Joe Biden on Ted Kennedy

Make fun of Joe Biden all you want, but this speech he made today is exactly the right tone.

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

R.I.P., Senator Edward M. Kennedy

From the eulogy he gave for his brother Robert F. Kennedy:

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.

I dream things that never were and say why not."

From his Democratic Convention Speech in 1980:

A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves.

There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us.

Let this -- Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all.

...

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Sweden and the blood libel

Recently, a dust up has occurred in, of all things, Israeli-Swedish relations. A leading Swedish daily newspaper, Aftonbladet, alleged last week, that Israeli soldiers stole organs from the bodies of dead Palestinians. The article caused create consternation in Israel, and even prompted by the Swedish Foreign Minister defending freedom of speech.

Israelis jumped hard on this article, because it represents a variation on one of the oldest and most dangerous anti-Semitic cards- the blood libel . Basically, the blood libel against the Jews argues that Jews kill non-Jews to use their blood in religious rituals. The exact charge made by the Swedish newspapers doesn't exactly charge that Jews use non-Jewish blood to bake matzah, but its gives the idea a modern tweak but connecting the allegation to the recent indictment in New Jersey of an Orthodox Jews who smuggled body parts.

As disturbing as the article is on its fact, the reaction by the Swedish newspaper is even more disturbing. The reaction also illustrates something about how some anti-Israel sentiment easily morphs into anti-semitism, without people even knowing.

First, according to the Jerusalem Post, the author, Donald Bostrom, told Arab media site Menassat , that there was "no conclusive evidence" that organ harvesting was a systematic IDF practice, but rather a "collection of allegations and suspicious circumstances." So first, we know that the author has made an allegation that he can not prove.

Second, the editor of the newspaper, Jan Helin wrote an op-ed defending the piece, saying ""I'm not a Nazi. I'm not anti-semitic." Further, he defended the article in an interview with Ynetnews.com saying that he didn't check out the story with the IDF because, "This is not a news report, but the opinion of a reporter who looked at the situation and held a debate on what he thought. Organ trafficking is a question he thought worth investigating. It may be considered a good or bad idea, but it's not anti-Semitic propaganda." So, the editor of the newspaper is ok with the idea of a false report being printed, based on the idea that "questions-are-being-raised.

But Helin goes further and this is the most disturbing part. He attacks right-wing Israeli politicians for causing the problem, saying "I was saddened to see extreme rightist populists using this article as vulgar propaganda." He also used the "some of my best friends are Jewish" defense, saying "I was naïve. I thought Israel was democratic. I have many Jewish friends and I see Jewish culture as very positive."

What we have is an unproven report that traffics in a variation of thousand-year-old anti-semitic charge that is defended by editor of the newspaper who published it. The editor the goes on the attack those who were offended by the piece, claiming that is is only one the right wing politician who are offended it and expresses shock that he could be anti-semitic because he has Jewish friends.

What this illustrates is that a traditional anti-semitic charge somehow can rattle around legitimately among the press as long as its about Israel.

A few points need to be made to Mr. Bostrom and Mr. Helin. The charge made is anti-semitic. It doesn't make you a Nazi - it makes you a disciple of a far older strain of anti-semitism. And defending yourself by saying saying you have Jewish friends is a laughably absurd idea.

Simply put, I didn't believe that anti-semitism was the right charge here at first. Now I'm no so sure.

The ADL and Rush Limbaugh

Last Friday, the Anti-Defamation League put out a press release criticizing Rush Limbaugh for comparing Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic health care plan to the Nazi. (For examples, just look at this Media Matters compilation of Limbaugh’s Nazi analogies)

In the release, Executive Director Abe Foxman called Limbaugh’s comments "outrageous, deeply offensive and inappropriate.” Excellent. That’s what the ADL needed to do. So what’s the problem?

Well, The ADL’s release came almost a day after Limbaugh’s commentary had become a focal point of the health care debate, even prompting White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to comment on it. By the time the ADL had released its statement it had already been taken to task by Adam Serwer of The American Prospect’s TAPPED blog, who said, “[T]here's a part of this that really bothers me, and that's the silence of Abraham Foxman, who has repeatedly thrown himself into the fray to advance right wing interests in his role as head of the Anti-Defamation League.”

Question abound.

First, does the ADL deserve the criticism for “throwing itself into the fray to advance right-wing interests?” Well, in this case, the ADL deserves criticsm that they get. What irritates progressives is that when, in 2004, Moveon.org sponsored a contest that asked activist to put together an ad about then President George W. Bush, and a couple of them submitted ads comparing Bush to Nazis, Foxman was quick to issue a press release condemning Moveon.org, asserting that Moveon “made an irresponsible decision that has given legitimacy to the exploitative manipulation of images in a campaign season.” So when a random guy on the internet enters a contest by submitting an ad that makes Nazi analogies Foxman makes a stronger statement more quickly then when the most prominent right-wing talk show host in America compares the President of the United States to a Nazi

Does it matter? Absolutely. On inappropriate uses of the Nazi analogies, the ADL is the first place many people look. When they are slow to condemn a really prominent example, it might appear that factors other diminishing the meaning of the Holocaust is in play. It might, in fact, look as though the ADL was more willing to criticize progressive than conservatives.

So why does that matter? It matter a lot because the ADL still does the best work of any group of identifying and push back on anti-Semitism and other types of hatred. It is particularly important because the ADL had been particularly vigilant in pointing out when criticism of Israel bleeds into straight up anti-Jewish bias. Unfortunately, this is, at the moment, a greater affliction of the left then of the right (the right has its own particular problems with Jews). But because of the ADL’s softness on the right, progressives trust the ADL less and less on the issues on which they are correct. That is why it’s problematic. The ADL needs to criticize the right because otherwise, important criticism of the left goes unheeded.

If you are going to read 3 things today….

…you should read the columns by Jamison Foser of Media Matters, Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post and Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Read together they provide a good sense of how the current political debate over health care is not actually about reforming health care policy.

Jamo’s piece focuses on how the media’s fixation with covering the politics of health care reform actually provides less clarity on what the debate is actually about. With polls providing conflicting opinions about what people want and stand alone results without comparison, while visually compelling but unrepresentative protests dominate the airwaves reporting on health care reform conforms to a pre-existing narrative of conflict, but never explains what the conflict is about. Jamo writes:

If news organizations want to produce health care reporting that actually has some value, some utility to their readers and viewers, they'll forget about the polls and the protests and the politics and focus on making the actual facts about health care, and efforts to change the system, as clear as they can.

I know what many journalists will say: This is how things are. Political intrigue, controversy, polling, strategy, demonstrations -- these are the things the media cover. That's how it works.

No. That's how it doesn't work. That's how we have a public that is so badly confused about health care reform that polling on the topic is basically a useless bundle of contradictory results. That's how we have a situation in which more than half of the Republican Party doesn't know Barack Obama was born in the United States. And how is this approach working for the media? Public trust in and respect for journalists is not exactly strong -- and, as I'm sure most reporters have noticed, news organizations across the country are shedding employees in a desperate struggle to stay afloat.

Steve Pearlstein, an economics columnist for the Washington Post who writes interestingly, insightfully and rarely polemically on economic and business issues writes a full-throated condemnation of falsehoods being propagated by the anti-health care reform GOP. Pearlstein writes that the GOP has “given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.” Pearlstein’s point is that the obvious distortion of the health care debate exists primarily to NOT solve the problem. He concludes:

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

Paul Krugman focuses on the disruptions that opponents of health care reform have brought to town hall meeting on the topic, such as the violence that erupted at a Tampa town hall and the arrests that occurred in St. Louis. Krugman focuses on an incident at town hall meeting with Rep. Gene Green of Texas when Green gets almost all hands raised when he asks attendees whether they oppose “socialized medicine” and almost half raise their hands when he asks if they are on Medicare. Krugman raises an important and potentially incendiary point (emphasis added).

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

By reading these three pieces together, it is possible to see how the health care debate has become badly distorted. A press corps focused on politics and public opinion polls doesn’t bother to report on what the actual policy issues surrounding health care reform are. Cynical political opponents feel unconstrained to make false and misleading claims about health care reform knowing that the press will report the conflict but not focus on the accuracy of the claims. Folks predisposed to dislike President Obama and his supporters are then organized to protest something nominally about policy but really about dislike for who is proposing the policy.

These three columns provide a roadmap to explain how we got from debating level of subsidies for the uninsured and public option plan to arrests and death threats at town hall meetings.

An introduction

I was an early adopter of the blogosphere, remembering discovering Eschaton and Daily Kos when they came on line in 2002. But I never committed to blogging on my own...until now.

This blog will be my brain dump on things that I care about. What are those things? Progressive politics, how the media covers politics and policy, the Middle East conflict, NCAA hoops focusing on Duke, baseball and a whole bunch of stuff that pricks my interest.

Anything to start an argument.