Special Comment: Free Keith Olbermann

As a right-handed person, my right hand would be the last limb I would ever chop off. MSNBC seems to have the reverse philosophy though.

My right hand is the single most productive thing on my body. I use it to write, type, eat, bathe and a hundred other things you could probably think of. Why would I ever want to lose it?

Keith Olbermann is MSNBC's right hand. Quite frankly he's the only reason why I tune in exclusively to MSNBC on election night coverage and almost always see his show, whether its live or streaming online after the show has already aired. Olbermann has been from the outset of his show 'Countdown', a refreshing voice.

He was the first to critisize Bush's illegal war and remains the only person on cable news with the testicular fortitude to call out sleaze ball Republicans. I don't always agree with his choice of words or his tact, but one thing is certain: you never doubt where Keith stands, and you never doubt that he has the fact to back up his points of view.

So I am left to wonder why MSNBC wants so badly to distance itself from Fox Noise that it has suspended the only man who actually helped distance them from Fox Noise.

You can turn over to Murdoch's Republican love-fest at any point during the day and watch an anchor, host or reporter who has probably not only donated, but sold their soul to the GOP. I don't see any of them getting suspended without pay.

So I say to MSNBC, put Keith Olbermann back on the air. I never doubted that he probably did donate to Democratic Cantidates and neither did anyone else who watched his show. It was why I watched!

Keith Olbermann thinks like me, I like his point of veiw. If the suits at the network thought that his political affiliation was a secret then they are just as dumb as they have made themselves out to be with the decision to suspend him.

Stop allowing Fixed News to dictate your "network standards" and keep the man who keeps your network afloat on the air, damnit!

In the spirit of Keith, Goodnight and Good Luck.

The Right has it Wrong: Jesus was a Liberal

{Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life}

There is an ancient art taking place in the Christian churches of today: cherry picking scriptures and Bible passages to support this or that argument. This practice has, in recent decades, given a second wind to the right-wing religious types as they use it to claim Jesus as their political ally.

This past year especially the Tea Party movement has constantly invoked the name of Christ in to their battle cry, but to me their invocation of Christ as a modern day Conservative is completely misplaced. Granted, applying a political affiliation to a person who lived over 2,000 years ago is fraught with fallacy. But to label him “conservative” takes fallacy to a completely different level.

Glenn Beck urges his viewers and listeners to leave churches that preach social justice because phrases like “social justice” and “economic justice” are code for communism. Beck, a self proclaimed Mormon was chided by the church after those statements and rightly so. Jesus was the forerunner of social justice. It was a constant theme in his teachings.

The simple fact that Jesus was such a prophet in the realm of social justice begs the question as to why Conservatives claim him as their standard bearer. A simple scan of my friends’ facebook status today reveals the conservatives right away. They say, “Pray and vote”, “ask yourself who Jesus would vote for”, and “vote on morals.”

Truth is that Jesus probably wouldn’t vote for anyone they support. Jesus said, what you have done to the “least of these” you’ve done to Jesus himself. When you listen to Republicans speak, they do not seem too concerned with the “least of these at all.” They favor tax cuts for millionaires and are against social programs like Welfare.

I had a U.S. history teacher in high school who said of Welfare, that “it isn’t well and it isn’t fair.” Full disclosure, I attended a Christian high school and he never missed an opportunity to shout that battle cry. I wonder though, if Jesus, with his care and concern for the poor and the down trodden would have felt the same way? I have my doubts.

Over and over again, Jesus taught us to believe in and live a spiritual and ethical life based in our essential, inherent goodness. What Jesus promoted was succinct set of spiritual principals and a way of life based upon love, compassion, tolerance, and a strong belief in the importance in giving and of generosity to those in need.

When I look at the Tea Party movement and the religious right wing of the Republican Party I don’t see tolerance for people that are different. I see no compassion for the downtrodden. I do see all of the things Jesus vehemently spoke against: greed, violence, the glorification of power, the amassing of wealth without social balance, and the personal judging of others, their lifestyles and beliefs.

My problem lies not in that Conservatives hold to antiquated views of the world and allow them to influence their opinions at the polls. The problem is that they wrongfully use Jesus as a political ally when in reality if he walked the earth today would probably be doing his best to distance himself far from anyone with an “R” beside of their name.

Words like liberal and progressive have for too long been demonized by the right and Jesus has for too long been used as the poster boy for the Conservative movement. Based on the definition at the beginning of this piece, I’d rather be a liberal. I’d rather be for progress, than against it and if I too am allowed to cherry pick the scriptures like so many in Churches across the country do, I think Jesus would rather be a liberal too.

Drowning: A Poem

Drowning
by: Paul Raker, III

In the palm of your hand, you held me.
A great controlling force like the moon o'er the sea.

My tides rise and fall with your breath,
A breath never felt upon my skin.

My lips never touched yours.
My fingers never grazed the tops of your hand.

You were...untouchable and your light was bright
Like an angel, and I a mere mortal.

Unworthy of your presence, I laid there
Under the moon, by the sea of our emotions.

I watched you sleep and slept beside you.
Separated by only questions.

Looking for answers, I awoke alone
Your imprint in the sand barely visible.

I patiently awaited the next high tide

Church and State: The Strangest of Bedfellows

On the heels of the California Supreme Court hearing arguments on Proposition 8, a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, our own state lawmakers couldn’t help but make sure California’s problems do not come any farther east. In a political climate where the Republican Party is about as popular and likable as the loud,drunk uncle at family reunions,they are desperately trying once again to appeal to the religious right wing of their party by rolling out the tried and true whipping boy: same-sex marriage.

This year will make the sixth such attempt by the North Carolina legislature to push discrimination through and write it into our state’s constitution with language denying same-sex couples basic rights.

I can only hope that this attempt suffers the same failure as the first five. Not because I have disillusions about the buckle of the Bible belt ever loosening enough to actually afford the GLBT community equal rights, but because such an amendment, whether you agree with homosexuality or not, is completely unnecessary. The social environment is already hostile enough towards the GLBT community, and rights are already being wrongfully denied them even without an amendment featuring language so broad that it would even allow companies to deny basic domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples. Behind the beat of a party’s drum that claims high moral ground on issues like this, is a deeper, older and perhaps more important issue. It is an issue that plagued our nation from the start – the separation of church and state.

If I hear the phrase "founded as a Christian nation" too many more times I may have to light my hair on fire and run screaming into the ocean. I’ll spare the world the smell of over-processed hair and risk of lighter fluid shortage by simply stating
that whoever makes such a statement couldn’t be more wrong.

It may stop the presses at FOX News and The Wall Street Journal to find that our forefathers painstakingly went out of their way to keep our government
as secular as possible. The list of founding fathers included religious and Christian minds, but also featured men who had witnessed a corrupt system of
interlocked church and state in England; where to question government
was to question God. Given these facts there is little wonder why the Bill of Rights
states, "Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The language contained in the Treaty
of Tripoli also clarified any question about the Bill of Rights by saying, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion." The treaty was supported by John Adams and was passed unanimously by the
Senate. It was only the third unanimous vote to that point after almost 400 votes on previous bills. No debate on the issue was ever recorded. The North Carolina state legislature would do well to take a look at history. The right wing of the legislature would even better to take a less biased look at history and see that the
framers of our Constitution sought to avoid religions involvement in Government.

With their actions on same-sex marriage, legislators who support this amendment are allowing religion to directly influence their decision. Every time the debate over
right for same-sex couples is rekindled it is done so by those who use their religion to justify writing discriminatory language into a document which was penned by men who sought freedom from that very discrimination. Each time amendments
like this are proposed they seek to threaten a separation that was vigorously sought for. I do not think any less of someone whose religious views would have them believe that homosexuality is a choice and that marriage between same-sex
couples is sinful. I disagree with each of those assertions strongly, but could never think any less of their opinion. Those arguments, however, belong
within the walls of the church from which they are spawned. I take issue when that discrimination is brought outside the religious institutions in the form of
discrimination and lack of open mindedness written into the constitution. I recall constitutions being for all people, not just the religious right wing. All of this begs the question of why when government involves itself with issues that conservatives disagree, their involvement its labeled as socialism, but when they need government to interfere on issues which may compromise the sanctity of their religion, its necessary.


Somewhere along the line the double standard needs to be resolved. The only right resolution is to keep matters of church and faith inside the church and
keep matters of government contained within our legislatures. While our forefathers are spinning in their graves at the foundation of separation of church and state being violated we are continuing down a dangerous path. It is a path of straight and narrow mindedness that the men who formed our government took great steps to
avoid. It is a path that we do not have to follow if those who are ready to fight for the equal rights of North Carolinians and Americans will stand up and fight. North Carolina may be the heart of the Bible belt and the fertile crescent of the religious right, but there is room at the table for everyone; its time those who have been denied a seat for so long got theirs – even if wedding cake isn’t on
the menu.

The real marriage we should be concerned about is the marriage of church and state; a union of strange bedfellows

Political Profanity: Republicans and their F-Bombs

No one will deny Vice President Joe Biden’s gift of gab. Sometimes though, that gab ends with him choking on his own foot.

That was no doubt the case some two weeks ago as President Obama signed the health care reform bill into law. Biden was so excited that he dropped the “f bomb” to describe what a big deal passage of such reform really was..."a big fucking deal"

Joe Biden was right; it was a big deal, and why not use a well-timed explicative to explain just how big of a deal it really was. Profanity is a part of real world human interaction. Even William Shakespeare, the greatest writer of the English language, wrote ornate sex jokes for the Queen of England.

The real shame is not our Vice President’s lapses in decorum, I think as a country we are all mature enough to realize that even our leaders at the highest level don’t have pristine vocabularies.

It is a shame however, that it had to be such a big deal; that the Republicans were allowed to control the debate so much and for so long that Joe Biden’s now infamous “f-bomb” was not the only dirty word in Washington.

The truth is that the G.O.P. has made a habit out of being the party of no and have in turn been allowed to turn innocent words and upstanding policies into political profanity. For an example, one need look no further than health care reform bill.

America is the only first-world country that all of its citizens are not insured. Health care seems like an inherent right, something that all legal citizens should be afforded. It makes sense that no one should die because they cannot afford health coverage. Yet the Republicans turned health care reform into the proverbial f-word.

They have done it with others too. Socialism is a word that will send Conservatives into a mad rage; it will set Glenn Beck and his magical chalkboard on fire.

What they fail to realize is that Socialism is all around them in the form of Police, Fire Departments, EMT, trash services, public schools and libraries are all things that we pay for through taxes but do not all necessarily use. Is that not Socialism in its most basic form?

It begs the question as to whether or not Republicans would be averse to a Paramedic saving their lives, would let their trash pile up, or avoid their public library because they were all spawns of Socialism.

Their habit turning good words into dirty ones doesn’t stop there. They have successfully turned gay marriage into an abomination in some 30 states that have made love literally against the law if it happens between two men or two women.

They have turned pro-choice into murder, despite Roe v. Wade being decided law that gives government no authority over a woman and her body.

Republicans win elections by fear and hate mongering. They tout their own vocabulary of dirty words like terrorism, death panels, Armageddon, Marxism and Communist. Used to incite fear into the sheep that vote them into office, the Republican’s words are what get them there, certainly not their ideas.

Sarah Palin campaigned in 2008 by using an almost flawless disguise. She swooped in on a snowmobile touting her transparent and successful record as Governor of our second largest state. She had us all fooled, even me. She was propped up in a place of potential power to do nothing but throw red meat to the masses and did so quite well.

She could not tell us what magazines and newspapers she read but she did have the people who cast their vote for her convinced that an Obama White House would be filled with terrorists, Bill Ayers, and activism from Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

None of what she or any other Republican said about what an Obama Administration would look like has turned out to be true at all. Their words have proven to be empty as they have so many other times in the past.

Despite what the Republicans would have you believe, the words that they have made dirty are not that way at all and the Obama White House has been one filled with proven leaders, great political minds and has been a pragmatic and transparent administration.

Given the deep political divide and the Tea Party’s seemingly amoral crusade against the Obama administration it seems that Joe Biden’s F-bomb should be the least of our worries.

What should be at the forefront of our minds as a politically expedient nation is that we cannot allow a small, misinformed group of closed minded people turn good policy into political profanity.

Public Necessity: Why we need the Public Option

Each passing day its harder and harder to turn on the radio, television or flip open the morning paper without hearing or reading something about health care reform. Its the issue of the day and probably the most important to the future of the Republic.

Sadly though the "Party of No" Republicans have kicked, screamed, bitched and moaned until they are dangerously close to actually getting it their way. I am not sure where the Presidents backbone is vacationing, but I'll be happy to see it return. It looks like it may be on its way back with his encouraging of an "Up or Down" vote on health care reform by congress.

Such a vote is long overdue. Its time this country saw the line in the sand and on which side our representatives are when it comes to that line. Polls show the majority of Americans approve of reform and the public option, which is no doubt necessary for real reform.

A health care bill without the Public Option is like finding a cure that is worse than the disease. It makes no sense. There are many reason why a public option does make sense though:

Most importantly it will make sure EVERYONE is insured. A basic necessity that, for some reason America, specifically Conservatives in America find it necessary to withhold from those who can't afford it.

A public option will force private insurance companies to compete with the power of the government. Prices will come down, and they will no longer be able to charge insane premiums or deny coverage.

It also gives power to consumers who can walk away from insurance companies that do not pay out, deny coverage, or excessively increase their premiums. It will give Americans a sense of ownership of health care. It will no longer be a privilege of the rich, but an affordable part of everyone's life and a comfort in times of crisis.

With a public option, drug prices will come down due to the government's ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. It will prevent people from going bankrupt because of excessive medical bills. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, "62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance."

A public plan will have significantly lower overheads than a private plan. The government won't need to market their plan, and they don't need to make a profit from it. Therefore, the the consumer reaps the savings. It will save small businesses huge amounts of money and allow them to raise wages, increase vacation time and take better care of their employees.

Perhaps the most important reasons of all are: After a few years, it will prove Republicans totally and utterly wrong about socialized medical care and as a result Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin will have very visible and hilarious meltdowns.

The plan is there, the Pubic Option isn't an option at all...it is necessity. America only needs our President to find the backbone he had while touting reform on the campaign trail. The numbers and the logic are on his side. Its time the loud, unruly voices of the minority were silenced and reform and progress were allowed to take over.

The Opening Act: Thoughts on Obama's First Year

Don't throw away those old clothes in your closet. One day, they'll be in style again.

Like the fashions of yesterday so too does the history of American Politics repeat itself. In the 1960s John F. Kennedy took office with three assumptions. He was convinced that the Third World was about to go Communist, that the Soviets would soon have a nuclear advantage, and that civil rights legislation could wait. He was wrong on all three counts, but was still able to be the transformational figure he sought out to be even in a shortened Presidency because he saw that he was wrong and righted the ship.

Like Kennedy, Barack Obama also came to the White House to be a transformational figure on three wrong assumptions. He was convinced that as long as Wall Street was sound, the rest of the economy would follow; that as long as he surrounded himself with smart old pros like Larry Summers, he was in good hands; and that bipartisanship was a worthwhile goal unto itself. Obama was wrong on all three, but his response to the Massachusetts defeat shows that he has the chops to learn on the job. He has to continue that trend, though. When he does, he will be the transformational President he sought out to be.

It is with the win by former Cosmo centerfold turned Republican Scott Brown that I will start. It seems as if after his victory on Tuesday night Tea Party Republicans were ready to storm the Bastille and declare revolution while the Democrats were running into the Boston Harbor with their hair on fire. Neither is necessary. In fact I would encourage my friends on the left to take heart. Scott Brown is just one person, one Senator and if my intuition serves me he won't be a very effective one. The bottom line is that even after the defeat, Democrats still control the Senate and the House. They still have the ability to steer the debate. On the flip side of that coin Republicans shouldn't be too over zealous of the victory. I think perhaps I could have won an election against Martha Coakley. Brown's win in Massachusetts wasn't a referendum on Obama it was a vote against a weak candidate in Coakley.

To watch The Fox Noise Channel's talking heads though you would think that the special election was a direct referendum on the policies of Obama. The point is that this country isn't on the cusp of a "Teabagger" revolution and we aren't headed down a path to socialism. Turn off The Glenn Beck show for a short minute and read the realities: Barack Obama is still a President who polls over 50 percent in most National approval polls. Even at his worst in approval ratings he's head and shoulders above his predecessor, Dubbya. Where Obama has gone wrong is in his belief that the country was ready for sweeping government reform. Yes, we were ready to move on from the unsuccessful, super conservatism of George W. Bush but we weren't quite as ready as Obama had thought to move much further past Bill Clinton's moderate liberalism. The assumption that Obama would be swimming mostly with the current rather than often against it on issues such as health care, financial regulation and global warming was naive, in retrospect.

The same dynamism that took a skinny state senator and put him in the Oval Office is now operating to turn against a lot of his agenda. It's uncomfortable right now for Democrats, but the truth is it's a very dynamic culture, and without that dynamism we would never have a President Obama. The challenge will be — and this is the same challenge Clinton faced — how adept and adroit will he be in adapting to a fast-changing culture.

John F. Kennedy was able to do it, and if he is any student of history, so too will Barack Obama. When I cast my vote for him, I voted to give him four years in office, not one.

Obama will increasingly have to choose - whether to hold to his vision and raise the stakes, or compromise his vision to cut the deal. And those of us whom he has inspired also have to choose. Whether to sit back and hope he does the right thing against the odds, growing cynical when he fails our expectations, or to stand up, mobilize, challenge the Congress and the President to get on with the change we need. The first year is but the opening scene. We should still have the audacity to hope, the patience for real change and the commitment to act.