First Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi praised Obama in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly yesterday. Then Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lauds Obama in an address to the same body today.
"We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president," Qaddafi said, after referring to Obama as "my son." He continued, "Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I'm afraid we may go back to square one.
"Can the U.S. guarantee after Obama that they'll be a government? We're happy and content if he can stay forever," said the Libyan dictator.
Chavez also was effusive in his feelings for the new American president. "It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore," Chavez said, referencing an attack he had made on former President George W. Bush in a speech there three years ago. "It smells of something else. It smells of hope."
I can see the reelection campaign developing already. Alongside the iconic "Hope" t-shirts, there'll be "Forever" ones. Obama, the dictators' choice.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Hypocrisy -- Brought to you by the great state of Massachusetts
When Democratic Senator John Kerry ran for president in 2004, the Massachusetts legislature, worried that then-Republican Governor Mitt Romney would be able to appoint his interim successor, stripped the power of appointment from the governor. It passed a law prohibiting the governor of the state from filing vacated senate seats, instead providing for a special election.
But now that there is a Democratic governor in the state, the legislature has decided that perhaps they were wrong five years ago. Now, it is of the utmost importance that Massachusetts have its full number of representatives in the Senate. Now, they trust the governor to fill a vacant seat. Now, the voice of the people is not their biggest concern.
If a Republican-led legislature had done the same thing, would the media be this quiet about it? Is this not the most blatant example of hypocrisy by those supposedly elected to serve all the people of their state?
"The Democrats' power play in Massachusetts has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics. With their unpopular government-run health care bill on the brink of failure, Democrats in Washington desperately need another vote in the U.S. Senate, and it is clear that this administration will stop at nothing to ram it through the Congress," said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in a written statement.
But the power play here is not all on the shoulders of the legislature, because even it had exercised a modicum of restraint. The real villain here is the governor, Deval Patrick. The Massachusetts legislature approved the bill permitting the governor to name a successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. But the legislature did not include a provision in the bill to have it take effect immediately. Instead, like any other bill, it came with a 90-day waiting period before it could come into effect.
So the governor has taken it upon himself to override the part of the law. Gov. Patrick said yesterday that he would send a letter to the secretary of state to declare an emergency that would allow him to make the bill take effect immediately. He has already named a replacement, Paul Kirk, a longtime aide to the late Senator.
An emergency? The idea that the Democrats may not be able to ram a health care bill down the throats of America without having to hear, consider or – heaven forbid – include input from the minority party. That’s their idea of an emergency.
So where is the outrage? Besides, Fox News Channel and the right-wing radio shows, that is. Why is the rest of the media not as offended by this as the Republicans are? This should not be a partisan issue – it should be about fairness. The Democrats in Massachusetts stripped their elected Republican governor from being allowed to fill a vacant seat, then gave that right to their Democratic governor just a few years later. And then that governor went a step further, declaring an emergency to give him the right to act immediately – for the sole purpose of pushing through legislation in the Senate that the public is split on.
The governor of Massachusetts is allowed to unilaterally announce an emergency to give himself this extreme power and what is the disaster he is seeking to avert? Debate on the issue of health care. Compromise in the Senate. Or, worse, the prospect that President Obama won’t get what he wants.
Sadly, in the new Obama era, that does qualify as an emergency.
But now that there is a Democratic governor in the state, the legislature has decided that perhaps they were wrong five years ago. Now, it is of the utmost importance that Massachusetts have its full number of representatives in the Senate. Now, they trust the governor to fill a vacant seat. Now, the voice of the people is not their biggest concern.
If a Republican-led legislature had done the same thing, would the media be this quiet about it? Is this not the most blatant example of hypocrisy by those supposedly elected to serve all the people of their state?
"The Democrats' power play in Massachusetts has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics. With their unpopular government-run health care bill on the brink of failure, Democrats in Washington desperately need another vote in the U.S. Senate, and it is clear that this administration will stop at nothing to ram it through the Congress," said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in a written statement.
But the power play here is not all on the shoulders of the legislature, because even it had exercised a modicum of restraint. The real villain here is the governor, Deval Patrick. The Massachusetts legislature approved the bill permitting the governor to name a successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. But the legislature did not include a provision in the bill to have it take effect immediately. Instead, like any other bill, it came with a 90-day waiting period before it could come into effect.
So the governor has taken it upon himself to override the part of the law. Gov. Patrick said yesterday that he would send a letter to the secretary of state to declare an emergency that would allow him to make the bill take effect immediately. He has already named a replacement, Paul Kirk, a longtime aide to the late Senator.
An emergency? The idea that the Democrats may not be able to ram a health care bill down the throats of America without having to hear, consider or – heaven forbid – include input from the minority party. That’s their idea of an emergency.
So where is the outrage? Besides, Fox News Channel and the right-wing radio shows, that is. Why is the rest of the media not as offended by this as the Republicans are? This should not be a partisan issue – it should be about fairness. The Democrats in Massachusetts stripped their elected Republican governor from being allowed to fill a vacant seat, then gave that right to their Democratic governor just a few years later. And then that governor went a step further, declaring an emergency to give him the right to act immediately – for the sole purpose of pushing through legislation in the Senate that the public is split on.
The governor of Massachusetts is allowed to unilaterally announce an emergency to give himself this extreme power and what is the disaster he is seeking to avert? Debate on the issue of health care. Compromise in the Senate. Or, worse, the prospect that President Obama won’t get what he wants.
Sadly, in the new Obama era, that does qualify as an emergency.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama's UN Speech: Four Pillars towards One World?
President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly today in a speech that was apologetic and toothless, signaling his intention that the United States should occupy the seat in the back of the world's bus. The speech was shocking both for how little respect and authority it gave to America's role on the world stage and for how well it has been received by most of the media.
Alternately prostrate and self-flagellating, Obama took aim at and distanced himself from the policies of the past. But not just those of George W. Bush, but of all presidents with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. He identified this change of direction right at the outset, indicating that his America is “determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.“ Note the word “collectively.” That means not acting on our own, independently, for the best interest of the United States. No, his new world order has our Commander in Chief addressing the world’s issues as if he were a representative of all the people on the globe and not our republic.
He then raised the issue of how the rest of the world views us, as if it had any relevance at all. I doubt he would tell his daughters that their behavior should be tied to how others will perceive them, as opposed to teaching them rules of proper and ethical conduct that they should follow regardless of how that is viewed by others.
He blamed the fact that “many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust” in part on the belief that ”America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.” But for whom else should we act? It should be the primary responsibility of the President and Congress to do that which is best for America – with or without the support of other countries. He even paid lip service to this idea, stating “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interests of my nation and my people. And I will never apologize for defending those interests.” But then he goes on to do just that, apologize for our so-called unilateral actions.
The President, however, ignores the fact that, when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan for example, we did reach out to other countries, even though we had no obligation to do so, and were able to get some to join us in our fight against extremist organizations. We brought our concerns to the United Nations and sought participation in our efforts to root out Al Qaeda from all of our allies.
I will not ramp up hysteria by noting that Obama used the word “pillar,” stating that he was setting forth “four pillars” that our fundamental to our future. That wording stood out to me because the Five Pillars are the foundation for the Muslim religion. It is an interesting that he chose that specific word and possibly reflects another attempt by Obama to signal some special kinship with the Muslim world?
There is one part of the President’s speech with which I agree. At the outset he said, “I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer.” Indeed.
Alternately prostrate and self-flagellating, Obama took aim at and distanced himself from the policies of the past. But not just those of George W. Bush, but of all presidents with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. He identified this change of direction right at the outset, indicating that his America is “determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.“ Note the word “collectively.” That means not acting on our own, independently, for the best interest of the United States. No, his new world order has our Commander in Chief addressing the world’s issues as if he were a representative of all the people on the globe and not our republic.
He then raised the issue of how the rest of the world views us, as if it had any relevance at all. I doubt he would tell his daughters that their behavior should be tied to how others will perceive them, as opposed to teaching them rules of proper and ethical conduct that they should follow regardless of how that is viewed by others.
He blamed the fact that “many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust” in part on the belief that ”America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.” But for whom else should we act? It should be the primary responsibility of the President and Congress to do that which is best for America – with or without the support of other countries. He even paid lip service to this idea, stating “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interests of my nation and my people. And I will never apologize for defending those interests.” But then he goes on to do just that, apologize for our so-called unilateral actions.
The President, however, ignores the fact that, when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan for example, we did reach out to other countries, even though we had no obligation to do so, and were able to get some to join us in our fight against extremist organizations. We brought our concerns to the United Nations and sought participation in our efforts to root out Al Qaeda from all of our allies.
I will not ramp up hysteria by noting that Obama used the word “pillar,” stating that he was setting forth “four pillars” that our fundamental to our future. That wording stood out to me because the Five Pillars are the foundation for the Muslim religion. It is an interesting that he chose that specific word and possibly reflects another attempt by Obama to signal some special kinship with the Muslim world?
There is one part of the President’s speech with which I agree. At the outset he said, “I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer.” Indeed.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Happy Beatles Day!
With the launch of The Beatles Rock Band, as well as the release of remastered Beatles music, I thought I'd take a break from the usual blog fodder for a countdown of my personal favorite Beatles' songs.
"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup." So begins Across the Universe, a beautiful and hauntingly poetic song written by John Lennon in the late 60's. There is no question that Lennon had a gift with words, but here he paired his lyric imagery with a melody that was both hypnotic and seductive.
There is probably no song that has affected me more than A Day in the Life. This time Lennon's lyrics are straight forward as he tells three separate stories. He seems to be reaching his hand out through the speakers, to take you to a new place where you would see and feel things you'd never experienced before. Brilliantly broken up by a change in tempo and tone with Paul McCartney's brief interlude, the song builds musically to a literal crescendo (created by playing an orchestra's warm-up backwards).
For No One was written by McCartney, but no reason to hold that against a song with a musical hook that still gets me forty years later. First released on one of my favorite Beatles' albums, Revolver, the song is a gem. The descending notes of the clavichord, the French horn solo, the sweet, unadulterated sound of Paul's voice, combines for a sad, beautiful song.
Beginning with the most memorable starting chord in all of music, how can you not love A Hard Day's Night? Putting aside the lyric simplicity (rhyming dog and log was not one of Lennon's crowning achievements), the song nevertheless epitomizes the excitement, energy and vibrancy of the Beatles. It's fast-paced, easily memorable, and a true collaboration (unlike most Lennon/McCartney songs, this one really was written with the help of both). Just the sound of Lennon's voice moaning "ahhh" before repeating the title is enough to make this a favorite. But the story of the title's derivation -- coming from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms -- makes the song even more endearing. And enduring.
Another song that is also the title of a Beatles' movie, Help! also deserves inclusion on this list. The vocal overdubbing created a layered and intense sound that gave more intensity to the desperate lyrics. "And now my life has changed in oh so many ways," was probably the understatement of the year. And to have the ultimate supergroup convey feelings the rest of us ordinary folk felt (echoing insecurity and doubt) was both liberating and disconcerting.
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I like I Will. It's a sweet, sappy love song, written by McCartney for Linda. But unlike his truly awful Silly Love Songs written post-Beatles, this is actually a wonderful, pure admission of devotion. Who wouldn't want a song like that to be written for them? Lennon wrote a similarly "madly in love" song for Yoko years later, Oh Yoko, which I'd include as a favorite were it not a solo effort. And I'll give a nod to George Harrison for his similarly themed, Byrds-esque If I Needed Someone.
"There are places I remember, all my life though some have changed." In My Life. Is there another song that both grabs you by the throat and touches your heart as much as this song? It is a reminiscence, it is a love song, it is a plaint, it is a celebration. It is Lennon laid bare.
George Harrison's guitar introduces an urgently paced, buoyant I've Just Seen a Face. Falling? Yes, Paul, we were falling every time we heard your happy, heavily-Liverpudlian-accented voice go almost country as you professed your love.
By contrast, Julia is almost a dirge. A love song to his dead mother, Lennon again did what he did best -- open up his heart and lay it all out for us. There appeared to be no filter, no need to hide or hedge when he wrote a song. He put what he felt out there, this time in a strange mix of lullaby and prayer.
In Let it Be, McCartney sings of his own departed mother, "mother Mary," whose lasting influence is to help strengthen him in "times of trouble." The piano introduction is almost hymnal in tone and the song, with its angelic backing vocals and gentle melody, seems somehow sacred. Then the electric guitar and drums come in and shakes things up. This is no old-time gospel music, this is something else.
Lennon oozed sex in Norwegian Wood. Released on the album Rubber Soul, Lennon starts out naughtily :"I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me?" Introducing the sitar to Western ears, the song was unlike anything being heard in 1965. And the band, who had started out with innocent songs like the virginal I Want to Hold Your Hand, was now opening up a whole new direction. Lennon's voice was full of wry sensuality and his lyrics admitted to multiple indiscretions. The Beatles were definitely moving in a new direction.
You've Got to Hide Your Love Away has my favorite Lennon vocal. Pained, angry, demoralized, he sums up all the feelings of a failed relationship even down to the resigned, sardonic laugh at his own misfortune.
These are just a few of the songs that I will never tire of and it's nice to have an excuse to celebrate them.
"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup." So begins Across the Universe, a beautiful and hauntingly poetic song written by John Lennon in the late 60's. There is no question that Lennon had a gift with words, but here he paired his lyric imagery with a melody that was both hypnotic and seductive.
There is probably no song that has affected me more than A Day in the Life. This time Lennon's lyrics are straight forward as he tells three separate stories. He seems to be reaching his hand out through the speakers, to take you to a new place where you would see and feel things you'd never experienced before. Brilliantly broken up by a change in tempo and tone with Paul McCartney's brief interlude, the song builds musically to a literal crescendo (created by playing an orchestra's warm-up backwards).
For No One was written by McCartney, but no reason to hold that against a song with a musical hook that still gets me forty years later. First released on one of my favorite Beatles' albums, Revolver, the song is a gem. The descending notes of the clavichord, the French horn solo, the sweet, unadulterated sound of Paul's voice, combines for a sad, beautiful song.
Beginning with the most memorable starting chord in all of music, how can you not love A Hard Day's Night? Putting aside the lyric simplicity (rhyming dog and log was not one of Lennon's crowning achievements), the song nevertheless epitomizes the excitement, energy and vibrancy of the Beatles. It's fast-paced, easily memorable, and a true collaboration (unlike most Lennon/McCartney songs, this one really was written with the help of both). Just the sound of Lennon's voice moaning "ahhh" before repeating the title is enough to make this a favorite. But the story of the title's derivation -- coming from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms -- makes the song even more endearing. And enduring.
Another song that is also the title of a Beatles' movie, Help! also deserves inclusion on this list. The vocal overdubbing created a layered and intense sound that gave more intensity to the desperate lyrics. "And now my life has changed in oh so many ways," was probably the understatement of the year. And to have the ultimate supergroup convey feelings the rest of us ordinary folk felt (echoing insecurity and doubt) was both liberating and disconcerting.
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I like I Will. It's a sweet, sappy love song, written by McCartney for Linda. But unlike his truly awful Silly Love Songs written post-Beatles, this is actually a wonderful, pure admission of devotion. Who wouldn't want a song like that to be written for them? Lennon wrote a similarly "madly in love" song for Yoko years later, Oh Yoko, which I'd include as a favorite were it not a solo effort. And I'll give a nod to George Harrison for his similarly themed, Byrds-esque If I Needed Someone.
"There are places I remember, all my life though some have changed." In My Life. Is there another song that both grabs you by the throat and touches your heart as much as this song? It is a reminiscence, it is a love song, it is a plaint, it is a celebration. It is Lennon laid bare.
George Harrison's guitar introduces an urgently paced, buoyant I've Just Seen a Face. Falling? Yes, Paul, we were falling every time we heard your happy, heavily-Liverpudlian-accented voice go almost country as you professed your love.
By contrast, Julia is almost a dirge. A love song to his dead mother, Lennon again did what he did best -- open up his heart and lay it all out for us. There appeared to be no filter, no need to hide or hedge when he wrote a song. He put what he felt out there, this time in a strange mix of lullaby and prayer.
In Let it Be, McCartney sings of his own departed mother, "mother Mary," whose lasting influence is to help strengthen him in "times of trouble." The piano introduction is almost hymnal in tone and the song, with its angelic backing vocals and gentle melody, seems somehow sacred. Then the electric guitar and drums come in and shakes things up. This is no old-time gospel music, this is something else.
Lennon oozed sex in Norwegian Wood. Released on the album Rubber Soul, Lennon starts out naughtily :"I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me?" Introducing the sitar to Western ears, the song was unlike anything being heard in 1965. And the band, who had started out with innocent songs like the virginal I Want to Hold Your Hand, was now opening up a whole new direction. Lennon's voice was full of wry sensuality and his lyrics admitted to multiple indiscretions. The Beatles were definitely moving in a new direction.
You've Got to Hide Your Love Away has my favorite Lennon vocal. Pained, angry, demoralized, he sums up all the feelings of a failed relationship even down to the resigned, sardonic laugh at his own misfortune.
These are just a few of the songs that I will never tire of and it's nice to have an excuse to celebrate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)