Donna Brazile @ CNN: SOTU as Prom

Always insightful, author, strategist, and professor Donna Brazile talks about the sudden, good-natured "civility" exhibited by Congress for tonight's State of the Union in an OpEd column today at CNN - How State of the Union became a prom. There remain two problems she's glossing over as she concludes, charitably...

"We don't all have to agree with each other, but for the good of the country, it's important that we sit together as Americans. After all, this could be good for the country, too."

Professor Donna Brazile, CNN Conributor

25 Jan 2011

First, it's patently political posing -- plain old posturing -- a ploy for the attention and implied praise of the pundits that probably won't impact one Congressional debate or vote, but will probably garner that holy grail, media coverage for most of the players.

Secondly, focus on the mechanics, or logistics, or whatever you want to call this staging of seating arrangements, inevitably detracts from time people spent reflecting on the President's actual message. Granting that GOP strategists are delighted to direct public attention to anything but President Obama's hour in the limelight, particularly in the wake of his speech dealing with the tragedy in Tuscon, it seems curious that their Democratic counterparts are being pulled in.

The narrative of tonight's State of the Union speech is fast becoming "they played so nicely together." Count the minutes in the coverage leading up to the State of the Union and particularly the post-speech dissection, bearing in mind that every minute spent on how members of Congress arranged their seats is akin to watching the royals - "Congress-watching" lacks substance, although it's probably easier for most pundits on the spur of the moment than genuine analysis.

I don't need to relive Joe Wilson's "You lie!" moment, but I've watched politics too long to fall for this pre-planned mugging for the cameras and the echo-chamber media, either. When they control the information the GOP wins the messaging battle; who wins if they can distract from the President's powerful post-Tuscon message by getting the media to talk about who sat with whom, and possibly draw a few extra eyeballs to the dueling GOP/Tea-Party responses?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

In response to TEARS FOR A KING

In her column yesterday reflecting on the meaning of celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Tears for a King, Michelle Dianne asked some pointed questions.

"We’re celebrating? From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire to the molehills of Mississippi, freedom still fails to ring for millions of Americans and we’re celebrating?"

Michelle Dianne
17 January 2011

Let's define celebrate: to observe or commemorate, typically but not necessarily in a public way, an event, drawing attention to remind others what matters.

The quintessential example is likely "personal" non-holiday birthdays, which rarely (if ever) focus on the woman who gave birth, but instead serve as a reason to express affection, or at least acceptance, without eliciting suspicion of an agenda: we can say, or hear, "Happy Birthday" without looking for motivation beyond "You're OK in my reckoning," even between near strangers. It's a low-cost, low-risk social exchange.

Celebration takes on another dimension altogether when we celebrate an official holiday - when we observe the birthday of a political or religious figure that choice conveys our recognition of their enduring impact - the significance of their contributions to many lives.

In that sense King's holiday is celebration-worthy and, though I might sooner have chosen the anniversary of an event, I accept that his accomplishment went well beyond any one appearance or speech; for all he brought to the consciousness of both oppressed people and those who chose to look the other way, I applaud the Powers That Be (or, that "were" in this case) for ensuring we officially, collectively reflect on and commemorate the impact and importance of his philosophy, commitment, and courage.

It is right, in other words, that children in the United States in particular -- children who might otherwise never so much as hear King's name -- have reason in every school in the nation to learn how awful and un-equal things really were despite the lofty language in our Constitution and the so-called integration of our Armed Forces. History doesn't repeat itself, but people who don't know history may well repeat some mistakes rather than learn from them.

"The other day R. Lee Gordon asked the African American community on Facebook what it will take to put the “B” back in *Lack Unity; the brother got only two responses. Think about that and answer me this: What are we celebrating?"

Michelle Dianne
17 January 2011

I'm fervently in favor of celebrating King's life and the changes his actions stimulated; marking his birthday spreads the awareness, it keeps us from glossing over the past, and conveys that he's as relevant to our story as the officially-most-revered of our Presidents. What we celebrate is that the courage and certainty of King's actions moved us farther, faster in a critical direction than we'd have made it without him. King's holiday is an affirmation of our "all men are created equal" aspiration, and the power of people to grow and improve.

So while her closing question implying we may be making a mistake -- implying the need to think more about the meaning of the day -- was a good one, with much yet unaccomplished, with miles to go and promises of our founding fathers still un-met this cold, snowy January, I submit it is more important to ask routinely either, "How can/does our celebration inspire continuation of the progress toward true equality?" or, "What would Martin do?"

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Robert Frost

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Tom Hayes: Tom Toles has no problem with anger in politics

In your search for quick gratification and summary information do you follow political cartoonists, such as Tom Toles at the Washington Post? Toles gets it, which is why he won the Pulitzer Prize.

Or maybe he won the Pulitzer because he does more than craft insightful cartoons - maybe it's because he includes commentary that's getting attention because of his cartoons; he draws you in with the visual imagery, but that's really just an appetizer.

That's arguably the case with today's offering, "Damage Level." Tom Toles is gifted in the art of the communication; he creates images that convey compelling perspectives, well-suited to our hurried approach to modern life.

But if you skip the accompanying explication you're in danger of sampling too shallowly. Go ahead, click on it, the "Damage Level" cartoon is reproduced much too small here to appreciate. Take the time.

Toles doesn't have a problem with anger in politics, and he didn't win the Pulitzer just because he can draw.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The word is Nigger

Michelle Diane has penned a heartfelt, cogent, timely response to the politically-correct, navel-gazing frenzy which Auburn Professor Alan Gribben stirred up with the planned release of a re-written, sanitized version of Mark Twain's work.

”We may applaud Twain’s ability as a prominent American literary realist to record the speech of a particular region during a specific historical era, but abusive racial insults that bear distinct connotations of permanent inferiority nonetheless repulse modern-day readers...”

Professor Alan Gribben, Wall Street Journal Interview

Writing at the new michellediane-naked blog, she bluntly goes beyond what most mainstream media pundits bother to explore, urging her readers to tear down the curtain on a step backwards deceptively cloaked in gentle political correctness. This is not an academic discussion, the effects of which will be confined to ivory towers and American Literature classes.

"...America needs to keep saying it until America stops living it. Hold it up as a mirror on the realities that be. Demand that neither they nor we can hide behind a politically correct “N” until criminals like Haley Barbour can no longer circumvent ethics, even simple human decency, in the name of political gain."

Michelle Diane, in

The "N" Word Deception

I'm not in a position to comment on Gribben's motivation, but if we ascribe the best of intentions to his undertaking one must still be wary of the constant reality of unintended consequences - and Michelle Diane is a voice well-worth heeding on this topic. If she persists, hers will be a blog well-worth following; her forthright perspective is clear, well-articulated, and more importantly thought-provoking.

Read it.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Lock & Load: Violence in the Crosshairs

In the aftermath of the shooting in Tuscon the irony looms: those who tout the 2nd Amendment usually insist that ready access to handguns, possibly concealed, will limit the probability of gun violence. A Second Amendment "solution" yesterday would have meant a crowd armed and hair-triggered enough to be ready to defend the Congresswoman when her assailant aimed at her - as the pro-gun pundits vociferously insisted might have prevented deaths in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, for example. One could only hope they'd all have the talent to aim very carefully in such crowded conditions that even a trained sharp-shooter might feel tested, since the deaths and injuries at a grocery store in Tuscon were arguably incited by the implied acceptability of such "2nd Amendment solutions."

I'd surely hate to be Jesse Kelly, Gifford's opponent in the recent election who tied defeating her to coming to shoot a "fully automatic M-16" to remove her from office, or Sarah Palin (who used a gun-sight rendering to target 20 candidates she wanted defeated, including Giffords) right now. It must be distracting for them both to work out ways to not feel guilty about this travesty.

So, while it's true that guns don't kill people, (people kill people) it does behoove us to consider culpability for incitement; there's more to being an American patriot than whipping up media ratings in support of your particular political agenda - or at the very least, we should agree that their ought to be. If we can agree that yelling fire in a crowded, darkened theater is unacceptable, then surely we can agree that inciting to violence is not responsible public discourse, much less a valid means to attain elected office.

This was an assault on the best system of government the world has ever brought to life. With all due respect to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, violence is not a solution - it's a symptom. If you don't like how our system works, that's fine with me - feel free to move to Somalia, or anywhere else that doesn't use elections to determine what the government can do and who represents us. If you're staying, though, buy in.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

GOP suddenly pro-Earmark (or is that pro-Pork, perhaps?)

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, during the last time Republicans controlled Congress (which started in 1994, based on the "Contract With America") there were about 1300 earmarks for nearly $8 billion - at a time when we had a budget surplus under the Clinton administration. Then by the final year of GOP control a decade later (2005) their were 10 times as many earmarks totaling over $27 billion, and a record budget deficit - which the elite pundits are still trying to blame on Obama.

You can learn more about the man the Democrats call the “Prince of Pork” -- GOP Congressman Hal Rogers (KY-05) -- as he takes over chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee by reading various articles online; he's brought so much money for Kentucky that they've renamed the former Daniel Boone Parkway the Hal Rogers Parkway.

Citizens Against Government Waste named Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) their "Porker of the Month" in August, somehow without mentioning the word nepotism.

“Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) August Porker of the Month for sponsoring legislation that could give federal funding to his daughter’s nonprofit organization, which promotes overseas wildlife protection for cheetahs.”

It's probably a coincidence that his daughter is the Grants Administrator of the Cheetah Conservation Fund.

But there's good news.  This sort of spending (millions to a fund based in Namibia) won't lead to bigger government. It's just $5 million a year to a non-government agency based overseas.

Look, I'm not saying conservation and cheetahs aren't important, it's just a question of priorities.  The GOP voted down a one-time payment of $250 to Senior Citizens... but that's another story.  My point is, it's about priorities, and once they capture a majority naturally the GOP priorities have changed to ensure their donors will help them get re-elected.

At least they haven't flip-flopped on tax-breaks for the rich.

I know, right?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The Loving Story

A racially-charged criminal trial and a heart-rending love story converge in the history of Richard and Mildred Loving. Their struggle for respect and dignity is set against a backdrop of historic anti-miscegenation sentiments in the United States. With the help of two young, ambitious lawyers driven to pave the way for social justice and equal rights through a historic Supreme Court case, "Loving v. Virginia" overturned lingering bans on interracial marriage in sixteen states.

Told through never-before-seen cinema verité footage of the Lovings and their lawyers, with other authentic footage of the times. Together with oral accounts and interviews with their family and friends, the film captures their saga – from their courtship, to their arrest and exile, to their preparation for the 1967 Supreme Court case.

THE LOVING STORY is a journey into a poignant love story set against the turbulent backdrop of race relations in America. It was the turning point for marriage equality in the United States; the premiere will be in early 2011, and interested supporters can be a part of the final production phase.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.