Obama Terror Attack Quote Shows Stupidity Of The Right-Wing

(Post originally at Zennie62.com)

Obama Terror Attack Quote: the definition of "absorb" - keep that in mind.

The Internet's ablaze with news, blog, and soon video and audio chatter about President Barack Obama's quote in Bob Woodward's new book Obama's Wars. The Right Wing of the blogsphere's especially excited over the so-called statement by the President that America "could absorb" a Terrorist attack.

The right, looking for whatever edge it can get politically, is prone to great leaps in misjudgement. Want an example? Look no further than Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Not to digress, the problem of Couch Potato Conservatives rests in their lack of desire to think. Thus, failing to ask one simple question: what's the definition of "absorb."

Here are all of the possible definitions:

1. To take (something) in through or as through pores or interstices.
2. To occupy the full attention, interest, or time of; engross. See Synonyms at monopolize.
3. To retain (radiation or sound, for example) wholly, without reflection or transmission.
4. To take in; assimilate: immigrants who were absorbed into the social mainstream.
5. To learn; acquire: "Matisse absorbed the lesson and added to it a new language of color" (Peter Plagen).
6. To receive (an impulse) without echo or recoil: a fabric that absorbs sound; a bumper that absorbs impact.
7. To assume or pay for (a cost or costs).
8. To endure; accommodate: couldn't absorb the additional hardships.
9. To use up; consume: The project has absorbed all of our department's resources.

Of all nine choices, the one that most fits President Obama's statement is Number 6: "To receive (an impulse) without echo or recoil." That's not what America was able to do in the case of 9-11 and means that such an attack could happen and ultimately no one would be killed, certainly not the 3,000 lives lost on September 11, 2001.

Memories are short, and some Right-Wing blogger contemporaries show a weakness of cognitive thought that is the result of a poorly funded national educational system coupled with an inability to avoid the impulse for anti-intellectualism.

In other words, some of them are just being stupid. Note that "being stupid" is a temporary state of mind, not a permanent one, which means the problem can be repaired. Read on.

Before 9-11 we didn't have the Transportation Services Administration, The Department Of Homeland Security, or WiFi, smart phones, or any number of systems that help prevent or absorb possible terrorist attacks. Now we have those systems in place and they work.

Obama Not Inviting An Attack, But Read The Book

All of this is taken out of context because you and I don't know the full context of the book's prose. Some at the New York Times do, but only share their observations with us, not Bob Woodwards's book itself. Thus, we're left to guess at the context, at least for those of us thoughtful enough to realize we don't know it.

The Right should cool its jets, unless it wants to see an unearthing of every scary, stupid, and idiotic comment made from members of its brethren since September 11th 2001.  By using patient, thoughtful consideration of words, The Right Wing can avoid such displays of lack of intellect in the future.

Happy Rosh Hashanah : President Obama's Wish, Stephen Hawking's Error

President Obama is joined by this blogger in wishing you a Happy Rosh Hashanah. Here's Obama's video from yesterday:

Prof. Stephen Hawking

Come to think of it, since Stephen Hawking elected to introduce his book The Grand Design and declare that God did not create the Universe, it's fair to say that for him, Rosh Hashanah's not good, eh?

You'd think Hawking would show some respect for Jews by not releasing his book just a day before Rosh Hashanah, right? Talk about flunking his performance review. Geesh.

This blogger still can't understand why Stephen Hawking would write a book trying to debunk the existence of God, but not The Devil. Makes you wonder if his book itself's the Work of The Devil.

From this vantage point, Stephen Hawking looks just like the religious zealots he and his fans rightly criticize. Two sides of the same coin.

I prefer the edge. It rolls, if you know what I mean.

Happy Rosh Hashanah

CNN's Ed Henry's Kendrick Meek Interview Was Awful

Ed Henry pays more attention to his hair than interviews

CNN's Ed Henry gets hammered all too often for his interview approach, which often has nothing to do with the concerns of the subject he's interviewing. Take the interview he just conducted with Florida Congressman Kendrick Meek today, Sunday.

Congressman Meek just beat challenger Jeff Greene for the Democratic Nomination to be Florida's next Senator. With that, does Ed Henry talk about the campaign? No.

 Ed Henry opens with a not-veiled and wrong-headed attack on the Obama Administration's Economic Stimulus package. The questioning had nothing to do with the Florida Senate race against GOP challenger Marco Rubio.

Instead of giving the viewer what was expected, Ed Henry used Kendrick Meek to do Henry's White House crit for him, or at least tried to.

If Ed Henry wants to take political positions against the White House, he should quit CNN and become a columnist or a blogger. The strategy of trying to use one interview subject to make news about something having little to do with that subject, as Henry clumsily tried to do with President Obama last year (and Wonkette made him look like a fool for doing it) not only doesn't work, it makes Henry look plain silly.

If Ed Henry doesn't know about Florida politics, don't waste my time interviewing Florida politicians. I watched the interview expecting to learn something about the events of last week and about Congressman Meek. Instead, what I got was a big dose of Ed Henry grandstanding for the right to ask irrelevant questions.

Ed, don't do that again. Please. Do your homework before an interview.

Restoring Honor: The I Have A Dream Speech Anniversary

We can't allow crackpot talk show hosts to glen or for that matter to beck America into forgetting that Saturday, August 28th was the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream Speech. This blog post is a small action of "Restoring Honor" to that day in 1963.

The ten minute speech was given on Saturday, August 28th 1963 in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC; the event drew over 200,000 people. The address is ranked as the top speech in history.

What is forgotten in all of the silliness of yesterday's faked emotionalism, aside from the fact that Dr. King's greatest moment was nearly glen becked by the media, was the actual speech of 1963 came at a time in this blogger's life (I was born in 1962) when white America's view toward blacks in America was largely screwed up.

(It's not accurate to say "America's view" because it implies either that blacks were also treating other blacks the same way, which wasn't the case, and that blacks and other minorities had the same levels of freedoms that whites in America enjoyed in 1963; not so.  Truth, painful as it is to deal with, is the truth. Skin color was the issue.  You could claim to be a black conservative at the time, and that would not save you from racism.)

Blacks and whites could not marry and even something as simple as going to the bathroom was segregated by race. Many of the freedoms younger African Americans are used now to weren't even allowed then. And beatings and lynchings of blacks, particularly in the South, were all too common.

It's always said that one must know history, if only to avoid repeating it. That's what "Restoring Honor" really means.

For those of you who have not seen the I Have A Dream Speech, the video of it is below, followed by the text of what Dr. King actually said.



Here's the text of the speech from MLKOnline.net:

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. [Applause]
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.

But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski Losing To Joe Miller In Alaska GOP Primary

If Lisa loses, she may go fishing for Sarah

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski is behind by 2,000 votes, 45,909 to 43,949, to challenger Joe Miller in the Alaska GOP Primary.

 If Lisa Murkowski loses, it will be viewed here as a win more for Sarah Palin than for the Tea Party Movement.

Look, Lisa Murkowski has a seat Palin felt should have been hers long ago. But Lisa's daddy, Frank Murkowski, picked his daughter to be Alaska Senator in 2002. Then Palin beat Frank Murkowski in the Alaska Gubernatorial Race in 2006. Over the course of time, Palin has made it known she felt that Senate seat should have been hers.

This isn't about the Tea Party; this is a catfight.

And I don't care if you bring up a Black Conservative from out of state and tell people a Black Conservative is stumping for Joe Miller and how great it looks, as the so-called American Thinker (smoking a GIANT bong in the process) presented. This is still about Lisa and Sarah.

But, yeah, some brother named Lloyd Marcus was trucked up to Alaska by the Tea Party Express to stump for Joe Miller! Why in God's good name would the Tea Party Express send a black guy up to Alaska to help a white GOP candidate? To show that the Tea Party Express and Joe Miller really do have black friends.  (Meanwhile CNN gives the racist Tea Party guys airspace, painfully reminding the Tea Party Express of its real roots.)

What's more shameful is Lloyd Marcus allowed himself to be used in this way.  If you look at the American Thinker (LOL), Mr. Marcus looks like he should play the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles.

Now a fair bet is  Lloyd Marcus is a beautiful man.  He has to be just to put up with all of the "what you doing here" looks he's certainly getting.  OMG!!

But I digress. I really had to, though.  Back to Lisa, er Senator Murkowski.

As she was watching the election returns, Lisa Murkowski remarked that when Sarah Palin left office she vowed to help the people of Alaska. Instead, she served "in her own self-interest" as Senator Murkowski said to The Anchorage Daily News.

Democrats, don't you just love this GOP self-eating process? This massive cannibalization? Isn't just so cool to watch this Murkowski vs. Palin catfight writ large?! This blogger's having a ball.

Because once the smoke clears in Alaska, the GOP will have to face the clear Democratic choice, Scott T. McAdams.

Boy, kick GOP butt in Alaska's going to be so fun!

Julian Assange rape charges dropped, Wikileaks founder cleared

Julian Assange - Image via Wikipedia

In what has to have been a nightmare experience for him, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been cleared of charges of rape and molestation in Sweden, false charges issued by two women, one in her 20s and the other in her 30s. As reported at Zennie62.com, the charges looked like the anatomy of a smear campaign.

According to Aljazeera, Eva Finne, Sweden's chief prosecutor, Julian Assange was "no longer wanted."

On Friday, it was reported that the two women, who knew each other, came forward to Swedish Police.  But the problem was they did not want to file an official report because of their so-called fears of his power.

What's fishy about that story is if the women actually knew who Julian was, thus "fearing his power," which is a joke of a claim, and knew what his controversial Wikileaks issue was about, why would they seek to file a false report of rape, especially since he up against the U.S Government?

If they were supporters of his cause, they would not have done that.  Period.

Under the circumstances,  because they're not named and did not file an official report, its fair to ask if the women were connected to the CIA?

Many news organizations will go back to the story that Wikileaks has over 70,000 documents on its website that are classified and concern the War in Afghanistan. But the dropping of charges does not begin to explain exactly and in detail why they were issued. And who were the two women who brought the story forward?

Charging someone with rape is a serious issue.  What's more troubling is that it was done at a time when Wikileaks and Julian Assange are the focus of the U.S Governments anger. Anyone who abuses the legal process to make a false claim should be punished.

Stay tuned for more on this fish story.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to surrender to police over rape charge

Julian Assange - Image via Wikipedia

It's reported from the Google translated web version of the Swedish tabloid Expressen, that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is to surrender to Swedish police over an alleged rape charge reported earlier.

Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said that Julian Assange will remain in Sweden. Reportedly, police want to confront him with what is called "the data."

According to Expressen's Anna Skarin, two women, one in her 20s and the other in her 30s, came forward with the claim.

Wikileaks currently holds about 70,000 pages of classified documents related to the War in Afghanistan.

Ted Stevens: Former Alaska Senator plane crash death confirmed

Senator Stevens 

Sadly, Senator Ted Stevens' death in the crash of an airplane owned by GCI, which provides telecommunications services to Alaska, was confirmed by CNN and The Washington Post.

Previously, the first source of news that the former Senator had passed away, then claimed they were "not sure," as the three crash survivors were not identified.

The plane, a small eight-passenger single engine prop aircraft, crashed 20 miles away from Dillingham, Alaska. The passengers included Senator Stevens and former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, said to be Ted Stevens' fishing buddy.

Ted Stevens was a giant in politics, who survived a nasty legal battle and at 86 was still helping other elected officials. He will be missed.

More on Ted Stevens in this space, soon.

Obama on The View: Sarah Palin, in Alaska, says Obama should be at U.S. Mexico boarder

OK, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin just can't resist putting her foot in her mouth regarding President Obama. She should just admit he's doing a great job and she's got the hots for him. Instead, Palin, who's known for creating new words like "refudiate," had to talk before she realized where she was.

According to The Huffington Post, Palin said Obama had no time to be at the U.S. Mexico boarder but was on ABC's The View instead. Now, was Sarah Palin at the U.S. Mexico boarder ? No. She was in Alaska.

Alaska.

Great. I guess Sarah Palin's going to tell us she can see the U.S. Mexico boarder from her window, right?

If Palin were serious, she'd have made her statement from, yep, the U.S. Mexico boarder, but its too late for that. Anyway, going down there is the political kiss of death for any elected official or person running for office.

If Sarah Palin is, well, frankly, stupid enough to go down there, she can kiss any idea of running for President goodbye. She will lose the Latino vote and be peppered with blog posts pointing to her racial bias.

Sarah Palin should just stick to being a news commentator who "refudiates" when it suits her. Geez.

Tea Party Movement and Mark Williams hurt GOP chances in November

A big problem for the GOP 

The current controversy over Tea Party Express blogger Mark Williams' racist Letter to Abe Lincoln" and his expulsion from The National Tea Party Federation have created such negative attention for Republicans that it threatens GOP chances to gain seats in the House or the Senate in November.

What Mark Williams and some members of The National Tea Party Federation forget, if they even knew, is that America's population has changed so dramatically that minorities who were mere bit players in elections in some states and counties, are now significant influencers in those same regions.


The Center For American Progress Action Fund report on voter demographics explains that while the Democratic Party will become dominated by "the emerging constituencies that gave Barack Obama his historic 2008 victory," the Republican Party will be smaller in its support base, and forced "to move toward the center to compete for these constituencies."

Heavily Democratic minority voters (80 percent for Obama) increased their share of votes in U.S. presidential elections by 11 percentage points between 1988 and 2008, while the share of increasingly Democratic white college graduate voters rose 4 points. But the share of white working-class (not college-educated) voters, who have remained conservative in their orientation, has plummeted by 15 points.

From The Center For American Progress Action Fund Report

The Republican Party is anything but "near the center" in the wake of the Tea Party Movement and Mark Williams. It's no wonder why GOP elected officials aren't talking about Mark Williams or his actions. They're trying to kill the issue with silence, but Mark Williams appearing on CNN's not helping their cause.

Between Mark Williams and Arizona's racist approach to illegal immigration, GOP hopes for gains after the November election are silly to maintain. The only way forward for the GOP is to dump any association with The Tea Party Movement.

Racist Tea Party Express blogger Mark Williams expelled from Tea Party

Mark Williams, the Tea Party Express leader who CNN seems in love with having on their shows, and who's racism seems to know no bounds - first saying that Muslims worship "the terrorists' monkey god," and then writing a racist "Letter to Abe Lincoln" - has been kicked out of the National Tea Party Federation, which represents the Tea Party movement around the country.

Mark William's letter from his blog MarkTalk (where he's taken down the post and replaced it with a note) is here:

Dear Mr. Lincoln,

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!
In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.
The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.
And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.
Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?
Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely,

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

The main, troubling issue, is what kind of mind thinks of even writing something like that? While other Americans are living diverse lifestyles and getting on with the business of teaching, working, and enjoying life, Mark Williams has to prove that racism is a mental illness just by first thinking of that letter, then writing it.

Mark Williams comes off as one of those white guys that would say something stupid to a black / white interracial couple as they walked by, in part because he's angry over his own sexual frustrations

The question is, how many members of The National Tea Party Federation actually think like Mark Williams? While we may never know that answer, it's more than gracious for NAACP head Ben Jealous to want to meet with Mark Williams. Frankly, why bother?

Mark Williams needs to get with the American program and understand history, and not repeat it. Williams claims he's not racist, but tosses out an obviously racist letter. That's unfortunately typical with racists today, who say "I'm not racist" while doing everything they can to prove they are.

If Mark Williams is a good person, he'd apologize for the letter and for his screwed-up attitude. It's totally un-American, as has been his views on American minorities.

Stay tuned.

John Kerry calls Rand Paul and Republicans "dangerously radical"

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D - Massachusetts) is sharpening his knifes for the 2010 election season. Kerry just sent this blogger an email that is a perfect indication of how Democrats are going to paint Republicans as we head into the fall election season: as "dangerously radical." But given that Kerry mentions Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Rand Paul, he should call Rand "a wacky guy" because he is. And besides, being dangerously radical is too nice. No. John Kerry should call the Republican Party "dangerously wacky." Well, here's John Kerry's email:

Hello Zenophon, Republicans are betting that you don't care - that after all you did to beat them in 2006 and 2008, you're going to sit this one out. So they're whipping up their base by blocking help to unemployed workers, blocking summer jobs for teens, apologizing to the big companies that gave us the spill in the Gulf, and doing anything else they can do to stop progress. They're betting that they can excite their radical base and you won't respond. The stakes? Look no further than the truly radical candidates we're up against. Down in Kentucky, it's would-be Senator Rand Paul. Yes, that Rand Paul, who says freedom means a private business can discriminate against African-Americans, and that President Obama holding polluters accountable for the mess in the Gulf is "un-American." And he's not alone. All across the country, the Republican Party has turned dangerously radical. One candidate calls Social Security "horrible policy," while another has said that Americans will turn to "Second Amendment remedies" against Democrats. We have to stop them. Please contribute today to Jack Conway, Admiral Joe Sestak, and some other great Democrats. Tell the GOP that you do care and that we will stop them. The Republican Party believes they have the upper hand; they've made no secret of the fact that they plan to repeal healthcare reform if they win back control of Congress. But we have great candidates, and if we all work at it, we will beat them. In Pennsylvania, Admiral Joe Sestak is running to keep Pennsylvania blue. In Illinois, Alexi Giannoulias is running hard to keep Barack Obama's seat Democratic. But we're not just playing defense. In New Hampshire, Paul Hodes is running neck-and-neck with his Republican opponent to take this seat for the Democrats. Each of these candidates will make the Senate work better for average Americans. We need to do more than just play defense. Years of GOP mismanagement dug a deep hole. We've just started to turn our country around, passing healthcare reform, working to hold the big banks accountable for the Wall Street meltdown, pushing legislation to address climate change and end our addiction to oil. The GOP is betting big that saying "no" and blocking progress is a path to success in November. What bet will you make? We've still got a lot of work to do. Thank you for all your help, John Kerry

Again, John Kerry should just call some names and throw some dirt the GOP's way. That will liven things up a bit. Rand Paul's a wacky guy, not dangerously radical.

Senator Robert Byrd dead: Byrd opposed Civil Rights; backed Obama

Robert Byrd

West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd died at the age of 92 and with him, as with his friend Senator Ted Kennedy, went the passing of an era where Senators were more statesmen and women who knew the rules and cultivated friends on both sides of the aisle. People like Senator Sam Irvin.

But even with that, Robert Byrd was, for a long time, not well regarded by blacks because he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment and considered a conservative Democrat because of that stand and his support for the Vietnam War.

But Robert Byrd grew with America. Byrd is an excellent example of being able to change because he was willing to learn. From one perspective, he had to in order to remain in office, but he could have chosen not to change and just leave the Senate and go back to West Virginia. Byrd did not do that.

Here, Byrd talks about why he would have changed his vote on the Civil Rights Act:



Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Rand Paul, who made an unfortunate comment about not supporting the Civil Rights Act, should learn from Robert Byrd. Rand Paul would do well to pay attention to his words and be all the smarter for it.

Robert Byrd is a proud symbol of America's enduring ability to grow in the face of a moral challenge. Byrd went from opposing civil rights and backing the Vietnam War, to supporting then-Senator Barsck Obama for President, helping Obama become America's first black President.

At a time when it seems racism is on the rise in some quarters, Americans would do well to learn about Robert Byrd. If he can grow, so can all of us.

Senator Robert Byrd. A true American who will be missed.

Rand Paul interviewed by David Weigel on McChrystal and BP

David Weigel's last blog post for The Washington Post  in his Right Now section (RN) consisted of an interview with Rand Paul, the GOP candidate for the Kentucky Senate. Apparently still chaffing from his public flogging over comments on the Civil Rights Amendment, Rand Paul was eager to steer clear of any statement that could be interpreted as support for British Petroleum (BP) or Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation / President Obama sacking on Wednesday.

Rand Paul cleans up

Already called a "wacky guy" in this space for his civil rights law comments...



...Rand Paul recently came under much more fire for accusing President Obama of being "un-American" for criticizing BP. Apparently already pained from the scar tissue developed over his incendiary comments, Rand Paul walked on eggshells with David Weigel about McChrystal and about the BP Escrow Fund. Weigel tried his best to pull a straight answer our of Paul at his fundraiser. Witness:

Rand Paul 

RN: Do you agree with the president's decision to accept Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation?

PAUL: Ultimately it is the prerogative of the president to decide who his generals are. My first thought was, going back to the historic controversy between Truman and MacArthur, but the thing is I'm not sure I'd call this insubordination, but he had a public disagreement and I think -- I don't think anybody questions that it's the prerogative of president, whether it's a small or big disagreement, to decide who generals are at the top level. I haven't read all his comments nothing specific to say.

RN: You've started to take heat for your approach to the BP escrow fund. Do you support the fund, the way it's set up?

PAUL: Well, I don't think there are many people who don't believe in any regulations, myself included, and even my dad -- I don't think you'll hear him say he doesn't believe in any regulation. But I'm not sure I have the answer to that, sincerely. I think everyone in the country wants BP to pay for the clean-up, myself concluded. I've never had any argument with that -- it's amazing how you say things and they get blown into things you didn't say! I'm not even sure I can talk to some people anymore because they take things out of context.

Paul went on to dodge and weave around Weigel. Paul never addresses the question of whether he supports the fun or not. Rand Paul's dancing now will eventually damage him when he faces his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. (Conway himself has to deal with that $9,600 contribution from BP, so he's not totally in the clear, here.)

Rand Paul's knee-jerk desire to give a controversial spin on issues of the day will harm him in two ways: 1, by making the statements, and 2, by sounding less than honest when he tries to avoid making such statements. In short, he's trapped within himself.

David Weigel resigned

Unfortunately David Weigel quit The Washington Post for, well, being too libertarian. I'm liberal but feel for Weigel not being with an organization who gets that New Media, in this case blogging, is edgy and challenging in its approach. Bloggers are supposed to be opinionated and attacking without being malicious. It seemed Weigel was walking that path, and switching his hat to pure journalism. But emails to his more liberal co-workers were used to do him in and that's really too bad. I hope he resurfaces sooner rather than later.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal: McChrystal is not a systems thinker

In the wake of President Barack Obama's sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and due to comments in Rolling Stone magazine from McChrystal and his subordinates that were negative and derogatory toward the President and civilian military officers, an April 26, 2010 New York Times article takes on new meaning. Indeed, it should have been a indication to President Obama that he had the wrong man in charge, assuming Obama saw the article. And why is that?

Gen. Stanley McChrystal is not a systems thinker

Gen. Stanley McChrystal 

The article has two titles, reflecting the New York Times' bumbling when it comes to digital media. The page title best for search is "Enemy Lurks in Briefings on Afghan War - PowerPoint - NYTimes.com, and the title on the page itself is the one most referred to: "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint." (As an aside, the best search-oriented title should have been "PowerPoint fails in US Afghanistan Briefing.") The centerpiece of the article is a giant system dynamics causal relationship diagram (presented above) that shows how key factors and actions in Afghanistan are interrelated. The New York Times author apparently does not know that it's a system dynamics model, because she does not refer to it, but to the place the SD model diagram is on: PowerPoint. The article takes off on PowerPoint, while missing the real problem: it's a really a model that can be ran and we can see the graph and statistical outcomes of different decisions. You need a computer and a presentation projector and a place to run the model like the platforms provided by Porio Business Simulations. Then you need to run the model and test different decisions Gen. Stanley McChrystal joked about the diagram Instead of that, this is what happened according to the New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller:

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the leader of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was shown a PowerPoint slide in Kabul last summer that was meant to portray the complexity of American military strategy, but looked more like a bowl of spaghetti. "When we understand that slide, we’ll have won the war," General McChrystal dryly remarked, one of his advisers recalled, as the room erupted in laughter.

The simple fact that McChrystal didn't understand the slide is why we're not only not winning the war, but not seeing that we should not be in Afghanistan. The seeds of the reasons why are actually in the system dynamics model.   If Gen McChrystal understood systems thinking, and then system dynamics, he would have asked for a computer to run the model,  rather than joke about a picture. If he did, he would have seen a the impact of the part of the model called "Popular Support."  One of the key factors in that variable area is something that is just called "anger" with both the US Government and the Afghan Government. The idea is that by the government helping the economy and infrastructure, this anger is reduced.  But then insurgents destroying that same infrastructure harm this effort.  So what happens if you just took the US Government out of the picture?  In other words, just remove "Coalition Capacity and Priorities", which would cause the elimination of "Coalition Domestic Support" and we remove the factor the Afghan population's reacting to in the model: the United States. The problem with the model is it's designed to show how US and Coalition forces can impact Afghanistan, but then it implies our very existence in the region is pissing some of them off, causing a set of problems that we have to spend money to deal with. If you want to see a one version of a simple type of the same SD diagram that takes you through how the factors are related, here's a model created by Chris Soderquist for the IEE Systems Thinking Blog and Forio Business Simulations and presented in a blog post called "We have met an ally and it is storytelling": If Gen. McChrystal knew systems thinking, and were honest, he'd realize the best course of action is not to be in Afghanistan. Of course, if Gen. McChrystal were a systems thinker, he would not have got himself into the trouble that cost him his job.