Robin Sloan's 2004-2015 EPIC or Google and Amazon Take Over the World

(Initial post was at Jersey Goddess in 2004 or 2005.) First post of the month as I try to NaBloPoMo, the National Blog Posting Month project that pushes participating bloggers to post one blog per day for a month. I thought it fitting that my first post tie me to being an old webhead.

I recall when I first saw Robin Sloan's EPIC probably more than four years ago. I had it posted to my old website, that's in a state of pseudo sleep right now, when it was only available as a Flash file and sites got so much traffic from it that they lost bandwidth and had to rotate or split up hosting the file.

If you are unfamiliar with EPIC, then I'll say it's sort of a mini documentary (speculative) on the premise that Google takes over the world as newspapers die and we become a crowd-sourced planet of social media zombies.

The YouTube video is EPIC 2012; however, there's also an EPIC 2014. Sloan blogs at SnarkMarket.



Cool stuff.

Fox News Baltimore Fakes Story, Stokes Tensions (Video) -- Now Featuring Fox 45's 'Sorry'!

UPDATE:  On its evening broadcast, Fox 45 apologized to Tawanda Jones, the woman leading the chant in the video and interviewed her. They repeated multiple times that they were "mistaken" in how they represented the protesters' video and Jones.

David Zurawik at the Baltimore Sun wrote an opinion about the apology and said:

"The Sun is seeking an explanation as to how such an egregious and potentially inflammatory change in the meaning of the protest chant was made without anyone raising questions in the editorial process.

“Honest misunderstanding” would seem to warrant such an explanation rather than asking viewers to accept it [the apology] on faith." 

I agree. If you look at the original C-SPAN video you see how long that chant went on and how clearly Jones enunciated her Ts through most of it. So, I still believe that while it may have been an error in judgment to produced the segment, the false reporting was not an error.

Previous Report

FOX News corporation affiliate WBFF TV, FOX 45 of Baltimore, has falsely reported that protesters at the "Justice for All" march on December 13 in DC called for people to "KILL A COP." I do not believe this was an honest error on the station's part, but an intentionally callous piece of yellow journalism. According to Mediaite.com, the Baltimore station has run the phony story three times already.

C-SPAN filmed protesters chanting a call for police who've killed unarmed people to go to jail. However, Fox 45 misrepresented the chant. Wait, no, they lied about the chant.

The protesters were really saying the following:

"We won’t stop.
We can’t stop.
Till   KILLER cops.
Are in cell blocks."

You can watch the original clip right on C-SPAN, but I've also embedded a video capture of it right after this paragraph.

In its broadcast, FOX 45 cuts the video before the fourth line of the chant, and then the the anchor tells the audience that the protesters are saying the following:

"We won't stop.
We can't stop,
SO KILL A cop"

Here is the story from the Baltimore station's broadcast:

After misrepresenting what the protesters say, FOX 45 footage switches to scenes from New York about the murder of the two police officers, attempting to tie peaceful protesters to the recent "execution-style" murders of NYPD officers Liu and Ramos by a mentally disturbed man from Baltimore.

Author courts readers by insulting J. K. Rowling and Potter fans, Anne Rice objects to vicious writer on writer attack

I tried to make the title of this blog post as sensational as a Daily Prophet headline. Did I even come close?

While up past my bedtime, I came across the following status update last night on the Facebook page of author Anne Rice. Rice, a former resident of New Orleans and the author of bestsellers such as Interview with the Vampire and Wolf Gift, voices strong disapproval of another author's attack on Harry Potter novelist J. K. Rowling.

       "If JK Rowling Cares About writing, She Should Stop Doing It," says novelist Lynn Shepherd in this vicious, cynical, resentful and thoroughly ugly article. It's appalling. Never have I seen anything this malicious ever directed towards an actor, a painter, a ballet dancer, an opera singer, a film director. No, this is the kind of petty, spiteful condescending criticism that is for some reason reserved for writers in our world. And that it was written by some one who is a writer herself makes it doubly nasty and shocking. I appreciate Jaclyn Qua-Hiansen bringing this to the page. My very best wishes to JK Rowling and to all authors out there as they face the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in their creative journeys. In my life as a novelist, I've come to believe we are only in competition with ourselves when we strive to do our best; there is plenty of room for a multitude of successful endeavors in the ever changing world of books and readers, and there always will be. [Words of Anne Rice]

Here is a link to the article that Rice objected to: "If JK Rowling Cares About Writing, She Should Stop Doing It."

I have one question: Who in the hell is Lynn Shepherd and why has she offered herself up for Web execution? -- Publicity stunt. Publicity stunt. And an exceptionally dumb publicity stunt. Shepherd not only insults Rowling but also Rowling's fans:

"I didn't much mind Rowling when she was Pottering about. I've never read a word (or seen a minute) so I can't comment on whether the books were good, bad or indifferent. I did think it a shame that adults were reading them (rather than just reading them to their children, which is another thing altogether), mainly because there's so many other books out there that are surely more stimulating for grown-up minds." [Lynn Shepherd writing at the Huffington Post]

File under suicide attempts and other self-inflicted pain.



**The End**

Fed Up with Misrepresentations of the Paula Deen Complaint, I Had to Say Something: The Sponsors Who Left Are Smart

After reading both the soft-soaping of what Paula Deen's alleged to have said and done in the workplace and the outbursts of people angry at her and after noticing that often her supporters and her detractors did not bother to read the actual complaint against Deen that Lisa T. Jackson, a white female, filed with the court, I've finally had enough. I must say something.

I mean, I suspect even Melissa Harris-Perry, whom I love, went all "WOW . . . Seriously?" before reading the complaint. If she had read the complaint, there would have been a lot more smoke coming from her ears because she seems to reserve "WOW ... Seriously?" segments for the lighter stuff. And one would think that Deen as well must not have read the complaint against her company or know that the a .pdf would become available online based on how she's handled the leak of her deposition. (Here's Lisa T. Jackson's complaint at Scribd.) 

I know I'm late with my response, so late that more than likely no one will read this post, but I decided to write it anyway after reading a well-meaning response to Deen's predicament by someone who at least acknowledges racism is a problem in America. I appreciate that acknowledgement because there's an entire group of people in the nation who pretend we've licked racism and now have nothing to fear. (Oh, yeah -- the Supreme Court comes to mind.)

Regarding the Deen case, the national media has reduced the allegations against Deen and company to the chef's use of the N-word and Deen's longing for a plantation-style wedding. People seem to think the accusations against Deen are simply that she indulged some mildly offensive stupidity and now her sponsors are overreacting. Consequently, people mistakenly think that Deen's sponsors are fleeing her side under secret pressure to be politically correct, I guess. That, however, is not the case. They are running away from support that could become a liability if they're ever accused of discrimination.

Undoubtedly, Deen's former sponsors, unlike mostly everyone else talking about this case, have read the full complaint against Deen's company. They've probably done a little digging, not liked what they've uncovered, and have wisely backed away from the imploding Ms. Deen that America's seen begging forgiveness lately on TV and YouTube: "I is what I is," she's said, digging a deeper hole for herself. How can a company claim to have a zero tolerance for workplace discrimination based on race and gender if they stand with Deen?

Unfortunately, the willingness of people of all ethnicities and political leanings that I have observed around the Net and on TV who, despite having only heard the sound-bite version of the Deen case and yet have declared that folks should let up off Deen indicates that America will keep having shallow discussion about race for many years to come. Few people have investigated the allegations that caused Deen to be deposed in the first place nor do most people care enough to scrutinize the kinds of racist practices alleged against her company and why that kind of racism persists in American culture.

After skimming only the Cliff Notes of news reports, too many people talking about the Deen case merely recall stories about the everyday racism they've witnessed or experienced in their own lives, most of which are not even close to what Deen and her company have been accused of in the lawsuit, and then they think they understand Deen's admission. They applaud her honesty about using a racial slur or wanting a plantation-style wedding and give her a pass. However, if they were paying closer attention and not having emotional or knee-jerk responses, they would know something must have gone terribly wrong at Deen's restaurants.

Look at the number of Deen sponsors who've jumped ship. You'd think more people would have stepped back and asked, "Is this case really only about use the N-word and an ignorant comment here or there?"

Given the precedence in American popular culture of white people (athletes, actors, etc.) using that word and then simply apologizing and moving on, more people should have found it strange that Deen's sponsors reacted forcefully and quickly by dropping her and her products. But no, fans of her down-home folksiness are coming out of the ethers to support her and declare she's being "scapegoated." That assumption is particularly telling of the state of race relations in America and the nation's level of critical thinking on race because the word scapegoat implies that people think Paula Deen's use of the N-word, even in the workplace, and her mooning over "the good old days" when black people were slaves is not such a bad thing for an employer to do.

Worse, proclaiming Deen to be a scapegoat suggests that people believe, without even reading the complaints in the lawsuit, that Paula Deen is telling the truth and her accuser is "evil" as Deen has described her. However, if what Jackson alleges is true, Deen is, at the very least, guilty of indifference to racist practices in her restaurants and callous about sexism that harms her female employees.

The actual complaint against Paula is not simply that Deen used the N-word once or twice and talked about a plantation wedding. Jackson alleges that Deen and her company practiced the worst kinds of racial discrimination, practices especially egregious at her brother Earl "Bubba" Hier's restaurant, Uncle Bubba's Oyster House in Savannah, Georgia.

The lawsuit alleges that upper management repeated racist jokes regularly that invoked white supremacist ideology, required black employees not use the customers' restroom while allowing white employees to do so, and refused to hire black hostesses to work out front and when one did, she was accused (because she was black) of stealing a customer's purse.

Furthermore, the suit alleges that Deen's brother Bubba treated black employees like subhumans, calling them "monkeys" and physically assaulting them. And his racism was not restricted to African-Americans either. Because Jackson was good at saving money, Bubba allegedly referred to her as "my little Jew girl."

Not surprisingly, Jackson also alleges that Deen's company openly discriminated against women in pay. One of its corporate administrators allegedly said that women were "stupid" to think that they could have babies and get paid the same as men.  She alleges as well that Deen's brother sexually harassed her and other female staff by showing pornography in the workplace

While we don't know whether the allegations against Deen and company are true, Deen undeniably hurt herself with her public reactions to the accusations. Her supposed apologies have revealed a stupendous level of ignorance of the past and current era business practices and modern race relations. Her statements have  made the allegations against her sound plausible; therefore, she is an obvious business risk. She has created such a mess for herself that the media reports she's hired Judy Smith, the crisis manager on whom the character Olivia Pope is based from ABC's drama Scandal.

As these allegations have come to light and especially if they are later proven true, any business (as well as any person) that appears to have supported Deen's poor business practices--in particular her unwillingness to shut down her brother Bubba's gross racist and sexist behaviors as alleged in Jackson's complaint--will seem to have condoned more than simply an occasional slip of the N-word; they will appear to have condoned unconscionable discrimination and the kind of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism rarely tolerated in a presumably enlightened, fair society.

The kinds of behavior of which Deen, her brother, and her company have been accused should not be excused in the worksplace anymore than one would excuse flagrant masturbation in a public space. Who would want to work around that, who would want to be forced to accept it?

Deen is a business liability. More than likely, she's also a typical Southern racist NOT of the aggressive "cross-burning" variety but one of the antebellum-ideation, white entitlement sort permitted in so many Southern cities--a fixture. Jackson may have exaggerated some of her allegations, but I suspect that her conveyance of Bubba's general attitude toward blacks, Jewish people, and women, as well as Deen's tolerance of such behavior and Deen's romanticizing of Gone-With-the-Wind values as presented in the complaint, are probably true. If the popular Southern chef had confined her tolerance of such attitudes and behaviors to her living room, then that would be her right, but once she let them seep into the work environment, she was infringing on the rights of others.

If the allegations are true, what we see now is Deen reaping what she's sown in her unwillingness to adapt to the modern world and the nasty seeds she's let her brother sow in her name. In our souls, we may forgive her, but in court, there's a price to pay for that sort of thing these days.

Lagniappe: If you read this, you may also appreciate Cassandra Jackson's post: "Paula Deen, the N-Word, and Sh*t Black Folks Can't Say."

Judy Smith, Crisis Manager, Gives Her Advice on Scandals of Manti T'eo and Lance Armstrong, Grades Lance a C or D

On Friday, January 18, Judy Smith talked to CNN about two media crises troubling the lives of two very different sports celebrities: Lance Armstrong's doping scandal and Manti Te'o's bizarre case of the fantasy girlfriend.

As I've written before, Smith is the real-life crisis manager on whom Shonda Rhimes based ABC's hit show Scandal, which stars Kerry Washington as Olivia Pope (the character based on Smith).

The best advice she has for most people in the midst of scandal is "Tell the truth." It's the same advice I was taught to give clients in my public relations coursework.

The entire text below comes from CNN.com's transcript of Smith's appearance.

BOLDUAN: Judy Smith was the person, was the inspiration for that very show, a very popular show, at that. She's CEO and president of Smith & Company, a crisis communications firm.

BLITZER: Judy, thanks very much for coming in. Here's the question...

JUDY SMITH, CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT: Yes.

BLITZER: ... if Lance Armstrong were your client, how would you grade the interview with Oprah?

SMITH: That's a tough one, Wolf. I think I would probably give him a "C" or a "D."

And the reason why I say that, Wolf, is admitting that he doped is a good first step. The issue is that the interview, quite frankly, it you know, generated more skepticism than sympathy.

I think if he was looking to reconstruct his image based on the interview, I think he clearly failed. I think redemption, though, is another story. I think the public will start to turn their attention to not what he says but what he does moving forward. And I think that's going to be critical.

BLITZER: I want to remind our viewers, Judy, how brutal he was in lying over the years. I'm going to play a little clip where he went after his critics.

SMITH: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LANCE ARMSTRONG, DISGRACED CYCLIST: To the skeptics, I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't dream big, and I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

That's longer than seven years. I have never doped.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not just simply you don't recall?

ARMSTRONG: How many times do I have to say it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just trying to make sure your testimony is clear.

ARMSTRONG: It can't be any clearer than I've never taken drugs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So what did he do -- if he were your client, what did he need to do last night that he didn't do? What would you have advised him?

SMITH: I think what he didn't do was really show a level of remorse. You know, most people that saw the interview didn't feel that the apology was authentic. They didn't feel like he meant the apology. And so that's caused a lot of concern.

And also, too, I think the fact that he was so, as you said, just adamant about, "No, I didn't do it, I didn't do it," and so aggressive and persistent about that issue for so long, that you cannot erase that 12 years of lying in one interview. That's not possible. It's not going to happen.

BOLDUAN: Judy, I want to ask you about another sports controversy, Manti Te'o. He's clearly not facing anywhere near the kind of allegations or even the trouble that Lance Armstrong is facing. But still he is embroiled in the middle of a very wild story and wild controversy.

What should he do at this point? We haven't really heard from him yet. Should he come out and do one big interview? What would your best advice be in this situation?

SMITH: Yes, I think the best advice, without knowing all the facts, because all of those issues are still unfolding, I would start with telling the truth, because information that's coming out now clearly indicates that all that's been said has not been factually accurate. So, yes, I mean, starting with telling the truth and certainly doing it once, answering all the questions completely would be a good place to start.

BLITZER: And you've always suggested -- and I think other crisis managers have always suggested you get out in front of the story. Don't wait for others to break the bad news. You break the bad news on your terms. Obviously, Lance Armstrong should have done that a long time ago. That's a basic bottom -- bottom-line rule, isn't it?

SMITH: It is. It absolutely is, Wolf. I mean, now both of the athletes that are involved in these scandals have to beat back stories and facts and allegations and all of those that have been framed by other people.

The reason why we suggest getting out in front, quite frankly, is that you don't want to let other people frame the narrative for you. You want to be in charge of that yourself and frame that, based on your own messages and on the facts that you know to be true.

So neither one of those have been successful. Neither one of those athletes have been successful at doing that. That's all.

BOLDUAN: Back to Lance Armstrong for just one moment, Judy. Do you think he can rehab his reputation? That is a very big question. Clearly, no matter what other intentions he has in doing this interview, that seems to be one of the things he's trying to do, get back on the right side, in people's good graces. Do you think it's possible?

SMITH: I do. I just think it's going to take time. And it depends on what he wants to do. You know, there's been some conversation out there that he wants to get back into sports. I see that as a very long shot.

I think that what he needs to focus on is himself and really start to focus on perhaps what he can do for the sport and how he can help clean up the sport. And what value he can add to, quite frankly, all of the kids and millions of people that have looked up to him over the years. So it's going to take time. It's not an overnight fix, not at all.

BLITZER: Judy Smith, as usual, thanks very much for coming in. Always has such good advice.

BOLDUAN: Very good advice. People should listen to her.

BLITZER: I hope your clients listen to you, Judy.

SMITH: Thank you so much for having me. Appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: Thanks, Judy.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Wikileaks Spoofed: SNL, TMZ, and the Bellatrix Lestrange-Voldemort Connection

It's unlikely that I will be getting a job with the Federal Government, given my age and disposition these days, and so, despite warnings to people to not comment on Wikileaks if they hope to get a Federal job in the future, I can make a statement: This week's Saturday Night Live opening skit of Wikileaks as TMZ is hilarious!

I started laughing as soon as the actor playing Julian Assange came on. When he said the Wikileaks founder's name, I thought of the evil Bellatrix Lestrange from the Harry Potter series.

I laughed harder as the skit continued, whittling Wikileaks down to a political gossip rag. However, I also thought, while sometimes gossip magazines, websites, and TV shows can ruin reputations, Wikileaks could cause someone to be killed, at least the Pentagon says so. (If anyone from the CIA, FBI, or Justice Department reads this, please remember that I have worked at a Federal facility before and have yet to spill one secret.)



But about my mind linking Julian Assange to Bellatrix Lestrange, Bellatrix never hides the identity of the object of her affection or with whom she wants to curry favor. So, on the surface, the only thing these Assange and Lestrange appear to have in common may be how their names sound similar.

However, considering that Bellatrix feverishly serves a dark lord (Voldemort), we must also wonder if someone greater and more sinister than Assange pulls his strings or who is Julian Assange really? Is he really just some hacker turned publisher? He's perceived to be a man of mystery by some, and Sarah Palin's dubbed him a terrorist. Consider the source on that last one. And then there are those Swedish rape charges.

Furthermore, can we follow the money for Wikileaks? A few speculated a while back that Wikileaks is funded by the CIA (That theory makes little sense to me, but who funds it is a secret). Whoever's propping it up financially is probably chuckling in luxury suite somewhere right now.

After its Wikileaks's release in November of cables embarrassing heads of state and diplomats, governments around the world, including ours, are after Assange. His actions however, cannot be called treasonous by America, a point made at the end of the SNL skit, since he is not an American citizen.

How could the son of theater people get himself into so much trouble? Maybe he learned from them how to create a spectacle. Speculations aside, Assange speaks for himself, answering readers' questions at the U.K. Guardian.

Each day he becomes more the pop icon, a digital Robin Hood in some corners, the butt of jokes in others. Slate takes a humorous poke at the Wikileaks controversy with "What Julian Assange Wrote on Obama's Facebook Page," and even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's found a way to joke about the leaks (through gritted teeth perhaps. The SNL skit has Wikileaks TMZ looking up her skirt, literally).

Let's hope for Assange's sake, he doesn't meet Lestrange's fate.

Is it Ever O.K. to Out a Gay Person?

This post is pending publication at BlogHer.com.

This could be a horrible thing. This post may be the proverbial train wreck the curious must watch--an opinionated heterosexual writing about a controversial topic deemed "queer," as it relates to the sensibilities and politics of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities. But I'm writing about it because, well, it's a train wreck with cars twisted and toppled, hanging precariously over cliffs, heavy with philosophies about the right to privacy, journalistic integrity, the sanctity of 12 step programs, and the circumstances under which homosexual politicians or pastors should be outed.

But I can write this, I tell myself, because straight or gay, humans generally don't care for hypocrisy and that is what this story is really about: hypocrisy, which probably began when humans first preached moral laws. There's no need, however, to go back that far. Our story can start with ... Please continue reading at at BlogHer.com.

Race Fatigue? Try Blogger Fatigue. I Love CNN But ...

Despite the talk about citizen journalists and blogging pundits taking over mainstream media and giving big networks and newspapers a run for the money, I think only an idiot would claim citizen journalism has already become David whipping Goliath. If anything, mainstream media has co-opted citizen journalism to make itself stronger.

Case in point, CNN today has a article about Obama as "angry black man," and how the president was double-bound by people who wanted to see him get angry over the oilpocalypse. (You may have noticed the people on the Gulf Coast who were uncomfortable with the president saying "ass," expressing his anger that people want to see. The timid or moralistic changed the word to "butt" or "behind" when quoting him.)

The CNN feature credits one of its iReporters, a black guy (EWillies1961 aka Egberto Willies), for bringing this subject to their attention and the subsequent 3,000-plus comments and nearly 9,000 shares on Facebook that drove traffic to the site. I confess, Egberto did a good job, and video is generally more compelling than the written word these days.

The problem for me is the iReporter said nothing new. He just said it in a hot venue and so got more attention. I'm fairly sure I was one of the first people to write publicly about the complications of Obama showing visible anger over this oil spill. But I doubt I was "the first." On May 29, I wrote:

The federal government has an agency to help clean up after natural disasters like hurricanes. It does not have an agency with the technology BP has to clean up an oil spill. I'm not sure what the people expect the president to do other than yell and maybe start sanctioning BP financially in some way. If he were to start yelling, however, Fox News would no doubt play that as Obama is unraveling or perhaps play its ever handy Look!-another-overly-emotional-black-person card.

Then on June 3, I commented on a CNN opinion piece by Gloria Borger and said:

Seems like we're on a similar wavelength. As Borger continues, she says we want to see Obama angry, but a man full of rage is not who we elected.

Indeed, I said in May that if Obama had shown intense passion when this crisis began, Republicans would have simply painted him as the angry or emotional black man.

I guess I'm just frustrated. Here I am, the Rodney Dangerfield of blogging, perhaps: I get no respect.

Also, people don't link back and give credit the way they did in the early days of blogging. Plus, I feel that ever since Google went to its algorithm that pushes most-recently-published on topics, good posts get buried by new posts that may not be as good.

Furthermore, Google search is favoring big media and big blogs. When you use Google's blogsearch, for instance, you'll see it's the mega blogs and even mainstream media stories, which are not blog posts, that pop up earlier. I put in a topic a few days ago and the first things to come up were MSM articles from the AP, the Christian Science Monitor, and Politico. That didn't mean small blogs were ignoring that topic. And if it's not the big hitters burying you, it's the spam and aggregator sites.

Anyway, as a blogger who often writes about race, I've heard before what CNN's piece is saying today, that "Even discussing 'angry black man' stereotype provokes anger." Its article asserts that people are fatigued on race. Sometimes I get fatigued as well talking about the subject, but I disagree with those who say it's the discussion of race that divides us. Sometimes they even go so far as to call the people who identify racism "racists" for sharing the information.

These people seem to think America can be color blind. I agree with research that indicates if America were color blind, we'd see even more racism because being blind to race is about denial, not honesty, not love. But I won't rehash that topic.

I will say, though, that I love this professor's commentary, which you can listen to in the video above.

The venom in readers' reactions didn't surprise William Jelani Cobb, author of "The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress." He calls Obama "America's Mandela," but says even inspirational political figures can't erase the nation's ugly racial past.

"He's a president, he's not an antidote," Cobb said.

"President not an antidote," excellent.

At the moment my greater fatigue comes from being a blogger. With the great push on marketing and branding, it's become hard just to say what you think and get read because you've said something worth reading. I'm tired and I believe blogging comes down to who has the most money and best networking or marketing skills. That is what's started to push blogging, not who has something meaningful to say.

Mainstream media has figured out how to use social media, and it's kicking our ordinary people's behind as we are in a Catch 22. The newspapers may be shutting down in hard print, but they aren't going away completely. I'm glad they're around because I like newspapers, but I don't aspire to go write for one anymore since nobody's paying journalists the way they used to, and that was never all that much.

MSM has the money and people to provide story details to which we will naturally link, but since MSM only quotes the big blogs, if even them, we little bloggers get no love in return unless we go join a network through its iReport or U-speak-out type venture. But I choke on the idea of providing free content to mega-media outlets, and then I get indigestion. They've got money and pension plans. I don't. Pass the Tums.

Right on! Fareed Zakaria Says Focus On Obama's Emotions is Crazy During the Oil Spill Crisis

Right on, CNN's Fareed Zakaria! Regarding this obsession with Obama's emotions, Zakaria asks, is the media insane? I agree.

The media has been so busy being impressed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's show of passion in comparison that it's failed to examine Jindal's history in oil. The media has not questioned the dog and pony shows that Drill-Baby-Drill Republicans are staging. (Zakaria didn't say that in the video below. I'm saying that.) Sadly, it's a political showmanship battle we're seeing, not a desperate sprint to solve the BP oil leak crisis.

And yes, Mr. Zakaria, you are right. Obama is being influenced by the need for more theatrics and the theatrics of others. "Got to give the people what they want," and they don't seem to want facts.

So, it's not just the media. It's also us, the people of the United States of America. We're focused on the wrong thing--President Barack Obama's show of emotion or lack of it.



I've written that Obama needs to put on a bigger show but also put that recommendation in context of our childish need for drama. Americans are addicted to theater; they crave symbolism over substance. I said "the president should fake effectiveness" because that's how America is judging him, but that way of judging policy and performance may be our downfall.

It doesn't matter to television viewers if Obama is making the right decision as long as they see action. How they would have applauded seeing Marines hit the shores of the Gulf coast to fight the monster oil spill, and yet, if those soldiers started falling over after contact with the Corexit dispersant, how they would have shouted at the president for putting "our boys" in unnecessary danger. Americans say their president is not a king, but they desire whoever sits in the Oval Office to be akin to a god.

Therefore, it's not just the media, as you so kindly framed your opinion, but also us, Americans who seem insane while viewing this crisis. To prefer fakery over substance reveals that we are a Hollywood nation of non-contemplative slackers who can't even critically think our ways out of an oily political bag.

Republicans Gloat Over Oil Spill: The HuffPo Leak

I watched WVUE, Channel 8, our local Fox station, Thursday night, June 10, because it advertised beforehand that it would cover Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's staged speech to "angry" oil rig workers. It's clear from my post that I knew Republicans were eating this BP oil spill crisis and subsequent drilling moratorium with a spoon. It gives them a way to appeal to people's emotions while they blast President Barack Obama.

Eventually they hope to make people believe everything that went wrong in the oil spill's aftermath is Obama's fault. Running strategy in politics is no different than running strategy in war. The goal is to defeat your opponent. What's fairness got to do with it?

Furthermore, yesterday, upon reading Interior Secretary Salazar's suggestion that the moratorium may be over soon, I recognized that the Obama administration may be buckling under pressure to stop the temporary ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I said Obama is having a Pontius Pilate moment.

So, I was not shocked to see that Republicans are gloating, as reported by the Huffington Post. However, I'm not even sure the supposed leak of gloating emails to the HuffPo website is an actual accident.

Republican communication strategists in Washington and Louisiana are thrilled at the press coverage of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, according to e-mails from GOP officials accidentally sent to the Huffington Post.

The HuffPo writer mentions a Louisiana single father, Peter Duet, who tells a story in the Fox 8 video about talking to his young daughter about his need to work.

"Baby, so daddy can take you to Wal-Mart and buy you toys," he says, explaining that he won't be able to buy his daughter toys -- or food, for that matter -- if Obama doesn't reverse his decision.

Yep. Having worked with people who seek to shape political opinion before, I know that clips like that are priceless. Democrats use the same tactics when they're smart enough to make an emotional appeal rather than a policy-analysis appeal. It's true that humans are more susceptible to pathos than logos.

But what about this so-called Republican accidental send to HuffPo? It's fishy to me because there's a political advantage to this leak. It gets Republicans more press on a big liberal site like Huffington Post, where it's expected Republicans will be blasted anyway. Would HuffPo have even posted the Fox 8 video or given it more thought if the story had not been brought to its attention by a supposed email accident on the conservative side?

There will be people who call themselves progressives watching the video at Huffington Post who start to think Obama is wrong to have called for a moratorium. Consider media outlets reported Sarah Palin's misrepresentation implying Obama was in deep with BP without bothering to check facts first, and some progressives believed it because it was repeated on Politico or some other site they read. Busy humans don't check information. They mistakenly believe news outlets and websites have checked all facts before publishing a story, or that he said/she said journalism is news you can trust. So, sometimes bad publicity does the trick on shaping opinion as much as good publicity.

But again, I've been saying all along that Jindal and other Republicans are dancing over this oil leak because it's virtually impossible for the president to escape hostility. Most people don't follow complex topics and read the details. They just hear soundbites and skim headlines.

Rabbi Wants Personal Apology from Helen Thomas: More from Where do Jews Come from to the Future is Shmoozepoint

An article at the U.K. Guardian chronicles the life and career of Helen Thomas, a pioneer for women in journalism who resigned yesterday. While her anti-Israel views were no secret, she faced white hot anger after a Rabbi caught her on video saying Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine." Worse, she said they should go back to Poland or Germany.

Thomas also said the Jewish people should go to America, but that destination was overshadowed by the sheer horror evoked by anyone telling Jews to go to places where they've been the victims of genocide.

The ending of the Guardian piece has shades of my take on her outburst and her resignation that I posted yesterday. The Guardian writer concludes:

Even if White House correspondents sometimes grew exasperated with her, some said they respected her pedigree and generally put her shortcomings down to age. She grew so frail that other reporters had to help her walk from her desk to her chair in the briefing room, and she would sometimes fall asleep. She appeared less and less at the daily briefings.

Perhaps the best evidence that Thomas had lost touch was her failure to understand the consequences of saying that Israel's Jews should go back to Poland and Germany to a rabbi with a video camera at a White House event to mark Jewish heritage month. It is possible that given her Lebanese background, that is what she has thought all along. But she should not have been surprised at the storm of protest.

I considered in my post on her resignation that the elderly journalist may have been suffering mild dementia, which dampens speech filters, but I also said any such illness did not mean she wasn't saying what she believed about Jewish people and Israel. It's clear from other incidents that she was strongly biased against the Jewish state of Israel.

One aspect of her commentary that was not covered in my original post is mentioned by Suzanne Reisman, who commented on a round-up at BlogHer.com. She condemned Helen Thomas's "hate," but was also surprised by her ignorance about where Jews come from.

I responded to her comment and said I also had wondered about that, saying "I was surprised that a woman that we assume is knowledgeable seems to think Jewish people originally came from Germany or Poland. I wonder how many other people think this is true."

Reisman, who's about to visit Poland to explore her roots, says that country is "no more my homeland than any other arbitrary place in the world":

We are not just from Europe. Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine/Israstine/whatever for hundreds of years. They have also lived in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Should the 800,000 Jews displaced from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt go "back" to Poland and Germany? How about Ethiopian Jews? ...I am sad that it came to this, but ignorance and hatred like this cannot be tolerated.

Today, CNN's religion section has a profile of Rabbi David Nesenoff, the man who asked Thomas to give her opinion on Israel and captured the immediately infamous speech on video for his website Rabbilive.com. Nesenoff told CNN when he asked Thomas the question, he wasn't thinking about her politics, but hearing her response, he was hurt.

He was at the WhiteHouse for Jewish Heritage Month, filming with his son, 17, who also has a website, Shmoozepoint.com, "the future of Judaism," and one of his son's friends. Thomas was there for a press conference. Per CNN:

It was in the driveway outside the north entrance to the White House where Nesenoff saw Thomas. “Let’s meet her, let’s learn something” Nesenoff recalled telling the boys. “I didn’t remember that she had pro-Palestinian thoughts, anti-Semitic feelings,” he said.

Nesenoff would like a personal apology from Thomas to him and his son.

Helen Thomas Resigns and What! Conservatives Offer No Free Speech Defense?

I'll say right away, I think the free speech defense is a stupid one when people try to apply it to public outcry and consequences of saying what you think to the world. Freedom of Speech does not mean you can say whatever you please without repercussions. However, I'll get to that later. It's just a shame that someone who's opened doors for women in journalism has to go out the way Helen Thomas has, with her foot in her mouth.

ABC News, CNN, and other sources report that trailblazer journalist Helen Thomas, 89, has retired. The icon, a front-row fixture at White House press conferences for decades as venerable member of an elite press corps and the White House Correspondents Association, stepped into hot water recently when she was caught on video saying Jews should leave Israel/Palestine and go back to Poland or Germany.

She apologized on her website.

Helen Thomas issued the following statement today: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.” (June 4, 2010)

Before her "go back" comment, Thomas was also being blasted for asking White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on June 1 why the Obama administration did not condemn Israel's attack of a Gaza aid flotilla. Weighing in at Time on Helen's latest outburst and her bias, Joe Klein writes that "She is the daughter of Lebanese immigrants and her general views on the Middle East have long been known." He says she should have gone to the "back of the room."

I said in an email thread about Thomas's resignation and her comments about Jews in Israel:

I thought she looked as though she could be suffering from mild dementia in the video of her speaking about Israel. My mother who had Alzheimer's and another form of dementia would talk about events, when she still could, giving the opinions that would have been heard in her youth.

A statement like Helen's, that the Jews should go back to Germany or Poland, sounded like she was saying something from opinions shared more commonly decades ago, early 50s.

That doesn't mean she was saying something she didn't believe but that she, in a fog, may have not realized the kind of backlash her comments would bring in today's political climate. If she's suffering even mild dementia, she may not have grasped that what she was saying didn't make sense given history, the complexity of Middle East politics today, and so much water under the bridge. If that's the case, even if she had not resigned, the question of her future in journalism would have been moot.



The reactions to her comments, however, have been vicious. Demands that she be fired and insults against her age and appearance run wild. Of course, insulting the elderly journalist's appearance is not new, neither are suggestions that she should get lost. Bill O'Reilly had a lovely time insulting her last year. So, I'm not surprised at the venom flowing over her Israel comment.

Plus, being or even sounding like you might be anti-Israel in America never plays well. In my post about the flotilla incident, I referenced a 2008 post at BlogHer.com in which a less-informed blogger suggested Israel should relocate. Oh, to call some of the comments "hostile" would be an understatement. The person apologized, admitting she'd written on a subject about which she was just beginning to learn. I was sympathetic because it happens. Sometimes we have opinions but find later that they're based on misleading information, and the conflict in the Middle East is one of the most complex topics in politics today.

Anyway, before Helengate fully erupted, I caught this piece at the Huffington Post about Israel's handling of the flotilla. M.J. Rosenberg, discussing Glenn Beck's promotion of a book by anti-semite while also attacking Rosenberg's denunciation of the flotilla attack, explained how it's possible to be pro-Israel yet critical of its actions.

Progressives oppose Israeli policies that would almost inevitably lead to Israel's dissolution. There is hardly a mainstream political figure in Israel, dead or living, (including current Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert) who hasn't evinced the belief that Israel cannot survive if it maintains the occupation of the lands taken in 1967. Netanyahu's choice of confrontation over negotiating the end of the occupation appears suicidal.

But that is the policy supported by right-wingers like Beck. They don't admire Israel because of its intrinsic qualities but because they view it as fighting the good fight against the people they most despise: Arabs and Muslims.

He left out that a substantial number of conservatives who support potentially self-destructive policies are also influenced by teachings in some Christian churches that the Jewish people must occupy Israel in order for Jesus Christ to return. They further believe that peace in the Middle East will signal the rise of the anti-Christ. Consequently, they believe any attempt at peace or compromise is anti-Christian.

In another corner, we have a post like this one by Field Negro, who questions knee-jerk denunciations of Israel for other reasons. He offers a great analogy at his blog about opposition to Israel and American hypocrisy in a bedtime story he told earlier last week.

Speaking of hypocrisy, has anyone else noticed that some of the same people--rabid conservatives who have jumped up to defend the free speech of Rush Limbaugh, for instance, or Don Imus in the past, pundits who have insulted people of color--don't bring up free speech in this instance? Before now they have claimed that any call for people to be dismissed after making offensive statements with racial undertones or blatantly racist themes is a violation of the offender's free speech. Those arguments go out the window, however, when conservatives rant about Helen Thomas. I'm just sayin'.

Not surprisingly, Sarah Palin is trying to score points in Helengate. Poltico quotes her saying on Twitter, "Helen Thomas press pals condone racist rant?Heaven forbid’esteemed’press corps represent society's enlightened elite;Rest of us choose truth."

Is that what happened? Did the media condone what Helen said? I'm not sure what Palin is saying otherwise. Garbled is her middle name. But I don't think she spends time denouncing her conservative pals' racist rants, except to give the weak lip service catch-all denunciation, something like, "No one should be racist. I'm a maverick."

Whether it's Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh; Dan Rather or Helen Thomas, I don't give the free speech defense as though freedom of speech means you can say whatever you like with no consequences. So, in my opinion, whether you agree with what Helen said or not, she's got to take the heat for saying something people don't want to hear or find offensive, even if she did so on her spare time. In this day of YouTube and Twitter, expect your comments may be made public at some point if you're in the public eye.

Freedom of speech does not protect her from public opinion and job loss, nor should it. It's not the government seeking penalties, and that's the agency from which freedom of speech protects us, not our peers and public opponents.

However, other people think free speech is not the issue for other reasons. Lanny Davis, a former White House spokesperson, sees Thomas as having a higher responsibility to keep her opinions on Israel to herself at all times as long as she is a member of the White House Correspondents Association:

If she had asked all Blacks to go back to Africa, what would White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials -- much less a privileged honorary seat?

Does anyone doubt that my friends Ann Compton, head of the WHCA, and Joe Lockhart, who believe in the First Amendment right of free expression as much as I do, would be as tolerant and protective of Helen's privileges and honors in the White House press room as they appear to be if she had been asking Blacks to return to Africa? Or Native Americans to Asia and South America, from which they came 8,000or more years ago? I doubt it.

Could be he's right, that the WHCA would have thrown a fit if Helen had said black people should go back to Africa. Nevertheless, I don't think blacks going back to Africa and Jewish people leaving Israel is a good analogy.

For the record, Davis is not a conservative. He used to work for Bill Clinton.

But people, pay attention to who wants her fired and see if they say the same the next time Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or some other yo-yo, like South Carolina Senator Jake Knotts, makes a racist statement and is put on blast.

I think the higher up the person is, the more power he or she wields, the more we have a right and duty to say "It's time to go now" if we believe they're spreading hate speech. However, I'm pretty sure Helen Thomas doesn't have the power of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Nevertheless, if she's having trouble filtering her words and considering the consequences of her speaking her mind, then her effectiveness in media is over. But it would have been nice if the people calling for her firing or resignation could have done so without insulting her age and physical appearance. Free speech in America is nasty business.

Dear Sarah Palin: Did You Know Susan B. Anthony Liked to Pal Around with Socialists?

I just read a provocatively funny post at the PA Editors Blog: "Republicans forgot that Susan B. Anthony was a socialist" by Joe Wenland. He makes a point that I can agree with in spirit but not in fact. A more accurate statement is that Susan B. Anthony had an affinity for socialist ideals, and that Eugene V. Debs and other avowed socialists admired her.

So, that's right, Sarah Palin. Susan B. Anthony was known to pal around with socialists. And oh, dear! You spoke at The Susan B. Anthony List Celebration of Life, did you not? Your buddy Rush Limbaugh even praised your "mama grizzlies" folksiness.

I wonder what Susan B. Anthony, who never married and had no children, would have thought of bearing children no matter what. How would she feel about denying women the right to reproductive choice? Perhaps we can get an idea of what she may have said from her own writing about visiting the homes of poor mothers who had large families in Europe:

I went to the home of another tenant, and there again was one room, and sitting around a pile of smoking-hot potatoes on the cold, wet ground—not a board or even a flag-stone for a floor—were six ragged, dirty children. Not a knife, fork, spoon or platter was to be seen. The man was out working for a farmer, his wife said, and the evidences were that "God" was about to add a No. 7 to her flock. What a dreadful creature their God must be to keep sending hungry mouths while he withholds the bread to fill them!...

That quote comes from the biography The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Volume 2, pg. 574. It's from a letter Anthony wrote to her friend Rachel. Furthermore, Anthony was not supportive when she learned that Rachel Foster (later Avery) had adopted a child with her sister Julia. She thought the child would be a distraction from the suffragist cause.

The biographer, Ida Husted Harper, was a journalist and close friend of Anthony.

It's no secret that Republican operatives like to flip context when launching political messages. Consider how some Republicans glibly declare "Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican!" as though King's life and speeches reflect conservative philosophies. So, is it any surprise they would attempt to mislead people to believe Susan B. Anthony would have been pro-life? Is it possible that they chose to ignore facts about Anthony's life, her political leanings, and criticism of the suffragette published during her lifetime?

It is a mistake to call Miss Anthony a reformer, or the movement in which she is engaged a reform; she is a revolutionist, aiming at nothing less than the breaking up of the very foundations of society, and the overthrow of every social institution organized for the protection of the sanctity of the altar, the family circle and the legitimacy of our offspring, recognizing no religion but self-worship, no God but human reason, no motive to human action but lust. Many, undoubtedly, will object that we state the case too strongly; but if they will dispassionately examine the facts and compare them with the character of the leaders and the inevitable tendency of their teachings, they must be convinced that the apparently innocent measure of woman suffrage as a remedy for woman's wrongs in over-crowded populations, is but a pretext or entering wedge by which to open Pandora's box and let loose upon society a pestilential brood to destroy all that is pure and beautiful in human nature, and all that has been achieved by organized associations in religion, morality and refinement; that the whole plan is coarse, sensual and agrarian, the worst phase of French infidelity and communism....

She did not directly and positively broach the licentious social theories which she is known to entertain, because she well knew that they would shock the sensibilities of her audience, but confined her discourse to the one subject of woman suffrage as a means to attain equality of competitive labor. This portion of her lecture we have not time to discuss. Our sole purpose 402 now is to enter our protest against the inculcation of doctrines which we believe are calculated to degrade and debauch society by demolishing the dividing lines between virtue and vice. It is true that Miss Anthony did not openly advocate "free love" and a disregard of the sanctity of the marriage relation, but she did worse—under the guise of defending women against manifest wrongs, she attempts to instil into their minds an utter disregard for all that is right and conservative in the present order of society. (From the Territorial Despatch of Seattle, edited by Beriah Brown as quoted by Harper in Volume 1 of her Anthony biography)

Harper then writes in the biography: "Apparently Mr. Brown did not approve of woman suffrage. According to his own statement Miss Anthony confined her entire discourse to the one point of competitive labor. The editorial was founded wholly upon his own depraved imagination.."

Brown was a supporter of civil rights for African-Americans, but apparently put his foot down on uppity women folk. He was also mayor of Seattle, Washington, for a year in 1878.

At risk of giving ammunition to conservatives who would lash out at the PA Editor's Blog and despite being pro-choice myself, I must poke its "... Susan B. Anthony was a socialist" post. Yeah, the Republicans should be honest and acknowledge that Anthony embraced socialist ideals and most likely would not be on the side of anti-abortion politics, and therefore, they should not have created anything in her name to honor that cause. The Susan B. Anthony List champions the pro-life cause in the cloak of women's equality.

Undoubtedly, had the conservatives behind the project done their research, they may have gone with a different name for that list, which is perhaps a knock off of Emily's list. Nevertheless, the fact is Susan B. Anthony was not technically a socialist.

The Worker, (New York) : Although Miss Anthony was not a Socialist, we Socialists cannot refrain from paying her honor, for she was a brave woman who honestly devoted her life to a great cause—only an integral part of our Socialist program, indeed, but still great even by itself. (from the appendix of The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony: including public addresses, her own papers ... by Harper, published 1908)

I'm on an accuracy in political warfare kick lately, which I expressed in my post about the tug-o-war over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her sexual orientation, whether or not she is gay. When scoring political points, we should honor facts and avoid giving opponents a handy stick with which to beat us.

Swinging at the Elena Kagan Gay Rumor

This is the photo that sparked the fuss. Critics have stirred the
pot, claiming the Wall Street Journal used this old Kagan photo
to stoke innuendo. A WSJ spokesperson denies the allegation.

Internet gossip and a photo have ignited debate about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's sexual orientation. In the photo, she's playing baseball: So, is she or isn't she gay?

Last month the White House objected to a CBS News blog written by Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration staffer, who asserts Kagan is a lesbian. The Obama administration said emphatically that Kagan is heterosexual. However, the controversy escalated with Andrew Sullivan's post at The Atlantic's "Daily Dish," demanding proof that Kagan is not gay.

Others, like the women of ABC's The View and Benjamin Sarlin at The Daily Beast, have taken swings at the innuendo with queries, such as "Does Kagan's sexual orientation matter?" and -- given the Obama administration's definitive answer that she is not gay -- "Is the question fair?" and "Is it unethical for a journalist to slant a piece to suggest she is gay with no evidence?" .... Please read more at BlogHer.com.

Obama Shunning Fox News: Well, That Didn't Last Long

The Huffington Post reports that President Barack Obama will be giving an interview to Fox News next week. Placed in the context of the supposed "boycott" and "war" his administration had waged on the highly-partisan "news" network, this revelation will intrigue quite a few people. Per the article:

The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn -- the so-called general in the administration's war against Fox News -- will be stepping down.

I'm not surprised. While I hate Fox News, I was not one of the anti-Fox News people applauding the White House's public opposition to Fox. I thought while that tactic may have worked during Obama's campaign, it seemed both unwise and inappropriate for the president of a free press country to appear to be at war with a major network no matter how insane the network's staff, anchors, and how biased its reporting.

Nevertheless, I do think President Obama should withhold the meat and give Fox News crumbs. He should not squander much of his valuable time on a network that persists in reporting the news inaccurately and fueling crazy conspiracy theories about the government under Obama. He is a man for whom the right wing ramped up to vilify before he even completed a full year of office. In fact, it was fairly early in his administration that the opposition's hatred of Obama matched the passion it took Bush's opponents eight years to build. Clearly they're with Limbaugh who immediately said after Obama took office, "I hope Obama fails."

If ever there was a case of whiners singing la-la-la-la with their fingers in their ears, it's the right in how it has handled Obama's brief time in office, and Fox News has actively promoted sticking fingers in the ears. Should anyone take a moment to pull those fingers out, that network of partisan pundits is waiting to cram heads with misinformation and viral paranoia.

Fox News is not a news network. It's a conservative opinion mill, a right-wing propaganda machine. Always has been. But the POTUS has to be stronger and cooler than a network of wackos.

Is Lou Dobbs Leaving CNN to Fight a Shadow Communist Regime?

I'll admit upfront that that's a snarky and misleading blog headline even though it's written in the form of a question, but as I listened to Lou Dobbs say farewell to CNN this evening, despite his eloquence and gracious tone, I kept thinking he sounds like a man he thinks he's been backed into a corner. Furthermore, it sounds like he's saying the Democratic-controlled congress and the President don't represent him.

Well, he has been one of the people in the news to keep promoting the birthers belief that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Maybe he really believes what he's saying and he's said. Here's part of the resignation speech he gave tonight on CNN:

I truly believe that the major issues of our time include the growth of our middle class, the creation of more jobs, health care, immigration policy, the environment, climate change, and our military involvement, of course, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But each of those issues is in my opinion informed by our capacity to demonstrate strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy and demonstrate the political will to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C. I believe these to be profoundly critically important issues and I will continue to strive to deal honestly and straightforwardly with those issues in the future.

Unfortunately, these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion. I'll be working diligently to change that as best I can. And, as for the important work of restoring inspiration to our great free society and our market economy, I will strive as well to be a leader in that national conversation. (Full transcript at CNN)

I've never paid attention to Dobbs, but I know he's had some other bloggers addled and angry, and some activists have called for his resignation or that CNN fire him. Here are some posts that will school you on what's rocked Mr. Dobbs's world lately:

• Soldedad Obrien, Lou Dobbs, and CNN's Latinos in America: Professor Kim at BlogHer examines in part of this post the following and has video of Dobbs:

  Unfortunately for O'Brien, her colleague Lou Dobbs has so angered Latino activists and bloggers that her quality work is at risk of being ignored. For years, Dobbs has been pushing the narrative that that porous borders and uncontrolled immigration, primarily from Mexico, has weakened the US economy and made us more vulnerable to crime and terrorism.

• There was a Drop Dobbs campaign. See DropDobbs.com (Dobbs vs. the Facts), and Media Matters has also kept Dobbs under a microscope and one of its writers asked why CNN would keep a man who doesn't subscribe to fair and balanced reporting. He's obviously partisan.
• At the blog Anyway I Have To, the blogger wonders at Lou Dobbs's double talk on Obama's birth certificate.
• At Hatewatch, part of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a staff blogger explained Why I Urged CNN to Take Dobbs Off the Air

  For years, Dobbs has been trading in baseless, conspiratorial claims that originate on the radical right. Most recently, he’s given credence to the utterly discredited claim that President Obama was not born in this country and so is not eligible to be president. It’s a claim that’s been debunked many times over. CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called it “a joke.” But it’s a claim that continues to circulate in radical right circles. James von Brunn, the neo-Nazi accused of killing the Holocaust Memorial Museum guard, for example, promoted the claim on the Internet and berated the media for not taking it seriously.

• And Professor Tracey at Aunt Jemima's Revenge has had a pet name for Dobbs. She calls him Looney Lou.
• Over at Crooks and Liars a while back: Lou Dobbs Emulates Glenn Beck With Attack on "Czar" Ron Bloom for Quoting Mao-tse Tung
• At Hufffington Post, the July 24 article Major Civil Rights Group Demands CNN Remove Lou Dobbs From The Air:

  The SPLC isn't the first group to have demanded the removal of Dobbs. Yesterday, the progressive watchdog group Media Matters blasted out a press release to reporters charging that "CNN has a very serious Lou Dobbs problem."
  
  And it seemed as though the message was starting to sink in. TVNewser reported today that Jon Klein sent a memo to a group of Dobbs' staffers explaining in no uncertain terms that the whole "birthers" story is "dead." (However, as the Huffington Post article goes onto say, Jonathan Klein, who is president of CNN, backtracked with the tough talk.)

• Finally, Dobbs complained last month that people have been making threats, shooting at his family,l as Field Negro discusses, and writing on Dobb's resignation, he indicates he thinks Dobbs is headed for Fox News.

Lou says he's moving on to opportunities better suited to him since he and Klein agreed it would best for CNN to release him from his contract. Perhaps he's off to give Rush Limbaugh a run for his money or as I suggested in the beginning of this post, to spin his wheels fighting shadows.

Obama Responds to Domestic Violence Legal Aid Question in New Orleans

I'm working on a Domestic Violence Awareness Month post for BlogHer.com, and had planned to include the question from a woman in my hometown to Barack Obama during his visit to New Orleans on October 15. The president was keeping his promise to visit the city before the year's end to check on progress four years after Hurricane Katrina. He held a Town Hall at the University of New Orleans, and I couldn't go. Dental surgery. However, I was able to watch his appearance live on TV.

One woman's question stuck with me regarding the need for more legal aid funding for victims of domestic violence. I thought I would include her question in my BlogHer post. However, as I was working on that, I decided it was too long, and too much. I know we need more funding, but I didn't have the time to gather the figures behind the fact. And so, I realized that it would better to post her question here on my blog as a reference link with a little commentary following.

Here's her question and the president's response.

Q Hi, Mr. President. My name is Narkise Barack (phonetic).

THE PRESIDENT: Is that right? Wow! (Laughter.) You and me. (Laughter.)

Q And I'm a single mom of three daughters. I have my eldest here -- she's 12 years old.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, you. What's her name?

Q Yasmine.

THE PRESIDENT: Yasmine? That's a nice name.

Q Yes. And she goes to Lusher, which is one of the top schools here. (Applause.) My question has to do with an article that came out today in the Times Picayune in which it reported that Tom Perrelli, the Associate Attorney General, was lauding local non-governmental and governmental agencies in the effort to help women who were victims of domestic violence.

I don't know if you know, but the rates of domestic violence rose quite dramatically after Katrina and have continued to rise. And one of the problems is we've got agencies that are helping women with things like therapy and food and help with their children. The problem is that our legal aid clinics -- Tulane, Loyola, NoLAC -- all of these clinics have been so overburdened with cases that have to do with Katrina, that a lot of people can't get access to legal help.

Now, the segment of the population that's most suffering from this are women, and by extension, children. You can sit in court in Jefferson Parish, in Orleans Parish, for a whole day and watch a whole docket of cases, and not a single woman has legal counsel. So I wanted to ask you -- I know that you and Mr. Biden have been supporters of the Violence Against Women Act, and I was wondering what you can do to ensure that women in Southeast Louisiana have their civil rights protected and their due process protected. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. As I mentioned, speaking broadly, obviously there continue to be concerns about crime in the region, post-Katrina. And not only have we helped to fund Mayor Nagin and others to be able to rehire cops and rebuild police stations and so forth, but also to build a more effective judicial system, because that goes with it. We've set up a violent crimes task force that is up and running, and coordinates between the FBI and all the various local and state agencies.

So there are a range of steps that we've taken generally to address crime. But I think you're making a really powerful point, which is that when it comes to domestic violence, oftentimes that's under-reported because women don't feel that they have the support they need in order to step out from those situations. The issue of legal representation is still a big problem.

So what I'd like to do is to learn more specifically about what's happening here. I will ask -- I'll probably ask Tom Perrelli, since you mentioned him, who is Deputy Attorney General, to make sure that he investigates specifically how we can work more effectively with the legal aid organizations down here to provide more support. So thank you for bringing that to my attention. That's great. (Applause.) Transcript at LA Times

The president was correct that his man Perrelli is the one who should have an answer. The Deputy Attorney General preceded his boss and was in the city the day before talking about the domestic violence crisis in Katrina's aftermath.

“It’s rare that any community would face devastation across every aspect of the system, from transitional housing to courts,” said U.S. Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, in visit to the metro area.

Perrelli spent the day in New Orleans, meeting with advocates who work with domestic violence victims and getting a first-hand look at efforts to confront the problem.

“Louisiana, historically, has had incidents of domestic violence among one of the worst in the states and [was] number one based on the 2007 data, the most recent data we have,” Perrelli said.

The problem, though, extends beyond the city limits and into rural areas. One such instance occurred last month in rural Livingston Parish. That is where 50-year-old Dennis Carter killed his estranged wife, his son and his two-year-old grandson, before killing himself. Carter’s wife had filed a restraining order against him. Victims’ advocates said protecting domestic violence victims in rural areas remains a challenge.

“We’re talking about very rural, remote communities, where truly innovative solutions need to be found for those needs,” said Catherine Pierce, with the Office of Violence Against Women. (New Orleans Top Stories)

We had horrible domestic violence stats before the storm, and just as domestic violence is reported to have increased across the nation with the recession, cases of domestic violence seem to have worsened as Gulf Coast families buckled under Katrina devastation.

And yet, the domestic violence crisis down here, the increase and the need for funding still doesn't get the media attention you'd expect. Yes, the media will cover a murder but doesn't do as much as it could to make the public more aware of the signs of domestic violence and what we can all do to prevent abuse among family members.

For instance, I surfed our daily newspaper's site, NOLA.com aka The Times Picayune, for stories on the domestic violence crisis. Despite it being domestic violence awareness month, the paper's search engine found only one story specifically focused on domestic violence and proactive solutions published in the last three months. It's about a program in St. Bernard Parish. What appears to be a second such story on domestic violence funding is a repeat of the first St. Bernard article, and the only other stories are those about specific domestic violence crimes, in other words, run of the mill if it bleeds it leads news.

In fact the only other story I can see to add is one about Perrelli's visit and his praise for the city's progress under duress.

Even in the paper's story about the president's visit to the city in which the single mother's question is mentioned, the reporter underplays the value of her query to the president, writing "But the rest of the queries concerned domestic violence prevention, immigration laws and the ongoing health-care debate -- issues that could come up in any American city, even if some of them are felt more acutely in post-Katrina New Orleans."

My adventure in reading about domestic violence and New Orleans causes me to say that the action vice president for NOW is most likely right, domestic violence is not getting the attention from mainstream media that such a serious topic deserves.