President Obama is a published author and a man who considers himself a writer. So, expectations were high today when he delivered his inaugural address.
Time Magazine has the speech in its entirety. It’s well worth reading several times over.
Here’s one of the best parts, IMO:
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
I love how President Obama calls out “the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things” and says they are directly responsible for our nation’s “prosperity and freedom.” What a celebration of American ingenuity and a call to arms for entrepreneurs of all shapes and sizes. The nation needs us to risk, to do, to make—now more than ever.
Cross the Burnside Bridge into downtown Portland and you will be greeted by one of the most iconic neon signs in existence. It says, “Made in Oregon” and features a leaping stag whose nose cheerfully turns red during the holiday season.
The sign was first constructed by the White Satin Sugar Company in 1940. It was changed in 1957 to read “White Stag” by White Stag Sportswear. The Naito family, owners of the Made in Oregon chain, again rebranded the sign in 1995.
This is where it gets interesting. Made in Oregon is a brand name and prominent retail business in Oregon. But the phrase “Made in Oregon” is a mantra that all Oregonians can relate to and embrace. So, it’s a particularly positive piece of branding that has transcended commerce and become a civic landmark.
Now, University of Oregon, a tenant in the White Stag Building where the neon sign is perched wants to modify the text of the sign to read “University of Oregon.” See WWire for a sketch of the proposed changes.
According to Portland Business Journal, there’s resistance to the change from residents of Portland and city officials, some of whom attended Portland State University (presumably Oregon State grads would have a say in this, as well).
It’s hard to fault O of U for pursuing the change. It’s a bold move, but one that would clearly help build their brand after the dust up washes out to sea. At the same time, it’s hard to support U of O in this, since the existing sign works for everyone, not just Ducks.
I cherish the election maps offered by the design team at The New York Times.
It’s good to see the overlap of these bubbles because it shows that red and blue co-exist in the same places. It’s a finer distinction than the red state/blue state point of view.
Another striking map is the Voting Shift map which shows where each party received more votes in 2008 than they did in 2004. There’s a very identifiable red streak from Texas to West Virginia that’s interesting because it’s so well defined, localized and contained.
Bill Moyers appeared on NPR’s Fresh Air today. He is one of our best journalists and he served on LBJ’s staff in the 1960s, so he’s well qualified to speak on the historic events transpiring in America today. He says “he felt a great stone lifting from our neck” but he also recognizes the racism that continues to exist in many parts of the American South.
“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” -Obama
See the text of President-Elect Obama’s inspirational speech at Grant Park in Chicago last night. By the way, Grant Park was the setting for a scene of another kind 40 years ago during the Democratic National Convention. I’m sure Obama’s team chose Grant Park in part for that reason. It’s a healing move.
Just hours into America’s new start, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that Moscow will deploy missiles near Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans.
Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.
He said he hoped the next U.S. administration would act to improve relations. In a separate telegram, he congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory and said he was hoping for “constructive dialogue” with the incoming U.S. president.
Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from the current four, a major constitutional change that would further increase the power of the head of state and could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia.
I’m glad we had the opportunity to visit Alaska in August of 2007. Having been there, I feel better equipped to understand some of the thinking emanating from “The Last Frontier” that now shapes our news cycle.
Salon founder David Talbot, concerned with the right wing attacks on Obama that question his love for country, writes:
The Republican ticket is working hard this week to make Barack Obama’s tenuous connection to graying, ’60s revolutionary Bill Ayers a major campaign issue. But the Palins’ connection to anti-American extremism is much more central to their political biographies.
It’s a revealing article and I enjoyed reading it, but I have some issues with it. For one, I’m not ready to say the Alaska Independence Party–which Todd Palin once belonged to, and Sarah Palin recently gave a shout out to–is an “anti-American extremist” organization.
The fact that AKIP sent a Governor to Juneau in 1990 is one argument against this derisive labeling. Unless, of course, a majority of Alaskans are anti-American extremists.
Honestly, I know little about this political party or the people who support it. From what I can see in their platform, it’s essentially libertarian, with some “extreme” views on property rights thrown in. The point is I don’t need to agree with AKIP’s platform to agree that third party politics is of value to the citizens of this nation. Also, the idea of Alaska as a separate nation is not hard to conceive. It’s hard in that Imperial America would never let those natural resources go without a fight. But if you skip over that part, and see it from an Alaskan’s perspective, it makes some sense.
I’d actually take it much further and suggest that America could be divided into a group of nation states defined by its natural bioregions. If states’ rights hadn’t been so severely trampled by Reagan and company, this might not be as necessary as it is today. But they were trampled, and the homogeneous federalism that we endure today is no answer for a nation with many distinct cultures tied to place. For sure, all Americans have things in common, but not like they do with the people who share a climate, a dialect, water and food sources. I’m sure many in Alaska wonder what elected officials and bureaucrats in Washington, DC know about their lives. I wonder this all the time, but I don’t consider my views to be anti-American.
We need wild ideas and extreme points of view to help us stretch. It’s the way to a better future. America is often touted as “the cradle of democracy,” by political figures of all stripes. Great, then let’s push the envelope and find new ways to increase our personal liberties while also securing sustainable paths to energy, food and water. Can you think of a better time to reinvent ourselves and the way we do things in this country?
Can a hockey mom from small town Alaska lay claim to the word “maverick” and be believed by large segments of the voting population? I don’t think there’s any question that she can, and that fact has a fiery old lady from Texas upset.
Samuel Augustus Maverick
According to The New York Times , Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, shrinks a little each time she or her children hear Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin use the term to describe themselves.
Let’s look at where the meaning of this word developed:
In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.†The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.
As Maureen Dowd points out, also in today’s New York Times, “True mavericks don’t brand themselves.”
Film critic, Roger Ebert, discusses the vice presidential debate as theater in today’s Chicago Sun Times. His is one of the more relevant approaches, given that TV has totally altered how politicians get elected in this nation.
I get the feeling that the powers that be in the Republican Party saw what happened to Nixon in 1960, and collectively agreed to never let that happen again. And for the most part they’ve been wildly successful at selling their mythical version of a much slimier reality. But I digress.
Here’s some of what Ebert saw in Governor Palin last night:
When she was on familiar ground, she perked up, winked at the audience two of three times, and settled with relief into the folksiness that reminds me strangely of the characters in “Fargo.”
Palin is best in that persona. You want to smile with her and wink back. But who did she resemble more? Marge Gunderson, whose peppy pleasantries masked a remorseless policewoman’s logic? Or Jerry Lundegaard, who knew he didn’t have the car on his lot, but smiled when he said, “M’am, I been cooperatin’ with ya here.” Palin was persuasive. But I felt a brightness that was not always convincing.
I think Palin is clearly Marge, not Jerry. A comment on Ebert’s post by “Citizen Spain” says it best:
What annoys me most is that Palin’s disarming Marge Gunderson quaintness has transformed a significant portion of our population into drooling, blathering Mike Yanagitas. Such a super lady!
The nation could certainly use more Senators with Bernie Sanders’ perspective and his willingness to act for the common good.
Writing in The Nation, Sanders proposes to levy a 10 percent surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, and $1 million a year for couples in order to provide liquid capital for the nation’s beleaguered lending institutions. Sounds good to me.
Here’s what he has to say about the Bush/Paulson plan.
This proposal as presented is an unacceptable attempt to force middle-income families (and our children) to pick up the cost of fixing the horrendous economic mess that is the product of the Bush administration’s deregulatory fever and Wall Street’s insatiable greed. If the potential danger to our economy was not so dire, this blatant effort to essentially transfer $700 billion up the income ladder to those at the top would be laughable.
That’s not all that’s laughable coming from these bandits. Sadly, it’s just this week’s version of laughable.
As strange as this may sound, I’ve been wondering what’s up with Palin’s hairdo. According to SNL’s wig maker, it’s a “French twist with a ’60s bouffant kind of thing, and bangs,†yet it lacks an identifying name. I suppose it’s safe to call it “The Sarah” at this point.
