Syndicated columnist and PBS regular Mark Shields on Friday apologized for saying “Christmas season.” Such occurred on the most recent installment of PBS's “Inside Washington” broadcast in many parts of the country on Christmas Eve (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Byron York is awfully certain that there will be no filibuster reform for the Senate in the coming weeks: It’s also why you’re hearing new rumbling about what many Democrats consider the ultimate fix for the Washington-is-broken problem: eliminating the filibuster. A perennial complaint, unhappiness with the filibuster is likely to reach new heights among Democrats in the next few months. Already, the entire returning Democratic caucus has signed a letter by Sens. Carl Levin and Mark Warner calling for rules changes that will make it easier to kill filibusters. Some are also hoping to make it possible to change the Senate’s rules with a simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds vote required now. That way, Democrats could do anything they want, even without that 60-vote majority. It won’t happen; there aren’t the votes. I t could even be that Democrats are pushing the anti-filibuster argument so loudly because they know it won’t happen. That way, they can position themselves as favoring “filibuster reform” with the comfort of knowing they’ll still have the filibuster the next time they’re in the minority, which might be soon. Nevermind, of course, that Republicans’ abuse of the filibuster has had the distinctly anti-constitutional effect of transforming the Senate from a majority-rule body to a supermajority-rule body . Conservatives, as we have seen multiple times in the past year, only make a fetish out of the Constitution — or rather, a mythologized version of it — when they think it favors them. When the actual Constitution prevents them from, say, stripping American-born Latinos of their citizenship, well, all they want to do is overturn it. But it’s interesting that York assumes the votes aren’t there. Because, as Susie pointed out the other day, every returning Democrat wants to reform the filibuster. That would mean we have 53 votes for the reform now. And, as we pointed out several weeks ago, all that is needed on January 5, the first day of Senate business, is 51 votes in order to change the rules. As Tom Udall has been pointing out for awhile now: And so what the Constitutional Option is about is doing rules reform in the Senate at the beginning of a Congress and the crucial thing is that at the beginning of Congress you can set rules with 51 Senators. You can end the debate and you can adopt new rules. Now is the time for rules reform. I have a feeling a bunch of smug Republicans are going to wake up on January 6 and realize that they just got hammered by Democrats again. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. Meanwhile, be sure to read Ezra Klein’s interview with Jeff Merkley for more on all this.
Continue reading …enlarge Lowell Thomas — widely respected newsman who was also prone to fits of laughter on the air. Click here to view this media Not all news in the post-War years was grim, or presented in a grim way. Take this newscast from December 19, 1946, presented by broadcast pioneer and well-respected journalist Lowell Thomas. Thomas had a long and colorful career and was something of a Walter Cronkite of his day. However, Thomas did have this one habit — he would occasionally break up while reading a piece of copy on the air. And since it was live, the laughter spilled over the air and usually caught his announcer in a fit of hysterics as well. So on this day in 1946, the news was concerned with price gouging of G.I.’s looking to buy a home. The elections in Iran the threatened civil war in Palestine. The infamous Senator Bilbo and hearings regarding his somewhat nefarious dealings. The problem of government Public Relations firms and the amount of propaganda associated with them. The immigration wave coming from Europe. But that didn’t stop Thomas from staging a complete breakup at the end. Sometimes news is just funny.
Continue reading …It's Christmas Eve, so let's treat ourselves to something conservative political junkies enjoy: handicapping the 2012 Republican field.
Continue reading …enlarge I wrote this ten years ago. I hope you enjoy it. CHRISTMAS WAS COMING but I saw only darkness ahead: My husband and I were getting a divorce and we planned to tell the kids after the holidays. With that hanging over me, I wandered through Macy’s, vainly trying to focus on shopping. But my nerves were too raw. When a tuxedoed pianist stationed by the jewelry counter started to play a gorgeous, jazzy version of “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas,” I began to cry. Because I knew I wouldn’t have a merry little Christmas and wasn’t sure I ever would again. A few days later, I took my sons to see “An American Tail.” I figured talking mice were safe enough, but when Fievel the Mouse began singing “Somewhere Out There,” the tears returned. “It’s such a hokey song. Why are you crying?,” I silently scolded myself. I had so little compassion for my own pain that swallowing was a difficult habit to break. I was breaking up my family; who was I to feel entitled to cry about anything? enlarge I was crying because the song was about someone out there looking at the same bright star and waiting just for you . It was an enormous lie, I knew. I was walking away from the officially-sanctioned structure of family for no other reason than my own crushing loneliness. What made me think that the way to cure my unhappiness was to turn it up several notches and spread it to the people I loved? My punishment, I knew, was that no one would ever love me again. I cried quietly in the dark while the screen light flickered over the still-innocent faces of my boys. Such a dark time of the soul, that particular season. But while driving home from work, shivering in my old Dodge Dart, I’d find myself lost in wonder at the Christmas displays. Instead of the garish excess I’d so readily ridiculed before, I saw a sign of better times to come. I could take it only on faith because by any logical measure, my world seemed hopeless. “Light in darkness,” I repeated to myself. “Light in darkness.” I attended Midnight Mass back in the inner-city neighborhood where we lived in the early years of our marriage. St. Francis de Sales evolved from a turn-of-the century working-class Irish parish to its present-day mix of now-elderly Irish parishioners, Vietnamese immigrants, academics and students from the nearby University of Pennsylvania and a growing base of black Catholics. At Christmas, many cultural Catholics like me were happy to throw the annual $20 bill in the collection basket — we’d turned our backs on the institutional church, but were still drawn to the majesty of this day. It’s hard, after all, for someone who entered so many “Keep Christ in Christmas” poster contests to imagine Christmas without church. The carol service preceded the Mass. People streamed into the enormous church, which was lit only by a few scattered wall sconces and the tiny yellow lights on the altar’s evergreen trees. The organist played quietly while we sang about a tiny baby who was called Light of the World. “Come, oh come, Emmanuel and rescue captive Israel.” We sang about shepherds and a dark, cold night when wise men followed a star. Every year, they follow the same satisfying ritual. The bright lights of the old domed church blaze on, precisely as the French pipe organ swells to the rafters and the brass ensemble joins in. The choir sings out “Joy to the World” and the priests and altar attendants, boys and girls, despite our ultra-conservative cardinal’s prohibition, march happily toward the altar, greeting friends, family and parishioners. For that moment, the paralyzing fear is gone and we all love each other. When the priest reads the familiar story, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people,” I choke up. That year, I held onto the words tightly because I was suddenly so afraid of so many things. “Fear not,” I told myself fiercely. “Fear not.” I made it through that year, and then another, until more than a decade has passed. My sons are grown men with productive lives and yes, someone did love me again. But I’m even more heartened that I finally learned how to love. How appropriate that this darkest season is also the season of light shining through darkness. Whatever faith we follow, or avoid, light is the theme woven through our winters. It’s a star that leads wise men to the Light of the World, a flame that burns eight days without oil against all reason. It’s the sneaking suspicion and humble hope that maybe the universe is on our side, whether we deserve it or not. Joy — yes, to the world. To all people. Mine can’t be the only heart that leaps when Scrooge awakens from his long winter sleep, determined to bring light and warmth to the Cratchit family. Who doesn’t cheer the possibility of transformation, for ourselves and everyone else? We all have a small, doubting child inside, like Natalie Wood in “Miracle on 34th Street.” I can’t tell you how often I mutter to myself, “I do believe in Santa Claus. I do.” No matter how convinced I am he’s just a nice old man with a beard. Oddly enough, I’ve learned, just like that other Susan, that the more purely and deeply I believe, the more miracles seem to rain from the sky. enlarge Through what filter do we chose to see this modern world? The annual barrage of Christmas symbols is either the most cynical of capitalist propaganda – or it’s the mythology of our time. Those myths light our way through the darkness. They’re about hope, love and acceptance. They celebrate what we have in common instead of what drives us apart. Why do we still watch Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Herbie, the elf who longs to be a dentist? Who doesn’t secretly feel like a candidate for the Island of Misfit Toys? And why do we still anticipate the moment Linus looks at Charlie Brown’s little Christmas tree with its tinkling needles and says, “You know, it really isn’t such a bad little tree.” You demand angst instead of all this saccharine? Well, then: Whose existential pain doesn’t resonate with George Bailey, the bitter anti-hero of “It’s A Wonderful Life”? We sorely need this annual fable to balance the weight of our own cynicism . We do make a difference. We do touch other people, we change their lives with each act of caring. Think of it as quantum physics if it makes you feel more sensible. Our presence has meaning, on even the smallest scale. That’s the real light in the darkness, after all. How do we sustain a sense of meaning without that hope? How can we even bear to board an airplane these days if we don’t also carry the comforting thought of potential heroes among us? It’s how we know every time a bell rings, another angel gets his wings. We trust the lamp to burn long enough to see us through this latest siege, and we know the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future can change even the hardest hearts overnight. Deep down, we know the act of believing in Santa is the real point – not something as unimaginative as proving he’s not “real.” And we pity the Grinches who don’t understand Christmas is what’s in our hearts, not what’s under the tree. “Don’t get your hopes up.” What a cowardly, cautious thing to say. When you live in fear and doubt, you get exactly the world you see. The season of lights is the reprieve we get from that arrogant faith in our own reasoning. Against all odds, despite everything the world presents to convince us it’s a horrible place, we seem to be hard-wired for hope. This is the season we let our hearts out to play. Fear not! enlarge
Continue reading …For this special holiday edition of “Left, Right & Center,” the show’s regulars—Robert Scheer, Matt Miller, Arianna Huffington and Tony Blankley—take their talk to the meta level to discuss what it means to own their respective political labels at this particular moment. Related Entries December 17, 2010 ‘Left, Right & Center’: Afghanistan, Health Care, Financial Commission December 16, 2010 Robert Scheer Nabs SPJ/LA’s New Media Prize
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Looks like Man-on-Dog Rick Santorum is at it again, whipping up those good Christian viewers at Fox into thinking that the evil gay-loving secularists are out to get them. Here he is responding to Juan Williams during a panel discussion on Hannity’s show after Williams asked Santorum and guest host Mark Steyn what they thought of President Obama’s statement that he was “struggling with the idea of maybe supporting gay marriage” during his press conference after signing the repeal of DADT. From News Hounds — Rick Santorum Explains How Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Is Part Of A Secularist Plot To Rid America Of Religion : Steyn snidely asked if Obama’s “principled defense of marriage or whatever it was” was “likely to be tossed overboard with so much else?” Santorum replied, “Look, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was not about men and women serving in the military. Men and women who are gays and lesbians can serve in the military right now. That’s not the issue. The issue is a bigger issue. The issue is – and it’s not even about gay marriage. This is about a larger issue of the secularization of our society. It’s a larger issue about the left just, you know, trying to, you know, put government in control of this country, and trying to move faith, trying to move any people of faith and religion out of the public square, out of America, trying to transform what America’s all about. And this is just one more step in the process and we have Republicans who may be well meaning… but what they’re doing is a larger harm and this is just one more step in that process.” Yeah, heaven forbid Christians in this country don’t have enough of a bully pulpit to keep their members afraid of teh gays for political purposes like Ricky boy is doing here. Hey Rick, when the atheists take over the halls of Congress, you let me know, will ya?
Continue reading …Have you noticed that when any of the talking heads discuss Social Security and possible cuts to our benefits, the media largely remains silent on what that would mean to average Americans? CJR has a great interview on exactly this topic: Trudy Lieberman: What are we to make of this consensus on fixes to Social Security that some in the media tell us has been reached? William Greider: This is a staggering scandal for the media. I have yet to see a straightforward, non-ideological, non-argumentative piece in any major paper that describes the actual condition of Social Security. The core fact is that Social Security has not contributed a dime to the deficit, but has piled up trillions in surpluses, which the government has borrowed and spent. Social Security’s surpluses have actually offset the impact of the deficit, beginning with Reagan. TL: Why don’t reporters report this? WG: They identify with the wisdom of the elites who don’t want to talk about this—because if people understand that Social Security has a $2.5 trillion surplus, building toward more than $4 trillion, people will ask why are politicians trying to cut Social Security benefits? TL: Is that why coverage has been so one-sided? WG: Most reporters, with few exceptions, assume the respectables are telling the truth about Social Security, when it is really propaganda. What elites are saying is deeply misleading, and they deliberately are distorting the story. But reporters think they are smart people and must know what they are talking about. TL: Who influences the coverage? WG: There are layers of influence that tell reporters this is the safe side of the story. They don’t go to people who might be unsafe sources, like labor leaders who know how changes will affect workers, or to old liberals who are out of favor but who know the origins of Social Security and why it was set up in the first place, or to neutral experts like actuaries who actually understand how it works and what the trust funds are all about. If they write about what the AFL-CIO thinks, they are out of the orthodoxy. TL: What are other layers? WG: Most reporters who cover difficult areas typically develop sources, and they write for those sources. They don’t want to offend them for fear they will lose access. Reporters, we know, are sensitive, nervous animals; they act like scared little rabbits. They also know what the owners of their publications think. And those owners think pretty much what the Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce think. TL: Are reporters disconnected from the public? WG: Reporters are so embedded in the established way of understanding things. They are distanced from people at large and don’t spend much time trying to see why ordinary people see things differently from the people in power—and why people are often right about things. TL: Is this different than in the past? WG: Yes. In the last twenty years, as media ownership became highly concentrated, the gulf between the governing elites, both in and out of government, and the broad range of ordinary citizens has gotten much worse. The press chose to side with the governing elites and look down on the citizenry as ignorant or irrational, greedy, or even nutty. … read on Get the picture?
Continue reading …President Obama is still grappling with the notion of same-sex marriage, and it looks like his second in command is taking the issue a step further by declaring the “inevitability” of gay marriage in the future.
Continue reading …