smith's Friends

He we go again.

Knowing that you can fool some of the people all of the time, Sarah Palin is clubbing American politainment (New Coinable Phrase Alert) like it was a baby seal.

Without a team of Machiavellian neocons to pull her strings, The Vanilla Guerilla from Wasilla is a marionette without a master, making a bold, maverick move and stiffing her constituents, sparing them the expense of having an elected leader and demonstrating the efficacy of smaller government.

Gosh, she's purty and, I dare say, strikingly similar to another recently unassed Republican ex-white hope, George W. Bush. She's got about the same I.Q. as W, though not the pedigree. She's got the same vague ambition but no compass. She's got legs and she knows how to use them (whereas W, in his flight suit, had crotch. Nocturnal emission accomplished!). It's possible she's even more devolved than W, which is saying a lot. Boiled down to the tar, she's all dimple and no depth.

She's Darwins Darlin', proving that on her private Galapagos it is survival of the prettiest.

Given how low the bar has been set by her party's compadres, this two-dimensional pop culture warritrix certainly can do what she wants---badly, of course, but that's not the point. When you live in a labelocracy you can call yourself anything and if you have enough sloe-eyed bucktooth cork-brains who pop wood whenever this particular milf in mukluks winks at them then, gosh darn it you're a winner! If Sarah insists she's a political superstar who represents some vague Christian morality and personifies the myth of American white bread normalcy, yet is still incapable of delivering anything but half-baked bromides and useless legislation, then by Republican standards she is the leader in 2012.

Forget that she's as qualified to run a government as a year old box of raisins.

Forget that she telegraphs her ignorance every time she opens her pie hole and oozes rote generalities.

And by all means forget the sketchy goings on within her own family circle and soon-to-be-forsaken administration. Just remember her inane assertions that she cares about her country and then ask yourself: if she cares so much, where's she goin'?  

For too long we've been subjected to the whims of the booboisie and its corrupt representations, determined to build a world reflecting their boneheaded and backward-marching theories on life and liberty. For Sarah Palin, that world is her oyster. Even if she'd be hard pressed to tell you how that oyster got there.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy he helped craft should be revisited, but he would not go so far as to call for a full repeal of the compromise.

"The policy and the law that came about in 1993 I think was correct for the time," Powell said in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union." "Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country. And therefore, I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed."

"I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added. "It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated. And I hope that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders working with the secretary of defense will give this the greatest consideration and make their recommendation to the president and to the Congress."

Powell, as much as any congressional figure, played the foil in President Bill Clinton's efforts to follow through on a campaign promise that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to serve openly in the military. In recent months, he and other key players from the first battle (notably, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn) have argued that political realities have evolved to the extent that the armed forces should take a closer look at the policy's purpose and effectiveness. In December 2008, Powell told CNN that it was time to "definitely re-evaluate" "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

By not calling for full repeal, the former Secretary of State and prominent Obama endorser doesn't really do the Obama administration many favors. During the campaign, the president called for overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell." But he has been slow to act since taking office, even as 250 military servicemen have been dismissed for disclosing their sexuality. Having a prominent figure like Powell provide the cover for a sweeping policy reversal would be a gift to Obama and a boon to gay-rights groups, which have grown increasingly frustrated with the president for dragging his feet on this issue.

Should violence in Iraq spike with the removal of American troops, military commanders and administration officials have cautioned a policy of wait and see. The drawdown of military personnel from Iraq country has gone on schedule. The White House has insisted that there are no plans to revise or revisit that process.

On Sunday, Vice President Joseph Biden closed that door even further. Speaking to ABC's "This Week" during a trip to Iraq, Biden insisted on multiple occasions that the United States would not put additional soldiers' lives on the line for Iraq, even if violence erupts in that country once again.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What if the Iraqi people -- they've been dealing with these political disputes for an awful long time -- what if they can't solve them, the violence flares up again?

BIDEN: Well, that's going to be a tragic outcome for the Iraqi people. We made a commitment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But are we going to put our lives on the line again?

BIDEN: No. We made a commitment to withdraw our troops from the cities by the 30th, to withdraw our combat brigades from Iraq by next summer -- the end of next summer, and withdraw all troops according to the SOFA, that agreement we negotiated with them, by the end of 2011. That is our intention.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But no matter what, 2011, American troops all gone?

BIDEN: That is the intention. We believe the Iraqis will be fully capable of maintaining their own security. And we believe that with the time frame, with their upcoming election -- you know they're having an election in January, I know you know that, they'll form a new government early -- in late winter as a consequence of that election. And it is our expectation that that election will come off peacefully.

This is the furthest the Obama White House has gone to fully disengaging from Iraq's internal problems -- though Biden did qualify his remarks with the word "intention." At the same time, U.S. military forces will be in the country through 2010 in order to monitor hot spots of violence and the possible emergence of terrorism. One would think that such a rigid approach to the Iraq drawdown would leave the administration susceptible to domestic political attacks. But, as Biden noted, the White House is merely carrying out their predecessors' plan.

"You know, it's kind of ironic," Biden said of criticisms from former V.P. Dick Cheney, who said he feared the U.S. would "waste" the sacrifices of its armed forces in Iraq. "It's their timetable we are implementing. Cheney and Bush agreed with the Iraqis before we were elected that we'd have combat troops out of the cities by June 30th... I mean, for this he can't have it both ways. He negotiated that timetable. We have met the commitment, the timetable, the last administration negotiated with Iraqis. And we're totally confident that is the right thing to do. So I find it kind of ironic that he's criticizing his own agreement that he negotiated."

Watch:

Hey, a lot of people feel that the news orgs of the future involve networks of journalists, fact-checkers, and editors working together. I'm one of them, having stolen ideas from Ellen Miller, Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Dan Gillmor and others.

Well, the first such alliance has arisen, planning to operate in a public service, nonprofit mode.

It's The Investigative News Network

Therefore, with a full appreciation of both the complexities and the opportunities to be achieved by more formalized collaboration, the nonprofit news publishers at Pocantico hereby declare that preparations should be immediately made to form a collaboration, the Investigative News Network (working title). Its mission is very simple: to aid and abet, in every conceivable way, individually and collectively, the work and public reach of its member news organizations, including, to the fullest extent possible, their administrative, editorial and financial wellbeing. And, more broadly, to foster the highest quality investigative journalism, and to hold those in power accountable, at the local, national and international levels.

Better commentary here by Josh Wilson of newsdesk.org:

Journalism's true strength in the Internet era is decentralized. It's all about reporters -- and reporting teams -- working solo, and then linking up in parallel to coordinate on stories, cross-promote, and share resources.

Parallel processing! Peer-to-peer networks. A network model harnesses the inherent strength of the Web as a medium. This is the thesis behind my work with Independent Arts & Media and Newsdesk.org.

Now, on a significantly larger scale, a collaborative of nonprofit news agencies is teaming up to create a new entity: The Investigative News Network.

This weekend marks the annual commemoration of this country's independence. The balloons, parades, fireworks, barbecues and flags can hide the fact that 233 years ago when the Founders placed their name on the Declaration of Independence they were knowingly signing a death warrant if their revolutionary efforts failed.

This fact alone makes it a worthy enterprise to periodically revive the question: what is patriotism, and what should it look like in the 21st century?

Can we simply conclude that patriotism is love a country? Is it overtly demonstrating ritualistic acts such as standing when the national anthem is played at sporting events, placing one's hand over one's heart while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? We've seen examples that the failure to do these things might invoke calls of one being unpatriotic.

If we don't examine what patriotism means for each of us, it may become easy to conclude outwardly ritualistic expressions are clear signs of patriotism, while one who decides to exercise constitutionally protected free speech in dissent of the government is guilty of an unpatriotic act.

Hard to believe, but it was not that long ago when a seductive argument was put forth suggesting that acts of war demand uniformity of thought and unquestioned support of the government's plan lest one be considered unpatriotic.

Overt rituals, because they require little of us, can blind us to authentic forms of patriotism. Though I am not aware of any flag lapel pin that he may have adorned, but is there a greater example of patriotism in the last half of the 20th century than Martin Luther King Jr.?

We forget the civil rights movement based its justification on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They were willing to die for those beliefs, and some did.

If we can agree on the shared definition that patriotism is love and devotion to one's country, how does that love and devotion differ from nationalism?

Patriotism and nationalism share a common definition of devotion or love to the country. Nationalism is also defined as the ability of a nation to act independently. There is more than enough historical data to suggest America has mastered that portion of the definition.

Love and concern for the country, including its people, is the patriotic responsibility of every American. It is not enough to define patriotism simply by consistent voter participation or staying abreast of current issues. The individual must place his or her patriotism beyond the ultimate sphere of political affiliation.

Nor does decibel level or repetition suggest some monopoly on patriotism. One's ability to tout their patriotism loudly and with frequency means only that -- nothing more.

In thinking about patriotism, I would suggest one barometer might be just how deep that patriotism runs. Is it an authentic love of country as it is, including it's high and low historical moments, or is it based on what one wishes it to be -- something that conforms to our preconceived folklore?

It is probably easier to define what patriotism is not than it is to apply a comprehensive definition. We are not the replicas of the patriotism exhibited by the Founders, nor should we be. However patriotism is defined. it is incumbent upon us to also allow for the different ways it may be manifested in society.

Patriotism is not exclusively acknowledging the heroics of our armed forces and failing to recognize the millions whose unemployment benefits did not last as long as their ongoing job search.

King was right; we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality that's tied to a single garment of destiny. In these challenging economic times it becomes clearer that our lives are unavoidably connected with each other.

As much as we may want to believe in the myth of rugged individualism, our fates are far more intertwined than we often take the time to recognize.

Somehow patriotism must be more than annual commemorations and rituals. It must be more than something conjured up when the government wishes to engage in war. It must be part of our lived commitment to the ideals that the country was founded upon, struggling with the evolution of that definition 233 years after it was first declared publicly.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com

By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji)
© 2009 Native Sun News

July 6, 2009

Sherman Bear Ribs, Jr., stood at the counter in my office last week at the Native Sun News and we talked about one of the great Hunkpapa Chiefs, his great, great grandfather named Bear Ribs. He was named the "Paper Chief" of all the Lakota after the death of Conquering Bear.

As Sherman and I talked I noticed a small Lakota woman standing near the wall behind him. She listened carefully to our conversation and finally nodded to herself as if to say, I think everything is alright..

She then left the office without a word and as Sherman and I continued our conversation she very quietly came back into the office and stood by the counter. She waited respectfully until Sherman finished what he had to say and then she approached the counter with a folder filled with papers in her hand.

As she explained to me the meaning of the documents she handed to me one at a time, I was amazed at the research she must have put into collecting these ancient documents. Her name was Diane Comes Out Holy Two Sticks and she was the great, great granddaughter of Chief Comes Out Holy Two Sticks.

The story of Chief Two Sticks is one of tragedy. Considered by many to be a great Lakota (Sioux) leader, Two Sticks became one of the infamous statistics in the wars between the white invaders and the Lakota.

Two Sticks was accused of conducting a raid on a herd of cattle belonging to the Humphrey cattle ranch on the White River about 30 miles west of the Pine Ridge Agency. The cattlemen immediately sent word to Captain George LeRoy Brown of the 11th Infantry. Brown telegraphed Ft. Meade near Sturgis, South Dakota and tribal police were ordered to arrest Two Sticks. When they arrived at his camp a gun fight ensued and five of the policemen were killed and the one was wounded. Two Sticks escaped from the attempted arrest.

Two Sticks and his followers then ran into some cowboys from the Humphrey ranch and during a heated shootout, four of the cowboys were killed.

Joe Bush led a party of 25 tribal policemen to the camp of Chief No Waters where Two Sticks was holed up and another gun battle followed. First Eagle, Two Two, and White Faced Horse were killed in the shootout. Two Sticks was badly wounded.

Chief Two Sticks was transported to Deadwood where he was tried and sentenced to be hanged on December 28, 1894, just four years and one day short of the horrible massacre at Wounded Knee. Tickets for the execution went on sale immediately. The tickets read: "You are invited to attend the legal execution of Cha Nopa Uhah, alias Two Stick, at Lawrence County Jail, in Deadwood, S. D., December 28, 1894 at 10 o'clock A.M."

Chief Two Sticks had said at his trial that the cowboys were killed by White Faced Horse, Fights With, Two Two, and First Eagle "I have killed many Indians, but I have never killed a white man," he said.

At his execution as he stood on the gallows, Two Sticks said, "My heart knows I am not guilty and I am happy. I am not afraid to die. I was taught that if I raised my hands to Wakan Tanka (God), and told a lie, that God would kill me that day. I never told a lie in my life."

As the noose was placed around his neck Chief Two Sticks sang his death song. He was dropped through the trapdoor and, according to the reports, "his death was instantaneous."

He was placed in a pine box and buried outside of the gates of the regular graveyard because the citizens of Deadwood did not want the body of an Indian contaminating their graveyard. All of his possessions were given away including his cunnupa, his Sacred Pipe. The pipe was put on display in the Adams Museum in Deadwood until Diane and her family pursued its return.

On December 9, 1998, the museum repatriated his Sacred Pipe to his great grandson, Richard Swallow, Sr. and the Oglala Lakota Tribe in compliance with the Native Americans Graves Protection and Act of 1990.

The descendants of Chief Comes Out Holy Two Sticks have always believed that the United States hanged an innocent man. When he said, "My heart knows I am not guilty and I am happy. I am not afraid to die," his family believed him then and his descendants believe him now.
In an act of acrimony, the Black Hills Daily Times reported his death on December 29, 1894 with the headline, "A Good Indian," snidely referring to the infamous saying, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

(Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, is the publisher of Native Sun News. He was the founder and first president of the Native American Journalists Association, the 1985 recipient of the H. L. Mencken Award, and a Nieman Fellow at Harvard with the Class of 1991. Giago was inducted into the South Dakota Newspaper Hall of Fame in 2008. He can be reached at editor@nsweekly.com)

Greatlovelookup.com e-mailed me today, introducing their site as a "Discreet Dating Community For Married People, and for Single People that want to meet and date unhappy married people."

Greatlovelookup.com needs editing. Among the many grammatical errors is that the description should read..."for single people who want to meet and date unhappy married people." And I suspect they mean "unhappily married people," rather than downers.

Did someone steer them to me? Perhaps a vindictive Nigerian I'd ignored? Did my husband receive the same opportunity? Should I be concerned that he's now at his computer?

The options provided are:

Press here if you want to have an affair with a married woman or man
Press here if you're in a relationship and want to have an affair
Press here if you want to have an affair with a married person

Missing is the reason that would tempt me: "Press here if you're happily married, but looking to connect with politicians to have a voice in the nation's health plan."

The evidence is married people manage to have adulterous relationships without assistance. Could it be that this website was generated by spouses looking to catch their mates? Or by Mark Sanford's spiritual advisor? (I'm aware that's a sentence fragment).

Karl Rove who successfully guided President Bush to the White House twice, was remarkably cold on Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. The former Bush strategist and current Republican commentator argued that it was "not clear" what Palin's strategy was in resigning just two-and-a-half years into office, adding that the move was risky,m left her vulnerable to her critics, and would damage her chances of becoming president.

"I think it hurts," Rove told host Chris Wallace. "When you're a sitting governor, you have the tactical advantage if you're thinking about running for president of turning down a lot of things with an excuse that people will accept. 'I've got a job to do as governor.' She's now removed that. Now the expectations are going to be she's going to be fully available, she's going to be able to come to the lower 48, and she's going to be able to do whatever people ask her to do. And that's going to be a problem. It raises the expectations. It's also unclear what her strategy is. Again, she said she wanted to lead effective change outside of government. Well, now people will be saying what is it you mean by that and how are you demonstrating effective leadership for change around America? I'm like Governor [Mike] Huckabee. I'm a fan of Sarah Palin's, but the effective strategies in politics are ones that are so clear and obvious that people can grasp it."

The remarks were clearly premised on the notion that Palin would be running for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. Defenders of the Alaska Republican have argued that her resignation would clear her schedule to establish the firm political roots needed to mount a White House bid. Certainly it saves her from being stuck in Alaska at a time when she wants to build a national structure in the lower 48 states.

"This does give her a chance to travel the country, campaign for Republicans in 2010 ... and study up on issues," said Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, later on the program. "I think she could have a very strong year and a half if she is disciplined... but it is high risk. She is clearly all in here and there is no safety net."

Rove argued that having three-and-a-half years outside of government to run for the White House would create too many tensions and expectations for Palin to satisfy.

"She's putting herself in a place where unless she comes up with something new and novel that demonstrates leadership for effective change outside of government, as she said in her speech, then she's going to be conventional," Rove said. "She cannot simply count on going around and collecting chits by campaigning for Republican candidates in 2010. ... She also, I repeat, has lost control of her time. She had the excuse of saying, 'I'm the governor I've got things to do.' Now people will be clamoring for her and the expectations will be out of sight."

Andy Roddick will win the 2009 Wimbledon final 7-6 6-7 7-6 6-7 9-7, defeating Roger Federer in his bid to reclaim his All England Club crown and surpass Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles. You heard it here first!

Actually, my predicted score line is the only chance Roddick has of taking Federer down this year. Fed is playing very, very well on the vaunted grass courts of England. His serve has been stupendous: When Roger Federer gets his first serve percentage into the low 80s, he's virtually impossible to beat--or even take sets off of.

But Roddick is no slouch in the serve department, either. Among active pros, he owns one of the biggest first and second serves in the game, a deadly combination of terrifying velocity and insane spin. Since losing two Wimbledon finals to Federer, he's modified his game and started to play up to his abilities on grass.

Still, he'll struggle tomorrow to break Federer's serve, as Fed will struggle to break his. So an effective strategy for Roddick would be to guard his own serve fanatically, ignore Federer's, and save his best returns for tiebreakers. Tiebreakers are unpredictable, but Roddick is on a good tiebreak run. If he manages 3-4 aces and focuses on going after 2-3 returns, he can sprint to a quick lead and then try to hold on, edging out tiebreaks by scores of 8-6, 9-7, 10-8. With luck, he'll then be able to eek out a single service break late on the tiebreaker-less fifth set.

Federer isn't ultimately that worried about Roddick because he long ago cracked the American's game. They've met three times in Slam finals (Fed also defeated Roddick to win the 2006 U.S. Open), and in each case, the Swiss has neutralized Roddick's main weapon. This has typically frustrated Roddick, who's accustomed to holding serve easily against most players. Roddick is intelligent and competitive, but against Federer he needs more metal toughness than usual.

He showed this in his semifinal victory against Andy Murray, the Scottish player who had become the best chance for a British Wimbledon champ since Fred Perry in 1936. When he needed the big serves, he came up with them. And when the match became a battle of who could overcome the tightness that a pressure-filled match induces, Roddick demonstrated that he could hit through the anxiety.

He probably has a game plan for Federer, so I don't expect him to take my advice. Playing for breakers isn't necessarily in the big server's playbook; 6-4 6-4 6-4 is how they generally want to beat opponents. However, Roddick doesn't have the game to break Fed's serve even once of twice. So he should push for the breakers and roll the dice. This year's All England final is a great chance for him to win a title he should probably have claimed at least once already. And he can do it if he does what he's currently doing best, which is win tiebreakers.