The Heroism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Abdication of the Media

I was disappointed but not really surprised that The New York Times called out Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg yesterday for her apt and heroic criticism of Donald Trump, worrying that "Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit".  The Times has sunk a long way, both in its reporting and editorials, since I read it every day in my high school cafeteria in the 1960s.   Come to think of it, it was painfully slow in getting it right about how wrong the Vietnam War was back then, too, but at least it had its moments with its publication of The Pentagon Papers.   The same can be said about the Washington Post, its publication of The Pentagon Papers, and its criticism of Ginsburg, calling her comments about Trump "inappropriate" and "much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court".

"Better left unsaid?"  If either editorial board had more than a superficial knowledge of the US Supreme Court and its history, they might have come across the following from Associate Justice Louis Brandeis:

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.  Concurring opinion, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

But Trump has risen and thrived due to ignorance of history and the lessons of what can happen in a democracy when it elects someone like Adolf Hitler Chancellor of Germany.   No, I don't think Trump is exactly the same as Hitler, but Trump is as bad as it gets these days as a major party candidate.   And while the media fidget and express concern that Trump's critics have gone too far - including Chris Matthews, who on MSNBC yesterday afternoon expressed concern that Hillary Clinton may have gone over the line in her speech in Springfield, Illinois yesterday, in which she wondered if Trump might use the military to silence his critics - Trump continues to threaten many of the very foundations of our democracy, including the press itself.

The media, and especially The New York Times, made things worse in the build-up to the Iraq War, uncritically supporting the US and British claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They did it again with Trump in the early days of his campaign, treating it as a source of humor and a magnet for higher ratings and ad sales, rather than denouncing him for what he is and has done, and backing that up with relentless investigative reporting.

So we have the media to blame, at least in part, for where we are today with Trump about to get the Republican nomination for President, and they attack Ruth Bader Ginsburg for bravely shouting fire in the crowded theater of our democracy?   I've got some news and a little more history for The Times and the media: shouting fire when there really is a fire is exactly what a responsible citizen is supposed to do (it's falsely shouting fire that Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. warned about in his famous 1919 Supreme Court opinion).  

We live in a country in which the Republicans daily flout the Constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Obama's Supreme Court nominee, media such as The New York Times abdicate their responsibility, and both unsurprisingly are roused to come out and attack Ginsburg for doing her job as a citizen.   With any luck and a lot of hard work, Trump will lose and the Republicans in Congress will be voted out of office.   As for the traditional media - well, they'll likely continue to wither and be replaced by the Internet, which has already become the bedrock of our democracy.

PS - News just broke that Ginsburg expressed regret regarding her comments about Trump - doesn't change in the slightest that what she said about Trump was right and she was right to say it.

Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Speech and JFK

I thought, as I was watching Hillary Clinton's superb speech about foreign policy in San Diego on television today, that she reminded me of JFK, his optimism for America and its engagement with the world. Later on MSNBC, Chris Matthews also said he saw a connection between Clinton's speech and JFK.

More specifically, Matthews said Clinton's speech reminded him of America's unapologetic approach to foreign policy before the Vietnam War, which can indeed be equated, at least in part, to JFK.

I was a fierce opponent of the Vietnam War.  It not only was unconstitutional but unwarranted, and it nearly tore the country apart.  I got teargassed in Washington protesting that war, and was barely able to bring myself to vote for Hubert Humphrey over Richard Nixon in 1968 because of it.   Matthews is right that among its many casualties was the bright, bold view of America as the leader of the world, and the best it has to offer.

Significantly, although JFK indeed got us far more involved in Vietnam than we should have been, it was LBJ who expanded this into the all-out war and disaster it became.   It was therefore JFK's assassination, more than JFK himself, that tragically set this in motion.

Although we've had our great moments in foreign policy and world affairs since then - including, in different ways, from Nixon (opening relations with China), Reagan (end of Soviet Union) and Obama (better relations with Iran and Cuba) - we've yet to regain that sense of confidence and moral leadership that we had under JFK.

Hillary Clinton's speech this afternoon was the first I've really heard or seen of that since the early 1960s, when I was just a kid.   Not only is it an inspiring tonic for the insanity of Trump and the dangerous isolationism of saner people on both sides of the isle, it is a blueprint for a better America and a better world, which as the speech made clear, is increasingly one and the same.

I don't know who wrote this speech, but I'm sure Ted Sorenson would've been proud.

Hillary vs Bernie: Free Enterprise Progressivism vs. Socialism

Been an active day in political commentary.  On MSNBC, Chris Matthews just said that Hillary Clinton should stress the fact that Hillary is a free-enterprise Democrat, in contrast to Bernie, who is a self-proclaimed socialist.

I agree.  The distinction is important.   FDR was a free-enterprise Democrat, not a socialist, and was the most progressive President in American history with his New Deal.   Indeed, all the great progressive developments in America - such as Medicare in the 1960s - came from Democrats who believed in improving the free enterprise system, making it more humane and responsive to human needs, setting limits on it, rather than replacing it with a system of complete governmental control of business.

That's what socialism is.  Bernie may be believe in mom-and-pop businesses, but those are not socialism.  In contrast, free enterprise capitalism has from its outset in the United States worked hand-in-hand with governmental controlled operations.  That's what the Post Office and the military are, after all.

You don't need socialism to work for universal health care.  It can be done from within the free enterprise system, just as FDR did with social security and Woodrow Wilson, another Democrat, did with with the progressive income tax.  Those programs are in need of improvement, to be sure.  I'd like to see millionaires and billionaires taxed at much higher rates than they are.  But that's not socialism - that's improving free enterprise.

But why is free enterprise so important?  Well, history has shown that it's the most reliable catalyst of invention and human progress.   The very social media that we're now using, along with the rest of world, were born in free enterprise.

Bernie Sanders's suggestions and proposals have a lot of merit.  But as Hillary should be pointing out more often, they can be better accomplished through refinement of our free enterprise system, rather than its replacement with socialism.

House of Cards 2: Even Better than Season 1, and Why

I saw the second season of House of Cards over the weekend - thanks to Netflix seamless streaming - and loved it.   It's better than the first, which is saying a lot, because the first was outstanding, too. Spoilers galore follow.

Among the highlights 

• Frank's killing of Zoe at the end of the first episode - not only a stunning bolt from the blue, but thoroughly plausible given what we saw of Frank last year.  The killing also had the virtue of getting Zoe off the show - her relationships with Frank last year was the least believable part of the first season.  Later on in the second season, Frank says to Claire that he's not risking any more affairs, which makes good sense for a Vice President
• Frank also establishes his direct commentary to the viewing audience at the end of the first episode - and, in general, this commentary works a little better than it did the first season
• Molly Parker, who's great at anything she does, was exciting and refreshing as the new Whip Jackie Sharp, the best new character in the series, who shined in every scene she was in, including those with Kevin Spacey, who gave another incandescent performance.   Her affair with Remy, who also had an even better season than last year, was also one of the two most interesting affairs on the show.
• The other interesting affair is Rachel's with her lover Lisa, also a compelling new character, albeit with limited screen time.
• Good to see Rachel kill Doug - not only justified for this sicko political henchman, but another character who, although he had his moments, was mostly a drain on the show.
• The Freddie story is not a highlight because, although it was ok, I would have rather seen Freddie and Frank continue as they were last year.  I suppose that couldn't last, though, because you can't have a President going out every morning for ribs.
• Frank's manipulation of events to finally become President of the United States is sheer genius.
• Ashleigh Banfield's interview with Claire, in which she reveals that she was raped, was superbly acted by Banfield.  (I can't say the same for most of the other real anchors who appeared in the second season.  Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity were ok.   Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews were stiff.  I don't know why real people have so much trouble playing themselves.  I know if I had to play the part of a professor, I'd do just fine :)
• I loved the opening credits and the music last year, and even more so this year.   When the strings come in near the end I grieve and soar.

So see House of Cards, second season, and treat yourself to one of the best pieces of television to come down the pike.

See also House of Cards Season 1: A Review

Like political fiction?  The Consciousness Plague has a big scene in Washington, DC.

free sample of The Consciousness Plague

#SFWApro

David Gregory vs. Glenn Greenwald: Lessons about So-Called Progressives

David Gregory asked Glenn Greenwald on Meet the Press today why Greenwald "shouldn't be charged with a crime" for publishing Edward Snowden's leaks about NSA snooping on American phone calls and Internet activities.   So this is how far we've come: a journalist doing precisely the job intended by the First Amendment, being a watchdog on the American government, is asked why he shouldn't be considered a criminal - and, most pathetically, by another so-called journalist.  John Adams, who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts that threw journalists into jail who criticized the President in the 1790s, would likely have approved of the question and answered it in the affirmative.  Thomas Jefferson no doubt would not.

But we shouldn't be surprised, and certainly not that this demonization of the press is going on in a Democratic, so-called progressive administration.   After all, Democrats as well as Republicans have sent our nation to war in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan, without the Declaration of War required by our Constitution.   We're on the road to doing that again in Syria.  And Democrats as well as Republicans have trampled on the First Amendment for almost a hundred years, fining radio and television stations for broadcasting "objectionable" content, and arresting reporters trying to do their job during Occupy Wall Street.

You have but to look at MSNBC, the so-called progressive voice, to see how far and badly we've come.   In prime time, only Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes have been strongly and unambiguously supportive of Greenwald.  Lawrence O'Donnell, acknowledging the damage wiretapping did to Martin Luther King, Jr., says he's not too worried about the damage that can do today.   Chris Matthews is typically on all sides of this issue.

Only Ron Paul and Ran Paul - whom I wouldn't vote for because of their fiscal policies and positions on women's issues and immigration and other reasons - have come down hard on the right side of this issue.

Whatever happens, I hope no one votes for a Democrat as the lesser of two evils in the next election, because the evil they pose to our freedom and rights is too much to bear.   We can fight terrorists and totalitarians without becoming them ourselves.

See also The Fraudulent Hunt for Snowden

Chris Matthews Fails in History of Mathematics

Just saw Chris Matthews on MSNBC completely mangle the difference between the Roman numeral system and the Arabic system, which replaced it and we now use.

Matthews explained that the Arabic system makes it much easier to haggle in the marketplace.  "The guy says the item will cost you 9, you say 7, take it for 8."   Very true.  Except - you can do the exact same thing with Roman numerals - "The guy says the item will cost you IX, you say VII, take it for VIII."  This is because, when it comes to basic addition and subtraction, the Roman numeral system was pretty much as good as the Arabic system.

Where the Arabic numeral system excels, is that, enhanced with the brilliant Hindu concept of zero - a number literally representing nothing - you can multiply and divide easily, and work your way up to algebra.

Multiplication and division are likely what Matthews and his writers had in mind when they came up with their example from the history of mathematics to make the true point that the Democrats and Republicans shouldn't find it so hard to work up a budget.   Reduce this by 10%, increase that by 30% - that's what our politicians need to so, and what our Arabic numeral system in comparison to the Roman system makes possible.

Chris - learn a little about the history of mathematics or hire writers who know it.

What the Iowa Caucus Results Show about Campaign Financing

There has been much outrage expressed - by unlikely allies Newt Gingrich and Chris Matthews - about the baneful influence of political commercials financed by big money groups not specifically affiliated with any candidate.  Gingrich, who came in 4th in Iowa, and Matthews of MSNBC, specifically singled out the four million dollars worth of campaign ads put on the Iowa air by a pro-Romney group against Gingrich.

And Gingrich did lose.  And Romney did win-

But by a total of eight votes.  And Rick Santorum, who came in such a close second, had virtually no money spent on his behalf on ads.   He came in so close to first the good old-fashioned way - by pressing the flesh, in-person, across Iowa.

I agree with literally none of Santorum's views that I know of.  But I appreciate the unavoidable conclusion of his almost-victory: spending on TV commercials counts for nothing.  One candidate spent a fortune, the other spent next to nothing, and they both came in tied in the lead.

I've been arguing, for years, that the Jeffersonian view that people are inherently rational, can separate truth from falsity, means we shouldn't get so upset about campaign financing, and in fact the government, as per the First Amendment, should stay totally out of this.  Last night the Republican caucuses in Iowa made this point with clean, mathematical eloquence.

The Event 1.11-12: Hardball in Fiction

The Event just finished its 2-hour return on the East Coast - Episode 1.11-12.   It's been a while since the previous episode was aired at the end of November.   I thought the new two hours were the best so far in this series, which still feels like 24 meets Flashforward, high praise in my book.

One point is definitively settled tonight:  The "aliens" are truly from outer space.   They may have come from Earth at some point, and/or time travelled - their DNA is 99% the same as ours - but as Leila's father Michael (himself an alien) explains, his people come from a planet way out in space (with a star number and everything).  In addition, we also get more confirmation that Thomas's plan is to bring a lot more or maybe even the rest of all of his people to this, our, planet, and make it their own.

As a first step, Thomas launches an attack on Inostranka, with a view towards freeing all of the aliens held there, so they can help him prepare the way for the aliens from outer space.  He's a pretty vicious alien guy, that Thomas, slaughtering the aliens who don't want to join him, and torturing Sterling to get a code to help in their escape.   (A nice twist on 24, with bad guys torturing the good guy - though, come to think of it, Jack Bauer was as often a victim as a practitioner of torture.)

Sterling - played by the ubiquitous on television Željko Ivanek (but it's always good to see him) - has a great night, almost saving the day in a torrent of fine action scenes.   Badly wounded, Sterling seemed likely to die before he was forced to give up the code.  But neither happens - Sterling neither dies nor divulges the code.  Alas, a soldier who doesn't want to see Sterling die does give up the code, and Maya is killed, as Thomas escapes with a fair number of his people.

While this is going on, Michael tries to convince Leila to go with him, but not take Sean along.  Leila doesn't want this, but honorable Sean leaves early the next morning, while Leila sleeps, after the two sleep together one last time.  I'd have liked to see Sean do something more dynamic, like insist on going along with Michael.

And the third piece of tonight's story takes place in Washington, DC, as Alaska Senator Catherine Lewis (played by Virginia Madsen) in effect blackmails the President to tell her what's really going in that prison in her state.   Part of this features Sen. Lewis on MSNBC's Hardball, with Chris Matthews playing himself.  He does a pretty good job, but he was not quite as nasty as he is when a guest suddenly starts to snow him on the air.  He should have interrupted more, and started wondering if Sen. Lewis was reading from a script, or in "a trance".   But, hey, it's the second time MSNBC has made it on to NBC drama television - just a few weeks ago, it was Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, and Tamron Hall on Law and Order: SUV (and last night, Lawrence O'Donnell played a lawyer on Big Love).   Who knows what choice guest gigs Keith Olbermann might have had, had MSNBC not foolishly canned him.

There was also one soft spot in the plot - Sen. Lewis should have not gained such easy access to her husband's office (the office of a former Senator, recently deceased, now sealed on orders from the President).  But The Event has returned with some powerful turns, and I'm looking forward to more.



See also The Event Debuts on NBC ... The Event 1.2: Aliens! ... The Event 1.4: 24 Back in Action! ... The Event 1.6: Not Only Aliens, Immortals! ... The Event 1.7: The Portal and its Implications  ... The Event 1.8: The "Republican" VP and the Anti-24 ... The Event 1.9: "Native Populations, Indigenous People" ... The Event 1.10: Satellite

---

                 Special Discount Coupons for Angie's List, Avis, Budget Car, eHarmony, eMusic, Mozy, Zazzle

---

---

The Plot to Save Socrates


"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

A Few Thoughts about Olbermann's Departure

As I said about Keith Olbermann's suspension from MSNBC in November - which I also deeply regretted - there was a lot about Olbermann's Countdown, most especially his all-too-often histrionic over-the-top style, that I was no fan of.  But his voice was an important, often refreshing, sometimes even crucial and reassuring note in our fast-moving, dangerous world, and I'll therefore miss him and Countdown.

As for MSNBC, I've by and large supported its progressive view since before there was cable all-news television.  But I find myself progressively less happy, more annoyed, at the way they have chosen to roll it out.  They still lamely repeat Chris Matthews at 5 and 7 pm (have Matthews on once in the evening at 7 pm).   They still ruin their weekends with "doc-block" stale documentary programming rather than live news.  Even their new slogan - "lean forward" - is weak.  Why lean, not move, or go?  Lean is way too passive.

So the firing of Olbermann now - or, to make the best case for MSNBC, letting him leave - is just the latest in a long list of out-for-coffee at the top strategy.  I wish MSNBC well, but I wish Olbermann better, and the progressive point of view (I'm a progressive libertarian) better still.

Some of the talking heads on television are saying Comcast's take-over of MSNBC is the reason for Olbermann's departure.   If so, my advice to Comcast is:  give America the kind of reliable progressive programming we deserve.

Chris Matthews is Right about Fast Trains

I finally found something about Chris Matthews I can cheer about.  For the past few days, he's been urging the Federal government to embark on a campaign of getting interstate fast rail service all across America.  Matthews rightly points out that Europe has it, and the Chinese are constructing such service.   He also correctly notes that more people traveling on trains means fewer people traveling via gas-guzzling cars.

He's completely right.  I love driving, especially my Prius, which does save me money and time filling up at the pump.   But the Prius still uses some gasoline, and contributes to the US need for oil.  I feel the same about flying - it's magical.  But traveling by train is more fuel efficient, especially when we're talking about electrified rails.

Train travel is also the most relaxing, at least for me.   I can certainly get a lot more writing done on a train than as a driver (I wrote a good part of The Consciousness Plague on The Lake Shore, Ltd, from New York to Chicago), not to mention sleeping.   Although writing on planes is also easy, no conductor on a train has ever told me I have to shut off my computer, or any electronic device.

In the one part of the country where we do have fast rail service - the Acela, between Boston and Washington, DC and points in between - savvy people know it's best way to get from city to city, and these trains are slower than the ones in France, that is, slower than they could be here.

One of the appeals of the Obama ticket to me was Joe Biden, in particular Biden's devotion to Amtrak, which he long ago recognized as the most efficient means of traveling between Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC.    I hope the Obama administration and Congress take Chris Matthews' appeal to heart, and get America back to work and moving more efficiently, with reduced oil consumption, which can all be done in one master stroke: construction of a fast rail system across the United States of America.

Obama's First Oval Office Address: The Limits of Talk

I thought the high point of President Obama's first address to the nation from the Oval Office was his invocation of American success in producing planes and tanks in World War II, and our success again in getting safely to the Moon and back in 1969, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.   Both provide inspiring examples of our capacity to do extraordinarily difficult things, which is what we must do to recover from the BP oil spill, and make sure spills like that don't happen again in the future.

And the low point?   Well, that resides in the difference between any speech, any talk, however good, and actions.   Until we see evidence that the spill has been contained, that its ill effects have been reversed, that policies and technologies are in place to prevent something like that from happening again, no fine words from any President will suffice.

Obama did tell us something new and very hopeful tonight - that the capping process already in place will suck up 90% of new oil leaking.    If that's indeed the case, that's good news indeed.

Meanwhile, initial media coverage, as per usual, did not do much to help.  I just heard Chris Matthews, yet again, carp about the mention - this time, from Obama - that Steven Chu won a Nobel Prize in physics.   I've yet understand how Chu's Nobel Prize is in any way hurting our government's response to the oil spill.

But the media, like the Presidential address, are comprised of words.   America and the world are waiting for actions and results.

Calling out Chris Matthews for his Attacks on Steven Chu

I was half listening to Chris Matthews on Hardball last night, but heard yet another snipe from Matthews' about Energy Secretary's Steven Chu's Nobel Prize.   This must have been the 6th or 7th time I've heard Matthews wane sarcastic about Chu's Nobel Prize in physics, and since I don't watch every minute of Hardball every day it's on, I'm sure there have been many more jibes of this sort from Matthews.

The substance of Matthews' complaint is that a Nobel Prize in physics provides no comfort that its recipient would know what to do about the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.   There is no doubt that David Alexrod and others in the Obama administration have mentioned Chu's Nobel laureate as a reassuring factor in our government's being up to the task of containing the spill, which it clearly has not been to anyone's satisfaction as of yet.  But in Matthews' recurrent slams, Chu's Nobel Prize has been distorted into a deficit, as if the very fact the Steven Chu won the Nobel Prize makes him not competent to lead and advise Obama in how to combat the oil spill.   And that point is not only logically ridiculous, but indicative of a more widespread contempt for academe, which has also surfaced in attacks on Obama for being too professorial in his approach to the oil spill, whatever exactly that means.

In Matthews' case, his attack on Chu is especially egregious.   Unlike his MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow, who not only interviewed Chu in a respectful yet critical way, and who has provided powerful on the scene reports from places ravaged by the oil spill, Matthews has done nothing about the oil spill other than his high horse bombastic analyses.   This may play well in Matthews' head and to people who have problems with awards given to pathbreaking scientists, but it does nothing to speed the containment and cleanup in the Gulf, and protect its shores from the worst affronts of petroleum.

PS - It's not often that Gawker and I focus on the same things, but here's a similar, well-founded complaint about Matthews re: Chu, in yesterday's Gawker.

MSNBC Bleeps Levin and McCaskill on Drek Deal

Chris Matthews just put up his Big Number today - it was the number of times Senators Carl Levin and Claire McCaskill lambasted Goldman Sachs in the Senate today for suckering their clients into "shitty" deals.   The adjective came from a former Goldman Sachs exec, Tom Montag, who in an email to a former Goldman Sachs trader characterized a deal as "one shitty deal," and proceeded to aggressively sell it to their clients.

Except, we viewers weren't allowed to hear the actual quotes in full - they were bleeped.  The words written under the Big Number talked about "sh***y" and Matthews helpfully explained that the word rhymed with "kitty".

I once again fail to see the point of this.   Who doesn't know that sh***y stands for shitty?  Whose sensibilities are spared by not seeing the actual word?  Have a majority of Americans risen up in protest at prospect of seeing and hearing shitty on television? 

The FCC apparently thinks so, because it is fear of their outrageous fines that keeps television producers bleeping and asterisking - whether at the conclusion of the Grammys this year or Senators speaking on a very serious matter today.  

But wait - don't we have a First Amendment in this country, that says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging of speech or of the press"?   Why, yes, we do.   So how is it that the media seeking to cover a major Senate hearing are prevented, under threat of FCC fine, from broadcasting a quote from the hearing in its entirety?

A good question.  And one which I hope the new, evolving Supreme Court will take up some time soon.

In the meantime, here's a YouTube clip with the actual "shitty" quotes from the Senate hearing, courtesy of CSPAN 3, a cable station still not under FCC censorship, though the FCC is chafing at the bit to extend its control to cable .... Come to think of it, MSNBC is cable, so why did it bleep Levin?   (I haven't seen yet how Fox and CNN are covering this story, but I would expect them to knuckle under like MSNBC, and not go the brave CSPAN way.)

Note added at 9:32pm:  But Keith Olbermann did indeed play the unbleeped clips on his MSNBC Countdown show onight - kudos to Olbermann for standing up for the First Amendment!




See also The Flouting of the First Amendment

Obama, Lincoln, Gregg, and Matthews

Two more incidents worthy of note in Judd Gregg's walking away from the Commerce Secretary position he had volunteered for in the Obama administration.

1. Let's start with Chris Matthews: Has he lost his mind completely? He has just given Gregg a "Hardball" award for knifing America in the back? Matthews thinks it took courage for Gregg to stand up for his principles and walk away. It would have taken far more courage to stand by his self-initiated commitment to Obama and America, and do his best in the job he petitioned for.

2. On a happier note, Obama gracefully reflected on Gregg's desertion when Obama was talking about Lincoln in Springfield last night. The speech, by the way, was superb - one of Obama's very best in lyricism and historical acuity. Obama imagined Lincoln sitting in his office, children playing at his feet, getting a call from someone who wanted to be Commerce Secretary...

Of course, Bell did not invent the telephone until 1876, or 11 years after Lincoln's assassination. Keith Olbermann, who was covering the speech live last night, was quick to pick up the little error, and said wasn't it nice that Obama was musing what it would have been like had Lincoln lived long enough to use a telephone .... Nice pick-up and attempted recovery of a little fumble by the President.

But I give Obama plaudits for painting the Lincoln picture, even with the small anachronism. And if we want to make it historically accurate, just substitute a telegram for a telephone call...

More about the inventions of the telegraph and the telephone, and their role in politics and much more, in The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution.

Chris Matthews Should Have Thrown Dick Armey Off the Show

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's sexist attack on Salon editor Joan Walsh on MSNBC's Hardball last night - telling her, in response to her apt critique of Republican intransigence in responding to the economic crisis, that "I'm so damn glad you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you" - has been well lambasted all over the Web, along with plaudits for New York Times reporter Bob Herbert, who, appearing on the next Hardball segment, said Armey owed Walsh and Hardball viewers an apology (see video clips below).

One aspect of this Republican outburst which has not received enough attention, however, is Hardball host Chris Matthews' mild response. He did say that what Joan Walsh said was "not prattle," and, in the segment after Bob Herbert's, that Armey "went way overboard going after Joan" - but where was the outrage, the shouting down of jackasses by Chris Matthews, that has become one of the admirable hallmarks of his show?

Why didn't Matthews interrupt Armey, talk over him, and throw him off the show?

Perhaps he's a bit tone deaf to sexism, or maybe is so used to such trash-talk from some Republicans that he doesn't find it so outrageous. It is true, at least in my experience, that when you make a logical point that makes some Republicans uncomfortable, they respond with a personal attack. I noticed this the very first time I was on O'Reilly's Factor, and he started riffing on his amazement that someone with my views could be a professor at Fordham University (I was actually happy to hear this, because it gave the school good publicity).

But ubiquity of bad behavior is no reason to continue accept it. Matthews should have shown Armey to the door last night. I hope he makes up for not doing that by denouncing Armey in much stronger terms, tonight.

Excellent That Chris Matthews May Run for Senate

I just heard, again, on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition on CNN, that MSNBC's Chris Matthews may run as a Democrat against Republican Arlen Specter for his Senate seat in Pennsylvania in 2010. Reports about this are flying all over the place.

I hope it's true. I live in New York, but I'd vote for Chris Matthews not only over Specter but just about anyone. I agree with most of Matthews' positions - his consistent opposition, from the beginning, to the war in Iraq, and his enthusiastic support of Obama are what most come to mind - but I also like the fact that, although he was once a Tip O'Neill staffer, and ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1974, Chris Matthews is currently very much an outsider in politics.

We have long recognized that a life in politics is by no means a prerequisite for high office. Whatever we may think of Reagan and Schwarzenegger's governance - I certainly opposed a lot of Reagan's - there is no denying their effectiveness in office. Indeed, Renaissance men were among our leading Founding Fathers - in an age before xerox, Thomas Jefferson invented a way of automatically making a copy of a letter, as it was being written.

Matthews on television has been articulate and passionate. The main problem with his brand of Hardball is that he frequently interrupts and talks over his guests. That could be a big asset in the Senate.

Another Question for Republicans: Do You Agree with Rep. Bachman That Media Should Investigate "Anti-Americans" in Congress?

Michele Bachman - Congresswoman from Minnesota - told Chris Matthews on Hardball on Friday that she suspects Barack Obama may be "anti-American," and news media should vigorously investigate whether there are "anti-Americans" in Congress.

Colin Powell cited this in his endorsement of Obama on Meet the Press on Sunday as one of the things that disturbed him about the Republican Party and the McCain campaign.

Obama today spoke eloquently of there being no dichotomy between "real and fake Americans," no anti-Americans in this campaign.

So, another question for sensible Republicans: do you agree with Bachman, or with Powell and Obama? Are you concerned that a Congresswoman from your party is raising the spectre of Joe McCarthy and witch hunts against Americans that beset us in the 1950s?

Is this the kind of change you're after?

A Sign of the Civilized Times: Christopher Buckley Endorses Obama and its Out at National Review

Amidst all the heat and abrasion of this Presidential campaign, and Sarah Palin bald-facedly lying yet again just today that Obama wants to "raise taxes," it was uplifting and conducive to civilization indeed to learn that author Christopher Buckley (son of William F. Buckley) had endorsed Obama, tendered his pro-forma resignation to the National Review (which his father had founded) in response to the outrage of some of its subscribers, and the National Review accepted...

I rarely agreed with William F. Buckley, but could not help but enjoy his quintessential wit and intellect. The same cannot be said for current National Review editor Richard Lowry who, as Keith Olbermann and others vividly pointed out, was reduced to an embarassing fanboy in the appreciation he expressed for Sarah Palin's performance in the VP debates.

Christopher Buckley is cut from much better cloth. When Chris Matthews asked him on Hardball tonight what he saw in Obama, Buckley said he sensed a fine mind and first-rate intellect in Obama, and that that might be more important than his particular political positions. That is an intelligent reason for supporting a candidate if ever there was one.

Buckley entitled his endorsement published in The Daily Beast Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama ... I think William F. would have been proud, not sorry, about his son's sense of reason and intellectual bravery.



PS - And I see Buckley has just put up a new piece on The Daily Beast - Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired ... :)

And here's Lori Harfenist's piece on Christopher Buckley on her Internet video show, The Residence, October 3, 2009.

Three Cheers for Rachel Maddow!

U.S. News and World Report reports that "The ratings for MSNBC's newest news show host are wildly impressive. Last week, her second on the air, Rachel Maddow pulled ahead of Larry King and even bested Keith Olbermann's Countdown a couple of nights."

I'm delighted, and not at all surprised. Maddow shined when she filled in for Olbermann in the summer. She's less abrasive and pompous than Olbermann (and, for that matter, Chris Matthews) and therefore her presentation and opinion pack more of a wallop. There's nothing like the truth softly spoken - you don't need to scream it.

Maddow's been having some difficulty getting Republicans to talk on her show. Perhaps they think that if they ignore her, she'll quietly go away. It's more likely to be the Republicans who will be going away, as their contempt for the media and need for a vigorous press puts the Republicans further at odds with the American people.

I liked Dan Abrams, was sorry to see him go, and therefore was prepared to be irritated by whoever succeeded him. Just the opposite is the case with Rachel Maddow. Her hour on MSNBC is a breath of fresh, rational air, and her approach to politics and critique of authority is something Thomas Jefferson would have been proud of.

Good for MSNBC for putting Rachel Maddow on the air. And, on the same subject, I'm also glad to see that MSNBC has at last banished its boring doc-block to weekend, where it least it does not take away from essential political coverage, which viewers need to see even in the middle of the night.

Chris Matthews Channels McLuhan: Is McCain Too "Hot" for Television?

It was a good night for media theorist Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) on MSBC's Hardball tonight, as Chris Matthews wondered if John McCain was too "hot" for television...

Let's unpack this, as the philosophers like to say.

Back in the 1960s, McLuhan put media into two categories: "hot" or high profile, clear, and intense in delivery of information vs. "cool" or low profile, blurry, and soft-spoken in presentation. Photographs were hot vs. cartoon drawings which were cool. Motion pictures and hi-fi radio were hot vs. television which was cool...

Further, McLuhan thought that people who communicate in hot or cool ways do better in media which are the same. The Kennedy-Nixon 1960 debates were McLuhan's grand example: JFK was cool, relaxed, confident in contrast to Nixon's hot, nervous, sweaty delivery. Those who saw the debates on television thought JFK won easily; those who heard the same debates on radio thought Nixon did better. Fortunately for the nation, at least 90-percent of Americans saw the debates on TV. (And the election returns were razor close - did television make difference?)

In subsequent elections, the contrast was not that obvious, but you could still make the case. The same nervous Nixon in 1968 was cooler than the voluble happy warrior Hubert Humphrey. Mumbling Carter was cooler than over-enunciating Ford. But then you had to work a little harder - wasn't Reagan far more articulate and large sized - hotter - than Carter in 1980? Well, maybe the country was ready then for a movie star. George W. Bush was certainly less articulate than Gore in 2000, and- but, wait, Gore actually won the popular vote.

So, hot and cool is far from an exact science. But this election certainly gives us one of the best examples we've had in years. Obama conveys that quiet confidence of JFK - just as McCain comes across as angry, even bitter, like Nixon.

But, you know what? I expect Obama to score big over McCain in the debate this Friday - not just because he's cool and has by far the more Presidential temperament, but because he has the best policies.

See my 1999 Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium for more hot and cool and McLuhan.