A Lesson from the Redeem Team

One of the most remarkable stories to come out of the Olympics has been the turnaround of the U.S. men's basketball team, the "Redeem Team."

The goal of the team wasn't just to bring gold back to U.S. basketball, which had become vulnerable to opposing international teams. Rather, it was also to rehabilitate its image.

As many outlets have noted, including a recent L.A. Times article, the arrogance of the team had alienated opposing teams and players, and earned it little respect. In many ways, it confirmed the worst stereotypes about Americans.

In contrast, this team made it a point to not only step up its game, but also to raise its image. And by all accounts, this team of star players from the top down—including Kobe Bryant, who seems to have been genuinely moved and re-energized by the experience—have bought into the importance of being good ambassadors both for the sport and for the U.S.

As the team's managing director noted, in order for Team America to be successful, it didn't just need to come out on top, "We have to show respect for our country, show respect for our team, show respect for our opponents. And anything less than that’s not going to fly.’ ”

Sounds like a lesson our present (and any future) Administration should take to heart.

The Naivete of George W. Bush (the Appeaser not the Decider)

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the President's toothless response to Russia's invasion of Georgia serves as yet another painful reminder of the impotency of both George Dubya and the United States under his leadership (as if they could sink any lower). As much as G.W. pays lip service to defending democracy around the world, like a deer caught in the headlights (in fact, similar to his immediate response to 9/11 when he froze in wide-eyed fear) he stood around and did nothing early on while Russia moved into Georgia and consolidated its land-grab. In response, Bush simply said nations shouldn't act like bullies.

The fallout? The Russians likely will say entrenched in the contested territory as this lame duck President sells out a nascent democracy and cowers in fear of upsetting an upstart power that this President desperately needs as an ally for reasons related to oil, Iran and Iraq.

This latest fiasco is yet further proof of this President's incompetency, naivete, and downright poor judgment. As noted in an a recent L.A. Times article regarding this latest failure of U.S. foreign policy under this Administration, "early in his term, Bush famously said that he got a 'sense of his soul'" after a meeting with then Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding, "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy."

Putin clearly seized upon Bush's naivete and Christianity to play him for a fool.

Peace in our time

Given all the noise this administration likes to make about the dangers of appeasement, the rather pathetic response it has made about Russia's invasion of Poland, er, I mean, Georgia, speaks volumes. At first essentially turning a blind eye to the conflict hoping it would go away, the President finally felt compelled to speak out against Russia's brazen invasion a week later.

If anything, the President's appeasement of Russia and reluctance to initially rock the boat underscores the U.S.'s decline in power under this administration and its desperation to stay on Russia's good side.

If this President wishes to be consistent in his policies and is sincere about protecting democracy around the world, he should be prepared to rattle his saber a little louder and threaten Russia militarily. Aren't we the world's policeman?

But we all know this President is a pussy who only pays lip service to the idea of protecting democracy, willing to invade for a personal grudge rather than to protect innocent lives.

At left: It's not Hitler we should be comparing the President to. It's appeaser/coward Neville Chamberlain.

Where's the Love?

What's with all the fucking whining about the media coverage Barack Obama has been receiving?

One would think such coverage only fitting to balance out the Pravda-worthy lovefest that the GOP and George W. Bush have enjoyed the past eight years from party flacks like Fox News and Fat Fuck Drug Addict Rush Limbaugh the last eight years. It must be bad when even they're abandoning you though.

Why They Hate Us, Part II

While recently watching the Schoolhouse Rock series on DVD with my children, I was taken aback by one of the shorts from the collection, "Tax Man Max," which I've posted below.

It's obviously a fascinating artifact given the "no tax" mantra that pervades modern-day American politics and discourse, a knee-jerk position I've blogged about previously here.

Were it to air today, I could very well imagine many people being enraged by it. For some, it might well qualify as propaganda—and, worse, propaganda focused on indoctrinating our children!

I have little doubt it was made with genuine sincerity and all good intentions. It is a reflection of a time when there was a stronger sense of civic responsibility and even "sacrifice" in the American citizenry. The animated short effectively makes the very point I tried to make in my earlier post—that taxes play an important role in providing services and creating a sense of community in a society. As I said earlier, it amazes me that people expect our government to wage war, take care of our service men and women, improve schools, and build better roads, yet feel they shouldn't need to pay a dime for it.

Journalism RIP

In another example of the continued gradual decline of the American newspaper and the field of journalism in general, the Los Angeles Times recently announced that it was planning to cut 250 jobs, including 150 news staff.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I do feel newspapers are an essential part of a functional democracy. Aside from providing a check on the three branches of government for the citizenry as the "fourth branch of government," I appreciate that newspapers provide a depth of coverage that most new media news outlets do not. In contrast, online "journalism" can be far from impartial, and it's often difficult to differentiate responsible reportage from unintended or willful misinformation (if it's online, it must be true, right?), let alone outright demagoguery.

On the other hand, however, I also have little sympathy or patience anymore for modern journalism, which have abdicated the basic values of great American journalism.

Modern journalism is now simply part of the "establishment," owned by media conglomerates that are more interested in protecting the status quo and their access to the corridors of power than truly acting as a responsible watchdog for the average American.

One only needs to watch classic films like the Front Page, His Girl Friday, and even the relatively recent All the President's Men to see that journalism in its heyday had a rough seedy edge to it, made up of rough-and-tumble outsiders who were skeptical of anyone in power. Perhaps that cynicism still exists, but now that these people are part of the moneyed establishment, they have happily ceded that role and primarily are more interested in "gotcha" politics and making even the most minor inconsistency a major issue—all at the expense of their role to keep the citizenry informed and educated. (Mixed in with all the eulogies that followed the passing of journalist Tim Russert, I must admit I was encouraged to see some contrarian comments. While his passing was certainly sad, I did feel he embodied in many ways what was wrong with American journalism, happily wielding a bullying power and influence that I don't think necessarily served the American public, nor was healthy either for journalism or political discourse.) In this sense, ironically it may be the blogosphere that will adopt this role, though given the inherent fragmented nature of the Web, one must wonder how effectively.

RIP to print journalism? As much as I would miss it, perhaps we should also say, "Good riddance!"

Why They Hate Us, Part I

Below is a number entitled "Cool Conservative Men" from the musical 1776 that perfectly captures the central goal of the GOP/conservative position—to protect the place and power of the privileged in society.

While some may argue that the song has no relevance today and that it simply reflects the views of the Tories who wished to remain loyal to the crown (and, by extension, protect their interests as landed gentry), it's worth noting that Jack Warner, who was the Warner Bros. studio head at the time this hit musical was adapted for the screen, cut the number from the film at Richard Nixon's request before its release.

(Note: The scene was restored to the recent DVD release of the film, but an online link to it did not appear to be available, hence this link to this stage production.)