www.firedupmissouri.com

POLITICAL CRITICISM IS NOT NEW

By Jean Carnahan

Submitted by Jean Carnahan on Thu, 10/06/2005 - 8:51am. Guest Editorials


Back in 1902, a plucky political cartoonist depicted Gov. Samuel Pennypacker as an over-weight parrot. Each time the Pennsylvania politician opened his newspaper, there was another fat parrot with his face on it. Finally, Pennypacker had enough and threatened to make it a crime to depict a human being as an animal. The cartoonist relented and never again portrayed Pennypacker as an animal. After that, he drew the governor as a vegetable—a very large zucchini.

Since Colonial days, writers have used humor as well as stern commentary to unmask hypocrisy, foolishness, and corruption in government. Much like bloggers today, the so-called pamphleteers used short, anonymous essays to monitor their leaders and question their decisions. The widely-disseminated pamphlets, like weblogs, were easily accessible, provocative, uncensored, and cheap.

Journalism professor Chris Daly made a further comparison: “In historical terms, today’s bloggers are much closer in spirit to the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers than today’s giant, conglomerate mainstream media. On those grounds, blogs deserve the full constitutional blessings that the First Amendment guarantees.”

Using Daly’s description, Thomas Paine, a patriot and pamphleteer, might also be considered a “Colonial blogger.” Best remembered for his quote that begins, “These are the times that try men’s souls,” Paine wrote an anonymous, incendiary little tract entitled Common Sense that advocated American independence. Another anonymous “blogger” wrote Cato’s Letters in which he came to the defense of political satirists of the era declaring,“Guilty men alone fear them.”

Inspired by post-Revolutionary fervor, political expression continued to grow. By the 19th century newspapers were helping to shape opinion, encourage voting, support candidates, attack opponents, and convey the message of their favorite party or cause. During his presidential campaign, Andrew Jackson may have preferred his more heroic title, “Old Hickory,” but the press dubbed him “King Andrew.” Later, Thomas Nast, the popular news cartoonist joined the political fray, lampooning both parties and creating the Democratic donkey and Republican elephant symbols that still define our national parties.

But robust political commentary sometimes got out of hand. Such was the case in 1856, when B. Gratz Brown, a legislator and editor of the St. Louis Missouri Democrat, engaged in one of the last political duels fought in Missouri—a dispute with Thomas Chaute Reynolds, over a series of inflammatory editorials written by Brown. Wounded in the leg during the shootout, Brown went on to become Governor, but he walked with a limp the rest of his life.

By the early twentieth century, social and political criticism flourished, ranging from the acerbic Lincoln Steffens, decrying corruption in our cities to Will Rogers, the good-natured humorist, who made a living by poking fun at politicians, technology, and corporate wrongdoing. Today the antics of officeholders still provide a storehouse of material for late-night comics such as Jay Leno and vociferous bloggers like Wonkette.

According to Alison Olson, continuous ridicule can be politically devastating. In her analysis of political satire, she points out that “laughter [is] the gentlest way of belittling and isolating [an officeholder] and even of turning him out.” She considered it a “way to reveal the public crimes of men” that could not be done through the courts.

Unlike their feisty counterparts of yesteryear, the “he-said, she-said” journalists of today report the news rather than express a viewpoint anywhere but on the editorial pages. In cyberspace, citizen scribes feel no such restraints. Bloggers are fearless and persistent in the search for truth that they feel is too often overlooked or under-reported. For example, Sen. Trent Lott’s racist remark that resulted in his resignation as senate majority leader, was advanced by bloggers after being ignored by the mainstream media. Bloggers also persisted in investigating President’s Bush’s National Guard story and in keeping the Cindy Sheehan cause alive.

Blogging is not likely to go away, though the rules may evolve as ten million bloggers gear up to engage in the greatest expression of free speech in world history. As one blogger suggested, there now exists a fifth estate to which our leaders must answer and it is far more probing and demanding then the mainstream media. Such exposure will most certainly heighten the accountability among the elected. But as bloggers continues to identify wrongdoing, you can also expect a vitriolic reaction like the one expressed recently by the governor’s chief of staff.

As the intrepid blogger, Roy Temple, is prone to say, “Stuck pigs squeal.” Shame on you, Roy, for the animal analogy. In deference to Gov. Pennypacker, in your next pamphlet just say, “Rotten apples are odiferous.”

Blog on.

(an oldie but goodie)


www.firedupmissouri.com

ROVERIAN POLITICS

by Jean Carnahan

09/19/2005 - 12:57pm. Guest Editorials

The President literally changed horses in the middle of the stream last week, putting "Heckava Job" Brownie out to pasture and wagering his last bit of political capital on a nag by the name of T-Blossom, who is used to slogging it out on a muddy track. Yes, Bush saddled his favorite political steed, Karl Rove, with the enormous political and economic task of rebuilding the Big Easy. To make the job more alluring he threw in—for starters--$200 billion to excite all the participants.

Later, President Bush addressed the nation from the historic French Quarter, posing in front of a stage-lit cathedral that looked like a backdrop for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. But he did not mention Karl. Instead, he dished up a generous etouffee of promises and revealed enough forthcoming federal goodies to make Halliburton drool with anticipation.

I was stunned. I thought I was listening to an earlier Texan—Lyndon Johnson, expound his plan for the Great Society. Actually, the speech was vintage Hooverism with the President ready to offer evacuees a front porch on every house and a beignet in every deep fryer.

Still, it was a special moment. Once blinded by indifference to the underclass, the scales had fallen from the Executive eyes. Now a transformed soul, the President unveiled a vision for New Orleans that would be the envy of Tutankhamen and his pyramid builders . . .and . . . and . . . catch your breath—all at no cost to the top one percent of taxpayers! The news brought tears of joy to those gathered in yacht clubs and boardrooms all across America.

Republicans who still have a modicum of decency are troubled by the Wimpy-Hamburger theory of economics embraced by the Bushies. The Popeye cartoon character is best remembered for the line: "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Economics 101 taught us that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays. In the Bush administration, that is all hooey. Nobody pays. At least nobody pays today. You want to leave something to your kids? How about a nice chunk of national debt to keep their noses to the grindstone.

Well, I don't mean to be throwing cold water on the rebuilding effort. Dat gummit, we are Americans and we can overcome anything. Fix anything. Make everything better. That's always been our attitude. But usually we’ve had leaders willing to level with us, lay out the plan, and call for the shared sacrifice needed for a solution. That's what we're missing here. We hope that our government—the one tasked with the "welfare of the people" and the one that Bush, Inc. has spent nearly five years dismembering—will miraculously reconnect, come to life, like the proverbial dry bones.

For now it looks like Karl is the go to man for the job. Lord, help us. "Brownie" was simply harmless and dull, but "Dr. Evil" is brilliant, cunning, and loathsome. Never mind that this is not Karl's line of work. But it might be his salvation. Who would indict a man engaged in so noble a work? The administration gets a "double whammy:" Karl's atonement and Bush's revival.

Looking at the Blossom, my heart yearns for a Gen. George Marshall, respected and proven in something more than political slugfests. The Marshall Plan rebuilt war-torn Europe, jumpstarted their economy, and restored hope to a ravished continent.

I don’t know if there’s a NOLA reconstruction plan on Karl's drawing board yet, but you can bet that there’s a plan for putting the presidential Humpty Dumpty back together again ASAP. Just look for Karl to be Karl, whether he's proping up his political protégé, funneling unbid contracts to corporate cronies, perfecting the blame game, or obliterating as many political foes as possible. George Marshall he ain't.

In the high stakes Monopoly game underway on the Gulf Coast, look for Karl to ignore the rules, intimidate the players, and break the bank. But with special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald waiting his turn at the table, Karl had better hold on to his Get Out of Jail Free card. He may be needing it.

Note: Two Carnahan "kids" -- Russ and Robin -- are rising stars in Missouri politics.

Russ Carnahan was elected to the U.S. Congress in 2004.

Robin Carnahan was elected to be Missouri's Secretary of State in 2004.

(Somewhere on some forum I said that Russ Carnahan was a member of the Senate, and now I don't know where I posted it. Oops. Not the first time I have made that mistake. Once I wrote in a scrapbook that my very own local state rep was a state senator. Real bad oops.)

www.firedupmissouri.com


Submitted by Jean Carnahan on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 10:05am. Guest Editorials

DINO AND DARWIN
by Jean Carnahan

Now if you enjoyed the Flintstones and Dino, their pet dinosaur, you’ll love the 50,000-sq. foot museum under construction in Petersburg, Kentucky. Well, maybe. . . . The privately-funded creationists’ complex known as Genesis Park is premised on the belief that dinosaurs showed up in the Garden of Eden the same week that Adam and Eve arrived. Promoters cannot abide the notion that dinosaurs became extinct long before man walked the earth. Backers are spending $25 million to prove their point, which they see as necessary to shore up their Intelligent Design theory (ID).

Now, if the ID’ers want to believe that the world was formed a mere 6,000 years ago, despite all the evidence that the Creator left to the contrary, that’s fine. God has a sense of humor. But there are those who believe that He took a different course, creating a universe that took billions of years more then the ID’ers calculate. Those who disagree with them are not heathens, but thoughtful believers who do not find God and science incompatible.

Cosmologist Brian Swimme says, “I believe that God’s revelations are happening all the time and will continue to happen. That’s the sacred story of evolution.” The mysteries of His universe are, indeed, ours to discover.

So why do the ID’ers want to spend such vast sums to prove creation as they view it? Certainly, it is not a Biblical imperative. Scripture clearly and repeatedly teaches that we should be about improving the lot of the poor, the hurting, and the helpless among us. But there is no command to promote creation techniques or timetables.

What is stressed are the “weightier matters”—justice, mercy and faith. (Mat. 23:23). These are the virtues taught by the Bible and the requirements placed upon the godly. Lives built on these beliefs demonstrate His power, glory, and existence far more than an ideological Jurassic Park or divisive political agenda.

Because true religion is a life-consuming pursuit, hypocrites of every generation have looked for other ways to show their piety. Like the theocrats of old, (false prophets, Pharisees, Sadducees), they prefer to set the religious rules themselves and compel others to follow them. It is not surprising that Jesus reserved His sternest rebuke for those who intentionally led others astray under the guise of righteousness.

Biology professor and ordained Dominican priest Francisco J. Ayala declared, “Taking the Bible as astronomy or physics is blasphemy. They’re treating it as an elementary textbook and it’s not. We believe that God created the world . . . they misread, misquote and misuse the Bible.”

I recall my religion professor, an imminent Presbyterian theologian, saying, “If you could prove to my intellectual satisfaction, which you can't, that there is no God, I would still believe. If you could prove, which you can't, that prayer is no more than air vibrations, I would still pray."

Now, that is faith and that’s what religion is about. Science, however, is objective, quantitative, and formula based. We want science for uncovering solutions to diseases, for exploring the universe and finding new way to preserve the earth. Religion, on the other hand, is personal, relational, and extrasensory. It is our faith that we turn to in coping with the complexities and uncertainties of daily life.

Religion and science are two parts of our existence—the physical and the spiritual. While they sometimes appear to be at odds, I refuse to see one as inherently misguided or wrong. When either triumphs or attempts to intrude upon the other, our lives are lessened by the lost. Let science be science. Let it be the work of discovery by our universities and research labs. Let the church, the synagogue, the mosque promote the works of faith.

There will always be scientists who will press too far, testing the boundaries of acceptable research. Likewise, there will always be fundamentalist of all faiths, who will use religion to foment hate or to line their own pockets. Both extremes must be rejected without discarding the sound teachings of either religion or science.

Vast sums spent on theme parks to advance an ideological viewpoint do nothing to address the root causes of hatred, poverty, or disease. But such efforts do have the potential for dividing Americans and further politicizing the role of religion in our country. When that happens, we will truly be taking a step back in time.

www.firedupmissouri.com

Submitted by Jean Carnahan on Mon, 11/14/2005 - 11:50pm. Guest Editorials

HOW THE REPUBLICANS STOLE CHRISTMAS
by Jean Carnahan

You might not recognize the name Bill Press until you see his picture on the back flap of his new book, How the Republicans Stole Christmas. But many will recall him as a reflective, no-nonsense political commentator on Crossfire, The Spin Room, as well as host of his own radio talk show. Just so you know this isn't a Dr. Seuss knockoff, the quirky book name carries a subtitle: The Republican Party's Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can Do to Take It Back.

The author and one-time seminarian is truly angry as he recounts the Republican march toward a theocratic America. According to Press, the religious right has misused Christianity and re-invented the church as a political propaganda machine. He feels that the conservative preachers—Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and many Catholic bishops have gone too far in banishing everyone to a fiery hell who does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible or their view of the Almighty. Going to church should not require "taking a loyalty oath to the Republican party," Press declares.

You can almost see the smoke curling from his nostrils as he writes: "Who gave this gang the inside track on religion, anywhere? The way I read the gospels, Jesus was as liberal as Paul Wellstone . . . . There's one gang he wouldn't hang out with and that's this phony bunch of pious, puffed-up preachers who wear religion on their sleeves."

In successive chapters, the author points out the spiritual hypocrisy of fundamentalists on such issues as the separation of church and state, abortion, stem cell research, war, school prayer, gays and lesbians, and the death penalty.

He concludes by asking: "Whose professed values are more in line with the word of Scripture—not to mention the Constitution of the United States? . . . Which party's principles and policies will more quickly lead to our national ideal: 'One Nation, Under God, with Liberty and Justice for All?'"

"Put in that context," Press argues, "Democrats will win every time."

But more than lambasting the Republican grinches, Press says that his work is a "fervent call to Democrats and liberals to reclaim religion and return it to its basic principles of social justice, charity and tolerance."

For a lot of good reasons, it's the perfect book for Christmas.