the amounts given to charities outside our own tight little communities is coming from Liberals.

I would think that Brooks' other result, that the poor and wealthy give more, as a percentage of income, than the middle class would have keyed the average reader into what was really going on here. As the conservative Heritage Foundation recently proclaimed, "Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats." (http://www.heritage.org/pre...

So, does that make the GOP the new voice of the poor? No, the Democrats are favored among the poor as well. http://www.stat.columbia.ed...

Of course, I am posting this analysis in a year when the Democrats won the election, so they must have led in multiple levels of society. It remains to be seen, I guess, if these are long term trends.

But for our purposes, the argument that Conservatives (with Republicanism standing in as a very rough measure of that) give more is revealed to be wishful thinking. They give more to their church, to be certain. But they give far less to people outside of that immediate group.

Not surprisingly. Charity follows the same patterns as belief in other ideas, like diversity, global warming and world peace.

Remember, for example, all the mileage Bush 43 got out of funding the fight against AIDS in Africa? Because this was the norm for conservative presidents? Hardly. Would Clinton have gotten accolades for that same kind of interest in Africa? Apparently not: http://money.cnn.com/magazi...

 But all things being equal, I guess this big lie isn't the worst of them. Conservatives do give, after all. The Conservatives give more that Liberals myth, then, has the advantage of being half true; that's more than stories about ACORN, President Obama, Health Care Reform, and the California Budget battle can claim.

So Obama says, "wee weed up" and the intellectual vacuum on the right is filled again with the barest hint of something worthwhile to talk about. (As opposed to actual ideas or viewpoints).

What does it mean? Is that some Chicago phrase I haven't heard? etc, etc. goes the rightist echo chamber.

Here's what happening, in reality:

1) Obama is a funny guy. Funny guys often make up their own descriptors to fit circumstances. (This is called "talent" - the right will recognize it if they tune in to the left-dominated, Hollywood in-bred, media/entertainment monoliths on television, film, theater, web or in print.

Not, of course, if they only listen to AM radio. "Shock", of course,  is not the same thing as "talent". 

2) "Wee-weed up" is a made-up phrase. Did it work, in terms of delivering some humor to the Obama speech? Follow this link to view the audience reaction: http://www.politico.com/new...

and note, at 0:51, the largest laugh from the crowd, was in response to "Remember that?" while at 0:59, the second largest laugh, was in response to "wee weed up".

Thus, Obama's best line? No. Not even the best line in this speech. However, effective? As number two laugh-getter, yes it was.

3) It's funny.

So what's so funny about "wee weed up"?

It mixes "riled up", the obvious meaning intended, with "all full of p*ss and vinegar", with a hint of "full of sh*t" lurking somewhere in the background.

It's just plain humorous for Obama to use language that would pass muster at any right wing (bully) pulpit and make these suggestions at the same time.

Why the infantile vocabulary? For that reason and because it implies that the people getting "wee weed up" are themselves infantile.

My guess is that the right will attempt to glom on to this term because they would be embarassed if one of their own had used it. So Obama must get embarassed for using it, right?

It's kind of like watching Colbert. If you don't understand the joke, then you must think he agrees with you.

And as we saw earlier this year, conservatives, on the whole, don't think Colbert is joking. http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

So, once again: Colbert was actually criticizing (not praising) Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner and "wee weed up" was not a slip-up.

I'm seriously thinking of adding to my mantra:

history, proportion, references and TALENT.

But the last one can't be instilled with education, so what's the point?

Forgive the cut and paste job. This is just too good as is.

"Right Wing’s Anti-Health Care Icon Is Uninsured, Seeking Donations To Pay For Care

Last week, during a scuffle between health care town hall protesters and SEIU members at a town hall hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), anti-health care reform protester Kenneth Gladney was injured and required hospitalization:

Among the injured was Kenneth Gladney, 38, of St. Louis. He said he was with the Tea Party, handing out yellow flags with “Don’t tread on me” printed on them, when he was assaulted. He said he sought hospital treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.

“I was attacked for something I believe in,” he said.

Since then, conservatives have been using Gladney’s case as a cause célèbre to claim that “union thugs” are being used to silence dissent at health care town halls and have turned him into a hero of their movement.

The irony is that Gladney’s situation underscores the vital need for health care reform. He was recently laid off and lost his insurance (14,000 Americans suffer a similar fate each day). Because he has no affordable health care option available, Gladney is now soliciting donations to pay his medical expenses:

Less than 48 hours later, protesters gathered Saturday in front of the union’s offices, many of them holding signs with a slightly different version of the message: “Don’t Tread on Kenny.” [...]

Gladney did not address Saturday’s crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. “A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too.” Brown read. “This should never happen in this country.”

Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

Commenting on the Gladney incident, The Moderate Voice writes, “Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. If anything was more calculated to make the Right look foolish than this St. Louis incident then I’d love to see it.”

Under the House’s health care proposal, Gladney would be guaranteed a coverage option and would likely receive a subsidy to purchase affordable health care."

 http://thinkprogress.org/20...

With Obama's polls dropping below 50% for the first time in his professional career (on this one issue, anyway), Obama goes in front of the cameras again today - this time to try and swing public opinion that isn't already going his way. This is a new step for Obama. Will he go with the soaring rhetoric and bombastic oratorical skills that set him apart, or will he go with the policy wonk, ex-professor paternalism? I'm hoping he does a little of both, since this speech has to reach a very wide audience.

I'm also hoping for some straight talk about the health plan. He should make more of a point that health care costs will go down for nearly everyone in the country. He should re-address the cost of the program to the country, especially in light of the statement by the Congressional Budget Office.

Let  there be no doubt: this is history in the making. Many have tried to achieve what Obama proposes, and many have failed.

I certainly hope our first black President is the one who finally gets us to make the right decision about this. 

More after the speech.

  There has been a huge discussion about racism in America due to the events in a Philadelphia swimming pool recently. There was also a lot of discussion about the worth of Michael Jackson as a role model, complete with people damning the man without reservation or explanation.

Starting now, for the fourth of July weekend, I am unblocking the four guys who had previously been identified as the ones who loved to come and pee in the pool. They know who they are; most folks know who they are because they are still whining about it.

At one time, they even had a rant going about my violating their freedom of speech, which I want to point out is blatantly false. The blog is mine, a gift from TBC, which gave me the ability to block people for a reason.

There are many, on both sides of the political spectrum, who seem to think that blocking folks is unreasonable. I have been blocked by Sam Heath (no surprise) and three of the four guys mentioned earlier - I can't list which ones, because I honestly am not driven to post on their blogs much anyway. If anyone's interested, I could do the research, but I doubt anyone is.

Tit for tat? No. My point is that I think folks have every right to block and that the right should be used more often. The conservatives on bako.com start so many silly, epithet-driven diatribes that it is sad to watch good liberals be sucked into it. But it does happen. And that is their reason for baiting you, my friends.

My blog has been nothing but intelligent discussion ever since these guys got blocked, and I expect, if they actually start commenting again, that it will devolve to much less very quickly. And then I will block them again.

As is my right. As is the right of every one who is the proud 'owner' of a blog here on bako.com.

So, fellas: quitcherbitchin' and comment away.

And try and be good.

 There was a national poll in 2006 by OpEdNews.com and Zogby that found that most people who didn't rely on Fox News as their primary source of information believed that the Presidential election of 2000 was 'stolen' by George Bush; or, to put it contrapositively, those people who chose Fox News as their primary news source were the only people who didn't believe the election was stolen.