DAILY CHAI

Pragmatism Populism Prism

2009-12-21T10:56:00.001-05:00

It's hard to argue with the core argument of progressives regarding the current Senate health care bill, that by mandating individuals to buy health care but not creating a public option, or at least a national exchange, to keep insurance companies honest, the bill is delivering millions into the coffers of Aetna, Cigna and Mass Mutual without getting anything in return. (Although Nate Silver argues that the public option was a progressive pipe dream, even in a 60-seat Senate.)

How does one start off with the great populist political issue of our generation and end up with a corporatist, capitalist gift that sends insurance company stock soaring? To think people actually called Obama a socialist...

I am still holding back complete judgment. There is a good chance that the cost containment measures in the bill will do what lefties expected of the public option. It will bend the deficit curve. It will end corrupt insurance industry practices such as denial of pre-existing conditions, etc. It will cover 31 million more Americans. It's a giant, gargantuan step in the right direction.

At the end of the day, this may be the best our clunky, corrupt Congress could achieve, and as such, an argument for pragmatic incrementalism. Get what you can now, fight for more later. Once the economy recovers, once we pass an energy reform bill, once Obama wins a second term, we can go back and create a public option later. That's the argument.

Hardly a heady campaign slogan, hardly the fierce urgency of now...and there lies the difference between politics and government. Change is a bitch.

Using Space and the V'ant Kruijs

2009-11-05T21:35:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I played the black pieces in an easy win against a lower-ranked player. It was a bit one-sided, but the game involved an interesting series of moves that are worth examining.

My opponent opened (unintentionally) with the V'ant Kruijs opening, an irregular opening that is not recommended (it blocks the dark bishop, low statistical odds, etc.), and moreover, unfortunately for him, I had just seen the best statistical defense to the V'ant Kruijs played by Indian GM Vishy Anand a few days ago.

Black's defense is very elegant, I love how the board looks for black at 6. ...Be7.

The most pivotal moves of this game came at the end of the opening, in moves 11-14. It begins with white making a small error at 11. Qd3, when he advances his queen with no apparent end in mind. This is a common amateur error, moving pieces without intention. I do it all the time. It almost always hurts you.

Watch how his queen gets trapped in that alley when I respond with 11. ...Qa5, pinning the knight to the white king, and forcing him to move 12. Bd2 to free his King from the pin, further walling his queen in. She is now surrounded by her own pieces. When I move 12. ...c4, she has no safe square to escape to.

One of the hardest things to learn as an amateur player is how to play in space, and use it against your opponent. As a low-ranked amateur myself, I am just starting to figure this out. The book teaches that if you gain an advantage in material, you should "trade down", i.e., look for every chance to exchange pieces with your opponent and reduce the number of pieces on the board (while maintaining your numerical advantage), thereby hastening the endgame.

The "trade down" rule does NOT apply when you have a spatial advantage. Click on move 12 below, compare white and black - notice how cramped white's pieces are compared to mine. His rooks, dark bishop, knight and queen are trapped and have nowhere to go. In this situation, trading down actually helps your opponent by clearing space for him to move. The better option in this situation is to increase the pressure without exchanging your pieces.

That is what I did with 12. ...c4. At this point, white is in trouble. There is no safe square for his queen to escape to, and the only pieces she can capture are pawns. In this situation, when your back is against the wall, there is often a way to turn the tables. My opponent almost found it.

He moves 13. Nxd5, opening up a discovered attack from his bishop on my queen, and attacking my knight and bishop. (Slightly better would have been Ne4 - threatens by queen and knight, and from here, his knight is not under threat like it is at d5). I responded with 13. ...Qxd5, moving my queen to safety, capturing his knight, and pinning the pawn on g2.

He moves 14. Qxc4, which offers an exchange, but remember that trading down when you have a spatial advantage is not advisable. His move also ignores the pin on the g2 pawn and h1 rook. A better move for white would have been to leave his queen where she was, but keep the pressure on my queen with Bf3. This would have put me on the defensive and given him the space to mount an offensive.

Those four moves really decided the game. Once I penetrated the second rank with my queen and bishop, it was only a matter of time.

Note: Another point of interest. The endgame begins at 23. ...Qxe3+, when I capture his bishop and check the king. A move back, my opponent made the blunder of moving his queen off the third rank to pointlessly threaten my rooks - this was a stupid mistake. If he had not done that, my move would not have been possible.

But notice how, despite my large advantage at the beginning of the endgame, I have to sacrifice both my rooks to finish him off. This is in part because of his two rooks guarding the back rank, and in part because my king was trapped behind his pawn wall, so I needed to keep his king in perpetual check to avoid checkmate myself. I like this endgame a lot. It was very efficient, which is unlike me.

Don't Panic.

2009-11-03T20:24:00.013-05:00

This game pretty well illustrates the perils of bringing your queen out too quickly to chase after the elusive butterfly of an early checkmate. Not to mention the lesson of not panicking early.

My opponent got a little excited when he saw the possibility of a combination checkmate in four moves and moved 3. Qf3 (hoping for 4. Qf7#). He sacrificed center control and early development to chase after that f7 pawn, and while he did so, I calmly gained center control (4. ...Be7) and castled my king (5. ...O-O).

When the exchange at f7 was over, I was down a rook and a pawn (6 points) to his knight and bishop (6 points). An even exchange of material, but it left me with devastating center control and him with an exposed queen, no development, and an unprotected king.

Witness how center control allowed me to walk in his front door, figuratively speaking, with 11. ...Qxe5 and then with 14. ...Qxd3+.

My pivotal move was 13. ...Ng4!, threatening his white queen with my black knight. Yielding to the temptation of capturing my knight with his pawn would have resulted in a disastrous line for White:

14. fxNg4...Qxg2+

15. Ke1...Bh4+

16. Kd1...Bxg4+

17. Qe2...QxQ#.

(Update: A reader just made a great point - at move 15 in the hypothetical line above, moving the King out of check to e1 wouldn't be white's best move. White would be very slightly better off blocking the check with his own queen and offering a queen sacrifice. Great point, and in this case, the line would be:

15. Qf2...Bxg4+ I decline the exchange and check with my bishop

If 16. Ke1...QxRh1+ I capture the rook on the back rank and check

If 16. Kd2...QxQ+ I take his queen and check. Still disastrous.)

He had no choice but to withdraw his queen (although he should have moved it to d2) and give up further control of the center, allowing 14. ...Qxd3+ and the ensuing checkmate.

A classic lesson, it seems to me, of playing your game and not letting your opponent's attempts to disrupt your opening throw you off.

Sita Sings the Blues

2009-09-28T00:01:00.003-04:00

In honor of Vijaydashami, I am presenting "Sita Sings the Blues" by Nina Paley.

This animated movie is a beautiful work of art and of creative storytelling. It is a worthy inclusion in the archives of the many diverse artistic interpretations of the Ramayana that have existed throughout history. Learn more at http://www.sitasingstheblues.com.

This film is being distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, which means anyone can copy, share and screen it. Please therefore consider supporting the worldwide distribution of this film by donating even a small amount here.

Enjoy!

Part 1 of 10:

Part 2 of 10:

Part 3 of 10:

Part 4 of 10:

Part 5 of 10:

Part 6 of 10:

Part 7 of 10:

Part 8 of 10:

Part 9 of 10:

Part 10 of 10:

HAPPY VIJAYADASHAMI TO ALL!

Patience is a Virtue

2009-09-19T07:11:00.000-04:00

This is a really interesting game if you're a fan of positioning and tactics, as opposed to the games that feature quick sacrifices and lots of exchanges.

I am trying to focus on playing for position rather than just trying to capture and kill. My opponent was a bit cautious early, choosing to surrender position rather than exchange pieces. Then he made a gigantic blunder, lost his queen in move 13, and never recovered.

When you get lucky and win your opponent's queen very early, there is a big temptation to assert your advantage in material by going on a killing spree. That can be dangerous against a seasoned player.

It took until move 35 for me to checkmate him because this was a closed game, with a pawn jungle smack in the middle of the board that hurt the mobility of both sides. It required some foresight and tricky maneuvering.

Note: This game also featured the rarely used "en passant" move (move 15), the only time a pawn is allowed to capture sideways. I had actually never captured en passant before, so that was kind of cool. More on the obscure en passant rule here.

The Perils of an Uncastled King

2009-09-14T21:23:00.000-04:00

Another game with me playing the black pieces. This one illustrates the importance of white controlling the center and castling early. He didn't do so, and allowed me to exploit the wide open center with multiple attacks on his exposed king.

Pros and grandmasters don't need to castle, they know how to protect exposed kings. Otherwise, castle your king. If not, stuff like this happens:

Strong Start, Gimpy Finish

2009-08-26T18:04:00.008-04:00

Check out this game, with me playing the black pieces. I started strong and defended the center, but took too long to close out my opponent.

The awesome knight fork (of the white king, queen and rook, plus double check) in Move# 19 should never have happened. I had a check mate there (19. ...Qh5#) and missed it. I then went on to miss 4 - count'em - 4 more chances to checkmate (20. ...Qg4#, 21. ...Ng2#, 22. ...g5# and 23. ...h6#) before finally closing the deal with 26. ...Rxg6#.

Pathetic. Lesson as always: there's always a better move if you're patient enough to search for it.

RIP Michael Jackson

2009-06-26T08:06:00.005-04:00

What a sad, weird day yesterday was.

I was at Best Buy around 6 pmwhen the guy next to me, while fingering his Blackberry, nudged his wife and murmured, “Says here Michael Jackson had a heart attack.” I glanced over, and there it was: “Jacko Suffers Cardiac Arrest, Rushed to UCLA Med Center.”

I was taken aback, but didn’t think any more about it. I think I figured he’s a relatively young guy, he’s physically fit, a dancer. Either the news is wrong, or he’ll be fine. Half an hour later, I came home to my wife checking a text from her brother: “Turn on the news. Michael is dead.”

The television immediately went on and stayed on until 1 in the morning. We watched without believing what we were seeing. They kept saying “unconfirmed reports of death”, so I fully expected them to say they had it wrong, that Michael was alive and recovering.

Then Jermaine Jackson came on the screen, and Michael’s body was wheeled out on a gurney, covered in a white sheet, immobile. Yet, it wasn’t until this morning that the reality of his death began to sink in.

I remember as a kid in boarding school listening furtively to Off the Wall and Thriller on my Sony Walkman after lights out, hoping the teachers wouldn't find out, sharing the headphones with my best friend, rocking out to Beat It and Billie Jean without fully understanding the words because the quality of the tapes was so bad. I remember for years thinking Michael was asking in Smooth Criminal: “Annie, are you walking, are you walking, Annie?”, and wondering why it mattered whether Annie was walking or not.

Then in 1991, an aunt got me Dangerous as a Christmas present, both the album, on audiotape, and the entire music video, on videotape. (Had CDs and DVDs not been invented yet? Yikes.) I watched and listened to them so many times I wore them out completely. Black or White was a groundbreaking track for the early 1990’s, at time when race relations in the US were incredibly frayed. The music video itself featured ground breaking technology and special effects. It was amazing to see so many cameos of famous people working with Michael on that album, like Michael Jordan, Eddie Murphy, Iman, David Bowie, Naomi Campbell and many others. Then there was the huge Superbowl halftime performance, and Heal the World. It seemed as if here was a man who understood the obligations of fame, a transcendent artist, entertainer and philanthropist, a unique icon worthy of admiration, the kind of guy who could sing Man in the Mirror and mean it.

Then the allegations of child sexual abuse came out, and he married Lisa Marie Presley, and dangled his baby from a balcony, and had one or ten too many plastic surgeries. I remember seeing him on TV in 2000, at some Kennedy Center gala, and being startled by how mask-like his face had become, almost like a skull. His nose was barely there, his chin looked as if it had literally been sanded down. He turned into a punch line for late-night comics, and everyone forgot about the musical genius behind Wacko Jacko.

Now he is dead. At some level, we all saw this coming. He was only 50, but his body, ravaged by so many surgeries, accidents and medications for chronic illnesses, was probably 15 or 20 years older. He may have been addicted to painkillers. As stunning as yesterday’s news was, it wasn’t surprising. I couldn’t imagine an 80-year-old Michael Jackson, wrinkled and stooped, going around on an ivory walking stick. Could you?

Someone on TV yesterday said it well: he spent his childhood living like an adult, then spent his adulthood trying to capture some unreal, idealized vision of childhood: with Neverland Ranch, Bubbles the Chimp, those odd relationships with kids. There was such a thin line there between genius and insanity.

Michael Jackson has occupied our collective consciousness for so long, his death truly feels like the end of an era. If you are around my age, it’s hard not to feel like a huge part of your childhood died with him. It seems like he struggled his whole life – with an autocratic father, with the demands of fame and fortune, with a world he didn’t understand, with troubling allegations and legal problems, with health issues and financial woes. And through all that, he remained a musical genius, a dancer of otherworldly ability, and a human being of incredible compassion and a world-size heart.

Michael, thanks for all the memories. I hope you have finally found peace.

American Jihad

2009-05-18T12:45:00.004-04:00

Robert Draper of GQ (GQ of all places) reports in an incredible article about the extent to which Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon filled its presidential briefings with prejudicial, slanted imagery (Iraqi kids kissing troops, raucous, friendly crowds) and painted the picture of a Christian crusade against Islam. They even included Biblical quotes with each report.

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”

We were fighting a holy war.

Click here for the full article, and here for a slideshow of images. It's fairly chilling.

Obama at Notre Dame

2009-05-17T17:53:00.006-04:00

I predict that President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame will go down in history - not just as one of the most important speeches in the Obama era, but as a speech that will be read and admired by many generations to come.

It took major chutzpah for him to wade into the hornet's nest of abortion politics, in swing state Indiana, take the politically powerful swing demographic of American Catholics head on, and come out not just unsullied but triumphant.

The speech is loaded with profound observations, and truly deserves to be watched and read in its entirety, but this was my favorite passage:

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

Update: Full video below.

On Jon Huntsman

2009-05-17T17:46:00.005-04:00

Andrew Sullivan lauds Obama's appointment of Gov. Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China as an example of Obama's highly underrated political cunning, implying a conscious strategy to bring moderate Repubs such as Hunstman, Robert Gates, Charlie Crist, Ray LaHood, etc. into his orbit and thereby radicalize and marginalize the GOP.

I agree on the effect, but not on the intent. I agree that Obama is a political savant, I just don't think his mindset is that cold and calculating. I think what we are seeing is just the natural result of a collaborative, politically un-ideological and open-minded approach.

Al Giordano expands on the political ramifications of this appointment on 2012 here. Well worth a quick read.

Jesse Ventura on Larry King

2009-05-12T17:30:00.002-04:00

"You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney, and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."

Classic.

Obama 100 in Pictures

2009-04-29T12:11:00.006-04:00

White House Photographer Peter Souza captures an amazing inside look on the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. A sampling of the iconic photographs will follow, but the entire (large) set of pictures can be viewed here.

Obama 100

2009-04-29T12:01:00.001-04:00

Mark Halperin of TIME grades the President, Administration, First Lady and Congress in this interesting article. For the record, Michelle scored an A+, while Barack came in with an A-. Sounds about right.

Read the whole thing here.

This is America, Jack

2009-04-23T23:22:00.005-04:00

I don't know what amazes me more. That the views expressed by Fox News anchor Shepard Smith below aren't universally held by every person who purports to love this country, or that these views were expressed by a Fox News anchor.

Shep Smith: "If we're going to be Ronald Reagan's "shining city on a hill", we don't get to torture. We don't do it."

Preach on, Shep.

Do the Right Thing

2009-04-23T23:09:00.003-04:00

This New York Times article discusses the reasons why the prospect of eventually indicting any of the architects of the Bush torture regime is unlikely:

Steep legal and political hurdles remain to criminal prosecutions of the high-level policy makers, and even lesser punishments — like disbarment of the lawyers who signed off on the program — are supported by few precedents, legal specialists say.

“Those who want heads to roll are likely to be dissatisfied,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of criminal law at Columbia University.

This news, while depressing, is ultimately beside the point. The goal of prosecution here is only secondarily indictment and punishment. Few rational people expect to see Dick Cheney in an orange jumpsuit. We must prosecute because it's the right thing to do, because it will have a chilling effect on future decision makers who willfully ignore our ideals for the sake of political expediency. It will remind everyone who has forgotten what this nation stands for.

Oh, Peggy...

2009-04-23T22:56:00.004-04:00

Andrew Sullivan exposes the incredible, rank hypocrisy of Peggy Noonan, who has now become the patron saint of torture apologists. With good reason:

Andrew in the Daily Dish:

"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial," - Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.

"It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious." - Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.

Remember also that the issue with Clinton was perjury in a civil suit. That required impeachment. But war crimes?

Faster, Peggy, faster.

Well done, Mr. Sullivan.

Is Waterboarding Torture?

2009-04-22T19:35:00.001-04:00

If there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind as to whether waterboarding is a particularly brutal form of torture, read the August 2008 article by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair, titled "Believe Me, It's Torture".

Hitchens (who is clearly intrepid bordering on insane) agreed to subject himself to a slightly milder form of waterboarding under very controlled conditions, so he could experience what it feels like. He wrote about the entire experience in the article you can read by clicking here.

The episode was also was filmed by Vanity Fair (Warning: It's mildly graphic):

I highly doubt whether the solicitousness these guys showed to Hitchens was extended to the prisoners and terrorists suspects. The question is simple, really. How far do we stray from our ideals in the pursuit of a false security?

Is it even debatable that we not only have to know everything there is to know about what our government did, but subject the responsible parties to prosecution?

183 times in a month

2009-04-22T08:00:00.001-04:00

The AP is reporting that not only did the Bush Administration not do their homework on water-boarding (see here), they misunderstood and inflated the importance of Abu Zubaydah, using brutal interrogation tactics on him long after they had extracted all the information he knew.

One former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case said Zubaydah already had provided valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsh tactics did not result in a breakthrough. Rather, his captors suffered great distress witnessing his torment, the official said.
"Seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect," the official told the newspaper.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in a month - an average of 6 times a day for 30 straight days. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times, after he had already given up all his information, because officials believed he was withholding something.

"He pleaded for his life," one of the former intelligence officials told the Times. "But he gave up no new information. He had no more information to give."

Read the article here.

CIA: "Perfect Storm of Ignorance"

2009-04-22T07:26:00.000-04:00

If, as many right-wingers and torture apologists claim, the Bush Administration should be excused for torturing prisoners because their techniques were justified in light of 9/11, and/or necessary to secure the intel needed to keep us safe from a second attack, then why didn't anyone research which torture methods would be the most effective in extracting information from captured terrorists and suspects? Wouldn't that have made some perverse sense?

The New York Times today detailed the extraordinary thoughtlessness that went into creating the brutal torture regime after 9/11, with nary a dissenting voice.

This extraordinary consensus was possible...largely because no one involved — not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W. Bush, not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate.

They did not know that our own SERE program (which used the techniques to train our own soliders to withstand torture) had declared waterboarding ineffective. They did no research. This wasn't a one-party brain freeze, either. According to CIA director Porter Goss, Nancy Pelosi didn't ask questions either:

“We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing,” Mr. Goss said in an interview. “Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough.”

The article quotes a CIA official who called the entire process "a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm." No kidding. Read the full article here.

Jon Stewart on the Torture Memos

2009-04-21T20:47:00.000-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

We Don't Torture

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

I bet Peggy Noonan wishes she'd kept her mouth shut. Yikes.

Stafford got game

2009-04-19T12:15:00.000-04:00

This is impressive. Were you watching, Martin Mayhew?

Halperin's Obama Love

2009-04-18T17:52:00.000-04:00

TIME's Mark Halperin is no great fan of President Obama. He is the one, you may recall, who blasted media coverage of the 2008 election as being heavily biased in favor of Obama, saying: "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Yesterday, on his blog The Page, Halperin offered 16 reasons why he believes President Obama is, in his words, "dominating".

(I am reproducing the entire post below, but you can click here to read The Page, which I highly recommend bookmarking - it's one of the most reliable, non-partisan sources of quick-hit, breaking news on the Internet.)

WHY HE IS DOMINATING

1. On major decisions, almost without exception, he does what he thinks is right, rather then what might appear to be the politically expedient thing to do; in the end, doing what he thinks is right actually turns out to be better politics.

2. He-- and his vice president, chief of staff, deputy chiefs of staff, congressional relations office-- are experts on Congress and know how to approach, manage, manipulate, finesse, and meld with the institution in virtually every respect. (Up to and as far as the considerable limits of three-branch government and multiple egos).

3. He is temperamentally suited to both the public and private aspects of the job.

4. His honeymoon with the media and the public continues unabated.

5. His political operation (and its closely coordinated allies) is modern, well-funded, and skilled at not leaving fingerprints.

6. He has vast reservoirs of charm.

7. He trusts his staff. Clear guidelines, no micro-managing, accountability, less back-stabbing than most governments.

8. He knows how to control his public image.

9. He is emotionally stable, and has a rock-solid support system of immediate family, close friends, and reliable advisers.

10. Criticism from his political opponents-- no matter how personal, vile, or off base-- bothers him no more than such things bothered Dick Cheney (which is to say, not at all).

11. He's not afraid of losing-- because he doesn't expect to.

12. He talks to his constituents as if they are adults who are willing and able to deal with complexity-- which is intellectually and practically satisfying to him, pleasing to elites, and gratifying to many citizens.

13. He has created a political organization that has unprecedented access to polling and focus groups, but he maintains a healthy distance from the up-down-in-out minutia, even as his advisers use the data to maximum effect.

14. The cyclical nature of economics, politics, and sociological trends seems to be on his side. For now.

15. He is rarely angry, intimidated, stressed, fearful, or joyless.

16. He likes the job-- its challenges, its history, its resonance, its power, its perks.

Obama's Desi Love

2009-04-18T10:04:00.003-04:00

In today's weekly address, President Obama mentioned the appointment of two Indian Americans in his administration - Vivek Kundra as Chief Information Officer and Aneesh Paul Chopra as Chief Technology Officer, to spearhead innovation and technological efficiency in the federal government.

Here's Kundra on how he got his start in public service, on Sept. 11, 2001:

Here is Aneesh Chopra delivering the keynote at the 2008 Summer Institute at Old Dominion University in Virginia:

Obama Weekly Address - April 18, 2009

2009-04-18T09:47:00.002-04:00

Heart of Darkness

2009-04-17T09:00:00.000-04:00

If you're feeling especially sunny today, soaking in the fragrance and warmth of Spring as it were, or you become easily queasy, then don't click on this link. (NY Times)

President Obama made the difficult decision today to release four "Torture Memos" - documents which reveal the extent to which the Bush Administration went to construct a secret torture program and hide its existence from the world. The details are as gruesome and horrifying as one would expect, and paint a depressing picture of how completely our government strayed from our core values in the elusive pursuit of security.

In 1984, George Orwell wrote that language was the "ultimate weapon" in its power to mask and mislead. In the novel, a totalitarian regime slowly replaced English (which they called Oldspeak) with "Newspeak", an exercise in linguistic trickery that obscured the truth in words and created new terms, sometimes words that had contradictory meanings, leading to what Orwell termed "Doublethink".

Thus did President Bush change to "torture" to "enhanced interrogation techniques," waterboarding and hypothermia to "alternative set of procedures," and so on, in an effort, in Orwell's prophetic words, "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

The memos paint a chilling picture. The specific instances of torture are sickening. A prisoner locked in a "confinement box" with an insect he was told would sting him, because officials believed he suffered from an insect phobia. Prisoners deprived of sleep for up to 11 days and nights, leading to hallucinations and other physiological conditions that necessitated the wearing and frequent changing of diapers. Prisoners subjected to what was termed "walling," a "technique" where they were thrown against a wall, or their heads were slammed against a wall, with a thick towel or collar tied around their necks to prevent whiplash and concussion. And, of course, waterboarding:

"Water is applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. The cloth is lowered until covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. ...[T]his procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning."

What is much more depressing is the banality with which the counsel's office and Administration officials succeeded in convincing themselves that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" were safe, not torture, and morally justifiable. This was the intent of the memos. To find every possible legal justification for torture. To find those legal justifications, these people, from Dick Cheney to John Yoo to Steven Bradbury to Jay Bybee to George W. Bush himself - these human beings, had to morally justify it to themselves first.

Bradbury, a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel, argued that EIT's were acceptable because procedures were in place to prevent serious harm. 11 days of sleep deprivation were OK, as long as you gave the prisoner 2 nights' rest to recover. Waterboarding was OK, as long as you didn't perform it more than twice in any 24-hour period.

Why did they do this? Andrew Sullivan writes:

The core point of this, one infers from the memos, is to create a sense among the prisoners that their assumptions about the West, the US, and countries constructed on the rule of law are without any basis whatever. The torture techniques were all the more brutal in order to push back against the reputation of the US even in the minds of Qaeda or alleged Qaeda members. What Mukasey and Hayden are arguing for today is a scheme whereby, in secret, the US government credibly allows captives to believe they are in an endless, bottomless pit of extra-legal terror. This is the state of mind they are trying to construct by torture. That's the point of the sensory deprivation, the disappearances, the sequestering from the Red Cross, the endless solitary confinement, the IRFing, the hoods, the nudity, and all the other sadism. It is precisely to persuade the barbarians that we are as bad as they are and have no limits and no qualms in doing to them whatever we want.
Looked at from a distance, the Bush administration wanted to do two things at once: to declare to the world that freedom is on the march, and human rights are coming to the world with American help, while simultaneously declaring to captives that the US has no interest in the law, human rights, accountability, transparency or humanity. They wanted to give hope to all the oppressed of the planet, while surgically banishing all hope from the prisoners they captured and tortured. And the only way they could pull this off is by the total secrecy they constructed and defended. So we had a public government respectful of the rule of law, and a secret government whose main goal was persuading terror suspects that there was no rule of law at all. It is hard to convey just how dangerous this was and is.

This brings us to Barack Obama. My first feeling is relief - that Obama won, not McCain, or Romney, or, God forbid, Guiliani. Imagine what such a well-constructed secret torture machine might have perpetrated under them. My second feeling is one of concern: Is Obama's decision not to "lay blame" the right one? Yesterday, the President wrote:

At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future. The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

We should not underestimate the political courage it took for Obama to release these Torture Memos. As Glenn Greenwald of Salon writes:

In the United States, what Obama did yesterday is simply not done. American Presidents do not disseminate to the world documents which narrate in vivid, elaborate detail the dirty, illegal deeds done by the CIA, especially not when the actions are very recent, were approved and ordered by the President of the United States, and the CIA is aggressively demanding that the documents remain concealed and claiming that their release will harm national security. When is the last time a President did that?

I also agree with his decision not to prosecute the actual perpetrators of these acts, the rank and file CIA and military operatives who carried out the "enhanced interrogation techniques." It is critical that our soldiers and operatives function with complete confidence in the chain of command. Such a decision would also have a serious chilling effect on future actions, and impede our soldiers and operatives on the front lines. But that is precisely why the decisionmakers, the authorizers and champions of this torture regime must be brought to a swift and harsh justice.

Obama argues that now is not the right time to prosecute these people for war crimes, that the process would harm and divide the country precisely at a time when we need harmony and unity. He is being criticized heavily by the left for this decision. Here's Keith Olbermann yesterday:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I have great faith in Obama's perspective and judgment, and I am mindful of the fact that he is privy to far more information than we are when making his decisions. But we are a nation of laws, and it is critical that the machinery of justice operate independently of the politics and sentiments of the moment.

It is indispensable to the restoration of our core values that this entire episode be examined comprehensively, and all the decision makers - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee and Bradbury, be subject to prosecution. Perhaps Obama is just waiting for the right moment. Time will tell.

RIP GOP?, part deux

2009-04-16T07:26:00.000-04:00

Lost in the frenetic news cycle that has long since moved on from the daring rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates on Sunday to the Easter Egg Roll and Bo "First Dog" Obama, was how extraordinarily well the Navy SEALs ("The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday") executed their difficult mission.

CNN reported that SEAL sharpshooters were secretly parachuted onto the fantail of the USS Bainbridge, out of sight of the pirates. The commanders had standing orders from Obama to take out the pirates, and gave the order when Phillips appeared to be in imminent danger. Without harming Phillips, the SEALs took out 3 pirates with 3 shots from 30 meters away. (Win!)

TIME's Joe Klein reacted:

It's better to be lucky than good. It's even better to be lucky and good. One can easily imagine all the different ways the rescue of Captain Phillips might have been screwed up--and the political firestorm that would have resulted. But President Obama appears to have been crisp and decisive throughout...and what can one say about the SEAL sharpshooters--firing from a bobbing ship at a bobbing dinghy and recording three headshots?

No less remarkable is the apparent fact that the GOP had effectively been rooting for Obama to fail, hoping to cash in on the resulting political gains from a botched mission. "Obama fails test!" "Obama soft on terrorism!" Embarrassing.

The evidence, courtesy of Jed Lewison of Daily Kos, is below:

Kumar goes to the White House

2009-04-13T19:35:00.014-04:00

Most people know that actor/activist Kal Penn is joining the Obama Administration. Which is nice, because their desi quota was running low after Dr. Sanjay Gupta got shut out for Surgeon General.

I have so many questions! Will he insist he go by his real name, Kalpan Modi? And will they call him Kumar anyway? Will the Administration subject him to random drug testing? Does the marijuana legalization lobby see this as a major win? Will they televise the ceremony when he hands off the "Only Desi Actor in Hollywood" crown to Sendhil Ramamoorthy?

Kal Penn appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss his move, in what turned out to be a mildly awkward interview. Surprisingly so, because Rachel is usually pitch perfect, and Kal Penn is usually a great interview subject.

The problem, I think, is that Rachel came prepared to interview Kumar and make pot jokes, and when she got Johnny Harvard instead, she got thrown and never recovered. I kept waiting for her to ask if he had the munchies.

My two favorite moments are when Rachel tries to make a joke about "Arts communities = Hollywood" and Kal Penn overreacts and refuses to play along. That, and his expression after she runs an uncomfortably long clip of his sex scene with a giant bag of weed, prompting Penn (he's an adjunct prof at UPenn!) to lecture her condescendingly about the difference between movies and real life - at one point explaining that when the anvil hits Daffy Duck in the head, he doesn't actually die. Good times.

RIP GOP?

2009-04-13T07:33:00.003-04:00

Is the GOP dead? Did Obama kill it?

OK, so the GOP isn't technically dead, but they're as good as. They exist now only as some sort of squirming, feral blob, not unlike Lord Voldemort when his killing curse rebounded off Harry Potter's baby forehead. (If you're keeping score at home: Obama = Harry, GOP = He Who Must Not Be Named, and Avada Kedavra = Rovian identity politics.)

The best they have been able to do so far is to trot out Eric Cantor and Bobby Jindal (a combination Prof. Quirrell) while Rush Limbaugh (Bellatrix Lestrange) bellows and grunts ineffectually from his remote South Florida pigsty.

OK, Harry Potter allusions aside, the electoral reality is the GOP is in deep trouble. Unlike the Democratic Party's slump in 2000-2008, when Karl Rove triumphantly claimed a permanent Republican majority, the GOP's current status is far more dire, because its problems, while perhaps externally catalyzed by the seismic shifts that led to Obama's victory, are wholly internal in nature.

The GOP is a house divided, and as its most illustrious member once proclaimed, such a structure cannot stand. On one side, we have the true conservatives, the ones who have watched in horror the decidedly un-conservative presidency of George W. Bush, the champions of fiscal conservatism and limited government, the intellectual, slightly crazy types who would privatize libraries and the post office and impose a flat tax. You disagree with them, but you can at least understand where they are coming from.

On the other side, you have the neocons, the right wing Fox News fringe that worships Rush Limbaugh, listens to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and confuses yelling like idiots with moral superiority.

Somehow, inexplicably, the fringe has taken over the party. What's amazing and not a little amusing is how deeply the truecons loathe the neocon/theocon fringe, how totally pissed they are that the GOP has been hijacked by them.

Read, for example, David Frum's Newsweek cover story, titled "Why Rush is Wrong", in which Frum writes of Limbaugh: "With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence." (Zing!)

The clip below, forwarded by Mrs. Daily Chai, illustrates the deep anger at the heart of this schism in unequivocal terms. This comes from - of all things - CNN's flagship journalism show, D. L Hughley Breaks the News, since regretfully cancelled. D.L., we barely knew you.

Exploring Raag Gawati

2009-04-12T15:54:00.007-04:00

A couple weeks ago, we went to watch Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma and Ustaad Zakir Hussain in concert at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. As concert draws go, this was a no-brainer. They are both world class, pre-eminent in their chosen instrument (Hussain is universally considered the world's best tabla player, SKS practically invented the modern santoor), and geniuses of Hindustani music.

Listening to them perform was everything you would expect of world class musicians. Watching them was another matter. Zakir Hussain has always been known for his showmanship, his almost over-the-top performance skills, so much so that there is a strong audience expectation of a sideshow from him and it can sometimes compete with the stature of the main performer. Although he's mellowed a bit with age (he is now in his late 50's), Hussain brought the house down multiple times with his head-shaking flourishes.

Perhaps because of Hussain's style, the pairing with Sharma felt odd. Sharma, who is 71, is a noticeably introverted performer. He doesn't so much play the santoor as fuss over it like a mad scientist fiddling with a delicate machine, oblivious to the outside world. In fact, the traditional fine-tuning of the instruments that began the performance lasted a looong 8 minutes as Sharma tweaked and tightened the santoor's fickle strings. It made me feel as if I had accidentally showed up too early, and the concert was actually a few hours later. Zakir Hussain sat to the side, his arms crossed over his tablas, waiting so intently and patiently that you got the image of a young boy watching his father at work - an image reinforced at the end of the concert when he touched Sharma's feet in respect.

Sharma presented an exhaustive exploration of Raag Gawati, a hauntingly beautiful classical raga, before being joined by Zakir Hussain. The ragas chosen by the performers are different each time they perform, as the Hindustani format depends heavily on venue-to-venue, moment-to-moment improvisation and communication between the main performers.

Below is a brilliant portrayal of Raag Gawati by another maestro of Hindustani music, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan:

Obama Weekly Address - April 11, 2009

2009-04-12T15:46:00.002-04:00

Obama Weekly Address - April 4, 2009

2009-04-04T15:50:00.000-04:00

Obama Weekly Address - March 28, 2009

2009-03-28T15:51:00.000-04:00

Obama Weekly Address - March 21, 2009

2009-03-21T15:53:00.001-04:00

Obama Weekly Address - March 14, 2009

2009-03-14T12:46:00.000-04:00

The Truth Can Be Adjusted

2009-03-12T21:49:00.006-04:00

I recently watched Michael Clayton again for the fourth time.

The movie just keeps getting better every time I watch it. If you haven't seen this movie, go to your Netflix queue or your local Blockbuster and rent it. You will not regret it.

Michael Clayton stars George Clooney as a "fixer" for a blue-chip New York law firm, an attorney who hasn't actually practiced law in years, instead using his considerable street smarts and personal charm to solve the difficult or embarassing problems of obscenely wealthy clients. (One wonders how Clayton would "fix" the Bernie Madoff swindle.)

The film is about what happens when Clayton faces his toughest assignment of all: the firm's biggest client, a fertilizer company, is in the midst of a humongous class action lawsuit, the outcome of which poses an existential threat to the firm, and the lead litigator has gone completely bonkers.

Tom Wilkinson plays the litigator off his meds in a tour-de-force performance that should have won him an Oscar, Tilda Swinton plays the hauntingly amoral general counsel of the fertilizer company (she won an Oscar), and George Clooney is really excellent in the title role.

But the real star of this movie is writer/director Tony Gilroy, whose screenplay will hook you from the start and never let go.

The latest issue of the New Yorker has a gripping article about Tony Gilroy - he also wrote the Bourne trilogy - that is a must-read for any fan of Gilroy, modern Hollywood, or the craft of screenwriting.

Ricky Gervais is God, Part Deux

2009-03-12T17:25:00.005-04:00

I've had occasion in the past to blog about my undying love for Ricky Gervais, and my theory that he is in fact not human, but rather some kind of supernatural comedic being, an avatar of chubby hilarity, perhaps.

Well, he is apparently guest-starring on Sesame Street for its 40th Anniversary episode that airs in November, and the Associated Press got a sneak preview of his interview with Elmo.

Basically, as the video clip below proves, all hell broke loose.

My favorite moment is when Elmo and Ricky Gervais start ripping on the producer for, in Elmo's words, "losing the interview." Oh and something about drugs and the Holocaust.

Watch:

Obama's Mind Reader

2009-03-09T12:25:00.001-04:00

Jack Kennedy had Ted Sorensen. Ronald Reagan had Peggy Noonan. Jed Bartlett had Sam Seaborn. Barack Obama has Jon Favreau.

Behind every great American President in the TV era is a great speechwriter. In the best cases, they are close friends, even alter-egos. Kennedy called Sorensen his "intellectual blood bank." Obama calls Favreau his "mind reader."

The most memorable and historic phrases uttered by a President usually originates from his speechwriter's pen, who is then sidestepped by the adulation of history. Sorensen is believed to have been the originator of JFK's famous exhortation, "Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for you" and to have ghost-written Profiles in Courage for which JFK won the Pulitzer Prize.

George H. W. Bush's most famous phrases - "a kinder, gentler nation" and "a thousand points of light" were coined by Peggy Noonan. One of Reagan's many oratorical high points, his speech honoring the victims of the 1987 Challenger disaster, is best remembered for the following words: "[T]hey...slipped the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God." Yep. Noonan, not Reagan.

Chicago Tribune has an interesting profile of Favreau that is worth reading. An excerpt:

Throughout the grueling, nearly two-year-long presidential campaign, Favreau lived a life of constant deadlines and caffeine-fueled nights, carrying Obama's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," and committing to memory the 2004 Democratic convention speech that introduced Obama to the country. He now works one floor below the president, in a basement office in the West Wing.

...

Favreau is a trained pianist who rented an electric baby grand piano for his apartment so he could play while taking breaks from work during his first speechwriting job for John Kerry's presidential campaign. The speechwriter has a "musical" sense of language, Axelrod said.

"I call him Mozart because he's just this young creative genius," Axelrod said. Favreau and Obama alike "think in terms of the cadence of the words," Axelrod added. "Not just the meaning of the words but the cadence of the words, how they work together, how they sound together."

Read the whole thing here.

NPR explains the Financial Crisis

2009-03-09T07:27:00.001-04:00

National Public Radio is one of the really indispensable institutions we have today for their stalwart educational and cultural programming. They recently aired a program that is a core example of their value to our society. This podcast makes the nuts and bolts of the financial crisis, and how it came about, really easy to understand.

Click on this link to listen to it or download the podcast. (Warning: It's about an hour long.)

(Credit: NPR, This American Life)

Can you smell what Barack is cooking?

2009-03-08T10:57:00.000-04:00

CNBC and the Great Santellli

2009-03-07T13:02:00.004-05:00

Rick Santelli and CNBC are having a really bad year. After Santelli took on the Obama Administration from the trading floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a now classic bit of television, Robert Gibbs responded by calling him out by name in a daily briefing, suggesting among other things that the loudmouth CNBC commentator switch to decaf.

Since that briefing, it seems like everyone has jumped into the fray, from Matt Lauer and Jim Cramer to Jon Stewart, who this week completely eviscerated the entire CNBC network in a genius Daily Show bit. Well, it's all here, from soup to nuts. Enjoy.

Santelli took on the Obama Administration in a bit of faux-populist outrage over the mortgage rescue plan a few weeks ago, the high point coming when he got a room full of commodities traders (whose employers were being bailed out with billions in taxpayer money) to boo the idea of the government rescuing homeowners, then turned to the camera and yelled, "President Obama, are you listening??" LOL.

There is a legitimate "moral hazard" argument cowering somewhere deep inside Santelli's castle of hot air, but the idea that a room full of Wall Street traders is in Santelli's words, "a pretty good statistical cross-section of America" is laughable. Also, probably not a great idea to refer to American homeowners as "losers". Anyway, Santelli's rant prompted Obama Press Secy. Robert Gibbs to respond in a daily media briefing by calling out the CNBC commentator by name, and suggesting that his little focus group of derivatives traders doesn't exactly represent Main Street, USA.

Chris Matthews invited Santelli on Hardball to explain his viewpoint, suggesting that Santelli was biased against Obama and calling him Ebenezer Scrooge, but nevertheless giving Santelli the opportunity to temper his argument and admit that individual homeowners shouldn't bear the entire responsibility for the crisis, and most homeowners deserve to be rescued. Santelli didn't bite.

Now is when this saga gets strange. Santelli went on the Gordon Liddy radio show and suggested that because Gibbs called him out by name, that the Obama Administration was threatening him personally. (!) When pressed by Matt Lauer on that outlandish and paranoid assertion, Santelli proceeded to throw his wife under the bus in a really awkward bit of TV.

So Jon Stewart invited Rick Santelli to appear on the Daily Show last week, and the guy cancelled. He cancelled! You do not cancel on New York talk show hosts. They take it as a personal insult. Remember Letterman's takedown of John McCain? Jon Stewart was not happy.

"I'll see your canceling on me," said Stewart, "and raise you a thorough evisceration of the faux-populist bilge you've been pumping and a complete blasting of your network's credibility." Watch:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Good times.

Obama Weekly Address; March 7, 2009

2009-03-07T09:25:00.001-05:00

Ray Charles: Yesterday

2009-03-04T21:12:00.005-05:00

The classic songs of the Beatles have been extensively covered by other artists, much more so than one would think. For example, I didn't realize that "Yesterday" has been covered by over 375 artists, from Guns N' Roses to Placido Domingo.

My favorite version of Yesterday is this one by Ray Charles. A true master of improvisation, he found the deep blue soul of this indelibly poignant, plaintive tune.

Finding Inspiration

2009-03-03T12:15:00.002-05:00

I have often compared my own creative process to that of a man crouched over a swift stream, trying to snatch a fish out of the water with his bare hands. Once in a rare while I get lucky. The rest of the time I'm cold, wet, and starving.

So it was with some relief that I greeted this talk by Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love, at TED. So to everyone out there desperately trying to create something, anything:

You - we - are not alone.

Slums: Filthy Wastelands or Entrepreneurial Hotspots?

2009-03-03T12:03:00.000-05:00

Amid the hoopla surrounding the unlikely Oscar journey of Slumdog Millionaire were some legitimate questions about whether the film's depiction of India's notorious slums squares with real life, or whether it was just poverty porn writ large and slickly packaged for an eager Western audience.

Knotted up within such questions is a possibly unresolvable debate about the objective reality of the slums - are they barren labyrinths of filth and disease, where millions live in unimaginable poverty and despair, or are they teeming hotspots of entrepreneurial activity, filled with ingenuity and unflinching optimism? Does one lead to the other? Does the answer lie in the eye of the beholder?

Interesting questions. And while the celluloid medium certainly tends towards the melodramatic, to the extent that film, or art of any kind, succeeds in eliciting greater curiosity about its subject matter, that, one could argue, is a positive outcome in and of itself.

Along those lines, I came across an evocative and intriguing photo essay by Preeti Aroon on foreignpolicy.com that spotlights Mumbai's Dharavi slum and the teeming multitude that populates it.

"With Slumdog Millionaire winning 8 Academy Awards," Aroon writes, "it's easy to view Mumbai's slums as wastelands of filth and misery. But they're actually vibrant business centers filled with scrappy entrepreneurs. If some wealthy elites get their way, though, the slums' days may be numbered."

Click on this link to view the slideshow.

(Photo Credit: Foreign Policy/Preeti Aroon)

Obama's GOP Love

2009-03-03T07:44:00.000-05:00

Check out this article by TIME's Jay Newton-Small, in which she compares the House GOP's odd fascination with "Obamarabilia" (that's right, I just made that word up) to that of a bunch of "starstruck tweens at a Jonas Brothers concert." LOL.

Read the article here.

Obama Weekly Address - February 28, 2009

2009-02-28T15:29:00.001-05:00

Best YouTube Clip Ever

2009-02-27T11:19:00.001-05:00

To whoever did this: You are a genius.

Time to Lead Again

2009-02-25T11:03:00.000-05:00

Oh My Gawd.

2009-02-25T07:22:00.002-05:00

I don't know where to begin. Should I be proud that for the first time in American history, an Indian American delivered the minority response to a President's speech? Or should I be totally mortified that said desi sounded exactly - and I do mean EXACTLY - like Kenneth the Page from 30 ROCK??

Someone help me sort out my conflicting feelings! Someone!!

Um, hold on, I am getting a judge's ruling. One second, please.

Yes, this is Daily Chai, go ahead. What's that? Bobby Jindal isn't really desi? well...I mean, technically he is Indian, right? Oh, his real name is Piyush Jindal? He changed it to Bobby, why? Oh, from the Brady Bunch? The one whose best friend was the family dog? So, he's Indian, but not a desi, then. So my desi pride is misplaced. Thanks.

OK, no longer conflicted. Let's start over.

What an absolute debacle that was. OMG. Let's begin at the beginning. First, he "walks" in. Then, in a moment of national economic crisis, when the whole country is struggling from the excesses of the last decade, he begins with "Happy Mardi Gras!" Then, he delivers most of the speech as if he's reading a bedtime story to his kids.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And this is where the Kenneth the Page comparison comes in. See for yourself, courtesy of Jason Linkins at HuffPo:

As I said months ago here, Jindal is just the latest in the GOP's tired game of bankrupt ideas and identity politics. First Sarah Palin. Then "Hip Hop" Michael Steele. Now Jindal. The sad thing is, I think this guy is genuinely smart, sincerely conservative and eminently capable. And despite all his gifts, he trotted out probably the worst Response ever. Why? Because the GOP itself is broken. They have become a hard-right, culture warrior party, their base is shrinking, and their politicians are shockingly out of touch. No Jindal or Palin is going to save them, not unless they undertake the hard work of remaking the party from the ground up, by cutting loose the neocons and culture warriors that have dominated their corridors for a generation. Until that happens, it would serve Jindal well to keep his head down and serve Louisiana.

Hopefully, SNL jumps on this. Hey, at least this shines a brighter light on the genius comedy that is 30 ROCK:

(Video Sources: MSNBC and Hulu. God Bless Hulu.)

Jai Ho Slumdog!

2009-02-23T14:05:00.005-05:00

Slumdog Millionaire won 8 Oscars last night! Unsurprising, given its dominance of the entire awards season. Slumdog isn't a perfect movie, and it drew its share of criticism once it started to gain prominence, but I do think Oscar got this one right. A few months after watching the movie, I still believe my initial assessment to be true (read it here).

The little stars of Slumdog were the toast of the red carpet. I am hoping we see more of them, so we can have more awkward interviews like this one, with Ryan Seacrest:

Here are my thoughts on two issues that have been swirling around this movie: one, the lukewarm/cold reception the movie has received among native Indians, and two, the controversy around the treatment of the slum children who acted in the movie.

I have already covered why I think Indians don't like Slumdog that much - it is too unvarnished, too unadorned, in its depiction of India for their taste. India likes to package and control its image a little bit - which is not an unreasonable thing, I think that is probably true of most countries, if not all of them. Indians are not unreasonably concerned that such a movie could affect prevailing attitudes about the country, and further ugly stereotypes about poverty and exploitation among Westerners who are otherwise totally unaware and uninterested in all things Indian. Although I do think it is unlikely. To one particular friend of mine who was especially put off by this film: if any American ever asks you if you live in a slum because of this movie, I owe you dinner.

But if you ask me, I think on the whole India came out ahead in this. Although this is a British movie, with a British director, producer, cinematographer, screenwriter and so on, this is widely seen as an Indian movie.

It was a historic night for India and Indians, less so Indian cinema or Bollywood as a whole, which had no real role in this movie. But an Indian, Rehsul Pookutty, won the Oscar for sound editing and paid an inspiring tribute to Bharatiya culture and Hinduism when he cited Aum, the Primeval Sound, then thanked his teachers. A. R. Rahman won two Oscars for his work on the movie, which from my perspective is more fitting as a tribute to his entire career than those two songs. He has done much better work elsewhere. But it was nice to see him thank his mother and speak in Tamil: "Ella Pugazhum Iraivanukkae".

What will be remembered is that last night was India's night at the Oscars. And that counts for something, too.

As to the treatment of the child stars, the current handwringing is idiotic. The facts as documented are that Danny Boyle, in conjunction with local advisors, has set up a trust for those children with a significant amount of money in it. The trust is now expected to grow as a result of the box office grosses from this film. If they get a certain minimum level of education, then when they turn 18 and are able to make independent financial decisions, that money will become theirs.

Many people are questioning why Boyle didn't just move these kids to the US or England, take them out of their slums. My response is - first, watch the film. Second, if you can, actually visit a slum or talk to someone who has. Those people are poor, but the significant majority are not unhappy. They are optimistic, driven, creative, entrepreneurial, and not interested in being carted off to a foreign country where they don't speak the language or understand the culture. To assume that these people need to be saved somehow, by heaping millions on them and setting them up with a Harvard education and a Tribeca loft is nonsensical at best, and at worst, betrays a racist, colonial mentality.

Time will tell whether Slumdog ages well or not. I am reasonably certain it will, thanks to its core message of hope, optimism and dogged persistence. We need stories like that right now.

* * *

My hope is that this movie spurs the right kind of interest in the real India and real Indian cinema, not the usual Bollywood pop fare, but serious India cinema. If anyone is interested in starting along that road, I recommend The Apu Trilogy by the great (and Oscar winning) filmmaker Satyajit Ray.

Obama Weekly Address - February 21, 2009

2009-02-21T13:47:00.000-05:00

Obama Press Conference

2009-02-16T18:08:00.003-05:00

Below is President Obama's primetime press conference from Monday, February 9.

My prevailing emotion was overwhelming relief - at watching and listening to the kind of President we have been waiting for for a long time now. No matter what you may feel about his philosophy and politics, you cannot argue with the man's intelligence. And it is refreshing to have a President who doesn't respond with soundbites, but actually stops and thinks...and lets you think with him. Enjoy.

Incoherence

2009-02-16T14:30:00.006-05:00

The incoherence and um, stupidity of the GOP leadership over the last 3 weeks has been downright alarming, even before I discovered that my sentiments are shared by, of all people, conservatives.

Never a good thing when your own base thinks you suck. Here's David Frum:

Could we possibly act more inadequate to the challenge? More futile? More brain dead?

Um...yes? Check out this HuffPo summation here.

Obama Interview on AF1

2009-02-16T14:25:00.004-05:00

President Obama gave a really revealing print interview to a panel of reporters recently, aboard Air Force One on Friday, on his trip home to Chicago. The whole article by Chicago Tribune scribe Clarence Page is here.

Page also gave a color commentary on the trip and interview on his blog, here. A revealing excerpt:

The onboard movies, which we did not have time to watch, included "Fat Albert," "The Devil Wears Prada," "Glory Road," "Juno" (Oh?), "Waitress, " "Mamma Mia," "Hancock," "Space Cowboys," "The Princess Bride," "The Rocker," and "The Dark Knight." I don't know who chooses the movies.

The Obama Gambit

2009-02-16T13:54:00.004-05:00

The problem for the GOP, and their Gingrichian intransigence, is this. Obama is a better chess player than they are.

A growing chorus of political analysts is starting to see Obama's early bipartisanship - filling his Cabinet with an unprecedented 3 GOP'ers, all those conciliatory dinners and cocktail party outreach - the Obama Gambit, if you will, as a masterful trap.

Obama has consistently framed his outreach as a long-term investment. In his prime-time press conference, he said, "That doesn’t negate the continuing efforts that I’m going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues. And, hopefully, the tone that I’ve taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will pay some dividends over the long term."

But make no mistake, there's a bait, a lure, at the end of the fishing line, and Obama is drawing them in. Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker has already coined it as "Gandhian Hardball". He writes (read the whole article here):

Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if—or especially if—the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it’s not Rovian hardball he’s playing. More like Gandhian hardball.

Obama seems to have essentially cornered the public opinion market on bipartisanship. His continued failed attempts to strike a new tone have only served to make the GOP look bad, which in turn has given him the opening to play hardball. Classic trap.

Andrew Sullivan sees only desolation and exile in the GOP's future (read the whole thing here):

It’s not clear...that total war on the president is going to be a better way forward. Before the latest twist, a Gallup poll found that Obama’s handling of the stimulus package had almost twice the public support of the Republicans’. In a period of acute economic anxiety, Americans outside the Republican base may not be so thrilled to find a replay of the 1990s. Obama won in part because he seemed not part of that drama.

My bet is that Obama also understands that this is, in the end, the sweet spot for him. He has successfully branded himself by a series of conciliatory gestures as the man eager to reach out. If this is spurned, he can repeat the gesture until the public finds his opponents seriously off-key.

Obama clearly is in the process of transitioning from laying the trap to moving in for the kill, as he moves on to his other policy priorities. Note this key quote from his recent interview on Air Force One, referencing his mindset on bipartisanship:

"You know, I am an eternal optimist. That doesn't mean I'm a sap."

Check and mate.

Running from the Party

2009-02-16T12:34:00.000-05:00

Here's a fun video of Chris Matthews eviscerating Eric Kantor back in October for running away from Bush during the economic crisis.

A Dangerous Fool

2009-02-16T12:15:00.003-05:00

Minority Whip Rep. Eric Kantor (R-VA) is steadily emerging as the point man and figurehead of the loyal opposition in Congress to the agenda and policy of the Obama Administration.

From the perspective of political tactics and atmospherics, he is a logical choice. He is young, well-spoken, popular in his district, and a fresh face, bearing few of the political scars of a John Boehner or a Mitch McConnell.

So obviously, the insular world of Washington and right-wing talk radio see him as the new hope of the GOP Congress in the 2010 midterms. They are foisting him up on every cable news show and media channel available to explain the GOP's opposition to the stimulus, to the TARP rollout, to pretty much anything Obama does. I think he will be on Good Morning America tomorrow to oppose the Obama family's choice of dog breed.

So good for the GOP, right?

Unfortunately for them, the guy is an idiot.

It turns out Kantor is a Gingrich clone. According to this New York Times article, he is attempting to model the GOP resistance to the Gingrich Revolution.

Mr. Cantor said he had studied Mr. Gingrich’s years in power and had been in regular touch with him as he sought to help his party find the right tone and message. Indeed, one of Mr. Gingrich’s leading victories in unifying his caucus against Mr. Clinton’s package of tax increases to balance the budget in 1993 has been echoed in the events of the last few weeks.

...
Mr. Cantor’s increasing prominence is in many ways a reminder of the difficult time the party faces after losing the presidential election and in the absence of any high-profile Republican leaders in the House or the Senate. Mr. Boehner routinely defers to him at news conferences, reflecting the concern of Republicans that they put forward new and relatively young faces. (Mr. Cantor is 45, but looks younger.)
Mr. Cantor, who has exhibited an eye for winning attention, has rushed in to fill the leadership vacuum with a daily diet of news conferences, interviews, speeches on the House floor and television appearances.

So far, the GOP is almost completely united against Obama, pressuring Judd Gregg to quit (see here), and netting zero House votes and only 3 Senate votes in favor of the stimulus package. Didn't matter though, because they are, in Kantor's own words, "in the extreme minority."

Two things amaze me: one, that when exiled to political Siberia, the GOP thinks their best course of action to return to relevancy is stubborn hyperpartisanship and childish obstructionism, and two, that Eric Kantor thinks Newt Gingrich is the model to fashion himself after.

Matthew Yglesias tartly sums up the danger and foolishness of Kantor's idol worship of Newt in a blistering post (read in its entirety here):

In Washington, coverage of politics is dominated by politics rather than the policy consequences of politics. Thus, because of the outcome of the 1994 elections, Gingrich’s 93-94 tactics are held to have been a great success. But it’s important to be clear—those tactics included lockstep opposition to a Clinton economic program whose opponents set it would wreck the economy, but in fact laid the groundwork for years of prosperity. Gingrich’s success in blocking health care reform has been a small but persistent drag on the economy whose negative impact has compounded each and every year for the past fifteen years and has led to the preventable deaths of thousands and thousands of people at a minimum. Politics is politics and I understand that, but anyone who looks to that era as something to be emulated is dangerously indifferent to the real-world implications of congressional behavior.

What are the implications of Kantor's counteroffensive on Obama's glossy promises of change and bipartisanship? Time will tell. My money is on loss and failure.

Why Judd Gregg Quit

2009-02-16T07:06:00.000-05:00

Looks like the GOP quietly turned the screws on him.

Obama Weekly Address - February 14, 2009

2009-02-14T13:48:00.000-05:00

Amazon Rising

2009-02-08T12:01:00.005-05:00

This economy is in serious trouble, and the pain is in plain sight. I walked around a local mall recently, and frankly, it was depressing.

Once brightly lit superstores with their lights turned low, vacant shelves, bored salespeople milling around. Everything on clearance, priced to go. Parking lots empty. No one is buying. No one is even window shopping. We've turned into vultures, waiting for companies to close, stores to shutter, so we can buy DVD players at Circuit City for $19.99.

Despite all that, Amazon.com is flying high. They had the best holiday season in their history, and their profits are up 9% from last year. Part of their success is in their business model - no brick n' mortar stores, flexibility in forecasting inventory demand, smart expansion into digital music and video games. But this recent Slate.com article suggests that the real reason is an obvious one: great customer service.

Customers want cheap stuff, but they also want convenience, quality, and a friendly, hassle-free atmosphere. Amazon isn't Tiffany's, but it's not a chaotic, out-of-the-way discount zoo, either. Instead it occupies a sweet middle spot—it's the nicest place to buy cheap stuff. These days, that combination goes a long way.

Read the whole thing here.

Good Cop/Bad Cop

2009-02-07T20:00:00.000-05:00

I haven't seen this Obama in a while. It is interesting to watch him switching between the cool charmer with the cocktail parties and this more strident, take-no-prisoners approach. He is methodically turning the heat up.

Words Do Matter

2009-02-07T18:52:00.000-05:00

I came across this excellent article by Ezra Klein, that in my mind is the last word on the whole Tom Daschle debacle.

As frustrating as it was to witness the distraction of Daschle's resignation (my feelings were pretty plain) Klein brings up some great points - that while Obama, having weighed Daschle's sins against his potential as a health care reformer, found Daschle acceptable, Obama's own rhetoric had set a much higher standard.

[It] turns out that Obama's words, well, mattered. They made it harder to ignore scandal, as the Bush administration had done. The endlessly long vetting forms forcing deep tax and income transparency, which in turn uncovered embarrassments that would never have emerged under past regimes. This has made for a more troubled transition, but will probably also result in a cleaner administration. For all the embarrassments, this, in a concrete sense, is what change looks like. It's not an administration that decides to be clean so much as one that has little choice in the matter.

Read the whole thing here.

Dress Code Minutae

2009-02-07T15:31:00.010-05:00

Upon the release of the above photo of President Obama working in the Oval Office in shirt sleeves, former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card had the following reaction, contrasting Obama's dress code with his former boss:

"The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President.

I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history."

Card's reaction speaks to that affliction of inane nobility, where self-absorbed consistency of tradition trumps matters of real importance. This was Joe Klein's response:

After all, George W. Bush [supposedly insisted on suit jackets in the Oval Office]--and all that respect for the office helped him to be a really great President.
The point is, when people are actually working--as opposed to working out their Oedipal crises in the Oval Office--they tend to want to roll up their sleeves and get comfortable. George W. Bush could have come to work in a tuxedo and still been a lousy President; Barack Obama will do just fine in shirtsleeves, I predict.

Reminds me of Walt Whitman's famous quote: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Anyway, it turns out that in addition to being small-minded, Andrew Card is also a bald-faced liar. Plenty of pictures have now surfaced showing not just Bush but various former Presidents working sans suit jacket in the Oval. For an entertaining slideshow click on this Huffington Post article . (If Card is mad at Obama, he would be livid at Clinton...)

I think we can safely file this whole episode under "Seriously Dude, You Lost. Just Go Away."

(Photo credit: UPI Photo/Pete Souza/White House)

Obama Weekly Address - February 7, 2009

2009-02-07T14:12:00.002-05:00

Obama in WaPo: We Must Act Boldly

2009-02-05T12:30:00.004-05:00

President Obama penned an op-ed in today's Washington Post outlining his central argument in favor of his stimulus plan. Op-eds by sitting presidents are rare; I liked the newspaper's matter-of-fact notation at the end of the piece: "The writer is president of the United States."

Obama's core argument is one of urgency - we have to act now, or matters will get much worse. He writes:

[This plan] will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.
This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

He rejects as "failed" and "misguided" the criticisms against the stimulus:

...the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

He closes by again decrying "the same old partisan gridlock", and framing the choice we face:

We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

Read the whole article here.

Minus the Bear

2009-02-05T09:30:00.004-05:00

(Originally posted on September 28, 2008 by guest chaiwallah Prashanth Bala.)

When’s the last time you found something new? Found something that was so good that you had to tell your friends about it? OK probably not too difficult a task (seeing how Taco Bell is always coming up with something new), but now let’s think about music. When’s the last time you found an “alternative” rock band that actually plays music and is actually creative enough to use multiple instruments to make a variety of sounds simultaneously? Turn on the radio, and all you’ll hear is unoriginal noise that is so simplistic that it’s obvious it was produced in a factory. Bands today use instruments in their songs, but when’s the last time you found a new band that actually plays their instrument. I haven’t heard a song or of a band that has been able to catch my attention with just one song in a very long time; and I’m not a very difficult to please.

Two weeks ago, as I was playing corn hole (for the first time) at a college football tailgate, a song came over our stereo that forced me to make an errant throw. Until that point we had been listening to songs that even if you’d only heard them three times in your life you could probably still sing along. However, a friend snuck over to the stereo, plugged his i-phone in and the song we heard induced the errant throw and forced a heap of criticism from my corn hole partner. It was one song, just a few seconds of it actually, and it happened. It was what I've been looking for; a song, a band that could actually grab my attention, despite the deficit.

I walked away from the game and over to my friend to find out who the band was. I couldn't hear him over the shouted words of abuse coming from the friends I left behind. When he repeated the name, I still didn't follow. It didn't matter. Playing before me was a band that had the potential to be the greatest find in alternative music in the last few years. Gone are the days of factory-produced commercial bands that have so little talent and ability. Goodbye radio music.

The band's name... Minus the Bear.

I'm only one album into this relationship; yet I'm already hooked. Their sound is a fresh combination of the Seattle Indie Rock scene and the electronica-style of Radiohead; a combination that is mastered and executed with ease. At times you might even hear touches that will remind you of some of your favorite 80's hits.

This is what I did, you can give it a shot. Brew that great cup of morning chai; cozy up into your favorite spot; hit play and let the album Highly Refined Pirates soothe your ears and musical mind; while your chai calms your spirit and readies you for the day. Another option is to make a great dinner, call some friends over and while you're all lounging after that great meal, hit play and let your friends rave about your abilities as a chef and your taste in music. Minus the Bear has the ability to set that lounge-like mood at home, while also charging you up on your road trips. Whatever you're doing, wherever you are, let Minus the Bear play and you'll find yourself lost in your dreams while listening to the first track. You'll soon be woken up by an unwanted silence; but don't worry, the next track is about to start.

You'll thank me later.

Obama: "I Screwed Up."

2009-02-03T20:46:00.003-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is a good and principled gesture by the President, and less importantly, a politically smart move as well. This will help turn the page more quickly.

Taxgate?

2009-02-03T19:00:00.001-05:00

Do we have the first "-gate" of the Obama presidency?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or to be more precise, the state of Obama's cabinet appointments. First, Commerce nominee Bill Richardson quits due to a pay-to-play scandal, then Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner has unpaid taxes from an IMF gig and a nanny with an immigration problem. Then chief performance officer nominee Nancy Killefer reveals a mildly embarrassing 2005 unpaid tax lein and is forced to resign. Now, Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for HHS Secretary and one of the most high-profile nominees in the cabinet, the guy in charge of reforming health care, has resigned over...wait for it...$146,000(!) in unpaid taxes.

To paraphrase Hamlet again, these sorrows seem to "come not single spies, but in battalions."

To be fair, each of these cases is unique and distinctly different in terms of materiality. Geithner committed a very common tax error among those who work for the IMF. Killefer's case is even less egregious - she had an unpaid $950 lein on her house in 2005 due to failure to properly pay taxes for household workers. Not a big deal, and yet, she resigned this morning. (Killefer is clearly a victim of circumstance - the White House apparently didn't want to deal the storyline of three prominent confirmation hearings dealing with unpaid tax issues.) Richardson is in a world of pain over what is turning out to be a much deeper and troubling issue than orginally reported. But it happened so early in the process that it is more a troubling note in a larger pattern than an issue in itself.

But Tom Daschle's tax problem is sort of in a stupefying class of its own. Word is that Daschle was planning to suck it up and fight his nomination battle out until he opened the editorial pages in this morning's New York Times:

Now we are confronted with an even larger lapse by Mr. Daschle, who failed to pay $128,000 in taxes, primarily for personal use of a car and driver provided to him by a private equity firm for which he consulted. Although the firm — headed by a major Democratic donor — had not issued a form 1099 for the value of the car service, Mr. Daschle said he became concerned last June that he might owe taxes on it and instructed his accountant to investigate. Neither was concerned enough to actually pay the taxes.
Only after the Obama transition team flagged unrelated tax issues that would require filing amended returns did Mr. Daschle and his accountant address the need to report the personal use value of the car service — more than $255,000 over three years — as income. Only after he had been chosen to be the health secretary did Mr. Daschle tell the transition team about the unpaid taxes. He paid some $140,000 in back taxes and interest on Jan. 2 to settle several tax problems — and he acknowledges owing more.
In both the Geithner and Daschle cases, the failure to pay taxes is attributed to unintentional oversights. But Mr. Daschle is one oversight case too many.

...and Philadelphia Inquirer:

Surely President Obama can find qualified people to serve in his cabinet who aren't hustling to write overdue checks to the IRS.

Here's what is stupefying. All of these cases arise from a vetting failure - three of them from the nominees' failure to voluntarily report income from hired services - nannies, chaffeurs, etc. Where was the vaunted and much-praised Obama transition team on this whole mess? Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is bad luck. But four times is a pattern. Why weren't the right questions asked? Why weren't more accountants hired to pore over the minutae of the nominees' expenses and tax filings? In Daschle's case, why didn't they evaluate the severity of his mistakes before announcing him as the lead man on one of the most important issues for this administration?

What also seems to damn them is that Washington Post scribe Bob Woodward seems to have known about this for a while now. This is what he said to Chris Matthews ten days ago:

How did Woodward know, and how long has he known it? Why didn't the Obama team react ten days ago? Why today, when they need to be focused on passing the stimulus?

Here's the other thing - none of this is unprecedented. Remember Zoe Baird? Why didn't the Obama transition ask their nominees if they have ever hired contracted help, or used chaffeurs, then correlate that information to the tax returns? Even if they did ask, and the fault lies entirely with the nominees, then what does it say about the Obama transition that they cleared four - four! - different nominees who then subsequently revealed information that threatened, and in 3 out of 4 cases, eventually derailed their nominations?

Some would argue none of this is Obama's fault. Some would argue all of it is, that the buck stops with him. Sure, the actual blame probably lies with the nominees, or with Greg Craig or John Podesta. But there is a perception problem here.

Obama rode into the White House on a wave of unprecedented approval for the way he handled his transition. This is a brutal turn of events, one that will take a lot of the shine off those glittery approval ratings. More troubling, this slew of embarrassing snafus has the potential of weakening a presidency, of making Obama pay a steep price in political capital.

The early nomination battles, along with the failure of HillaryCare, weakened Bill Clinton considerably and led to the huge Democratic Party losses in the 1994 midterms. Early errors can cement a conventional wisdom that may have nothing to do with reality. In this case, each of these issues is only moderately troubling. But together, they paint a troubling picture, especially to the average voter who isn't paying sufficient attention to get all the nuances.

Obama is slated to hit the airwaves to sell his economic stimulus plan tonight. Guess what the media is going to more interested in? How this will impact his long-term plans - reforming health care, ending the war in Iraq, solving the energy crisis, guiding the economy out of recession - is way, way too early to tell. A lot will hinge on how well he plays the media game in the coming weeks. But suffice it to say: we didn't need this.

Alea Jacta Est, Julius Caesar famously said. The die is cast. In this case, let's hope not.

Dark was the Night

2009-02-03T12:25:00.000-05:00

I recently came across this old blues classic, called "Dark was the Night, Cold was the Ground" by Blind Willie Johnson, a depression-era gospel and blues singer. Recorded in 1920, it is considered a iconic rendition representative of the early days of the Blues.

It was included in the Voyager Golden Record, the 1977 NASA "time capsule" project that sent into deep space, aboard two Voyager spacecraft, a collection of sounds and images intended to portray the diversity and culture of Earth to any extraterrestrial beings that found it. Here's the introductory message on the Voyager Golden Record, spoken by President Jimmy Carter:

We cast this message into the cosmos… Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some — perhaps many — may have inhabited planets and space faring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message: We are trying to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope some day, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of Galactic Civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination and our goodwill in a vast and awesome universe.

Anyway, this song was included along with greetings in 55 languages, sounds of Earth, and a 90-minute selection of music from several countries, selected by a committee at Cornell University chaired by none other than Carl Sagan. It is basically a mix tape for some future alien civilization.

Along with "Dark was the Night", USA included a song by Louis Armstrong, a Navajo Chant and "Johnny B. Goode" by Chuck Berry. No word on whether it was the original or the Michael J. Fox cover from Back to the Future. Heh. (India gave one song - "Jaat Kahan Ho", a song in Raag Bhairavi.)

Blind Willie Johnson lived a remarkably difficult life. He was blinded when his stepmother threw lye in his face in a fit of rage. He was poor his whole life, often singing on street corners for money. When his house burned down in a fire, with nowhere else to go, he slept on wet newspapers in the ruins of his house, contracting pneumonia as a result. Refused treatment at a local hospital because he was black, he went back to his ruined house and died there weeks later.

And yet, because of the beauty of his music, his song left the solar system on December 16, 2004. In 40,000 years it is expected to be within 1.6 light years of the star AC+79 3888 in the Opjiuchus constellation (whatever that means). His voice lives forever on a phonograph record made of gold-plated copper, soaring somewhere in the deep expanses of outer space.

"Dark was the Night" is a truly haunting song that is meant to evoke sadness at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; Blind Willie renders it in a wordless hum, almost like a Hindustani raga.

L. Subramaniam: Live at Royal Albert Hall

2009-02-03T06:32:00.000-05:00

L. Subramaniam performing Raag Charukesi on the violin in 1995. Ethereal, heavenly, mind blowing.

Obama Weekly Address - January 31, 2009

2009-01-31T13:54:00.000-05:00

Obama Week 1: Substance and Seriousness

2009-01-29T22:35:00.003-05:00

Here's a great article by Joe Klein summing up the spirit of Obama's first week, and the truly fresh start it represents. The money quotes:

Just as he could have opted for the adrenaline rush of grand rhetoric in his Inaugural Address but didn't, he could have turned any of the profoundly serious actions of his first week into a whiz-bang photo opportunity....

He has reversed the tactical, win-the-news-cycle sensibility of recent presidencies. During his first week in office, at least, he opted for strategy and substance over show biz....

Obama is facing [difficult] problems.... But at least, for the moment, he is paying his public the great compliment of taking his job seriously, focusing on the long-term substance rather than the bread and circuses that masqueraded as leadership in the recent past.

The whole article is here.

Aloha Zen

2009-01-29T22:25:00.004-05:00

The NY Times used the recent photo of President Obama sans suit jacket in the Oval Office, something that would have been a serious violation under Bush 43, as a jumping off point to discuss Obama's daily routine, management style and overall demeanor. Compelling stuff.

On the Oval Office thermostat:

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior advisor, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

On Obama's mood:

“Even as he is sober about these challenges, I have never seen him happier,” Mr. Axelrod said. “The chance to be under the same roof with his kids, essentially to live over the store, to be able to see them whenever he wants, to wake up with them, have breakfast and dinner with them — that has made him a very happy man.”

On Obama's management style:

In the West Wing, Mr. Obama is a bit of a wanderer. When Mr. Bush wanted to see a member of his staff, the aide was summoned to the Oval Office. But Mr. Obama tends to roam the halls; one day last week, he turned up in the office of his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who was in the unfortunate position of having his feet up on the desk when the boss walked in.

Then there's Bush 43, and this amazing recollection by Dan Bartlett, one of Bush's lawyers, when he showed up to work on a Saturday wearing the wrong clothes:

“I’ll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about,” said Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to Mr. Bush. “I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn’t even let me cross the threshold.”

Bush chewed a guy out for 15 minutes over a dress code violation on a Saturday morning. That really sort of explains everything, doesn't it?

Read the whole article here.

Self Restraint

2009-01-29T22:14:00.005-05:00

I came across a short but very insightful post from Andrew Sullivan this morning, about the core difference between 43 and 44:

If Bush was about the presidency as power, Obama is about the presidency as authority. It's fascinating to watch this deep difference in understanding slowly but unmistakably realize itself in public actions. Somewhere the Founders are smiling. The system is correcting itself after one of the most unbalanced periods in American history. But it took the self-restraint of one man to do it.

It's interesting that Sullivan employs the "self-restraint": as in, against the temptation of near-absolute power. In the end, that temptation may prove too great, even for someone as wise and self-aware as Obama. He is human, after all.

What makes me hopeful that he will not succumb to hubris is this - unlike any President in modern history, he brings to the office a combination of deep knowledge of, and a certain hard-wired reverence for, our Constitution.

Maybe that ought to be a prerequisite from now on.

Sullivan's post - well worth a read - here.

Oh, it's on.

2009-01-28T19:43:00.004-05:00

Apparently, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) issued a hoops challenge to President Barack Obama during the luncheon at Statuary Hall on Inauguration Day.

Ensign, a "hoops enthusiast" according to First Read suggested that he and John Thune (R-S.Da) would play Obama and a wingman of his choice in 2-on-2.

I am no hoops expert, but since when do those guys stand a chance against Barry O'Bomber and oh, say personal aide Reggie Love (who played for Duke's 2001 championship team), or Education Sec. Arne Duncan (who played college ball at Harvard and pro ball in Australia)?

Please.

I think Barack should pick Malia and spot Ensign-Thune 5 points.

Colbert takes down O'Reilly

2009-01-28T14:30:00.001-05:00

This is not just technically impressive in the way the editors make it look like an actual interview, but masterful in exposing the hypocrisy of rumor mongering disguised as news reporting that the Fox crowd is so good at.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Report Rumors

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Colbert Report Tickets

Paul McCartney Appearance
More Funny Videos

Chicago is tougher than DC

2009-01-28T12:39:00.003-05:00

Barack Obama just called folks in Washington weak, saying they can't handle "a little snow." (LOL!) This was at the aforementioned meeting with CEO's in the Roosevelt Room.

"As my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never canceled. In fact, my 7 year-old (Sasha) pointed out you'd go outside for recess!"

Translation: My little 7 year-old girl is tougher than you guys. Hilarious. Here's the video.

Clutch, Pride, Gaggle, Flock!

2009-01-28T12:28:00.000-05:00

President Obama is meeting with CEO's from some of America's top companies to discuss the economy and toss potential solutions around. Which is a bit like meeting with Matt Millen to set your draft board, but... (Pow! Zing!).

A recent post on Politico 44 reads:

A clutch of CEOs, here for a morning economic meeting and photo op with POTUS, was forced to wait in line at the WH’s Northwest Gate and schlep their way through security with the press, grounds crew and rest of the rabble. One well-tailored titan wasn’t immediately let in and was overheard saying: “I was told I was cleared this morning.” Most of the Fortune 500 types, however, took the chilly wait on Pennsylvania Ave in good cheer, dutifully digging out their drivers licenses for the Secret Service and waiting as the Gator-like vehicles were let onto the grounds. -- Jonathan Martin (9:44AM)

Did you catch that? He said a "clutch" of CEO's. Which led me to wonder whether that is really the most appropriate collective noun for captains of industry.

Collective nouns are one of the really odd aspects of the English language. Most of us have heard of a flock of geese, a school of fish, a pride of lions, and a plague of locusts. But did you know, for example, that a group of bears is called a "sleuth," a group of hounds is called a "cry," and a flock of crows is called a "murder"?

Here are some other interesting ones:

A congress of baboons (makes a lot of sense)
A charm of hummingbirds
An exaltation of larks
A parliament of owls
A nye (in the bush) or bouquet (when flushed out) of pheasants
A deceit of lapwings

A deceit! There we go. President Obama met with a deceit of CEO's. Lock it in.

RIP John Updike

2009-01-27T18:46:00.002-05:00

It was April 1990, and I was sitting in a dingy airport cafe in what was then called Sahar International Airport, in Mumbai, waiting to board a flight back to the United States, via London Heathrow. I was in that half-asleep-yet-totally-awake state that only happens in international terminals, with their stark lighting and total banishment of the rhythms of the outside world, and of course, completely bored. I wandered over to a small book stall (these were the days before the bright, clean duty-free mini-malls, I guess) and began gazing at the shelves, stocked mostly with spy novels and Filmfare mags. Then I saw the words:

Rabbit, Run.

Intrigued, I grabbed the book and began reading. No, it wasn't so engrossing that I missed my flight, nothing like that, but I had never read anything like it before.

Outdoors it is growing dark and cool. The Norway maples exhale the smell of their sticky new buds and the broad living-room windows along Wilbur Street show beyond the silver patch of a television set the warm bulbs glowing in kitchens, like fires at the back of caves. He walks downhill. The day is gathering itself in. He now and then touches with his hand the rough bark of a tree or the dry twigs of a hedge, to give himself the small answer of a texture. At the corner, where Wilbur Street meets Potter Avenue, a mailbox stands leaning in twilight on its concrete post. Tall, two-petaled street sign, the cleat-gouged trunk of the telephone pole holding its insulators against the sky, fire hydrant like a golden bush: a grove. He used to love to climb the poles. To shimmy up from a friend's shoulders until the ladder of spikes came to your hands, to get up to where you could hear the wires sing.

Updike is an American legend. He wrote Rabbit, Run in 1960, one of the early stanzas in a long, epic aria of a literary career. I have read a few of his other books since then, and they are masterpieces, but none of them struck a chord with me the way the first one did. If you are into literature, especially 20th century American novelists, and have not read this book, then pick it up.

I ended up finishing Rabbit, Run before the plane landed in London. Anyway, John Updike died today, of lung cancer, at the age of 76, and I wanted to say something about it. And to add that thanks to that book stall, I'll always associate John Updike with a badly lit airport terminal that smelled like sweat and stale urine.

I'm sure he's thrilled.

Why I loved Slumdog

2009-01-25T07:00:00.005-05:00

(Spolier Alert: This post reveals plot points from the movie.)

An Indian friend of mine recently challenged me on Slumdog Millionaire.

He doesn’t understand the adulation the movie has received. He felt the whole premise of the movie was incredulous and overdone. He thought Anil Kapoor’s generally praised portrayal of a smarmy talk show host was pedestrian and lacked believability. And I suspect, like many native Indians, he isn’t crazy about the way the movie pulls the curtain back on the underbelly of Indian existence, from the slums to child prostitution. He asked me why I, and so many people, liked Slumdog so much.

He’s right about a few things. The plot does stretch credulity to a breaking point. The acting, although stalwart (especially Madhur Mittal as the wayward older brother and the always reliable Irrfan Khan as the police inspector) is not spectacular. But Danny Boyle’s directing is superb, and the way his camera depicts India with a seemingly oxymoronic combination of detachment and empathy, and never resorts to stereotype, is something no Western director has done before. Boyle's cinematography is brilliant; recall the opening scene of the film, when his camera flies as if on wings, careening at breakneck pace through the labyrinthine slums of Mumbai as Jamal and his friends run from the police, before soaring into the sky to slowly unroll a bleak and seemingly unending landscape of poverty and squalor. A. R. Rahman’s score is light and uplifting in subtle counterpoint to the heavy bass tones of the plot. But what makes this movie so beloved, I think, goes deeper than the technical aspects of the film itself. I think it’s the story – its imperfect beauty and its inescapable relevance to the times we live in.

This story is infused with a thick despair that runs in its veins like blood. That pervasive suffering – the abject poverty of the slums, the constant running from the police, the death of Jamal's mother during religious riots, the gangs, drugs, danger, corruption, torture, and the way in which every exit door opens to a brick wall – creates that stultifying sense of hopelessness. The movie also has moments of true horror. The most horrifying moment is so obvious that anyone who has seen the movie knows what I am referring to without needing a hint. The looming despair only sharpens those moments of horror. You are always certain that there is a scorpion, and that it will strike, you just don’t know when. So when it strikes, it’s all the more horrifying because you saw it coming.

The low point of the film which I referred to earlier, the one that will refuse to leave you even weeks after you have seen the film, is the scene when Maman, the Fagan-like pimp leading a ragtag gang of pickpockets and beggars, blinds the little boy with the sweet singing voice, because blind beggar boys fetch double or triple in alms. I saw it coming, as I suspect many people did, without knowing what exactly it was. There was something wrong with Maman, and we knew it from the moment he first appeared on the screen, offering the orphans a Coke through the tent flaps. We learn he is not the head of an orphanage but a gangster who collects street children and trains them to beg for money. When Maman would ask the boys to sing his favorite song, “Darshan Do Ghanshyam” which translates in sickening irony as “Grant me your vision, O Lord, my eyes are thirsty for you” you just knew something was wrong. But when Maman’s henchman pours boiling wax into the unconscious boy’s eyes, it is a nauseating moment for all the obvious reasons, but more so because it was so much worse than were expecting. The heartbreaking reunion of the blind beggar and Jamal later in the film is a moment of genius storytelling.

This pervasive sense of suffering and despair that infuses the film could have easily dragged it down, if it weren’t for the soul of Jamal Malik. Life is suffering, the story tells us, life is pain. But Jamal couldn’t care less. Although he is deeply scarred by life, numbed by it, by the murder of his mother, the thousands treasons of his older brother, by the despair that marks his existence, the raging waters of his suffering have not touched his soul. His spirit is so strong, so indomitable, that he doggedly searches for his childhood love against ridiculous odds and is never – not even for a single moment – daunted.

This is a story about not simply hope, but the kind of irrational hope that couldn’t care less about reality, the kind of hope that is invincible. As a keeper of that flame, Jamal Malik become a hero for our times. I think that is why this story has achieved so much resonance and crossed such vast cultural and language divides. Rev. Joseph Lowery, the pastor and Civil Rights icon whose benediction stole the show at the Obama Inauguration (“Let brown stick around…let the red man,get ahead, man…”) called this hope the “Good Crazy”.

The movie also brought to my mind, in fact, even as I was watching it in the theater, a poem by William Ernest Henley called Invictus:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

While Jamal’s raison d’etre was his search for Latika, the object isn’t what is universal, it’s the quest. It is what Thomas Jefferson called the pursuit of happiness. It's what Emily Dickinson meant when she wrote, "Hope is the thing with feathers/ That perches in the soul,/And sings the tune - without the words,/and never stops at all." It's what Barack Obama (and before him Jeremiah Wright) called the “audacity of hope.”

That indomitable spirit isn’t just the essence of the Indian soul (which it is), it isn’t just the essence of America (which it is), it is the elemental core of the human spirit. And that is I think what makes Slumdog so iconic, so beloved.

* * *

Will Oscar love Slumdog? It's hard to say. 2009 reminds me a lot of 1994, when two of the films up for the Best Picture award were Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption. Gump beat out Shawshank, and most film lovers look back at that as one of the times Oscar got it wrong.

This year, in an eerie bit of deja vu, a broad saga about the life of a unconventional protagonist - this time, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, will go up against the story about hope against all odds.

Let's see if Oscar redeems itself.

Obama Weekly Address - January 24, 2009

2009-01-24T11:19:00.003-05:00

Obama on Air Force One

2009-01-24T11:17:00.003-05:00

Check out this video clip of Obama on his first trip on Air Force One from a National Geographic show. I love the reference to "The Right Stuff"...

The Insane Genius of Chris Matthews

2009-01-24T11:00:00.005-05:00

If you're like me, you don't know what to make of Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball. There are some days I cannot stand the way he interrupts his guests and goes off on inane tangents, and what is with his laugh? (HA!) And then there are other days when I think he's the best color commentator in the business. I just don't know what to make of him, except that he is compelling television, and I'm glad he's not running for the Senate seat in PA.

If you are similarly interested in Chris Matthews, this article by Jack Shafer of Slate- which takes an excursion along the labyrinthine byways of his addled brain on Inauguration Day - is a MUST READ.

Here's the first paragraph:

Nobody in TV news stir-fries his ideas and serves them to the audience faster than MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Drawing from a larder filled with old anecdotes, unreliable metaphors, wacky intuition, and superficial observations, the always-animated Matthews steers whatever's handy into the hot wok that is his brain. The sizzling free-associations skitter through his limbic system, leap out his mouth, and look for a resting spot in the national conversation, where they steam like fresh lava in untouchable heaps.

I had my TV tuned to MSNBC on Inauguration Day, and this was my favorite Matthews moment from the entire day, which happened right in the middle of a semi-serious discussion about the inaugural balls and the historic nature of the Obama presidency:

MATTHEWS: Well, having gone to a number of these things last night until about 1:00 in the morning, I—I‘m not sure I want to do this again.
I got—I gave Val Kilmer a ride home last night.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I met—let‘s go through the names of who I met, John Cusack. I love—I always wanted to meet him. He said he always wanted to meet me. That‘s kind of cool.
And Ed Harris. And Robert De Niro, I met him last night, and Norman -
what‘s his name? Norman...
O‘DONNELL: Mailer?
MATTHEWS: No, not—he‘s dead.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: No, the guy that made all those TV shows. I met him. “All in the Family,” whatever his name is. And—Norman Lear.

Genius. I mean, seriously. WTF.

The Fall of the American Empire?

2009-01-24T10:34:00.005-05:00

Vanity Fair interviews Niall Ferguson, whose take on what Obama may need to do to dig us out of this hole is, to put it mildly, terrifying.

(Background on Ferguson: He is a Harvard historian and business school professor who wrote an eerie article in October 2006 comparing America in 2006 to Rome in 331 AD, as in, at the moment of the fall of the Roman Empire, and predicting the 2008 financial collapse. You can read that really interesting article, "Empire Falls", here.)

The subject of the recent VF interview is actually Ferguson's new book, The Ascent of Money, in which he describes the five stages of an economic bubble: Displacement, Euphoria, Mania, Distress and Panic. In correlating these stages to our current situation, Ferguson believes that the markets had a sort of delayed Panic reaction - that although the wheels came off in August 2007, we didn't notice, and truly panic, until September 15, 2008, when Lehman Bros. collapsed.

In Ferguson's words, "Wile E. Coyote ran off the cliff in August of ’07, but he didn’t really look down until over a year later."

As to what happens next, he believes our options are very limited because we are so egregiously leveraged. "The debt burden, as a proportion of G.D.P., is in the region of 355 percent. So, debt is three and a half times the output of the economy. That’s some kind of historic maximum, and those debts aren’t going away."

As a result, he's very skeptic of the Obama plan and its ability to do anything more than provide a short-term boost:

"[W]hether it was the people who refinanced their mortgages and spent the money that they pocketed, or banks that juiced their returns by piling on the leverage, the whole system became excessively indebted. And notice: what is the policy response? You guessed it, more debt. And, now it’s federal debt.
So you end up in a situation where you’re curing a debt problem with more debt. Is that going to bring about a sustained recovery? I find that hard to believe."

Splendid. So what do we do?

"Well, I’ll tell you what you have to do—you actually have to cancel the debt. There are historical precedents for this.

Excessive debt burdens in the past tended to be public sector debts. What we’ve got now is an exceptional level of private debt. There’s never been an economy in history that’s had so much private debt. Britain and America today lead the world in the indebtedness of the household sector and the banking sector and the corporate sector. But debt is debt; it doesn’t even matter if it’s household debt or government. Once it gets to a certain level, there is a problem.

In the past, when excessive debt burdens were accumulated by government, they tended to do one of two things: either they defaulted—this is the Argentine solution—where you say, “Ah, I’m sorry, I’m afraid we’re not going to be able to meet the interest payments this month, and never again will we make the interest payments.”

The other scenario is inflation, where the real debt burden is eroded because the money that it’s denominated in loses value."

Which brings us to the money quote:

Q: Don’t either of those scenarios spell the end of America as the world’s unrivalled superpower?
Well, it certainly will be extremely painful. And that is why we have to look very closely at the attitude of the foreign creditors, because the U.S. owes the rest of the world a lot of money. Half the federal debt is held by foreigners. And if the U.S. either defaults on debt or allows the dollar to depreciate, the rest of the world is going to say, “Wait a second, you just screwed us.” And that’s, I think, the moment at which the United States experiences the British experience—when, in the dark days of the 60s and 70s, Britain fundamentally lost its credibility and ceased to be a financial great power. The I.M.F. had to come in, and the pound plunged to unheard-of depths.

Ehh.

Anyway, the interview is a great (albeit depressing) read, and the book, which I've only yet skimmed, is quite compelling.

100 Day Sprint?

2009-01-24T10:26:00.004-05:00

President Obama has had quite a productive first three days in office, hitting the ground sprinting on a number of high priority issues.

Check out this Vanity Fair article that grades him on his first day as President.

When you consider how quickly he has been able to move on signing executive orders, ensuring confirmation of his cabinet appointments, and starting diplomatic processes with hot spots around the globe, remember that it all started months before Election Day, with the hiring of John Podesta to head his transition team. Obama planned for what he would have to do if he won, without worrying about what that would look like if he lost. Remember McCain's "measuring the drapes" critique? It's nice to have a President that is this organized, pragmatic and results-oriented. That approach alone - the actual successes notwithstanding - will have a huge effect on perception of government to consumer confidence.

It's a new day.

PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

2009-01-20T12:31:00.003-05:00

"Let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America! In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

(Photo source: CNN.com)

A Profound Moment

2009-01-20T10:52:00.003-05:00

At this profound and auspicious moment in American and world history, it is worth remembering how much of what is happening now was first dreamed of, fought for and prayed over by millions.

Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T10:08:00.006-05:00

The day we have been waiting for so impatiently is finally here. It's a great day for the USA.

The new First Couple began the day with the traditional inaugural visit to St. John's Episcopal Church for a private prayer service. They then joined the Bidens and headed to the White House to have coffee with the Bushes, Cheneys and the Inaugural Ceremonies Committee.

VIPs are now arriving at the Capitol and taking their seats, a full two hours before 12 noon, which the official time for the transfer of power as required by the Constitution.

A few interesting tidbits:

67% of Americans, or over 200 million people (not to mention the rest of the world) plan to watch the Inauguration.
Barack Obama will take the oath of office on Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural bible.
George W. Bush has left a message in the Oval Office for Barack Obama, a written note which he has placed in the top middle drawer of the Resolute desk.
Dick Cheney will attend the Inauguration in a wheelchair, he wrenched his back while moving the man-sized safe out of his office.

"An Old Soul"

2009-01-20T09:29:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic and The Daily Dish wields an eloquent pen as he discusses what Barack Obama has shown us about who he is, and what that means about what he is trying to achieve. A few key excerpts:

From the shallow brittleness of George W Bush to the supple strength of Obama is a revolution in temperament and style not seen since Jimmy Carter gave way to Ronald Reagan 28 years ago. It signals the kind of administration that now looms before us: a conciliatory, inclusive, pragmatic form of liberalism. It’s a liberalism eager to learn from the insights of conservatives, and it is pioneered by a president-elect shrewd enough to know that generosity of spirit means more leverage and influence, not less.

Obama acts like a kind of antacid to the American stomach. He has walked through the churn of racial and cultural and religious polarisation and somehow calmed everyone down.

Last spring he faced his biggest crisis — the exploitation by the Republican right of his incendiary former pastor Jeremiah Wright, a man whose penchant for polarisation was pathological. At a moment of extreme emotion and political peril, Obama found a way to give a speech that remains the greatest of recent times, to remind Americans of their complex and painful racial past, and not to condescend or cavil. The intellectual achievement of the speech was impressive enough — sufficient to provoke Garry Wills, the Lincoln scholar, to compare it to the Gettysburg address.

He doesn’t charm like Clinton did and Bush tried to. Unlike both men, but especially Clinton, he appears to have no need to be loved by everyone in the room. He often finds it hard to disguise how tired he feels. He is capable of evoking enormous inspiration, but he has yet to be able to hide it when he is bored. There is a wryness to his conversation and a dryness to his humour, both of which are sustained by an intellect of power. The revered liberal jurist Larry Tribe has said that in decades of teaching at Harvard Law School, he has never had a cleverer student than Obama. I don’t think he’s exaggerating. Intellectually, Obama is in Bill Clinton’s league. But what he has over Clinton is emotional intelligence to buttress his grasp of policy.

There is something about Obama’s willingness to give others credit, to approach so many issues with such dispassionate pragmatism, and to shift by symbols and speeches the mood and tenor of an entire country that gives one a modest form of optimism. Even now, as the outlook seems so dark, and as the inheritance seems so insuperable, three words linger in the mind.
Yes, he can.
And two words echo back at me.
Can we?

Read the whole article here.

A Day of Service

2009-01-19T10:38:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama spent Martin Luther King Day, his last day as President-Elect, visiting wounded troops at Walter Reed Medical Center and volunteering at an emergency shelter for homeless teens.

He appealed to the nation to honor the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. through service to others.

"As we honor that legacy, it's not a day just to pause and reflect — it's a day to act," Obama said on King's national holiday. "I ask the American people to turn today's efforts into an ongoing commitment to enriching the lives of others in their communities, their cities, and their country."

What a great example of a commitment to serve. Read more about Obama's day at the shelter, and his skills as a painter, here.

Visit USAService.org and find out about service opportunities in your area, today and beyond.

We Are One - Live on HBO.com

2009-01-18T12:07:00.006-05:00

The Inauguration festivities at the Lincoln Memorial begin at 2:30 pm Eastern. HBO has the rights, but has licensed it to local providers, so it's worth checking your HBO channel even if you don't normally subscribe to it. The festivities can also be seen online at HBO.com.

"It better be good."

2009-01-18T07:00:00.000-05:00

A cool moment with Obama and his daughters in the wake of his historic inauguration:

Obama recalled a conversation with his daughter about his inauguration speech after visiting the Lincoln Memorial with his family.

After pointing out Lincoln’s second inaugural within the monument, Obama told the paper, “Malia, turns to me and says, 'Yeah, how are we doing on that?” His younger daughter Sasha then asked if he was going to deliver a similar speech.

“I said, ‘Well, actually, that’s a short version, but yeah, I will,’” Obama remembered. “And then Malia says, ‘First African American president -- it better be good.’”

Whistlestop Tour

2009-01-17T18:25:00.004-05:00

Barack Obama began his train journey from Philadelphia to the nation's capital this morning, with stops in Wilmington, DE and Baltimore, MD and a number of "slow rolls" thrown in to greet supporters lining the train tracks along the way.

The journey traces the path taken by Abraham Lincoln en route to his inauguration, although Lincoln took 12 days, giving 100 speeches along the way. Yikes.

Here's the President-Elect at 30th Street station in Philly:

What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels...

I believed that our future is our choice, and that if we could just recognize ourselves in one another and bring everyone together - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, north, south, east and west, black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American, gay and straight, disabled and not - then not only would we restore hope and opportunity in places that yearned for both, but maybe, just maybe, we might perfect our union in the process...

Let's all of us do our part to rebuild this country.
Let's make sure this election is not the end of what we do to change America, but the beginning.
Join me in this effort. Join one another in this effort. And together, mindful of our proud history, hopeful for the future, let's seek a better world in our time.

Obama Radio Address - January 17, 2009

2009-01-17T10:28:00.000-05:00

Kicked to the Curb

2009-01-17T08:49:00.000-05:00

Ouch. That's a wax figure of George W. Bush, who looks like he's trying to a hitch a ride or something, as a smiling Barack Obama looks on, at the Madame Tussaud's in Amsterdam.

And check out the dude to Obama's left. Has James Bond left MI6 for the Secret Service?

Good Riddance

2009-01-17T07:59:00.000-05:00

Notwithstanding tenacious attempts to whitewash the Bush-Cheney legacy, the country is pretty much fed up with Bush & Co., and cannot wait to move on.

Dick Cheney's approval rating: 13%. (!)
Bush, the lowest ever for a departing President: 22%.

Check out these articles from The Economist and NY Times for two interesting perspectives on this historic moment of collective derision.

Obama at Cardinal Fastener

2009-01-16T23:39:00.002-05:00

The President-Elect visited a Cardinal Fastener factory in Bedford Heights, Ohio on Friday to pitch his stimulus plan:

Courage of Detroit

2009-01-16T19:20:00.007-05:00

Most people who don't live in Detroit will read this article by Mitch Albom in last week's Sports Illustrated, think, "Dude can write" and move on.

But if you are from Detroit, if you have ever lived there - and by "there" I don't just mean south of 8 Mile, I mean anywhere in the old 313, the teeming suburbs surrounding the hardscrabble shell of Motown from Troy to Oakland to Sterling Heights to Livonia...if you've grown up on #20 and dreamed you were Stevie Y, if you wondered what the heck happened to the Worm after he left the Palace, and watched Sir Cecil wield that tree trunk of a bat in old Tiger Stadium...if you ever walked down Woodward Avenue before the "glory days" of CoPa and Superbowl 40, before the "facelift", and wondered what was happening to the city...if you went to Cobo for the Auto Show and wandered past the Fist and wished Detroit could make a comeback...then the article will bring a lump to your throat.

Mitch Albom is an institution in Detroit, up there with our sports heroes and music legends, with Ernie Harwell and Joe D and Barry Sanders, he belongs to Detroit in a way very few famous folks do, because when the city embraced him, he embraced back.

Now Detroit's fortunes are inextricably tied to the national economy, to the failing auto industry that no one wants to see succeed. Washington opened its coffers to Wall Street but shut the door in the face of the Big 3, which is fine because Ford and GM have pissed us off quite a lot lately. But cars are the throbbing pulse of the dying city. And Detroit isn't just a pile of cars no one wants, or a laughingstock franchise. It's lost jobs and empty homes, and what ails Detroit is spreading like a contagion.

Do you think if your main industry sails away to foreign countries, if the tax base of your city dries up, you won't have crumbling houses and men sleeping on church floors too? Do you think if we become a country that makes nothing, that builds nothing, that only services and outsources, that we will hold our place on the economic totem pole? Detroit may be suffering the worst from this semi-Depression, but we sure didn't invent it. And we can't stop it from spreading. We can only do what we do. Survive.

Here's hoping Motown - powered by green cars and the resurgent Lions - makes a comeback.

And Mitch Albom, he ought to win the Pulitzer.

Quick Sips

2009-01-15T21:05:00.005-05:00

1. The President-Elect just won his first legislative victory and it isn't even January 20 yet: the lame duck Congress voted 52-42 (45 Dems, 6 Repubs, and Joe Leiberman) to allow the release of the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds. Upon hearing the news, Barack Obama heaved a little sigh of relief, took out his wallet, and put his political capital back in it.

2. President-for-five-days-more George W. Bush made the final speech of his presidency from the East Room of the White House today. Not that this whole legacy tour is going to work, but it makes me wonder: if only he had approached governing with the same diligence, message discipline and tenacity that he has attempted to recast his egregious tenure...

3. Is Obama snubbing the Gray Lady? Stopping by the New York Times is apparently a pre-inaugural tradition for every president-elect. Not only has Obama turned down the NY Times, today he stopped by the Washington Post. The NY Times pool reporter in attendance wasn't pleased.

4. Wow. The US Airways plane crash landing in the Hudson?! I think I'll start paying attention to the pre-flight safety demonstrations now.

5. The Detroit Lions have just named Tennessee defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz as their new head coach. Pass the cornbread.