Not in My Name

Of course, right after that last post, he went right back on the air and fulfilled all our lowest expectations.  Supposedly speaking for America.

Nope.  Not in my name.

But some 30% of the population still seems to think this is all a-ok?

I guess that isn't (or shouldn't be) as much of a surprise as people are reacting like it is, because it's been part of the program all along.  Not the "line 'em up and shoot 'em" part, but the "everybody just keep feeding all the wealth and power this way and no one gets hurt" part.  This piece by Lindy West in the Times does a good job of calling it out to the Republicans who are responding, rightly, if only out of self-interest, to denounce the words of a president gone off the rails:

It is easy to denounce Nazis. Republican lawmakers, if you truly repudiate this march and this violence, then repudiate voter-ID laws. Repudiate gerrymandering. Repudiate police brutality. Repudiate mass incarceration and private prisons. Repudiate the war on drugs. Repudiate the fact that black Americans have still not been compensated for the unpaid forced labor that was foundational to white financial stability. Repudiate gun control obstructionism. Repudiate the Muslim ban. Repudiate the wall. Repudiate anti-abortion legislation. Repudiate abstinence-only education. Repudiate environmental deregulation. Repudiate birtherism. Repudiate homophobia and transphobia. Repudiate your own health care bill, which would have led to the deaths of thousands more people than a Dodge Challenger driven into a crowd. Repudiate your president.

Everyone else, wherever you are on the spectrum of humanity, this is a good moment for us to confront our own assumptions and biases, figure out what we need to work on to change and the best ways to do it. This is hard work, but it’s worth doing. Oh, and it goes on forever. 

One more quote – you’ve probably seen this one, but it bears repeating. It's Angela Davis, from a talk in Carbondale, IL in 2014.

You have to act as if it were possible to radically transform the world. And you have to do it all the time.  

Photo: Scott Olson

Censorship and Speech

I had composed a pretty good (if I may say so myself; at any rate it took some effort) entry for my first post after what I think has been my longest hiatus from this platform since I began, in recognition of Day 101 of the current presidential administration.  It covered some of the events since the election, including national and international reactions, and wrapped with a parallel to Orwell’s Room 101.   But that batch of writing and linking was lost to the vagaries of the internets.  And so it goes.

Rather than try to recreate that, what I’m posting today is a set of two different perspectives on free speech and restrictions to speech published recently in the Times. 

From the first piece, by insistent dissident Ai Weiwei

The most elegant way to adjust to censorship is to engage in self-censorship. It is the perfect method for allying with power and setting the stage for the mutual exchange of benefit. The act of kowtowing to power in order to receive small pleasures may seem minor; but without it, the brutal assault of the censorship system would not be possible. 

For people who accept this passive position toward authority, “getting by” becomes the supreme value. They smile, bow and nod their heads, and such behavior usually leads to lifestyles that are comfortable, trouble free and even cushy. This attitude is essentially defensive on their part. It is obvious that in any dispute, if one side is silenced, the words of the other side will go unquestioned.

And from the second, by Ulrich Baer, vice provost at New York University. 

What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse. The snowflakes sensed, a good year before the election of (the president), that insults and direct threats could once again become sanctioned by the most powerful office in the land. They grasped that racial and sexual equality is not so deep in the DNA of the American public that even some of its legal safeguards could not be undone. 

The issues to which the students are so sensitive might be benign when they occur within the ivory tower. Coming from the campaign trail and now the White House, the threats are not meant to merely offend. Like (the president's) attacks on the liberal media as the “enemies of the American people,” his insults are meant to discredit and delegitimize whole groups as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas.

Both are worth a full read.  I have tended to be something of a free speech absolutist, though maybe not exactly the variety branded by Baer; however, Baer's points (or more accurately, points he distills from decades’ worth of writing and public discussion on the topic) are valid, and essential to consider when forming opinions - and policies - concerning, for example, speaking events on campuses. Baer hosted a fascinating panel at the NYU Law School “In Defense of Truth” a couple weeks ago, concerning the concept of truth - not least, the durability of ideas that feel true, across any spectrum you care to name - as seen through the lenses of art, journalism, and the law. 

For now, I'll leave you with a few more images touching on surveillance, education, infrastructure, and public protections from the Ai Weiwei show we saw at the Tate Modern a while back.

The Great Butter Slide of American Culture

Article in the Times about a drop in Arts Attendance in America.

Theater takes the brunt and "straight plays" (also known as "plays") are worst of all, attendance having dropped 33% in the last 10 years.

"At the end of the day, I’m not troubled by it."

No no, of course not, executive director of the American Theater Wing. Everything's fine; nothing to see here; move along...

photo c 1928, Man Ray

RAGE

We Are All Bradley Manning

Daniel Ellsberg

I was the Bradley Manning of my day. In 1971 I too faced life (115 years) in prison for exposing classified government lies and crimes. President Obama says “the Ellsberg material was classified on a different basis.” True. The Pentagon Papers were not Secret like the Wikileaks revelations, they were all marked Top Secret—Sensitive.

Ultimately all charges in my case were dropped because of criminal governmental misconduct toward me during my proceedings. Exactly the same outcome should occur now, in light of the criminal conditions of Manning’s confinement for the last six months.

From: I Am Bradley Manning

What Is To Be Done?

There’s nothing to be done but to go on restating the importance of this kind of courage, and to try to make sure that these oppressed individuals — Ai Weiwei, the members of Pussy Riot, Hamza Kashgari — are seen for what they are: men and women standing on the front line of liberty. How to do this? Sign the petitions against their treatment, join the protests. Speak up. Every little bit counts.

From Salman Rushdie's OpEd in today's Times

Hamza Kashgari, uncredited photo

Boston

One of my homes.  Not the one I live in today, but one where I lived for 6+ years, and which still holds a more-than-little piece of my heart.

Where Monday happened.

All my friends are ok, as far as I can tell, none of them were in the vicinity.  Most were at work (while they're proud of Patriots' Day up there, they still don't usually give you the day off unless you managed to score Red Sox tickets), a few were at home.  The physical therapist who helped me in the wake of surgery last year qualified for the Marathon, but opted not to run it this year.

Bostonians in general have been dealing with it amazingly, but not surprisingly.  The news outlets have rightly referred to their heroism, generosity, fearlessness, and humanity.

And I'm not going to dwell on the typical media sensationalizing of tragedy (and I'm certainly not going to dignify crap like this with a response)

What I will spend a little bit of time on are a couple pieces that talk about resilience, toughness, and not giving into the fear that, by definition, feeds terrorism.  Here’s one, from cryptographer and security maven Bruce Schneier in The Atlantic. It’s a good reminder that we get to choose how to react (or overreact) to these horrors, and that giving into our fear is neither necessary nor useful.

We actually have all the power here, and there's one thing we can do to render terrorism ineffective: Refuse to be terrorized.

It's hard to do, because terrorism is designed precisely to scare people -- far out of proportion to its actual danger. A huge amount of research on fear and the brain teaches us that we exaggerate threats that are rare, spectacular, immediate, random -- in this case involving an innocent child -- senseless, horrific and graphic. Terrorism pushes all of our fear buttons, really hard, and we overreact.

But our brains are fooling us. Even though this will be in the news for weeks, we should recognize this for what it is: a rare event. That's the very definition of news: something that is unusual -- in this case, something that almost never happens

And then this one from Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River, Shutter Island, and a bunch of other Boston-centric work.  I like that this piece confronts Boston's blemishes (which is too weak a word; maybe I should say Boston’s glaring flaws) directly, but wraps them in the resiliency we all can be proud of.

Trust me, we won’t be giving up any civil liberties to keep ourselves safe because of this. We won’t cancel next year’s marathon. We won’t drive to New Hampshire and stockpile weapons. When the authorities find the weak and terminally maladjusted culprit or culprits, we’ll roll our eyes at whatever backward ideology they embrace and move on with our lives.

There’s been a lot of Boston love going on in the media, including some standouts in the sphere of late night comedy, and even the Yankees got in on it, much to their credit (and – you know this – I do not like to give the Yankees credit for anything, but damn, they deserve it for that.)





Also published in The Atlantic, with the caption: A sign saying "New York Loves Boston" is projected on the facade of the Brooklyn Academy of Music, in New York, late on April 15, 2013, hours after the bombings of the Boston Marathon. The work was done by the Illuminator, a guerrilla projection van that was a project of Occupy Wall Street, and members of the the OWS Light Brigade. (© Lucky Tran, The Illuminator collective)

Do what you do. Make the things you make. Definitely keep up with any activist work you're doing.  And send a little love and healing mojo to the Hub.

Oh, and my show opens tomorrow night.

Big Week

It was a big week.

A big project at the dayjob took a lot of my time and energy in January (along with one or the other of us being sick for what felt like the whole month).  When that project/event ended, I was able with a short transition period to get back into my normal rhythm.  Last week sort of took that to another level.

Mike Daisey at Joe's Pub on Monday night.  Mike's taken some stupid amounts of heat over the last year or so.  I've written about him here before and probably will again, but I haven't devoted any real space to the NPR/This American Life controversy.  You probably know all about that, and if you don't there is plenty to read and listen to out there about it.  What I'll say on the subject is that Mike did a hell of a job drawing attention to what's going on in tech manufacturing (and tech reporting) and created a brilliant show in the process.  Or vice versa.  And while I'm not going to get behind the whole "it's all true" thing, I do maintain that a playwright is not the same thing as a journalist, even a playwright whose stock in trade is distant travel, immersive research, and real world goings-on with real world stakes.

I've already gone on more about this than I wanted to, but I'll wrap up today's discussion of this subject by asking straight out something Daisey touched on obliquely last Monday: how closely have you looked at the workings of the tech industry, and what have you done to affect labor conditions in China?  [Oh, and take a few minutes to imagine turning off all your 'connected' devices one day a week.  What would that take?  How much prep would you need to do?  Just asking.]

More to come...

Piano Adoption

The comments thread on the article that revealed the video shared on that last post had some revelations of its own.  This link, about Piano Adoption, was of particular interest.  Good to know such things exist.

Go the F*#k to Sleep

Perhaps you've heard of Go the F#*k to Sleep, the new Not-Really-a-Children's-Book by Adam Mansbach & Ricardo Cortes. It's been getting more than a little media attention these days, and its press run has already crept up toward the half-million copies mark. Why? Because it's f*^king brilliant is why:

Mansbach, according to the official version of the story, was frustrated for the umpteenth time by the time and effort involved in getting his 2-year-old to go to sleep for the night, and posted on Fbook a joke to the effect of: "Be on the lookout for my forthcoming children's book, GO THE F%&K TO SLEEP." The reaction from his friends and fans (he was already an award-winning grown-up fiction writer) was so fiercely positive that he decided to write the book for real. He got himself an illustrator and, well, here we are: smash hit children's book that is utterly inappropriate for children, but all kinds of fantastic for adults.

And now, plug in your headphones and take a look at this little slice of amazingness - Werner Herzog (yes, the Werner Herzog) reading along with America's new favorite book.



After the bizarre media events of the last couple weeks (will there come a time when people look back and ask if we really spent all that time talking about a congressman's kinks when there was a war on? Sorry - three wars?) this just about made me weep tears of joy.

Advancements in Journalism

Oh, there are so many things wrong with this, from an Oregon Daily Emerald review of Sasquatch!

Bob Mould, a forty-something with thinning hair and no other musical accompaniment, hit the stage first. He tore off a brisk 45-minute set, warming up the crowd with his electric, Ted Leo-esque sound. Although he wasn’t well-known, Mould has collaborated with Death Cab for Cutie’s Ben Gibbard and Foo Fighters. The surging crowds, fresh off a full day in the sun, met him with equal intensity.

That someone who would write this would choose to (or be allowed to) go into rock journalism might be the wrongest thing of all. But really (really): minimal research (even a quick trip to the internets) would have at the very least allowed this guy to minimize the damage. It's just a student paper, but still...

Sigh...

While we're on the subject of music festivals, let me take this opportunity to raise a glass to Sherin, JP and Annie, and the other 78,997 people on their way to Bonnaroo this week!

And another glass, to continued journalistic excellence. And continued academic success.

Happy Birthday Bob!

And not just that, but happy 70th birthday to the singing cowboy who wrote the number that gives this blog its name. Very exciting, and there are some good events to honor the occasion.




First, and most immediately I suppose, is that WBAI is devoting the whole day to archival interviews, studio sessions, and Dylan-related audio artifacts. You can listen to 99.5 FM or stream by clicking the link above. It's their semi-annual beg-a-thon too, so be warned about that. Small price to pay. (Hey, a station's gotta make a living. Especially a station full of dissenters, most of whom volunteer their time.)

Film Forum is showing a couple flicks documenting the early days. Don't Look Back, the D.A. Pennebaker doc that's been around since '67, and Murray Lerner's The Other Side of the Mirror, which covers the performances at the Newport Folk Festival from '63-'65, but was just released in '007. They're playing through June 2, so don't delay too much if you want to catch them.

And, of course, there is no shortage of ways to celebrate online. Articles, editorials, shoutouts, discussions, suggestions, photo essays, tributes, and of course blog entries...

Have at it!

Life in These United States

Remember Bradley Manning?




No? He's the enlisted serviceman who was at the front of that other Wikileaks scandal, way back in May. Did you know that he's been incarcerated ever since? In fact, he's what the Army calls a "Maximum Custody Detainee," and he's been kept in "intensive solitary confinement" ever since.

This Glenn Greenwald article does a pretty good job of explaining (since, evidently, it needs to be explained) why it might not be a good idea to keep a person alone in a room 23 hours a day without allowing him so much as a pillow or the right to exercise. Especially a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. And is 22 years old.

Now, much of the world considers that level of solitary confinement a form of torture. Greenwald links to an Atul Gawande article you might have read last year that makes that case. (I remember reading it - scared the hell out of me then, and turns my blood cold now.)


To recap what's going on, if you'd like a summary: an enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army is alleged (but not convicted, it bears repeating) to have borne witness to a vast swath of classified documents revealing what appears to be a long long list of illegal and often horrific misdeeds on the part of the country he was serving. He then, according to the allegation, shared that documented evidence with the press in the form of the dreaded Wikileaks. Once the leak was traced back to him, he did not get a public hearing or trial (or even a private military hearing, as far as I know, though presumably one is pending) but rather was put into a brig in Kuwait for two months under the aforementioned brutal conditions (if you're not convinced of their brutality, please do read the Gawande article) before being transferred to a brig in Virginia. Where he remains. Under the same conditions.


Those conditions are perhaps not as extreme as those in the prison in Guantanamo Bay, or unacknowledged sites worldwide (well, unacknowledged except in memos like the ones leaked by Private Manning), although those prisons contain people accused of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against the United States. That is to say, that's who we think those facilities contain - many of those prisoners haven't even been charged with anything, much less convicted.


Meanwhile, the President has been doing his darndest to extend a tax cut to the richest percent of American wage earners to the tune of 700 billion+ over the next couple years and calling it a victory because unemployment benefits might be extended. And standing idly by while the TSA sexes up security procedures in airports (yup, I kind of agree with the righties on this one - though I won't pretend it makes sense to me how the naked scanner is such a huge violation of civil rights while extraordinary rendition and warrantless, probable-cause-free stop-and-frisk city police procedures [for instance] are a-ok). And the job situation, well, that's not really a lot better. And, oh yeah, the war. And all those things that the leaks revealed presumably go on, business-as-usual.


Well, Mr. President, I'm just gonna come right out and say it: I'm not ok with this.


I know you have to work with Congress, that you don't have power simply to dictate policy (and I wouldn't want you to). I know you are brilliant, way smarter than I am; and charismatic, and persuasive, and an expert on Constitutional Law, and knowledgeable about how things work in domestic and international policy. But... I don't know what you're doing. I keep thinking you must have something up your sleeve, some ingenious plan that will be revealed over time. I keep waiting for you to pull that rabbit out of the hat.


But I can't wait forever.


And I guess I may as well remind you (and my Senators and Congressmen, and especially that ridiculous Governor) that I don't owe you my undying loyalty. Or even my vote. No one does.

Tomorrow

At risk of beating a proverbial dead horse: please vote tomorrow, y'all.

By way of encouragement, I'll just remind you that it's the simplest and most direct form of participation in a democracy, even one as lopsided and, well, semi-fictional as the one currently operating in the U.S.A. Oh, and you may want to remind your friends in other parts of the country to vote. (That would be the second most direct form of participation.)

And since we're here, I may as well link to a Frank Rich piece from the Times last weekend.

Karl Rove outed the Republican elites’ contempt for Tea Partiers in the campaign’s final stretch. Much as Barack Obama thought he was safe soliloquizing about angry white Middle Americans clinging to “guns or religion” at a San Francisco fund-raiser in 2008, so Rove now parades his disdain for the same constituency when speaking to the European press.

Now, that makes me insane. Not because it shines a light on politicians' hypocrisy (I consider that to be pretty much a constant). The thing that scratches my blackboard is that he refers to Obama 'soliloquizing' to those patrons, when everyone knows that a soliloquy happens when you're alone. This offends me as an actor even more than as an activist. Obama wasn't in soliloquy mode; he was addressing a crowd. You really are pretty safe soliloquizing, no matter what you say, unless maybe the room is bugged, or your uncle is hiding behind a curtain. That's the whole point of a soliloquy. Maybe not everyone knows that, but one person who really really should know is the guy who used to be the f*$king DRAMA CRITIC FOR THE NEW YORK F*#KING TIMES. That drives me out of my mind.

Ahem.

Back to the matter at hand, I will close with another useful illustration from Mr. Rich's otherwise worthwhile op-ed, which I do suggest you read.

For sure, the Republican elites found the Tea Party invaluable on the way to this Election Day. And not merely, as Huckabee has it, because they wanted its foot soldiers. What made the Tea Party most useful was that its loud populist message gave the G.O.P. just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised G.O.P. that gave us George W. Bush and record deficits only yesterday.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and Wall Street Journal have been arduous in promoting and inflating Tea Party events and celebrities to this propagandistic end. The more the Tea Party looks as if it’s calling the shots in the G.O.P., the easier it is to distract attention from those who are actually calling them — namely, those who’ve cashed in and cashed out as ordinary Americans lost their jobs, homes and 401(k)’s.

Hope that all of you who went to D.C. for the rally had a great time! Go out there and vote, won't you please?

But Mama Grizzly Says It's a Good Thing!

Paul Krugman on preserving the Bush tax cuts.

It’s a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run.

In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment.

It’s crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump...

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

Ok, yes, I threw in some emphasis. I'm not sure how to put it any simpler other than to say it's a very, very bad idea.

In case you're keeping score, my opinion is that we need to roll back the cuts on more than just the top 2%.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Courage, Cowardice and the Great Western Butter Slide

I'm guessing most of you have seen some video version of Anthony Weiner's (D-NY) speech in the House of Representatives on the Health and Compensation Act intended for First Responders to the World Trade Center attacks and people who lived in the vicinity. But in case you haven't, here it is:



Just for kicks, the YouTube page I embedded this time is not sponsored by Huffington Post or some such; it purports to be more of a 'neutral' post, (which includes the usual range of subtle and thoughtful discussion in the comment section for your amusement should you wish to dive down that hole.)

Shockingly, the Right has been accusing Mr. Weiner of using the platform to get some limelight, and possibly jump-start his run for Mayor of New York. And they have been holding this up as evidence that we need to return to reasonable discourse, to restore dignity to the hallowed halls of Congress. Naturally. Because that's what they're all about.

[We'll take a brief pause while you digest that.]

More to the point for today's installment is this Op Ed by Representative Weiner himself, which describes the reasons why he felt compelled to go into Red-Faced Rant mode.

...what upset me most last week were comments voiced by Republicans who claimed to be supporters of the bill, yet who used their time on the House floor not to persuade skeptical Republican colleagues to vote yes but to excoriate Democrats for using the suspension calendar.

Emphasis mine.

And for what it's worth, if a little ranting from the Honorable Congressman shines some light on both parties' tendency to politicize suffering and exploit fear (some Republicans actually claimed they were holding this bill up because they want to make sure that it didn't benefit any illegal immigrants. Because they are the cause of all our problems. This week. Them and the gays.) then I'm, you know, pretty ok with it.

Moving On

Ok, I don't always agree with him, and know that many people strongly disagree with him in good faith, but Glenn Greenwald has been making quite a bit of sense lately. I'm thinking particularly of his analyses of the Health Care Reform debate, his (shockingly lonely) voice calling out some allies of the Obama Administration turning a blind eye toward the way some of its policies resemble those of the Bush Administration, and, particularly, his examination of the trend of Corporatizing the U.S. Government.

...this growing opposition to corporatism -- to the virtually absolute domination of our political process by large corporations -- is one of the many issues that transcend the trite left/right drama endlessly used as a distraction. The anger among both the left and right towards the bank bailout, and towards lobbyist influence in general, illustrates that. Kilgore says that anger among the left and right over corporatism is irreconcilable, and this is the point I think he has mostly wrong:

To put it more bluntly, on a widening range of issues, Obama's critics to the right say he's engineering a government takeover of the private sector, while his critics to the left accuse him of promoting a corporate takeover of the public sector. They can't both be right, of course, and these critics would take the country in completely different directions if given a chance. But the tactical convergence is there ifthey choose to pursue it.

This supposedly irreconcilable difference Kilgore identifies is more semantics than substance. It's certainly true that health care opponents on the left want more a expansive plan while opponents on the right want the opposite. But the objections over the mandate are largely identical -- it's a coerced gift to the private health insurance industry that underwrites the Democratic Party. The same was true over opposition to the bailout, objections to lobbying influence over Washington, and most of all, the growing anger that Washington serves the interests of financial elites at the expense of the working class.

Whether you call it "a government takeover of the private sector" or a "private sector takeover of government," it's the same thing: a merger of government power and corporate interests which benefits both of the merged entities (the party in power and the corporations) at everyone else's expense...

I'll have more Holiday Fun for my next post...

Strummer on Springsteen

Sometimes you stumble on something that just kind of makes your whole day better.

Joe Strummer shooting from the hip and waxing poetic about Bruce Springsteen. This is from a fun blog called Letters of Note. Worth a browse, in my opinion, but be warned that you might get sucked in for a while. For you Chicago types: check out this little gem from another of Jersey's finest to Mike Royko.

More on the Peace Prize

Here's another view on Obama's Nobel Prize, from Matt Taibbi.

You never, ever get a true dissident from a prominent Western country winning the award, despite the obvious appropriateness such a choice would represent. Our Western society quite openly embraces war as a means of solving problems and for quite some time now has fashioned its entire social and economic structure around the preparation for war.

I am all for encouraging the administration to work toward peace, and disarmament, and reasonable, productive foreign policies. But, while I think it is ludicrous to compare Obama's Peace Prize to Kissinger's (Really Matt? Really?) I also think it is very good to keep a watchful eye on the big picture.

In other news, how does this kind of thing still happen?

Pheeeeeeeeeeuuw!

This Week in Health Care Reform

In case you're looking for some reading material, here's Paul Krugman on the question of what direction Max Baucus's health care reform bill will go as the Senate revises it over the next few months.

A telling line: "The insurance industry, of course, loves the Baucus plan. Need we say more?"

Sigh...

There has been a certain amount of attention focused on some attacks being made on Barack Obama by the Right Wing punditry of late. I'm referring of course to this "birther" notion, espoused by Lou Dobbs, among others, that Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii, or in the U.S. at all. That he was actually born in, umm, maybe Kenya or something.

And naturally, I'm also referring to the proposition put forth by Glenn Beck, that Obama is a racist. Yes, a racist with a "deep seated hatred for white people." This because the President suggested that it was "stupid" for Cambridge police to arrest Henry Louis Gates for breaking and entering his own home. Ok, the arrest was actually for disorderly conduct, "after exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior" after the cops came in to his house and asked for ID, and Obama called it stupid (then backtracked on that language the next day.) And for that Glenn Beck says he's racist. Or it might be because he (the President) invited the participants in that arrest debacle to the White House for a beer to talk things out. I'm not sure.

And I'm not sure it matters. Here's the thing: I don't think these guys necessarily mean what they say. Is there any chance that Obama was not born in the U.S.? Not really, no. I mean, strictly speaking, sure - anything is possible. (including that some invisible being created the universe 6,000 years ago and that all evidence to the contrary is the work of some other, EVIL, invisible being) But - really? No more than there is a chance that Obama is a racist. Again, sure there's a chance that this man, whose mother (did you hear that? his MOTHER) is white, has some deep seated hatred for "the white culture."

But, I put it to you once again: really?? No, of course not.

So what's the deal? I'll tell you what - and it's surprisingly simple, and you probably already know it, though I think people lose sight of it all the time.

Here it is:

Television News is Show Business.

See? That's it. It's that simple. TV News is not all that brilliant in the way of sharing knowledge, or even information, and most of it isn't even pretending very hard to be. I mean, yes, of course, there are some very important exceptions once in a while, but even those exceptions fall into the category of "we need to make people watch us or our ratings slip and then we lose our jobs."

And - just as important, and even easier to lose sight of - it's true for the people we agree with too! Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, for instance: they too are there to sell soap.

You may be tempted to sputter "but Maddow and Olbermann are brilliant! They're not evil and devious and subjective the way Glenn Beck is!" I agree, part way: they are brilliant; they are not evil; they aren't that devious; but they are pretty much just as subjective and snarky in their presentation as Beck and Dobbs.

In the case of Olbermann and Maddow, I agree with much of the stuff they say. Beck and Dobbs don't say things that I agree with very often at all. See how that works? There are all kinds of levels of ideology working out there, no matter how 'objective' one tries to be. Even in (gasp!) newspapers.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't resist the Becks and Dobbses of the world. On the contrary, I think you should. Just be careful how much credit you give them.

And I am DEFINITELY NOT saying that those clowns are just as viable as Olbermann and Maddow, or that there is ANY credibility whatsoever to this notion, seemingly in common currency, that making whacked out statements that fit with your ideology 'balances' out contrary statements (no matter how accurate those contrary statements are), or that repeating those assertions over and over and over again makes them true.

What I am saying is: do your homework when it comes to gathering information. Use some critical thinking when you turn that information into knowledge in pursuit of the Truth. (Oh my, I'm trafficking in lofty themes today.) And make a very clear distinction for yourself between publicity and policy. Dobbs can say any wacky thing about Obama's birth. Beck can say what he wants about Obama's 'racist' attitudes. Representative Broun can go on about how health care reform will kill old people. Vice President Cheney can say any reprehensible thing about how useful, heroic and necessary 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were and are.

WHOA. Wait a minute... those last couple are a little different, aren't they? Broun and Cheney have (or should have) a different kind of responsibility, because they fall into the category of policy-maker, and elected ones at that.

These guys can say what they want (it's one of their most fundamental rights) and you can react how you want, but the question you need to be asking is - what is going to happen as a result? As a result of their statements? As a result of your reaction? There is a difference between media reaction, popular reaction and legal (re)action. And there is a big, huge, gigantic difference between calling someone names, and derailing a plan that might help to save the health care system of a nation; or getting off the hook for ordering your citizen soldiers to torture their prisoners, discrediting those who oppose this practice for being unserious about defending the nation, and in the process doing intense damage to that nation's standing, and making it impossible to prosecute those prisoners who were actually guilty of something. Just as an example.