Imagine hating ‘Imagine’

UC Irvine professor Jon Wiener penned an interesting op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today. He explores the fact that John Lennon's most celebrated song "Imagine" has had (and evidently still has) its share of harsh critics. (Lennon was murdered this day in 1980, hence the piece.)

He writes:

The problems start with the opening line: "Imagine there's no heaven." Christians have condemned those words as blasphemous. And then there are these lines: "Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do/nothing to kill or die for." They were attacked as unpatriotic.

Wow. It is hard to “imagine” anybody disliking this passive, dreamy ode to peace. The critics (whom I’d call lunatics) cited by Wiener remind me of that old saw about Puritanism: “The fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.” These people really, truly need to get a life – and leave Lennon, and the rest of us, alone.

“Imagine” by John Lennon:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Rogue-in-Chief

A thoughtful piece by Washington Post writer Dan Balz about Obama's roguish ways:

"One of the realities about President Obama is the degree to which he is a singular politician, a self-contained person who rose to power largely on the strength of his own intelligence, guile and self-confidence. He has always charted his own course - one that sometimes defied the customary or approved path -- relying on himself and his own instincts rather than on others. He has taken the route that made the most sense to him and will continue to do so."

Flying by his own light, especially at defining moments, is one of the powerful reasons why Obama is sitting in the White House today. (It also helps that this man can still make the 3-point shot from downtown, literally and figuratively.) Critics should take note. Enemies should beware.

Tough love

Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capeheart on Obama:

"You know that saying that we're harshest towards the ones we love most? Well, for the last two years, Obama has been blow-torched by the left as the expectations of hope and change smacked up against the reality of governing. I completely understand the frustration and anger. But there are some on the left who view compromise as total abandonment. ... Obama's harsh assessment wasn't the first time he took the base or a segment of it to task. But this is the first time that I can recall that Obama has given to the left as good as he's gotten from the left on national television. And I loved every minute of it."

So did I.

Something to ponder

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln

Do it your way, Mr. President

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza notes that "the rising din of criticism from the left raises an obvious question: Does Obama have a liberal problem?" Answer: Not really.

Cillizza reported:

In the latest Associated Press survey, which was conducted Nov. 18-22, Obama is standing quite strong among liberals. While just 48 percent of the overall sample approve of the job Obama is doing, 80 percent of self-identified liberals feel the same -- a stratospherically high number. The story is much the same on Obama's personal favorability ratings. An AP poll in the field just after the 2010 election showed that 90 percent of liberals felt favorably inclined to Obama as compared with 55 percent overall.

Obviously, President Obama should listen to and consider seriously the views of those on his left flank. As for the “purists” among them, the activist folk who prefer Seppuku to compromise, I’ll say it again: Please ignore their counsel, Mr. President. The democratic base still has your back.

Obama unplugged

I just LOVE it when President Obama goes all defiantly “Dirty Harry” on us. It happened at a White House presser this afternoon. At times passionate and angry, Obama sternly rebuked his critics on the left, like an adult finally putting his foot down. (Methinks it was also part theater, and as such, cleverly timed and acted.)

When a reporter echoed the liberal meme questioning his willingness to stand firm on core principles, a visibly angry Obama let loose with the force of a 357 Magnum:

This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for a hundred years. But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for maybe 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness, of compromise.

If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it: We will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.

And in the meantime the American people are still saying to themselves, [I'm] not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people...

This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding. If we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a union.

Amen, and pass the ammunition.

Washington Post writer Greg Sargent observed that "if Obama is going to play the role of adult-in-chief going forward, his tormentors on the left clearly will not be spared the rod." Memo to sanctimonious libs: As Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry would say, "Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?" Heh.

Infamy

"It was just luck — where you happened to be and how the Japanese planned to bomb," Paul Perrault told the Los Angeles Times. Perrault, 90, was a naval officer who watched the attack on Pearl Harbor unfold from his light cruiser on Dec. 7, 1941. "People say, 'God was with you,' but I think, 'How about the 3,000 that died?' How come God wasn't with them?" It is an unanswerable question. The memory of that day of infamy, the event that ushered America into the Second World War 69 years ago, has faded almost to the vanishing point. But the estimated 4,000 Pearl Harbor survivors who are still alive won’t forget it. Neither should we.

The Phony War

“Tax-cut deal has liberal Democrats fuming,” the Washington Post headline read. “Many Democrats deeply frustrated” wrote the New York Times. “Obama gets rolled,” the Daily Beast website lamented. Scanning the major dailies this morning, you’d think the entire Democratic Party – enraged over Obama's compromise with Republicans on extending the Bush-era tax rates – were at the gates of the White House with pitchforks and hanging rope. In reality, the aggrieved parties are liberal activists and the media’s “professional left.” Rank and file Dems are relieved that their taxes aren't going up. In short, it’s a Phony War. Obama coolly opted to stick with pragmatism. A partial deal (one that might be made whole later) is better than no deal at all. “Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do,” Obama said. “The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.” Correctamundo, Mr. President. Now, if only the whiners on the quixotic left could figure that out.

Merry Christmas to Me

In a story that only the National Retail Federation could love, the Washington Post reported that “consumers are adding a very important name back to their holiday shopping lists this year: their own.” Evidently, the number self-gifting shoppers has risen four points since last year, say industry experts. (Wow – four whole points!) Retailers are doing cartwheels. Per the Post, one mall manager in the DC area said “self-shopping dominated the Black Friday weekend.” But don’t break out the champagne yet, lamented Gary Stibel, a retail industry expert. “Self-gifting is incremental at best,” he said. The ubiquitous female shopper (the person who buys the most) tends to put the kids, family and friends first when it comes to gift buying. "She's trying to take care of everybody, but she more often than not puts herself last," Stibel said. "She's too damn conscientious for her own good." Damn. What nerve.

Just say no, and die

It must be grand to push a political agenda without bearing any responsibility for it. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, “Democrats have tried to push a compromise: let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but extend tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans, however, are having none of it. It’s all or nothing, they say: all the Bush tax cuts must be extended.” What should Democrats do? Krugman: Just say NO. “If G.O.P. intransigence means that taxes rise at the end of this month, so be it.” Krugman admits such a move would be bad for the economy and politically risky. But he says do it anyway, Mr. Obama. “Giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.” So, let me get this straight. At the risk of sabotaging a recovering economy and igniting middle class voter anger, Obama should become Rambo to salve the left’s delusional need for machismo. Right. That will get him reelected in 2012. Mr. President, please ignore Mr. Krugman. His gadfly is loose again.

Gallup gallops again

A new Gallup poll (Nov. 19-21) says of the nine U.S. presidents who have served in the past 50 years, John F. Kennedy gets the top job approval rating from Americans. Ronald Reagan ranks second and, as usual, Nixon brings up the rear. Gallup says its polling question is based on what Americans “know or remember” about the former presidents, and whether they “approve or disapprove of how each handled his job in office.” Really? In JFK’s case, most of us were either too young to remember him or not yet born. Reagan is also a fading memory since his inauguration nearly 30 years ago. In other words, we can safely assume that the knowledge most folks have about these presidents is based on book learnin’ and hearsay. And I’d bet that knowledge, such as it is, has the consistency of thin gruel. Don’t believe me? Tonight, go ask a neighbor to name a JFK accomplishment. Just one. I bet you’ll be rewarded with furrowed brows and silence. And that’s totally okay and normal. My point is merely to point out how silly these presidential Gallup polls are.

Dying on the vine?

A reader at The Atlantic writes:

I was hanging out and letting my kid play after school one day. I found a spot near the play structure to spread out my newspaper on the ground and read for a bit while he blew off some steam. A girl who must've been in fourth or fifth grade stopped and looked down at me.

"What's that?" she asked.
"A newspaper," I replied.
"What's it for?"

So there's your future, newspapers. Sorry.

Not good.

Elizabeth Edwards

CBS News reports: Elizabeth Edwards, 61, the estranged wife of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, has been advised by doctors that "further treatment of her cancer would be unproductive," according to a statement from the Edwards family. A source told CBS that Edwards would "likely die within weeks and possibly days."

Here's part of her apparent "goodbye" note on Facebook:

"The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces - my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. ...there are certainly times when we aren't able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. ... It's called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn't possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know."

A tragedy wrapped within tragedy. But, alas, it is as King Richard said, "Cry woe, destruction, ruin, and decay; The worst is death, and death will have his day."

-----------------
UPDATE: Elizabeth Edwards, 61, died of cancer Tuesday morning, Dec. 7. RIP.

Absurdist Theater

LIBERAL activists are a panicky lot. Sparked by anger over the coming compromise over tax cuts, they worry that the president is caving too easily to his Republican opponents. Timesman Frank Rich said Obama is taking his "non-argumentative reasonableness" too far. These liberals want an angrier, more blustery Obama who throws liberal thunderbolts at his enemies. They act as if Obama can govern by fiat. That if he shouts loud enough in righteous indignation, Republicans will simply cower and roll over. Principle über alles, they demand, even if it means losing and driving the Democratic Party over a cliff.

And, as Andrew Sullivan reminds us, what gets lost in the anguished handwringing is what Obama’s "non-argumentative reasonableness" has gotten us thus far:

“[Obama] prevented a second great depression, rescued Detroit, bailed out the banks, pitlessly isolated Tehran's regime, exposed Netanyahu, decimated al Qaeda's mid-level leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan, withdrawn troops from Iraq on schedule, gotten two Justices on the Supreme Court, cut a point or two off the unemployment rate with the stimulus, seen real wages for those employed grow, presided over a stock market boom and record corporate profits, and maneuvered a GOP still intoxicated with failed ideology to become more and more wedded to white, old evangelicals led by Sarah Palin. And did I mention universal health insurance - the holy grail for Democrats for decades?”

Fortunately, Obama knows political warfare is won in the center, and that Rome was not built in a day. His record speaks for itself.

That said, our absurdist culture demands a measure of Absurdist Theater from the president. The thought probably galls Obama privately, a serious man trying to save the damn world from its absurdist self. Nevertheless, the president would benefit from some Hollywood-style stage managing. I’d start with firing press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Writer John Blumenthal agrees:

“As for Gibbs, Obama needs to replace him with someone forceful, dynamic and perhaps a trifle quick-tempered. Gibbs is soft. He stammers. He fudges. And his most common expression seems to be fear. He resembles John Hodgeman, the actor who represents PCs in the Apple commercials. The president's press secretary is the person who must clearly articulate his boss's agenda to the press. He (or she) must do so with an economy of words. His (or her) tone and demeanor must reflect the president's attitudes and state of mind. Reporters must come away from press conferences with a clear understanding of not only the president's concerns and agenda, but his disposition. This is not happening.”

Cleopatra rules

Stacy Schiff, the author of “Cleopatra: A Life,” has written a delightful piece for the New York Times about what modern day politicians can learn from “Queen Cleopatra, the Goddess, the Younger, Father-Loving and Fatherland-Loving.”

Two rules in particular stood out:

Appearances count. As President Obama has learned and unlearned, theater works wonders. You may campaign in poetry, but you are wise to govern in pageantry. Deliver carnivals rather than tutorials; a little vulgarity goes a long way. Just wear the flag pin already. Leadership is a trick of perception, a bit of wisdom Shakespeare lent Henry IV, to pass along to Prince Hal. And if you intend to command, look the part. Work boots with a suit are always a nice touch when you’re the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in an occupied Middle Eastern country, for example. Make something of a spectacle of yourself. Yes, you can do that in jeans and a black turtleneck. In a televised world as in a pre-print era, it’s the stage management that counts. Literally or not, the idea is to create and star in your own reality show.

Control the narrative. Cleopatra understood well that the storytelling mattered as much as the decision-making, and that the best narrative is the easy-to-follow narrative.

Sounds like sound advice to me even if it is 2,000 years old. How about you, Mr. President?

No Palin Zone

I had to laugh at New York Times columnist Charles Blow today who wrote:

“This is it. This is the last time I’m going to write the name Sarah Palin until she does something truly newsworthy, like declare herself a candidate for the presidency. Until then, I will no longer take part in the left’s obsessive-compulsive fascination with her, which is both unhealthy and counterproductive.”

Well, good luck with that, Chuck. Even though I agree with Blow in principle, I tried not writing about Palin and failed miserably. She's like a court jester on steroids who pulls ever greater stunts of absurdity. Not impressed when Palin strikes a match? How about when she metaphorically lights her hair on fire and then juggles pompoms? You want to look away, but like the proverbial train wreck, you can't help yourself from stealing a peek at the spectacle’s sheer audacity (or stupidity).

Blow concludes with this advice:

”People on the left seem to need her, to bash her, because she is, in three words, the way the left likes to see the right: hollow, dim and mean. But since she’s feeding on the negativity, I suggest three other words: get over it.”

Alas, my friend, if only it were that easy.

Republican meanies?

Washington Post columnist Colbert King, no Sarah Palin fan, opines that her meanest critics are the conservative elite. He wrote:

At bottom, their real slander is against Palin and her slice of the American electorate, captured in H.L. Mencken's caustic observation: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Here’s hoping Mencken is wrong. Read King’s entire column here.

The McCain riddle

IF there was ever an enigma, it is Sen. John McCain. I’m still unsure about how to judge this strange man. But judged he has been by the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan.

Here’s part of Sully’s blistering critique:

I wish I understood McCain. I thought I did once, but it seems increasingly clear that he is a man of near-suicidal vanity and misjudgment (remember suspending his entire campaign to deal with Lehman Brothers, or the insanely reckless selection of an unvetted Palin) and defined by grudges.

He's not homophobic. Very close members of his staff have been gay. His longtime chief-of-staff, Mark Buse, was and is openly gay. But perhaps buried in this psyche is something generational. McCain grew up in a world where homosexuality was never spoken of, and subsequently tolerated with radioactive discretion. Gays were objects of pity and sometimes personal affection - but never seen as full equals. And the notion of a core American icon - the American soldier - being equated with gayness - in the open - is something perhaps beyond his amygdala to process.

The alternative explanation for his recent behavior is fathomless cynicism and hollowness.

Read the rest here.

Censure, schemensure

FOR some reason, the brouhaha over Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s ethical issues never interested me. Sure, it’s a shame. But the distinguished gentleman from New York brought it on himself.

Angling for leniency, Rangel pleaded for a “reprimand.” But this afternoon the House meted out harsher punishment, voting 333-79 to “censure” him for ethics violations, per the New York Times. “The vote makes Mr. Rangel, a Democrat, just the 23rd member of the House to be censured, and the first in nearly three decades,” the paper reported. Thus, Rangel has been duly “humbled.”

A Talking Points Memo blog reader asked, what’s the difference between reprimand and censure? TPM replied:

“Reprimand is harsh looks. Censure is harsh looks with finger wagging.”

Exactly.

History's coming verdict

TO be sure, there are vast differences between the desegregation of the armed forces in the 1950s and abolishing DADT today.

But Slate's Fred Kaplan reported one worthy parallel:

In what should be a particularly embarrassing section to the repeal's opponents, the study draws parallels between DADT and the military's racial segregation of more than a half-century ago. In a survey of more than 2,000 enlisted men in 1946, more than 80 percent of respondents agreed with the view that "white and Negro soldiers should not work, train, and live together." About 80 percent of white officers said they would not want to be assigned to a racially integrated unit.

History will render its final verdict of DADT, and I suspect it will confirm what we already know: It's sheer absurdity.

Attack! – Pretty please?

THE barrel-chested, four-star general shifted the fat stub of the cigar from one side of his mouth to the other. “Men, I have just one question,” he bellowed, staring at the troops filling the auditorium. “By a show of hands, how many of you would prefer not to do multiple combat tours in Afghanistan?” In an instant, most of the hands shot up. “Fine. I’ll call the president. The war’s over, boys,” the general said to the cheers of his soldiers.

Is my little story farfetched? It’s more like some Kafkanian absurdity. Yet, Sen. John McCain’s rationale for maintaining “don’t ask, don’t tell” is frighteningly analogous.

Citing the Pentagon’s survey of service members during today’s Senate hearings on DADT policy, McCain said nearly 60% of Marines and nearly 50% of Army troops in combat units said repeal would negatively impact unit cohesion. “The numbers are alarming," he said.

Perhaps. But so what, Senator? The troops have about as much of a right to vote on DADT as they do in selecting which war to fight. Which is to say, none. (There’s an old saying in the Marines: We fight for democracy, but we certainly ain’t one.)

And that’s pretty much what Defense Secretary Gates said in his testimony responding to McCain:

"I can’t think of a single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the American armed forces on a policy issue. Are you going to ask them if they want 15-month tours? Are you going to ask them if they want to be part of the surge in Iraq? That’s not the way our civilian-led military has ever worked in our entire history. The ‘should’ question is to be decided by the Congress.”

Exactly.

Slate’s Fred Kaplan explains that John McCain (whom he's taken to calling "McShame") and other anti-gay senators have officially run out of excuses: "If McCain and the others oppose repeal, they have to come up with some new reason -- or fall back on the oldest, most unpalatable reason -- why."

Taking Kaplan’s point to its logical conclusion, the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen wrote:

"The reality, of course, is that we know the "why"; it's just an uncomfortable truth well-intentioned people are reluctant to say publicly. After all the studies, surveys, hearings, testimonials, court rulings, debates, and discharges, we're left a conclusion that's hard to avoid: opponents of repeal don't like gay and lesbian Americans, even when they're prepared to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. To block repeal -- indeed, to refuse to allow the Senate to even vote up or down on funding the troops because of a repeal provision -- is to give in to bigotry. It's as simple as that."

Sadly, it may indeed be as simple as that. When sizing up bigotry, the old “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck” theory is usually correct. Yet, I’m not ready to call McCain a bigot outright. But the duck feathers I keep seeing, fluttering in his wake, leave me increasingly concerned.

America the Exceptional - Ctd

LET me say upfront: The Op-EdNews.com column by Robert S. Becker (cited below) is an over-the-top, liberal rant against the notion of “American Exceptionalism.” But it's a cleverly written rant that contains a smattering of ideas worth pondering.

Here's a taste:

God's mysterious sense of humor strikes again, afflicting the lunatic fringe with this especially ludicrous zinger: the delusion of infallibility. From "50's jingoism of "America, right or wrong," the rightwing has advanced to "America, never wrong." We must be special, the chosen elect, morally superior to every other country. Why else would an omnipotent God put us in charge? End of discussion. Frankly, the Roman Empire was more culturally tolerant.

Read the rest here.

E-mail Noir

"My promiscuous relationships have also included corporate mail accounts, usually via Microsoft Outlook. But using Outlook is like sleeping with a hooker at a convention and sending the bill to your boss. There's no real pleasure to be found in Outlook, no intimacy, only relief. Outlook exists to satisfy your corporate manager and the freaks down at IT, not you or me." (Jack Shafer, Slate.com)

Ha! I'm thinking some therapy might be in order, Jack. Read the entire piece here. It's quite cleverly written.

Wing and a prayer

The New Yorker recently interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, author of the new book, “Unbroken.” The book is a biography of Louis Zamperini, a former Olympics runner and aviator who survived multiple, harrowing ordeals during WWII.

What caught my eye was this startling passage about Army Air Corps casualties during the war:

"There were many surprises during my research, but two stand out. I knew how deadly combat was in the air corps, but I had no idea how dangerous it was simply to fly the planes. Fifteen thousand Army Air Forces personnel died in training, stateside, without ever seeing a combat theater; at one point, an average of nineteen AAF personnel were dying stateside every day. And during the war, thirty-six thousand air corps personnel died in non-combat incidents, the vast majority of which were accidental crashes. Put that together with the extraordinary dangers of combat—airmen only had a fifty-per-cent chance of surviving their thirty-to-forty mission tours of duty--and you had fearsome statistics. Louie saw this firsthand. When he arrived on Oahu, he roomed with fifteen other young officers. By war’s end, only four of those sixteen men were still alive, and two of the survivors—Louie and his pilot, Phil—had been mistakenly declared dead after their plane had vanished in the Pacific. Only one man in the sixteen completed his tour of duty."

Then as now, death in war is tragic. But the above facts are a sobering reminder of what sacrifice looked like when the stakes for the country were the highest. And it puts our current conflicts into perspective.

Perfect

This headline kinda captures the Huffington Post in a nutshell:

"7 Sites You Should Be Wasting Time On Right Now (PICTURES)"

Oh, I kid the HuffPo. Besides the dreck, the website does house a measure of substantial content from a legion of bloggers and its own reporters. But to prop up traffic and page views, hawking low-brow "news" is evidently mandatory. Hence, you get "WikiLeaks Cablegate LIVE Updates" on the one hand, and "Johnny Depp: Disney Hated My 'Gay' Captain Sparrow" on the other. Of course, if I had a better idea, I'd be retired and reclining on a sloop somewhere in the Caribbean by now.