if you saw Keith Olbermann the other night in his Special Comment regarding a followup on his father's illness and "Death Panels", he said that though his father has been semi-conscious he has been reading to him; one thing he's been reading are short stories by James Thurber.
he ended the Special Comment by reading the story below.
The Peacelike Mongoose
by James Thurber
In cobra country a mongoose was born one day who didn't want to fight cobras or anything else. The word spread from mongoose to mongoose that there was a mongoose who didn't want to fight cobras. If he didn't want to fight anything else, it was his own business, but it was the duty of every mongoose to kill cobras or be killed by cobras.
"Why?" asked the peacelike mongoose, and the word went around that the strange new mongoose was not only pro-cobra and anti-mongoose but intellectually curious and against the ideals and traditions of mongooism.
"He is crazy," cried the young mongoose's father.
"He is sick," said his mother.
"He is a coward," shouted his brothers.
"He is a mongoosexual," whispered his sisters.
Strangers who had never laid eyes on the peacelike mongoose remembered that they had seen him crawling on his stomach, or trying on cobra hoods, or plotting the violent overthrow of Mongoosia.
"I am trying to use reason and intelligence," said the strange new mongoose.
"Reason is six-sevenths of treason," said one of his neighbors.
"Intelligence is what the enemy uses," said another.
Finally, the rumor spread that the mongoose had venom in his sting, like a cobra, and he was tried, convicted by a show of paws, and condemned to banishment.
Moral: Ashes to ashes, and clay to clay, if the enemy doesn't get you, your own folks may.
sadly, the people who most need to here this story probably wouldn't understand it; i wonder if the word moral might have something to do with it?
The litany of crimes and blunders by the Bush Administration began with an interview on Keith Olbermann last night of NSA Analyst Russell Tice who said that private citizens, including journalists, were wiretapped and eavesdropped - all secretly and without permission from the courts. [see Buzzflash: NSA Spied on Journalists]
As i said in previous posts, the truth is going to start coming out. The one thing it's going to prove is how distressed the government actually became and how compromised.
Previous administrations may have weakened the Executive Branch with actions that were taken, but the Bushies has put the entire constitutional system at question and in jeopardy. They have taken the Declaration of Independence and put it on its head.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Powe
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Yes, these are lines taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. The he in the lines refers to another George - the III.
It is going to take a long time to reestablish the democracy we've enjoyed for more than two-hundred years, to put the separation of the three branches back into place so that they can provide checks and balances again, and to build the trust the people have in their government.
Mr. Obama has his work cut out for him. It will take some time, but the one thing history has proven, whether it be the Civil War, Teapot Dome, or Watergate, we've been able to step up and correct the abuses that knocked the march forward off its tracks.
I just hope that this time these abuses are not so earth-shattering that they can't be fixed. Being the cynic that I am, I'm not at all sure it can happen in my lifetime.
I do have one suggestion that I think will help - term limits in the House and Senate just as in the Presidency and eliminate life-tenure for justices and judges. Six consecutive two-year terms for Representatives and two for the Senate. Twelve years is long enough. Reevaluation of judges and justices on a set schedule by both/either legislative and citizen election procedures. If these men/women don't have to be politicking and running for reelection starting the day after an election, perhaps the focus will be on bringing about the true reasons for government - a contract between citizens for their own and future generations, justice for all people, equality for everyone and a sharing of the benefits equally.
not just on Proposition 8, but also on the entire idea of hypocrisy and the changes that need to be made in the concept of humanity
Picking and choosing has always been a trait of the christianists. They use what they want for their ends and ignore the ones that do not meet their personal prejudices and agendas. They accuse others of having agendas against their religion when they are experts at the technique. They decry activist judges who do no keep in step with their drumbeat, yet they use their own activist justices like Alito, Thomas, Roberts etal. to foster hatred and scorn. These people are the ultimate hypocrites.
MSNBC just announced that they have renewed Keith Olbermann's contract for another four years.
Keith Olbermann apologizes for another special comment so soon after the last one. He states that he does not want it to become a regular spot on Countdown but senses that in this, the last two weeks of the 2008 election, it might become more frequent. So, he apologizes.
Last night's comment brought up an old bone of contention for me. The special comment first:
I have mentioned in passing with different posts that I was, to an extent, involved with anti-Vietnam war activities, feelings and protests. This is not something with which I am sorry. Rather, it is something in which I have pride.
At the time, the tenor of the country was if you were anti-war, you were anti-American. I couldn't be more opposed to that line of thinking. I believe the opposite.
At the time, the country was involved in what some, and I include myself, was an illegal war. It was not in the best interest of the country; it was a purely ideological conflict. It was a holdover from the McCarthy era. The fear of Communism was great; U.S. politicians feared that it would dominate the world; patriots believed that the U.S. was in danger of an assault by Communism, i.e. the USSR. Of course, history finally proved that there was nothing to fear and Communism fell.
I am using the word Communism with a big C because it is not the same as the social and economic communism philosophized by Karl Marx and his associates. The big C Communism was a form of government created and fostered by Lenin, Stalin, and other Soviet Union leaders as a form of big brother government that controlled all aspects of the country - thought, behaviour, beliefs, etc. If we were fighting against this in Vietnam, I think there is a case for the conflict.
I question if a small country in Southeast Asia was the place to make the stand though. A country that historically was always in conflict with the West because of imperialistic takeover and control. A French colony that France finally saw as a losing proposition and got out.
I also am reminded of what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address: the military-industrial complex.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
The last eight years has shown the rise of misplaced power. I'm sure that it would not please Mr. Eisenhower if he knew the extent to which his predictions have materialized. Sadly, it was President Eisenhower and his administration that increased the aid to Vietnam under the pretext of the belief at the time that if Vietnam falls, so falls the rest of Southeast Asia.
I mention these things as a little background to my thought process about anti-America.
At the time, in listening to the Vietnam anti-war leaders and the prevailing thought against the conflict, I don't believe that we believed that we were being anti-America. Just the opposite.
My take is that I, along with others, believed that we were being tremendously pro-America. We were questioning, in legal ways to the great extent, the efficacy of the government's actions and exercising what the Constitution guaranteed as a right to disagree with the government.
I discount those that acted violently. They were in the minority and actually worked against the non-violent stance of the majority of anti-war protesters and actions. The purpose of the movement was based primarily on belief in non-violence being the means and best way of action. I have always thought that groups that called for and committed acts of violence were actually counterproductive to the anti-war movement.
Now, knowing that this will ruffle feathers of patriots with narrow mindedness and who believe that there is only one right way to be pro-American, I have to restate that I believed that Daniel & Philip Berrigan, Steven Spiro, and, as it was brought out during the last presidential election, John Kerry considered themselves pro-America because they were working for what they believed to be a just cause that would strengthen the country.
I am as proud of these people as I am proud of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, Keith Olbermann, and many others who work to make the U.S. greater and more inclusive of all thoughts as is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Something that self-identified patriots, and I include Mrs. Palin in this group, would control by using it themselves to speak their distaste for dialogue and inclusion.
Keith Olbermann was just covering the story of Sarah Palin throwing out the puck at the season opener for the Philly Flyers. She was being booed roundly but choose to ignore it.
Keith summed up the story this way -
They went to an anti-Palin rally and a hockey game broke out.
well, he was a sportscaster before starting Countdown.... he should know.
There has been a lot of talk around the web about the roles of Jim Lehrer, Tom Brokaw and Gwen Ifill during the last three debates and that they did not really ask clarifying questions after the candidates' answers and remarks.
It was obvious, but I wonder if this is NOT part of the agreement that is supposed to be page after page in length.
I also wonder that most of the restrictions in the document came from the Mcpains. They have a history of telling people that it's my way or no way. Palin is not going to do any more interviews, according to the campaign, and will not do a press conference, because the media picks on her and skews her image.
Why do I wonder?
Wasn't it the Mcpains that forced MSNBC to withdraw Keith Olberman and Tim Matthews as its anchors for the debate coverage? Weren't the two men told to tone down their rhetoric? There was talk that it really came from the old-school reporters who said that the two were taking things too far, but it certainly wasn't any farther than what Fox News does.
i mean, i'm just asking...
oh, and as far as skewing Plain's image, i still like this image the best...
I said in an earlier post that I would post Keith Olbermann's Special CommentThis is YOUR War. Here it is:
When I saw it live last night my thought was "I'm ready to take to the streets again!" just like with Vietnam. Rewatching it made my anger even greater.
The Congress can't do anything, whether it be the Republican's obstructionism or the Democrat's inadequacy to unify. There comes a time, such as 1776 and Vietnam that the people have to take things into their own hands. The first step was taken last November with the mid-term elections. It didn't work.
Is it that time again? Is it time to prove the historical theory that democracies can't last much longer than 200 years wrong? Is it time to put into motion the reestablishment of the voice of America?
The U.S. Defense Department told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the United States eventually plans to withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
Who else has asked about this? Republican Sen. Richard Lugar for one. Did he get a letter? http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif Are the Republicans afraid of Senator Clinton? Especially since in the polls the number one Republican candidate that people would vote for is "None of the Above?" USA Today
And who exactly is this Eric Edelman person anyway? A former Cheney right-hand man! Would anyone expect anything less? The smell is getting worse...
Olbermann started Countdown tonight with a Special Comment about this. I'm sure it will be on the net soon. I'll post it here when copies start coming up.
