Olbermann’s SPECIAL COMMENT

by Michael O. Allen on August 19, 2010

There is no ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ By Keith Olbermann, Anchor, ‘Countdown’ on MSNBC, 8/16/2010

Finally as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the inaccurately described “Ground Zero mosque.”

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Pastor Martin Niemoller’s words are well known but their context is not well understood. Niemoller was not speaking abstractly. He witnessed persecution, he acquiesced to it, he ultimately fell victim to it. He had been a German World War 1 hero, then a conservative who welcomed the fall of German democracy and the rise of Hitler and had few qualms the beginning of the holocaust until he himself was arrested for supporting it insufficiently.

Niemoller’s confessional warning came in a speech in Frankfurt in January, 1946, eight months after he was liberated by American troops. He had been detained at Tyrol, Sachsen-hausen and Dachau. For seven years.

Niemoller survived the death camps. In quoting him, I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan, and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust. Such a comparison is ludicrous. At least it is, now.
But Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the willingness of a seemingly rational society to condone the gradual stoking of enmity towards an ethnic or religious group warning of the building-up of a collective pool of national fear and hate, warning of the moment in which the need to purge, outstrips even the perameters of the original scape-goating, when new victims are needed because a country has begun to run on a horrible fuel of hatred — magnified, amplified, multiplied, by politicians and zealots, within government and without.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

“A Tiny Ripple of Hope”

by Michael O. Allen on June 7, 2010

I came across this speech (Facebook, then Daily Kos) and thought I should share:

Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Vice Chancellor, Professor Robertson, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Daniel, and Ladies and Gentlemen

I come here this evening because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which once the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer, of course, to the United States of America.

But I am glad to come here — and my wife and I and all of our party are glad to come here to South Africa, and we’re glad to come to Cape Town. I am already greatly enjoying my stay and my visit here. I am making an effort to meet and exchange views with people of all walks of life, and all segments of South African opinion, including those who represent the views of the government.

Today I am glad to meet with the National Union of South African Students. For a decade, NUSAS has stood and worked for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — principles which embody the collective hopes of men of good will all around the globe. Your work at home and in international student affairs has brought great credit to yourselves and to your country. I know the National Student Association in the United States feels a particularly close relationship with this organization.

And I wish to thank especially Mr. Ian Robertson, who first extended the invitation on behalf of NUSAS. I wish to thank him for his kindness to me in inviting me. I am very sorry that he can not be with us here this evening. I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet and speak with him earlier this evening. And I presented him with a copy of Profiles in Courage which was a book that was written by President John Kennedy and was signed to him by President Kennedy’s widow, Mrs. John Kennedy.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Souter’s Harvard Talk

by Michael O. Allen on June 4, 2010

Souter signing guest book inside Massachusetts Hall prior to delivering Harvard's 359th Commencement.

Text of Justice David Souter’s Harvard Commencement remarks (as delivered)

When I was younger, I used to hear Harvard stories from a member of the class of 1885. Back then, old graduates of the College who could get to Cambridge on Commencement Day didn’t wait for reunion years to come back to the Yard. They’d just turn up, see old friends, look over the new crop, and have a cup of Commencement punch under the elms. The old man remembered one of those summer days when he was heading for the Square after lunch and crossed paths with a newly graduated senior, who had enjoyed quite a few cups of that punch. As the two men approached each other the younger one thrust out his new diploma and shouted, “Educated, by God.”

Even with an honorary Harvard doctorate in my hands, I know enough not to shout that across the Yard, but the University’s generosity does make me bold enough to say that over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States, and about what judges do when they apply it in deciding cases with constitutional issues. I’m going to draw on that experience in the course of the next few minutes, for it is as a judge that I have been given the honor to speak before you.

The occasion for our coming together like this aligns with the approach of two separate events on the judicial side of the national public life: the end of the Supreme Court’s term, with its quickened pace of decisions, and a confirmation proceeding for the latest nominee to fill a seat on the court. We will as a consequence be hearing and discussing a particular sort of criticism that is frequently aimed at the more controversial Supreme Court decisions: criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties. A good many of us, I’m sure a good many of us here, intuitively react that this sort of commentary tends to miss the mark. But we don’t often pause to consider in any detail the conceptions of the Constitution and of constitutional judging that underlie the critical rhetoric, or to compare them with the notions that lie behind our own intuitive responses. I’m going to try to make some of those comparisons this afternoon.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

MLB’s hall of shame

by Michael O. Allen on June 3, 2010

Alright, MLB umpire Jim Joyce stands today appropriately outfitted with goat horns for blowing what should have been the final call of a perfect game by Detroit Tigers Armando Galarraga on Wednesday.

Galarraga missed his chance at baseball immortality by pitching the 21st perfect game in baseball history (two earlier this season). That is unless baseball commish, that disgraceful Bud Selig, does the right thing and instituted a “Galarraga rule” replay of all disputed plays.

Imagine if Joyce could have had a chance to review the play after Detroit Manager Jim Leyland came in to argue the call? Despite the obviousness of Joyce’s error and calls to reconsider, Selig is upholding the call.

Joyce, though a goat, is not an unsympathetic figure here. He readily admitted his error.

“It was the biggest call of my career and I kicked the shit out of it,” he said afterward. “I had a great angle, and I missed the call.” See the rest of the worst umps and referees here.

{ 0 comments }

Check this out!

by Michael O. Allen on January 12, 2010

http://www.opcofamerica.org/blogs/michael-o-allen/write-it-long-well

It’s about newspapers and news writing

{ 0 comments }

Where To, Mr. Daschle?

by Zina Saunders on February 3, 2009

Tom Daschle, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human services, is facing some hard questions today regarding his failure to pay more than $140,000 in taxes, much of it related to a chauffeur-driven car provided to him by big-time Democratic donor Leo Hindery, Jr.

To make things worse for Daschle, his tax problems came to light just as his financial statement to the Office of Government Ethics was made public. This required report showed that he made millions of dollars giving public speeches and private counsel to insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other firms with complex regulatory and legislative interests in Washington.

Daschle was also an adviser to the law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird, which paid him $2.1 million last year in addition to providing him with a 401k plan worth between $100,000 and $250,000. During his three years with the lobbying group they earned more than $16 million working on behalf of some of the leaders in the health care industry in their dealings with the government, often before the department he’s in line to lead.

He managed to do all this without ever registering as a lobbyist. But the bottom line is that he got a lot of money from health care, pharmaceutical and insurance companies which have billions of dollars at stake in the regulations from the Health and Human Services.

The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a closed-door session today to discuss Daschle’s tax problems. I wonder how all his old buddies will view these revelations?

To read a little more, here’s an article in the Washington Post, and another on Politico.

{ 0 comments }

My friend, Todd

by Michael O. Allen on January 19, 2009

The morning of Friday, Jan. 16, 2009 was one of the worst moments of my life.

It was the first time in all the years that I’ve worked at the American Civil Liberties Union that I’ve come to work knowing that not only is my friend, Todd, not going to be there that day, but that he’s never going to be there.

All the stories I’d saved to tell him during the three weeks he was on the respirator. I will not tell them to him. Not ever again.

Todd Drew (May 13, 1967 ~ January 15, 2009)

Todd was my friend and I loved him. Todd and I, we were ridiculous together. So far as I could tell, I started working at the ACLU and Todd became my friend. And, from that moment on, I could always count on him, a constant, I could set my clock by him, my confidant, my rock to lean on, a big brother who looked out for me.

We fell into an easy friendship.

There were things that Todd and I disagreed about and debated with fierce laughter but we never had an argument.

For instance, Todd supported Ralph Nader and resisted my effort to get him to vote for John Kerry. He planned on voting for Nader again but ended up voting for Barack Obama. I don’t think I had to work too hard to convince him.

Todd was an extraordinary human being, kind, gentle, the most generous person.

I did not deserve nor did I earn the version of myself that I saw reflected back to me when I looked in Todd’s eyes.

He respected me, cared for me too much.

I figured this out: I knew Todd for exactly five years and five weeks. during that time, I could pinpoint where Todd would be at any moment. This is important, you see. I had to know where Todd was so I could reach out to him when I needed him.

So, whether it was a weekend and I was not at a game with him, or, maybe I was on vacation, traveling, when a thought occurred to me, I called Todd and we talked.

Since Todd never once took vacation in the time I knew him and he was always the first person in the building, I could, when I arrived at my desk in the morning, e-mail to him a lame joke and scoot around the corner to Todd’s office in time enough to see him smiling or laughing.

That is, if he didn’t come find me first.

And as we went for coffee in the morning, We talked about Baseball, of course. Politics, without fail. Life, too.

I would tell Todd stories and he would listen.

I told him about the over-the-hill soccer league I play in and Todd and Marsha came to watch me play. I told him stories about my sons, Gabriel and Aidan. Todd loved them, reveled in their foibles and antics.

Todd was as proud of my kids as I am.

He couldn’t come out of a bookstore without a book, or a magazine that he would want me to give to Gabriel and Aidan. Todd and Marsha came to their little league baseball games. Todd and Marsha came to our home and we went to Yankee games with them.

Todd and I, we were wound up in each others lives that way.

Todd and I had another relationship: I was his extra pair of eyes, not an editor, just an extra pair of eyes, on those tone poems — you know them as blog posts — that he gifted us with.

Todd, generous to a fault, would give me credit for untangling a thought, or sentence in a blog post, for editing something.

Yes, I read most of them. But I can tell you that the extent of my editing on practically all of them went something like this:

“Run with it.”

Or,

“Don’t change a word.”

Todd was simply a phenomenal man who wrote with a big heart.

I love Todd. I love him as a friend, as a brother. But I also envied Todd. I envied him as a writer.

Every writer needs a place to call his own,

Steinbeck had his Monterey.

So, too, Todd had the Bronx, specifically, that sliver of heaven called Yankee Stadium and the neighborhoods around it, a place teeming with characters who, although very real, in Todd’s hands, turn into something mythical:

The kids playing baseball in Parking Lot 15 because the city took away their ball fields.

Javier, the ex-pitcher from Puerto Rico, now a pugnacious pontificator about all things Yankees and New York

Henry, a steadfast supporter of Yankee players,

Jose, born in the Dominican Republic, and now living on the Grand Concourse

And that is to name just a few.

As a writer, I covet this place and wish I had such wonderful characters to write about But that’s not what I envied Todd for. What I envied Todd for is his voice, his writing voice.

Besides memories of his gentleness, his kindness, his inspirational presence, this voice, I believe, will be his lasting legacy. Todd’s voice is something else, light and free, compassionate, singularly knowing and tough but with no meanness, no ego, in others words, all Todd.

Todd’s voice belongs to time and, we could grieve that Todd had only 41 years on this earth, that he deserved more time to hone his voice, to see where it would carry him.

But, as Marsha would tell you, that’s not Todd. Todd doesn’t do regrets. For instance, I am heartbroken and angry and frustrated at his death yet I realize Todd’s integrity would not condone such feelings.

How could a man live such a fiercely principled life yet leave such trails of tenderness and kindness?

I miss him too much already.

In “The Record Lives”, which Todd wrote about Phil Rizzuto, he quoted Grantland Rice, who wrote for the New York Herald-Tribune:

For when the One Great Scorer comes
To write against your name,
He marks not that you won or lost,
But how you played the Game?

The old scribe could have been talking about Todd.

{ 0 comments }

A little history

by The Palimpsest Staff on January 12, 2009

(The White House-Getty Images) Fleeting Hope: From left, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Hussein, Clinton and PLO leader Yasir Arafat in 1995

MIDEAST

How We Got to This Point

By Kevin Peraino, NEWSWEEK, From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009

Three recent books chart the winding path from Kermit Roosevelt with his suitcases stuffed with cash to George W. Bush’s gloomy Nobel Prize prospects.

Barack Obama said virtually nothing last week about the fighting in Gaza. We only have “one president at a time,” his aides argue, and he has already called for a robust American peacemaking effort. Still, as the bombs began falling it must have been tempting for the president-elect to simply avert his eyes. Cries of “all-out war” make the risks to U.S. credibility abroad and the political costs at home seem infinitely more acute. Fighting in the Holy Land has been raging for thousands of years, the familiar reasoning goes; it would be hubris to think America could end it.

Yet three excellent recent books suggest that such logic is seriously flawed. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly, diplomatic distance virtually guarantees the status quo. Because Israel is so much stronger, power dynamics in the conflict are “deeply unbalanced,” write Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their trenchant guidebook, “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace” (191 pages. U.S. Institute of Peace. $16.50). “Left on their own, the parties cannot address the deep, structural impediments to peace.” Over the past half-century, the price of a generally desultory American policy has been compounded.

That’s the takeaway from Patrick Tyler’s ambitious new history, “A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East—From the Cold War to the War on Terror” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 628 pages. $30). The bottom line, according to Tyler: “After nearly six decades of escalating American involvement in the Middle East, it remains nearly impossible to discern any overarching approach to the region such as the one that guided U.S. policy through the Cold War.” Still, starry-eyed naiveté is no way to solve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Martin Indyk’s nuanced new memoir of his tenure as a Clinton-era peace negotiator, “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East” (494 pages. Simon &Schuster. $30), demonstrates how hard the balancing act can be.

American diplomacy in the region wasn’t always so feeble. Back in the fall of 1956, intelligence reached Washington that Israel was massing troops near Gaza in the Negev Desert. U.S. officials discovered that Israel had conspired with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal, which popular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the summer before. The Americans were furious at their allies’ back-room plan. Israel’s then foreign minister, Golda Meir, made an argument much the same as what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said since then: “Imagine attacks from enemies camped on the Mexican and Canadian borders inflicting those kinds of casualties in America.” But President Eisenhower wasn’t buying. As Tyler recounts, Ike went on television and demanded a withdrawal, later withholding oil shipments and loans to Britain. The conspirators were forced to comply.

Continue . . .

{ 1 comment }

“Special relationship” with one side

by The Palimpsest Staff on January 12, 2009

(Jae C. Hong/AFP-Getty Images) In Search of the High Ground: In July, Obama got a bird's-eye view of the Holy Land with Livni, right, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Newsweek

If Obama Is Serious He should get tough with Israel by Aaron David Miller, NEWSWEEK, from the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009

Jews worry for a living; their tragic history compels them to do so. In the next few years, there will be plenty to worry about, particularly when it comes to Israel. The current operation in Gaza won’t do much to ease these worries or to address Israel’s longer-term security needs. The potential for a nuclear Iran, combined with the growing accuracy and lethality of Hamas and Hizbullah rockets, will create tremendous concern. Anxiety may also be provoked by something else: an Obama administration determined to repair America’s image and credibility and to reach a deal in the Middle East.

Don’t get me wrong. Barack Obama—as every other U.S. president before him—will protect the special relationship with Israel. But the days of America’s exclusive ties to Israel may be coming to an end. Despite efforts to sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it’s serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

The departure point for a viable peace deal—either with Syria or the Palestinians—must not be based purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the requirements of all sides. The new president seems tougher and more focused than his predecessors; he’s unlikely to become enthralled by either of Israel’s two leading candidates for prime minister—centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, or Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, if it’s the latter, he may well find himself (like Clinton) privately frustrated with Netanyahu’s tough policies. Unlike Clinton, if Israeli behavior crosses the line, he should allow those frustrations to surface publicly in the service of American national interests.

Continue . . .

{ 0 comments }

The Middle East: Rivers of blood

by The Palimpsest Staff on January 12, 2009

If You Want Peace, Work For Justice says the Central Virginia Progressive

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Bill Moyers on Mideast Violence | PBS

Transcript

BILL MOYERS: In a city made noisy by hammers and saws preparing for the
inauguration of a new president — a city already reverberating with
partisan rancor, and with the constant chattering of the opinionated —
it was hard to hear the sound of a single snare drum along Pennsylvania
Avenue, between the White House and Capitol Hill, but there it was: a
mere handful of men and women, 70 at most, had come out this rain-swept
morning to bear witness to the dead – to the victims of war.

DAVID SWANSON:
They carry the names of the dead in Iraq, in Afghanistan and the recent
dead in Gaza along with ages and places and in many cases, very little
more is known except that these are people who should still be alive.
These are real human beings with family members and loved ones and
friends, and we’re killing them.

BILL MOYERS:They were there for the first hour of the first day of the new Congress.

DAVID SWANSON:
It’s a general assumption that power rests at the other end of this
street in the White House and that we may have a better president there
than we had last time and we should wait and see what happens. Well,
our country puts the power to begin and end and fund and de-fund wars
here, in the Congress.

BILL MOYERS:A short distance away a
noisy media circus surrounded Illinois Democrat Roland Burris as he
tried to take a seat in the United States Senate, while scarcely anyone
recorded the March of the Dead.

MARCHER #1: Haya Hamdan, 44, killed last Monday in Gaza.

MARCHER #2: Najim Abdullah Hamid, 41, killed 3/7/04.

BILL MOYERS:Inside the Hart Senate Office Building the marchers unfurled their banners. Seventeen were arrested.

MARCHER #3:We will not be silent.

DAVID SWANSON:
And I’m thrilled that people are willing to bring this message on day
one and not assume that an election solves everything because elections
have never created peace, only what people do in between elections has
ever created peace.

BILL MOYERS:Their act of conscience
could not have been more timely. For one thing, the “Washington Post”
reports this week that the U.S. Army sent letters to the 7,000 family
members of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every letter began,
“Dear John Doe.” Yes, it was a mistake and the Army has now apologized.
But we were reminded of the anonymity that has been conferred on
America’s fallen warriors whose homecoming in caskets the Bush White
House has tried to keep from the public. They, their parents, spouses
and children are far removed from the gaze of official Washington. The
marchers along Pennsylvania Avenue this week were reminding us that
every casualty, every victim of war has a name.

For too much of
the world at large the names of the dead and wounded in Gaza might as
well be John Doe too. They are the casualties and victims of Israel’s
decision to silence the rockets from Hamas terrorists by waging war on
an entire population. Yes, every nation has the right to defend its
people. Israel is no exception, all the more so because Hamas would
like to see every Jew in Israel dead.

But brute force can turn
self-defense into state terrorism. It’s what the U.S. did in Vietnam,
with B-52s and napalm, and again in Iraq, with shock and awe. By
killing indiscriminately – the elderly, kids, entire families by
destroying schools and hospitals — Israel did exactly what terrorists
do and exactly what Hamas wanted. It spilled the blood that turns the
wheel of retribution.

Hardly had Israeli tank fire killed and
injured scores at a UN school in Gaza than a senior Hamas leader went
on television to announce, “The Zionists have legitimized the killing
of their children by killing our children.” Already attacks on Jews in
Europe are escalating — a burning car crashes into a synagogue in
Southern France, a fiery object is hurled through a window in Sweden,
venomous anti-Semitic graffiti appears across the continent, and
arsonists strike in London.

What we are seeing in Gaza is the
latest battle in the oldest family quarrel on record. Open your Bible:
the sons of the patriarch Abraham become Arab and Jew. Go to the Book
of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their
leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had
brought down the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” now proclaimed, “You
must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served
their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut
down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods,
and wipe out their name from that place.”

So God-soaked
violence became genetically coded. A radical stream of Islam now seeks
to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel misses no
opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete
walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza. As if boasting of
their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions
on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells
CBS, “It’s like Dante’s Inferno. They are bombing one and a half
million people in a cage.”

America has officially chosen sides.
We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals. Our
Christian right links arms with the religious extremists there who
claim divine sanctions for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Our
political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging
the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll
found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by
a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless
march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House.
Rarely does our mainstream media depart from the monotonous monologue
of the party line. Many American Jews know, as Aaron David Miller writes in the current “Newsweek”, that the destruction in Gaza won’t do much to address Israel’s longer-term needs.

But
those who raise questions are accused by a prominent reform rabbi of
being “morally deficient.” One Jewish American activist told me this
week that never in 30 years has he seen such blind and binding
conformity in his community. “You’d never know,” he said, “that it is
the Gazans who are doing most of the suffering.”

We are in a
terrible bind — Israel, the Palestinians, the United States. Each
greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s
resistance to oppression. Is it possible to turn this mindless tragedy
toward peace? For starters, read Aaron David Miller’s article in the
current “Newsweek”. Get his book, “The Much Too Promised Land”. And pay
no attention to those Washington pundits cheering the fighting in Gaza
as they did the bloodletting in Iraq. Killing is cheap and war is a
sport in a city where life and death become abstractions of policy.
Here are the people who pay the price.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is a public menace. He makes it hard for people to exist and behave as they normally would in their natural habitat. Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko and others were doing only what came natural when Fitzgerald decided to stick [...]

Read the full article

← Previous Entries

Olbermann’s SPECIAL COMMENT

There is no ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ By Keith Olbermann, Anchor, ‘Countdown’ on MSNBC, 8/16/2010

“A Tiny Ripple of Hope”

Souter’s Harvard Talk

MLB’s hall of shame

Check this out!

Where To, Mr. Daschle?

My friend, Todd

A little history

How We Got to This Point

Three recent books chart the winding path from Kermit Roosevelt with his suitcases stuffed with cash to George W. Bush’s gloomy Nobel Prize prospects.

“Special relationship” with one side

The Middle East: Rivers of blood

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Bill Moyers on Mideast Violence | PBS

Signs of the Dajjal Antichrist Reptilian Shapeshifter : 09

. . . or Mexico

“Enemies of freedom”

When David is the Goliath

Can you call it a war if . . .

Uri Avnery’s peace proposal

A Hero of the Cuban Revolution

Spike Lee: ‘Barack changes everything’

A fight to the death?

Truths and hope

Like I said . . .

Meta

Sponsors

More Recent Posts

NetworkedBlogs

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

September 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Aug
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

There is no ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ By Keith Olbermann, Anchor, ‘Countdown’ on MSNBC, 8/16/2010

Three recent books chart the winding path from Kermit Roosevelt with his suitcases stuffed with cash to George W. Bush’s gloomy Nobel Prize prospects.

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Bill Moyers on Mideast Violence | PBS

Signs of the Dajjal Antichrist Reptilian Shapeshifter : 09

Meta

Sponsors

More Recent Posts

NetworkedBlogs

Recent Comments

Tags

Archives

Blogroll