Trying to refine these a bit..

lemme know what you think..

be BRUTAL!!!!

..

..

..

On SARAH PALIN:

She said she’d attend the Convention.

Old Sarah still craved the attention.

She wrote on her hand,

copped one hundred grand,

then “donated” it to her own pension.

= = = = = = = = = =

She calls for a new revolution,

“We must ply to the strict Constitution”!

When asked what that meant,

her knowledge was spent..

and the rest was just more noise pollution.

= = = = = = = = = =

On CHENEY:

There once was a V.P. named Cheney,

Whose “vision” was bitter & grainy.

He tortured & swore

that we needed a war

but he turned out much worse than Khomeini.

= = = = = = = = = =

(variation)

There’s a putrid old fascist named Cheney

who delights in the concept of pain, he

denies that the cries

that his try’s to baptize

reap just more useless lies than Khomeini.

= = = = = = = = = =

On RACHEL MADDOW vs AARON SCHOCK:

There’s a vapid young freshman named Aaron

whose worldview is woefully barren.

He was clearly miscast

and was tied to the mast

When “Rach” made his world Sub Saharan.

= = = = = = = = = =

There once was a Gooper named Schock

whose spiel was a typical crock.

It was almost a crime

he was given the time

to watch Maddow just clean out his clock.

= = = = = = = = = =

On JOHN BOEHNER:

There’s a GOP lackey named Boehner

Who, for all intents, looks like a stoner,

He’d forgotten his task

to top his hip flask

filled entirely of orange skin toner.

= = = = = = = = = =

The Minority Leader was shaken.

A finger wagging was taken.

So he hemmed & he hawed,

‘tho his snit was a fraud

‘Cause he knew he was no Francis Bacon.

= = = = = = = = = =

On the CPAC CONVENTION:

So, they’re holding a cute, little meeting

where Limbaugh will keep overeating.

Beck will chalk the same croc

Dick will stock an ad-hoc

with Uranium needing depleting.

= = = = = = = = = =

On REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION:

All they want is to block & obstruct

any progress they feel should be chucked.

They’d rather still stay

then betray their cliche

of a time when their “values” just sucked.

= = = = = = = = = =

They bleat & they fete for “more jobs”.

They lob “blobs of green gobs” at the mobs.

Yet when Bills are proposed

their minds stay clamped closed

so they’ll recommence humping Lou Dobbs.

= = = = = = = = = = =

On HEALTH CARE REFORM:

They strive for a new “Waterloo”

by giving our Health Bill the flu.

But their pale rail will fail

as this ship has set sail

so we’ll bid their stale milieu adieu.

= = = = = = = = = = =

The wingers were set to make merry..

Our Bill they were ready to bury.

But then came this “twist”,

Some new grain for the grist.

Punked AGAIN, were they?

“Yes indeed, VERY!”

= = = = = = = = = = =

On GLENN BECK:

There’s this broadcast bufffoon known as Glenn,

who prays to the DEV!L (amen!).

He insights racial fights

‘tll some fan kills non-whites

which come to pass not “if” but WHEN.

= = = = = = = = = =

On NEWT GINGRICH:

There’s a throwback right winger named Newt

whose delusions remain so acute

that he inks what he thinks

will prove links he thinks stinks

but his foot, in the end, he will shoot.

= = = = = = = = = =

On BIPARTISANSHIP, the GOP CAUCUS & the HEALT CARE SUMMIT:

“Can’t we all get along?”, asked the Pres..

but they couldn’t care less what he says.

They’ll admit they don’t fit

& will quit with a snit

just like Lucy & Desi Arnaz.

= = = = = = = = = =

(variation)

“Let’s discuss this out front”, said the Pres..

but they couldn’t care less what he says.

When they cease to transmit,

they just quit with a snit

just like Lucy & Desi Arnaz.

= = = = = = = = = = =

On RON PAUL:

There once was a looney named Paul

who would like-minded loonies entrall.

He’d replace the black race

just in case they’d erase

his delusional masquerade ball.

= = = = = = = = = =

On COLIN POWELL’S DISCLOSURES:

We had a great General named Powell

who needed to throw in the towel.

His supply of a lie

went awry (my oh my)

Now he’s paying Dick back with a vowel.

= = = = = = = = = =

On JIM BUNNING:

There’s a putrid old winger named Bunning

who feels unemployed people need shunning.

His crusade to cease aid

I’m afraid did cascade

to his running when people came gunning.

= = = = = = = = = =

On JOHN KYL:

= = = = = = = = = =

There once was a winger named, KYL

who was to all working people hostile.

He believes they are thieves

as he weaves his pet peeves

into a mountainous steaming coiled pile.

= = = = = = = = = = =

&.. last but not least.. BART STUPAK:

A Congressional throwback named Stupak

who constantly flacks through his butt-crack

his tack to set back

womens rights with a whack

is just merely a hack at his nut-sac.

==

Real Time with Bill Maher hit the boards running for its eighth season a couple of weeks ago, and I held out great hopes for my favourite fundit program, after a decidedly iffy season last year which ended in confusion.

However, I’m hoping I didn’t speak too soon, as it stalled in what it sought to deliver in the third episode of the season, which aired Friday evening.

A commentator on Bill’s MySpace page deemed the episode ‘caustic’, another friend of mine thought it was ‘quirky’ more than anything else. I thought it just oozed tension, and I’m at a loss to understand why.

To begin with, the guest list was a bit thin on the ground – three guests in the studio, including the one-on-one interview and a satellite interview with a dodgy connection. I think Bill struggles to get people to commit to appearing on the program, and whether that’s the nature of the host or the venue (Los Angeles is as long a flight time from the East Coast as New York is from London), I don’t know.

We’re three programs into the new season, and there’s yet to be a elected politician to appear. The result of this difficulty is that we keep seeing the same recurring guests, almost as ‘regulars’: most of the guests who’ve appeared already are repeat performers.

I approached this week’s installment reluctantly. Arianna Huffington was a panel guest, and to say I loathe this diehard neocon corporate media whore disguised as a Progressive voice only when it became openly fashionable to hate Bush is being kind. The last time she appeared on the show last season, in the cohorted company of fellow (open) Republicans Darryl Issa and Jack Kingston, that trio so railroaded the discussion sequence that Bill, the host and moderator, was reduced to looking like a cross between a bewildered child at the adults’ table and a confused spectator at a tennis match watching such a never-ending volley that he’d forgotten who had the serve.

I’m still at a loss as to why the media in the US continue to give this intellectual lightweight and parvenue airtime to spout her ridiculous talking points, made only to enhance her own publicity; but then, I remember when Mrs Huffington, minus the ex-husband’s divorce settlement and the Wall Street hedge fund, was merely Miss Stanisopoulous, the daughter of a corrupt Greek politician, trying desperately to be taken seriously as an arch-Right conservative by the truly Progressive, serious British media intelligensia.

They considered her a joke.

Bill’s guests this week, besides the Queen Mother of Media Whores, included Andrew Ross Sorkin, financial correspondent for The New York Times, Sean Penn and (from New York) Michael Moore.

Although his previous two monologues this season had hit the bullseye for which they were intended, Bill’s monologue this week fell curiously flat. He wittered on about Oscars’ week, with the inevitable Sarah Palin joke.

I know Palin was a particular target and bete noire for Bill during the campaign and he eviscerated her shallowness with brilliant panache; from time to time, she surfaced last season, but only when she’d done something to merit newsworthy comment – like resign.

This time, I’m getting the uneasy feeling that Bill’s baiting Palin, almost stalking her with continuous snarky comment and open ridicule, and for a curiously self-serving purpose. Of late, those whom Palin has targeted with her snide and ill-founded observations, have achieved almost victim status – Letterman, Rahm Emanuel, Seth McFarlane and Family Guy – all rose like phoenixes from the ashes of her ignorant remarks and misconceptions.

In short, Palin’s invective got publicity for both Letterman and McFarlane, and even Rahm was seen in a more sympathetic light as almost an arbiter for freedom of speech.

Bill’s not above promoting himself shamelessly, almost by any means. That he compromised himself greatly last season with a blatantly opportunistic editorial, slating President Obama for ‘not doing enough’ a mere six months into his Administration, was all too obvious, especially if one cared to remember that the week previous to that particular editorial (June 16th), he was roundly criticizing the GOP for saying the very same thing about the President. Still, it achieved the end Bill desired – he ran the gamut from Blitzer to Olbermann, starting the Obama-bashin’ fashion that the base of the Progressive Left adopted with a fervour unseen since they campaigned for the man during the election.

A lot of real Progressives today still blame Bill for sounding the hammer blow that created a very noticeable ructure in the Democratic Party.

I think Bill is baiting Palin for the same reason. He’s relishing a response from this woman. He wants her to target him, to point a finger, to Twitter a tweet or sully her Facebook page with a diatribe against big, bad Bill Maher, which would gain Bill a soupcon of sympathy and a gaggle of publicity. Thing is, I get the impression that Palin isn’t much of an HBO fan, and I seriously doubt she’s even heard of Bill. Were I he, I’d leave off Palin. He’s only feeding fuel to her fire, and besides, as a part of his monologue and stand-up, she’s becoming boringly predictable as a reference.

But after the monologue, the atmosphere began to become almost surreal.

Sean Penn was the first guest, booked to talk about his humanitarian effort in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti and to plug the relief organisation he had established for that purpose.

I found this odd, to say the least, especially since one of Bill’s ubiquitous tweets during his hiatus had criticised the continuous news emphasis on the disaster by the mainstream media, to the exclusion of any other news. I understood Bill’s complaint; he’d reiterated the media’s propensity to flog one news item like the proverbial dead horse, but the tweet did come across to many as the whiney complaint of a bored adolescent. The other thing I found odd about the interview was Penn, himself.

Penn, florid of face and neck, with a dull, dazed look in his eye, was clearly drunk. More than that, he was a woozy, rambling, incoherent drunk.

To Bill’s credit, his interview questions were flawless. Under normal circumstances, he would have been pushing the right buttons, with the questions he asked. but circumstances were anything but normal. The result was that Penn’s answers rambled on ad nauseam, and he never truly answered any question.

For example, when Penn finally got to the point of his first answer – that the United States needed to give more, more and yet more again to Haiti in an effort to rebuild a viable infrastructure there, Bill, rightly, countered by asking Penn why he sought to concentrate his efforts on Haiti, when there was ample evidence of infrastructural decay in the United States and a plethora of Americans suffering badly as a result of the dire economic crisis.

Valid question; in fact, one many people have been asking in light of this.

This elicited another incoherent and torturously twisted reply from Penn, the gist of which being that by giving – yes – more, more and more again to rebuild Haiti, the US would be a better nation and benefit and learn from the Haitian people. Learn what, exactly, he never specified, and it’s doubtful that he knew. By that point, Penn was just phoning in his replies.

The interview wasn’t without controversy, however. Finally, Bill brought up the subject of Hugo Chavez, a particular ‘friend’ of Penn’s and one whom the actor has defended vociferously. The ensuing reply on Penn’s part is a testimony to the fact that, just because one is an extremely talented actor and icon for a generation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the person has any great intellect, or even basic common sense.

Bill referred to Chavez, the dictator.

Penn quickly took umbrage. Chavez, he replied, in a pique, was most definitely not a dictator, but a legitimately elected head-of-state. In Penn’s mind, that’s not a dictator.

I disagree. Hitler was legitimately elected. So was Mussolini. So was Bush, allegedly. And elections can easily be rigged to favour the strong man who wants to rule. Look at Italy’s Berlusconi. Again, look at Bush and the Republican techniques. I’m sorry, Sean, this dude’s a dictator and a dick.

Bill then pointed out the fact that Chavez had shut down television and radio stations and newspapers who were openly critical of him, but Penn would have none of that. In fact, he declared, anyone in the United States, and especially in the media, who insisted on calling Chavez a dictator, should be put in prison.

From where I’m sitting, it looks as though Sean’s close association with Hugo Chavez hasn’t been for nothing. That’s a blatant denial of First Amendment rights - so are we to infer that the humanitarian and Academy Award-winning actor approves of a suppression of Freedom of Speech? What a walking advertisement for the Left in the face of the Right. And a blatant one as well.

The other interview came midway through the panel discussion with Michael Moore. It was beset by satellite difficulties, as Moore was attempting to be broadcast from New York City, outside Goldman Sachs. Bill was clearly frustrated by the delay, and Moore was frustrated as well, although by what, it was unclear. It was a tetchy, almost irascible interview, from the beginning, done to publicize the fact that Moore’s latest cinematic offering, Capitalism: A Love Story, was now available on DVD.

As the impending Oscars ceremony served more as a veritable Banquo’s ghost than as a backdrop to this episode, Bill began the interview by reminding Moore that it was Oscars weekend and that Moore’s film hadn’t received a nomination – although he couldn’t imagine why, Bill added for good measure. Clearly a joke between friends, but Moore failed to see the humour and tetchily remarked that, for what it was worth, he thought Bill’s documentary Religulous should have won the Oscar the previous year. (It wasn’t nominated).

Moore then went into a diatribe about the evils of Wall Street and the sufferings of the ordinary citizen in the wake of that, which – for some reason – elicited an irritated response from Bill, in which he noticeably raised his voice. Thereafter, the four-minute clip tailed off with Moore remarking that he’d written a letter to President Obama – understanding that Rahm Emanuel was about to leave – offering him his services as Chief of Staff for the salary of $1 per year and a bed in the White House basement.

In the moments after the interview had ended, Bill made two rather snarky allusions to ‘St Michael’ and ‘the spirit of St Michael’, obviously on the tail end of what amounted to a locking-of-horns encounter, no matter how unintentional that was.

The surrealism of the episode was heightened by the fact that almost nothing of any newsworthy event referenced in the panel discussion. It was patently obvious that the panel was there only as a prop for Huffington to publicise her ‘Move Your Money’ movement in an effort to cripple the four big, bad lending banks.

I find Huffington faintly ludicrous at the best of times.  She usually manages to muscle in on any discussion and dominate the proceedings, and this time was no different. Bill began the panel discussion by singling out her ‘Move Your Money’ meme, adding a bit of self-promotion for himself, considering that she asked him to do the promotional video which was released on YouTube.

Now we get to the funny part.

Bill asked Andrew Sorkin, author of the book Too Big to Fail about what he thought of the idea of a mass movement of people taking money from the big four bad boys and placing it in locally-owned banks and credit unions. Sorkin remarked that he thought, in principle, Huffington’s idea was a good one; however, there were drawbacks to her idea:-

First, if everyone ‘moved their money’ from the big guys to the small fry, the banks that formerly had been too big to fail, would … fail, and that wouldn’t be good for the economy. Secondly, many of the so-called local banks weren’t actually independent entities, themselves. Many were part and parcel of the very organisation Huffington sought to scupper.

(Huffington’s always out to scupper someone or something which effected a perceived slight on her fragile ego. Her vendetta against Clinton in the late 90s came as a result of her husband having lost a Senate race to Barbara Boxer; her vendetta against Tim Russert came from Russert’s wife having outed Michael Huffington in an article years before his sexuality became common knowledge; her vendetta against newspapers arises from the newsprint media failing to consider her a viable and reliable journalist, in her own right. So I can only surmise that her vendetta against the big banks comes from some kind of cashflow problem, which they can’t help her remedy – or at least more from that than out of any concern for ordinary people).

Thirdly, Sorkin concluded, these small local banks and credit unions weren’t entirely clean, themselves – that they employed a stringently vociferous group of lobbyists, whose job it was to nobble Congress, and were, in fact, more opposed to the President’s idea of regulating the banking industry than the big guys were, themselves.

At that moment, Huffington chose to suffer from a bout of selective deafness, because later, in her internet newsrag, she trumpeted the fact that Sorkin had given a pontifical blessing to her ‘movement’ and agreed with her entirely, although he actually didn’t … such is her arrogance.

That moved the discussion onto the plight of the middle classes, where Huffington held forth on the fact that anger directed at Wall Street was a unifying factor between the middle class and the Teabaggers (and, in doing this, somehow managed to make Michael Moore sound like teabagging material). There followed a five-minute discussion between Huffington and Bill about the sufferings of the middle class and how the government and financial crisis was failing them.

I’m sorry, but I was mightily offended by what amounted to a dinner party discussion between two faux liberals talking about a demographic of people of whom one had actually forgotten he was ever a part  and of whom the other had no real contact in her daily dealings. It was a moment straight out of a grotesque Goya painting of two narcissistic egoists paying pithy lip service to the plight of the little people and giving themselves congratulatory pats on the back for having noticed that a problem exists.

Frankly, it was insulting.

This led further into an unusual discussion about an American reality television program, Undercover Boss, which Bill, in a rare moment of realising that he was born a son of the working middle class, found insulting to ordinary people, and which Huffington, surprisingly in her Zsa Zsa-plays-Lady-Bracknell mode, found enlightening.

The whole discussion was pointless, with respect to current events. It was an exercise in publicizing Huffington’s latest venture, an opportunity for Bill to reiterate and reinforce the fact that he really, really did like President Obama, but he wished he could have acted tougher last year – the same old same old complaint he’d whined about since June 2009, only not as forcefully. (Earlier last month, in an interview clip with Joy Behar, I noticed the best-seller Game Change on the shelf in Bill’s office. He’d do well to read and digest the content of this, because ‘No-Drama Obama’ is the President’s schtick).

The New Rules weren’t Bill’s best, and the editorial was a bit of fluff, which, in other circumstances, might have been funny; but in these current times, came across as Bill’s Marie Antoinette moment.

It was an extollation of  Hollywood’s virtues as an industry that was entirely American and didn’t come cap-in-hand to the government asking for help. (Of course, it never dawned on Bill that the film which won the Oscar last year was not an American film, or that most films aren’t actually made in Hollywood these days, mainly due to excessive costs). He excoriated the Republicans’ current triviality of promoting their two rising stars (yet another reference to Sarah Palin) as having been a local beauty queen and a nude male centrefold. Hollywood deserved the big party that accompanied the Oscars, as ribald, rambunctuous and excessive as it could be, and the public be damned in its criticism. (‘Let them eat cake, anyone?’)

One of the core messages of the editorial was the fact that any celebrity in the town who openly admitted to being a Republican, was usually of the naff, z-list variety: the late Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson or Fred Grandy, whose chief claim to fame was having played Gofer in The Love Boat.

Amongst the ueber-cool A-listers, only Democrats could be found.

Forty-eight hours later, that left me wondering on what list Bill, whom I love dearly as a fundit, when he’s thinking for himself and not aiming to please others for his own plaudits, could be found … not the ueber-cool A-list, if this tweet, made in the early hours of Monday morning, whilst moving amongst the exalted at an Oscars’ after-party:-

“Actors are just the bestest people in thw world! We are so lucky to be sharing the earth with them!! Fuck!!!” (Typos are Bill’s).

Sarcasm? Heavily laced. Bitterness? A smidgeon. Jealousy? More than just a bit.

Billy, I love the bones of you, and for that, I’ll rate this episode 7 out of 10, but – damn! – it must be a heavy chore being Arianna’s Gofer. You’re much better than that.

Holi (pronounced ho-lee), also known as Phagwa, is marked at the transition from the Hindu months Phalguna to Chaitra. The Hindu calendar being lunisolar, this date changes every year. In 2010 it fell on March 1st. Besides India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, it is observed by the South Asian diaspora in all its regional varieties throughout Europe, America, Canada, Australia, in New Zealand, South Africa, and of course, Suriname, Trinidad, Mauritius and Fiji which are notable countries where South Asians were brought for labor and now constitute a significant proportion of the population.

Background.

Vaishnava

In a timeless past of the Satya Yuga, a ruler from a race of giants, known as Daityas, held power and riches unrivaled, except by his own attire. Thus, he was known as Hiranyakashipu, or, ‘Golden-robed’. After performing austerities (tapas) and being granted a boon by Brahma which had made him nearly invincible, the ‘Demon King’ attacked the Heavens, lorded over earth, demanded people worship him, and squandered his wealth on destruction and his own greatness, even challenging Lord Indra.

This all was at odds with his own son, Prahlada, a pious devotee of Lord Vishnu; a Vaishnava, whom sought to correct his father in the right virtues of a Maharaja and to guide him in Bhakti realization of the Supreme Soul by renouncing avarice and absorbing his thoughts on Him. This only made his father furious,

[T]he daitya ruler daunted upon seeing how the attempts ran futile, devised with determination for a variety of ways to kill him. Crushing him with an elephant, attacking with the king’s poisonous snakes, with spells of doom, throwing him from heights, conjuring tricks, imprisoning him, administering venom and subjecting him to starvation, cold, wind, fire and water and with piling rocks upon him, was the demon unable to put his son, the sinless one, to death… (Srimad Bhagavata Purana, 7.5.42-4)

And yet, the boy through his devotion to the Lord was protected from his father’s persecution time and time again. At long last his father’s wrath brought him before the court, and challenged to see this God who could challenge his own deific powers. He would try to kill his son himself this time, but before the boy’s head could be severed by his father who scoffed that no one could save him, God made his omnipresence known to all assembled from a pillar. The universe cracked open, and a cacophony of sounds and kaleidoscopic dimensions could be seen; the omnipresence of God within everything.  Narasimha, the fourth avatara of Vishnu, a hybrid with man’s torso and lion’s head then appeared from this pillar and mauled the Demon King Hiranyakashipu to shreds. The king had used a boon from Brahma gained by devotion for evil; thus God had to manifest himself in earthly form to correct this terrorizing and subjection of earth and heavens alike.

Among the schemes Hiranyakashipu hatched against his son was when he asked his sister to have Prahlada to sit in her lap in a bonfire. Hiranyakashipu’s sister had received a special boon that gave her immunity to fire. However; she was burned to death and Prahlad saved. There are numerous accounts as to the reason for this, but suffice it to say, the sister of the king died and good triumphed.

Hiranyakashipu’s sister was named Holika, from which Holi is believed to derive. It is this event that Holi celebrates in Holika Dahan (the burning of Holika), in which bonfires are lit, primarily in North India, the day before Holi. Originally these included effigies of Holika, but in most parts this is now replaced by a simple pyre. Comparisons to their fellow Aryans’ (if only common traditional heritage; I have no intent of opening the Aryan Invasion Theory can of worms here) celebration of Cheharshanbe-Souri in Iran and indeed, bonfire spring festivals in Indo-European cultures throughout Europe, are readily seen. The triumph of light over darkness.

Shaivite

The main story as recounted and summarized above, can be considered by some to be a Vaishnava polemic, with Hiranyakashipu representing Lord Shiva. As such, given where you are, an alternate account is of Kama and Shiva.

As recounted in the Saura Purana, there was another daitya called Taraka whom had achieved a boon from Brahma after severe austerities. He asked for the boon of being invincible to the gods; and like Hiranyakashipu, effectively immortal. Of course, Brahma thought this too much so asked for an exception. The wily Taraka made the condition that only the child of Shiva could kill him. Shiva was doing penance and lost in himself after losing his first wife, Dakshayani (which is the subject of another famous myth which is the source of the practice of sati; Sati being another name for Dakshayani), therefore Taraka had reasoned that Shiva would be unable to produce a son.

Of course, Taraka does what demons granted boons of immense power by Brahma do, he terrorizes the universe of gods and men. He battles Vishnu for 30,000 years alone, but Vishnu has to retreat in confusion and hide. Beleaguered, the gods meet with Brahma, who tells them of Taraka’s weakness. They hatch a plan.

Parvati, who had realized she was the reincarnated Dakshayani from a young age, and had performed severe penances for Shiva’s hand in marriage, was put before Shiva. The only problem, is that Shiva was absorbed in yogic asceticism, having renounced the world after the loss of his first wife. So, Kama (yes, as in the Kama Sutra; and, counterpart to Greek Eros; Cupid) is enjoined to put lust into Shiva and wake him from his trance to produce the progeny that will defeat Taraka.

But, when Shiva awakens from his meditation after being immovable by either Parvati or Kama, he sees Parvati there, and then, sees Kama with his five flowered arrow drawn in its bow and aimed at him. Shiva’s third-eye shoots forth a fire accumulated in his tapas and incinerates Kama by its own power independent of Shiva’s will. Parvati is now distressed, and rebukes Shiva. It is now that she asks for her boon from him, having suffered as an example to all yoginis past and present. She asks that Kama be revived. Consenting, Shiva replies, “Let [Kama] be without a body in order to please you, lady with beautiful eyes. In that form he will be able to shake the world.”

Long story short, Shiva and Parvati beget Skanda (the Hindu ‘Ares’), who destroys Taraka. In South India, Holi is thus referred to as Kama Dahanam. But of course, the larger lesson was the victory of love, for now the disembodied Kama, with his wife Rati, could flit from one corner of the earth to another like the wind. In this context, Holi is like an Indian Valentine’s Day.

Radha Krishna

In this spirit, the Ras-Lila is celebrated (literally, ‘Passion Play’ and quite different from the Christian form, of course!); particularly in Mathura and Vrindavan, where Lord Krishna (the eighth avatara of Vishnu) was born and the place of the Ras-Lila, respectively. The Ras-Lila is the all-famous tale of the gopis’ (milk maidens) love and adoration of the perfect youth Krishna, who playfully teased them mercilessly in the 10th Book of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana (not to be confused with the Bhagavad Gita of the Mahabharata), and the tryst between him and Radha, whom is never actually named, in chapter 30, where she is only a mystery woman held in awed jealousy by the pining gopis who follow the couple’s footsteps into the forest. This story with elaborations is a staple of bhajans and Indian poetry, drama, and naturally, today’s transmitter of myth, Bollywood (here’s an example).

A word of warning. To suggest anything unchaste about Radha, or to reduce Krishna to a Casanova, to suggest anything sexual at all beyond romantic metaphor, is extremely offensive to devout Hindus; particularly Vaishnavas. It has an invective history with the Christian missionaries and continues to this day on Christianist supremacist websites. Having said this word of warning though, of Holi, the entry in A Dictionary of Hinduism says,

A spring festival dedicated to Krishna and the gopis. It took the place of an earlier kind of Saturnalia, ‘the survival of a primitive fertility ritual, combining erotic games, “comic operas” and folk dancing’. Some of the earlier elements remain, such as the singing of suggestive songs, the throwing of coloured water, and jumping over bonfires, the ashes of which are believed to possess magical powers.

Indeed, I tend to take this view, and see the other myths as later accretions or adaptations to an earlier Indo-European fertility festival, as do I see the Radha-Krishna relationship a sublimation of an earlier myth. During Holi, caste distinctions are suspended, and the sexes may mix freely; likely customs surviving from the ubiquitous “safety valve” many early cultures observed at least once a year -- just as modern ones do to this day.

Playing

In a 7th century play, Ratnavali, it was said,

Witness the beauty of the great cupid festival which excites curiosity as the townsfolk are dancing at the touch of brownish water thrown from squirt-guns.

They are seized by pretty women while all along the roads the air is filled with singing and drum-beating.

Everything is coloured yellowish red and rendered dusty by the heaps of scented powder blown all over.

This is the first recording of Dhulhendi, the day of Holi most recognizable today. Let me set the scene. You know nothing of Holi, you are a visitor in India. This delightful scenario is played in this scene from the 2006 film, “Outsourced”:

Instruments of Fun:

Abir and Gulal -  colored powders

Originally made from natural dyes, some with Ayurvedic properties, there has been concern over toxic ingredients in recent years, and a move towards organic products. The symbolism with spring, of course, is self-evident.

Pichkari -- soaker type of syringe

While many of these still retain their traditional design, many more kids can be seen with super soakers and custom pichkaris with Bollywood actors and actresses, cartoon characters and other themes, even in shapes like elephants or one designed as a bow and arrow (like the ancient Hindu heroes).

Bhang

Bhang, made from grinding cannabis leaves and flowers into a paste is mixed into chilled drinks and munchie snacks alike. The signature drink of Holi is thandai, a milk based drink flavored with pistachios, almonds, and, of course, marijuana! But, a bhang lassi can also be whipped up, as seen above. Oh, and if you happen upon a sadhu in Varanasi, see if they will pass the chillum. This is one of a few times where social use of marijuana is acceptable, though generally not by women (patriarchal societies’ ‘designated drivers’). Watch this Bollywood song with the information and vocabulary you have just gained!

Hola Mohalla

Although not widely celebrated in Pakistan, in India Holi is now a secular holiday celebrated by all: Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Jew, Parsi, Sikh, atheist, etc. The day after Holi, as well, is the closely related Sikh holiday of Hola Mohalla, most visible in the Sikh homeland of Indian Punjab. In warrior-saint Guru Gobind Singh’s martial tradition, Sikhs will mock fights, sing, play music, recite poetry and kirtans, and eat communally, as is per Sikh practice.

So, alas, to explain my title. It is common to say “Holi hai!” which means “it’s Holi!” as a greeting. Unfortunately, due to timing, I fell off on writing this, and thus added the Hindi ‘was’, tha, to reflect the belated nature of this article.

To end with, I only chose one Bollywood Holi song among a plethora of possibilities, as this one clearly lays out several elements outlined herein and brings it to life! (plus my crush on Rani Mukerji didn’t hurt the selection process)

Holi Mubarak! -- Happy Holi!

I did this audio back around 2006. Hope you enjoy it.

Evil Is Real

Have you ever (be honest) hit a puddle with your car – just for fun – to see how big of a splash it would make?

Did you ever (be honest) do it front of a bus stop (with people waiting for a bus) – (no?)

Okay, if you answered yes to that last question you know you’re going to  hell (or at least the next RNC convention).

Anyway – this video takes it to a whole new level of . . . far out (and it gets the people wet too) heh.

In his latest editorial at the end of Friday’s Real Time, Bill Maher put out a poignant plea for the public’s understanding and sympathy toward Hollywood’s big, self-promoting pat on the back that’s known as the Oscars. That one, special night, says our lad, is deserved, because – well, because Hollywood is just about the one major industry which is productive and successful in America these days. (Never mind the fact that it was a foreign film which won ‘Best Picture’ last year, or the fact that foreign actors regularly go off with a gong, or even the fact that quite a lot of films are made outside Hollywood these days.

But Bill wouldn’t know that, would he? I mean, considering the fact that he rarely ventures outside the Hollywood bubble, except to slide into various cities for one night only, check into a hotel room, deliver 90 minutes of stand-up and then depart for the West Coast, yet again, by private jet, no doubt … but we’ll forgive him, because he’s our lad and speaks for those of us on the Left, so we won’t worry too much about the extra carbon footprint. Hey, we’ll be magnanimous and global and extend the same sort of licence to be hypocritical to Mr and Mrs Sting and Bono too. This trio has the art of preaching virtues to the little men of the world, whilst enjoying the greatest and most gluttonous of excesses themselves … because they can.

Bill calls the Oscars’ night ‘Hollywood’s Prom.’ And we should allow our hard-working and overpaid celebrities one night of libertine fun, because they work so hard for us, entertaining us, whilst pocketing our hard-earned dough that we can ill-afford to pay – either to catch the latest Clooney flick or even to pay close to a hundred bucks to see Bill say the same thing he’s said countless times before on Real Time for ninety minutes.

I don’t begrudge Bill his success. I suppose he’s paid his dues, in addition to being in the right place at the right time; it’s not my problem, but his, that he – like countless others – has appeared to have forgotten his antecedents once he’s tasted success. Ne’mind … I had the same problem digesting Margaret Thatcher’s use of the royal ‘we’, choosing, instead, to remember that she, like Cardinal Wolsey, came from pretty common stock.

What I do have a problem with, in relation to Bill, is the fact that he continues to present himself as a voice of the Progressives in this nation. In fact, in this latest editorial, he refers to himself as a Progressive.

I am sorry. I dispute that.

On the episode which aired on October 2, 2009, Bill remarked to his guest, David Cross, that he favoured the death penalty. Bill’s said this countless times before, and on this occasion, remarked, “I always say, if you get’em once with the old death penalty, they sure as hell won’t kill again.”

Do we know any Progressives who are in favour of the death penalty?

On a tweet rendered in late December, after the successful capture of the Underpants bomber, Bill tweeted that he was in favour of racial profiling at airports, because “little, old, white ladies were not terrorists.” (Hey, Bill … don’t give the terrorists any ideas).

On a program which aired March 13, 2009, Bill enthusiastically remarked how much in favour he was of Obama’s slapping down the teachers’ unions, and he went on to rant about how much he disliked unions in general. Later in the year, he reiterated this again. So, he’s anti-union. How many Progressives are against the concept of collective bargaining and union representation?

And, finally, on the penultimate program of Real Time last season, he admitted to no less than Bill Frist that he didn’t want the government to have anything to do with his healthcare. This was after making a brilliant analogy for single-payer by comparing government-controlled healthcare to be as efficient as the government-controlled Post Office.

I know, I know … the Post Office isn’t really that efficient, but Bill’s a bit of a Luddite when he’s caught unawares. He’s probably not even aware of the cost of a first class stamp. He just knows that when he writes a letter to his sister in New Jersey on Monday, she has it on Wednesday, two days later. That, in this day of e-mail and conference calling, is just a gratuitous Saturday Evening Post moment, but it served its purpose and Bill pushed the single-payer envelope for the rest of the season … until Bill Frist appeared and unsettled him.

So, Bill Maher, Progressive:

1. believes in the death penalty

2. believes in racial profiling

3. is anti-union

4. and doesn’t want the government to have any say in his healthcare.

Because I’m a tolerant person and because I genuinely like Bill and like my heroes to have feet of clay, I’ll be nice and say that sure as hell sounds like a Blue Dog to me; but to others, it might just have a whiff of a closet Republican about it.

Either way, Bill Maher is no more the voice of any Progressive any more than he is the voice of the middle classes, whose fashionable plight he was pushing on Friday’s show.

If Bill were to spend one month in either the South or flyover country, living the life of a middle-aged middle-class man, on an average wage, with credit cards and bills to pay, a mortgage and a clapped-out second-hand car to maintain, without the security guards or an available Whole Foods … if he were to rise to that challenge and do that and THEN presume to speak for the middle classes, I might give him the kudos and plaudits I’m witholding.

But I’d still say he was a Blue Dog, politically.

And maybe a Republican … but until then, most definitely, more than a little bit of a hypocrite.

Due to the work of dogged investigative reporting, it has been uncovered that the GOP is actually a scripted “reality” show for the Fox network.

The tipoffs were all there, if you used Morse code to decrypt all of Sarah Palin’s winks, you would have gotten the messages, “Hi Mom!”, “I buried John McCain.” and “I’m not this dumb in real life, really.”

What a colorful array of characters they cast:

• The preening always-tan Senator who can never tell the truth.
• The gruff, bumbling, forgetful old codger from AZ
• The Charlie-Brown-Teacher voiced ex-Gov of Alaska who’s a pit bull with lipstick
• The chinless and jowled Minority Leader always warning that the sky is always falling
• The bumbling black party leader who awkwardly tries to “jive talk” the people they hate into joining them.
• The obese drug addict radio host who’s proudly racist
• The ego-mad tv host who weeps and laughs maniacally at paranoid delusions.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I do have to say that Fox is great at marketing, everyone’s tuning into this show to see what they say and do next, lots of people can repeat each episode word for word but I think the writing has gotten a bit weak.

Like always having every character lying, that’s getting so old. And it’s very hackneyed to claim that everything they don’t like is  “going to destroy our nation”. So played out, how about something new for a change, please?

They do always seem to throw a curve when things start to get predictable, like the Powerpoint presentation that was “leaked”, dissing their own donors as fearful and egotistical. Very funny, I wouldn’t have thought of that.

I’d have to say that my favorite character in the show is that female ex-governor from Alaska, she cracks me up! I think she’s being written by some of The Simpsons writers at Fox (the ones who write Mr. Burns?), her dialog and what she does is so cartoonish, you know? The way she’s so seemingly oblivious to how attention and power hungry she is and how ridiculously greedy, you know? Telling her clueless fans that she’s just a poor rural gal while she rakes in millions from books and appearances and grabs armfuls of loot from Oscar gift rooms.

She’s so funny! That death panel thing was hilarious! And her writing on her hand when she was attacking reading off teleprompters? Classic!

What gets a bit annoying though are the amount of reruns. If I have to see those episodes over and over again where they call Obama “a socialist” or claim the country is about to be nuked if the Senate uses a democratic, majority vote to pass legislation, I’m going to quit Tivoing it for a while.

However, I must admit that I am looking forward to next season when they play “Survivor” to see who gets to run for president. They’ve got some wild characters in the wings who will be joining the show then, there’s that two-faced, slick-as-a-used-car-salesman ex-Gov from MA and the conspiracy theory wingnut from TX with his cult following.

One question though, when is Fox ever going to take credit for this show and let people know it’s their “Blair Witch” faux-reality hoax? I mean, some people think it’s real!

Maybe you have already heard of the poet Rumi.  In the US, translations of Rumi outsell all other poetry books combined. One factor contributing to his recent popularity might be a manifestation of our increased interest in spirituality; or maybe the continuing growth of Islam in the West. But whatever factors help explain this phenomenon, I think Rumi’s relevance and popularity has grown because his poetry is both passionate and playful, and because it celebrates the sacred in our everyday lives. If you’ve never heard of Rumi or heard his poetry, you’re in for a treat.

Before we get to the poetry though, I’d like to spend a little time talking about a few of the themes that run through his work, to give you a brief background in Rumi, and, most especially, to have us examine the ways we might share some of the feelings he expresses. Although Rumi’s poetry is intensely personal, it is also universal. (And isn’t that always the case—that the more personal, the more universal?) It must be; he has managed to reach out to us from the distance of seven centuries, from a place very foreign to post-modern America, and from a religious tradition unfamiliar to most of us.

Jalaluddin Rumi was born in what today is Afghanistan in 1206 CE. His father was a well known preacher and legal scholar, and the family lived in many of the important centers of learning. Rumi married and had several children.  When his father died, Rumi took over his position and also continued his spiritual studies. When he was 42, he met an enigmatic mystic named Shams who changed his life, transforming him into an ecstatic and charismatic preacher. Two years after their meeting, Shams suddenly disappeared and this had a profound effect on Rumi; he stopped preaching in public and devoted the rest of his life to training initiates and writing poetry.

Rumi was a follower of the mystical dimension of Islam known as Sufism. Another term for Sufi is Dervish, as in “Whirling Dervish.” Westerners called them “whirling” Dervishes because it is part of their spiritual practice to attain trance-like states by slowly and rhythmically spinning, while at the same time circling around the room as a group. Rumi is reported to have said that he composed all of his works while he spun around in this ecstatic state. It is important in the appreciation of Rumi to understand him in the context of both Sufi mysticism and of mainstream Islam.

The word “Islam” is the Arabic word for “surrender, “meaning surrender to God. For Muslims, surrender to God doesn’t imply only obedience and service to god. It also connotes a kind of yielding, a release that is like the way we sink into soft beds after a long and arduous journey. Another action that is of central importance to Muslims is to bear witness, or testify, to the singularity of God. This declaration is called the Shahadah and it proclaims, “There is no God but The God, and Muhammad is his Messenger.” The word “Allah” is simply the Arabic word meaning “The God” (Al-lah), and refers to the same God of Judaism and Christianity. These two tenets of faith—the necessity of surrender to God and the realization of God’s utter Oneness—inform Rumi’s poems and are keys to understanding his message.

A modern poet, George Santayana wrote, “Prayer is poetry believed in.” Rumi’s poetry is religious poetry, spiritual poetry, and the poetry of the true mystic. In his poems are all the varieties of prayer: prayers of praise, of thanksgiving, and of supplication. Maybe this is the time to pause to think about these terms I use so glibly: “Religion,” “Spirituality,” Mysticism.”

Someone told me that religion is for people who are afraid of Hell, and that spirituality is for people who have been there. (I can attest to that.)But Mysticism, although found in every religion and rooted in spirituality, is of a different order than either. Religious people, even spiritual people, are rarely mystics. The word “mystic” – a form of the word “mystery”—comes from the Greek word muo, to shut or close the lips or eyes. This originally meant that the mystic was one who had been initiated into a secret knowledge of the Divine. Over time, mysticism has come to mean not only a consciousness of the beyond, but also a different way of seeing reality. Mysticism entails a way of looking inward beyond closed eyes; an interiorization. For a true mystic such as Rumi, there is an extension of normal consciousness, a widening of vision that reveals a hidden truth:

Finally, there is a direct experience, or encounter, with God. These are rare experiences given to a rare few, sometimes in a flash, but more often only after rigorous training and preparation. Try to imagine what it would be like to actually be in the presence of God. We would certainly be awestruck, even terrified, and probably mind-blown! Think of Arjuna when he sees Krishna. Could we handle it at all? Yet mystics devote their lives to seeking this experience, because it is this yearning the longing for God that is characteristic of all mystics. Rumi explains:

We don’t need to be mystics to understand that feeling. We know about yearning too, even though it might not be for God. We have all, at some time, loved someone so desperately that we waited by the phone for days, afraid to leave the room and miss the call. Or maybe we’ve felt the unbearable ache of wanting someone who barely notices us, somebody unattainable, who loves someone else. We’ve spent long nights longing for someone, maybe, wanting to be near them, fervently trying to will them towards us.

To Rumi, the Beloved he is yearning for is God. He has an unquenchable urge to escape from the loneliness of separation towards a re-union with the Beloved and to make the only connection that will bring peace to his soul. As lovers ourselves, we can relate to this craving for our beloved. But how can we begin to grasp what Rumi feels towards his ineffable beloved? He replies:

A teacher I heard of was asked by his seven year-old daughter, “Where is God?” He responded by telling her to touch his arm. She did. He asked her to touch his nose, then his chest, which she did. The he said, “Now touch my love.” She smiled but could not. Some time later he asked his daughter, “Where is love?” She pointed to her chest, as if to say that love was in her. He asked her to hug herself and to kiss her own hand. She giggled at the silliness of that. She experienced the flatness of those gestures and she faintly understood that love requires an other. To me, this is a wonderful story about the mystery of transcendence, about something beyond our five senses. Love, like God, is not located just ‘in me” or “in you” but is “between us.” The experience of God as the Beloved points to that between-ness relationship with the Other.

I have been writing about lover and beloved, about union, and about ecstasy. It is no coincidence that Rumi uses these obviously erotic words, and there is just no way we can miss the sexual and sensual aspects of his poetry. It may even be that we are hard-wired for desire, and that our urge for sex is a God-given taste of an even better mystical union. However, like all spiritual truths, there is a paradox to be found in the relationship between the lover and Beloved:

I think Rumi is saying that once the ecstatic union of the lover and Beloved is achieved, we realize that in reality, there was never any separation at all! Oneness of God means that there is only God, and that everything is God. The Beloved so longed for and sought after was always, as Rumi says, “as close as your jugular vein.” According to him, as well as every mystical tradition, it is our ego that prevents us from knowing this. When we are full of ourselves we leave no room for the Divine. The only way it is possible to experience God is by contracting our egos. In order to be filled, we must first be empty.

To the Sufi, self –renunciation is essential, but unlike other ascetic traditions, this does not mean turning away from the world. The only way to see the world as it really is is by merging oneself in it. The world as we know it is only a veil; to understand what is beneath that veil, our senses must be refined and purified. Once the mystic has re-emerged with God, she can see the world as it is, as God sees it, beneath its apparent opposites of good and evil.

Poetry has a power that is not found in explanation. When some wild-eyed guy stands on a street corner, wearing a sandwich board that says, “Repent!” we hurry by. But when Isaiah warns us, we listen. I hope I have opened the gate into Rumi’s orchard by providing some background on him and Sufism, but there is no substitute for direct encounter with his writing. So…

This morning as I was watching last night’s Craig Ferguson Show that we tape since we can’t stay up that late, his monologue struck a chord with me.

He stated that he’s been feeling rather depressed lately, and I have to admit that so have I, and I wonder if anyone else has been feeling the same.

I find it depressing to read the news every day and every day the news seems to be nothing but doom and gloom.

If it’s not articles about the Party of NO, it’s stories about Limbaugh’s and Beck’s latest bloviations, Sarah Palin’s Charismatic Apostolic Warriors taking over our government, the 244% increase in hate groups, unemployment, foreclosures, Americans suffering without health care, earthquakes in Haiti and Chile.

I’ve been thinking about the typical platitude of counting my blessings, and I do have innumerable blessings in my life, and focusing on the positives rather than negatives, and then I log onto the Internet and the depressing cycle starts again.

So, I started thinking of what I can do in my every day life to get around the blues and decided that I need an attitude adjustment.

Today is the day that I am starting my personal movement to cheer up, by finding at least one good news story every single day.

I have also decided to stop playing into the negativity by referring to Tea Party people as teabaggers, and instead calling them, well, Tea Party People or referring to the group as the Tea Party Movement.

I am going to try very hard to speak about Republicans, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck, et all, in a respectful manner, taking a cue from Van Jones and his graciousness in telling Beck that he loves him, even if it was tongue in cheek, but I think the man really meant it.

In other words, I’m going to try to play nice and not lower myself to the opposition’s level.

Have you ever gotten really angry with someone and blew up and told them off?

How did it make you feel afterward?

I’ve done that a few times in my life, and every single time I’ve regretted it afterward and I felt horrible and worse than I did about whatever offense occurred to bring on my anger or hurt feelings.

I’m taking the high road, or going to try my damnedest to do that, as it is healthier for my frame of mind.

My feel good story of the day is this one –

Veterinarian Wins Pay It Forward

I came across this a little while ago; couldn’t keep it to myself. BEST IN HD

http://www.vimeo.com/9679622 

http://aerofilm.blogspot.com/2010/02/sandpit-short-film-by-aero-director-sam.html

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for pointing out the basic offensiveness of our decision to change GOP to SOP.

However, since being politically correct, politically intelligent, politically relevant or politically astute seems to no longer be a prerequisite for actually being a member of the Republican Party – we feel that our decision is the correct one.

After careful consideration, we could no longer find an argument or even any reason for the “Grand” in Grand Old Party. Nonetheless, we were encouraged to keep at least some of the moniker – mostly because of brand recognition.

Therefore, the change from GOP to SOP will remain and we are sorry that your feelings have been hurt by this change. However, we can assure you that Special Olympics Party (SOP) is the right choice.

Yours Truly,

America

“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”

- Simon Cameron US financier & politician (1799 – 1889)

The utter timelessness of that remark, made by this 19th Century East Coast political boss, has never been made more obvious than by recent events in our current government, and it seemed to be the underlying theme of Bill Maher’s return to HBO on Friday night with the eighth season of Real Time with Bill Maher.

I must admit, I’d been awaiting Bill’s return with dread – seriously, since I’ve been a long-time fan of his and considered (or did, until recently) him a hero of mine, a voice of my generation, as he and I are almost of a similar age. Last year, Real Time was, more than once, a bit slow off the mark. Bill ended Season 6 in November 2008 on the high of the Election, and every episode from the second half of that year (from his return at the beginning of September until the finale on November 14, 2008) got stronger each week. The pinnacle episode from that season was the one which aired on Hallowe’en, when Bill completely demolished the Wall Street Journal’s John Lund’s lame defense of Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be Vice President of the United States.

Bill used a totally unforgettable zinger, and one I never fail to remember each time this woman’s face and mouth pop up on the television screen.

“Come on, John,” Bill said. “This is a woman, who – under normal circumstances – you wouldn’t even want to have lunch with.”

But last year’s 7th season began shakily and didn’t take off until June, when the infamous anti-Obama editorial surfaced. I’d always viewed that surprising editorial with dismay and more than a bit of skepticism, especially since, the previous week, Bill had used his complaints about Obama as a critique of the Right who were, essentially, complaining about the same things. I was tetchy about that, wondering more and more, if the motive behind that as a bit of attention-seeking in a media world suddenly over-populated with political pundits.

The season ended awkwardly in mid-October, with Bill looking tired and a little bit jaded and tying himself up in knots regarding remarks made about doubting the efficacy of vaccines, first to Bill Frist, then to a panel consisting of Chris Matthews, Alex Baldwin and Martin O’Malley, which ensured that the final episode of the season ended in uncomfortable confusion.

Bill kept his presence known through various tweets during his hiatus, few of which made for made for anything less than uneasy thinking. The tweet made at the time of the President’s West Point speech, pithily and pettily remarked that ‘Barry’ sounded just like Bush. The one made when Obama spoke about the underpants bomber was, again, another ‘Barry’ remark, rather snottily implying ’same old same old’ yet again. And then there was the tweet made two days after the Haiti earthquake, complaining about this story’s domination of the news.

Whilst I understood the sense of what Bill was trying to say about the last tweet – the fact that the news media in America today takes a story and obsesses it, literally, to death from all angles – the first two stuck in my craw heavily. I didn’t like the ‘Barry’ references. Too many ‘Barry’ remarks are made regularly about the President, and they always seem to come from disaffected, disenfranchised, Rightwing, bitter, old white men; plus, six months earlier, Bill was whining about wanting Obama to be more like Bush, and once he did what Bill perceived to be Bushian, he was demanding the contrary. That Bill perceived Obama’s remarks about the would-be terrorist to be more of the same-thing-different-day scenario, dismayed me, and made me wonder if, indeed, we’d both been listening to the same speech. He’d heard nothing at all about what I called ‘the Obama doctrine’, about engaging with these young men, who are captured in such attempts, treating them within the legal tenets of our civil law, and trying to make an effort to understand their distrust of the West and their unease with Western society.

Besides, it was during Bill’s hiatus that the peculiar “fashion for Obama-bashin’” reached its height, especially during the healthcare arguments, which resulted in a deep crevice being forged within the Democratic Party by certain elements of the Progressive Left, some of whom naively united with hard Right activists to try to kill off the proposed healthcare bill for their own agendae. Add to that, the fact that Bill had used most every media opportunity to brag about the fact that it was he who showed various Democrats that it was, indeed, all right to criticize and criticize strongly various of the President’s actions. In fairness, it wasn’t Bill’s fault that various people who make up the Progressive base took this criticism to a pejorative art form, in complaining about everything the President did or didn’t do, say or didn’t say, even thought or didn’t think – as if they’d know.

Suffice it to say, with all that in mind, I was not looking forward to this week’s debut.

Suffice it to say, I was wrong.

I’d been mad at Bill many times before, but this time, he’d been away on hiatus for such a time this time, with so much happening, that I’d forgotten Bill has a distinct way of making me think about the things he puts so controversially, that by the time he endeavours to explain himself, it’s I who’s kicking myself for failing to see the sense in the situation anyway.

And, blimey, he’s only done that again.

I got a soupcon, earlier this week, of Bill’s Real Time mood when he appeared on Larry King Live on February 16th. I watched the feed online the subsequent night and fell under the Maher spell yet again. This was the Bill I’d loved and admireds as a great wit and voice of reason, interlaced with humour. Everything he discussed with King, he did so with verve and panache, but made points cogently laced with a strong dose of good, old common sense. He derided the Teabaggers and their new golden boy, Scott Brown – ‘the guy with a truck’. Let’s see, Bill reckoned, how quick the guy with the truck is to side with the blatant corporate interests and the banks too big to fail now he’s seated in the Senate. He rightly bemoaned the fact that the Democrats’ poor showing regarding healthcare reform came from their singular inability to sell the product to the American people as something extremely beneficial for them.

Pass the Senate bill, Maher urged. It’s not perfect, but it contains some good things, and he proceeded to list them. Besides, he urged, pass it, and build on it with amendments and reconciliation. This sounded interesting, I thought at the time. He’s speaking sense again.

He nailed it for me with a zinger of an observation about Rush Limbaugh as a voice of the Right:-

“Rush Limbaugh!” Bill scoffed. “What does he do for a living except scare white men as they climb into their trucks at lunchtime.”

Bingo! Bill’s back.

Living in the UK, I can’t get to see Real Time live, as most people can in the US. The show airs at 9pm EST – 2AM here in the UK – and for some reason, none of the British networks seem aware of Bill. The Daily Show airs from Tuesdays to Fridays here, a day late in transmission, on one of the free cable channels affiliated with one of the five main networks; so everyone is aware of Jon Stewart; but for some reason, Bill’s a non-starter on this side of the Pond. So I usually don’t get to see the show until one or two days after the Friday airing, depending on when Graboid put the download of the show online.

Playing it safe, I always ask a friend in New York, who’s a fan of Bill’s to precis the show for me. She gave me a cautious thumbs-up this week, so I settled down to watch the proceedings Saturday evening.

Well, the Brits have a saying: “Start as you mean to finish,” and if this is any indication of the way Bill means to finish this year, I’d say he’s punching up and aiming high.

This was easily the best episode of Real Time I have ever seen.

Bill kept his monologue brief, centering it mostly on Tiger Woods’s escapades during the past few months, with remarks about ‘Tiger’s wood’ and wondering if the sexual counselling he’d receive in Mississippi meant he’d have to have sex with his cousin. There was also a mention of Joe Stack, the kamikaze pilot who ploughed into an IRS building in Austin; but the monologue was kept brief because Bill had scheduled a longish interview with TARP’s Elizabeth Warren, making her second appearance in six months on the program, in order to talk about regulatory reforms in the banking industry.

This interview showed Bill at his best. I’d not seen him so incisive and focused in an interview since 2008. He even managed to inject some timely humour in the situation by revealing that he’d had some money invested with Lehman Brothers and asking Warren to ‘hold him’ in comfort for his loss, which she, good-humouredly, obliged.

The ethos of this interview was Warren’s talking about proposed reforms in the banking industry and how singularly difficult this was proving, how Congress was basically tied up in knots due to the fact that there were still so many politicos so intrinsically tied to lobbyists.

“The lobbyists aren’t coming to Capitol Hill once a month or once a week or even once a day,” Warren said. “We’re talking about K Street people visiting various lawmakers several times daily.”

It was imperative that the Consumer Financial Protection Act be passed and passed soon, she intoned, although she admitted she didn’t know in what form or how watered down the act would be.

I was absolutely flummoxed to find that the US didn’t have any sort of Consumer Financial Protection Act. This sort of thing has been in force in the UK since Thatcher’s day; indeed, it was instigated by Thatcher, as a means of consumer protection when she so ‘wisely’ deregulated the banks in the 1980s. But then I thought that, until the late 90s, we really had no need for anything like that. After all, we still had Glass-Steagall in force, until Bill Clinton so ‘wisely’ signed its repeal.

Very good and strong interview, with a good rapport between Bill and Warren.

The panel for the season debut consisted of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell and Family Guy and The Cleveland Show’s Seth McFarland.

They were all good panellists. Spitzer and McFarland had been on the show the previous season, and it was easy to surmise why they were there again – Spitzer for the upcoming emphasis this year on the deficit and matters Democrat, and McFarland for being the latest head demanded by the de facto Republican Presidential nominee for 2012, Sarah Palin, for an alleged slight against her and her family, in particular the youngest child she uses as a sympathy fixture and a prop, Trig.

One subject flowed seamlessly into another, as a good conversation should, with little or no interruption in applause from the audience. If anything, this lack of audience participation was indication that they were there to listen, and that they found what was being said interesting and provocative.

Spitzer used his position as a former elected official, a name-and-rank Democrat without a particular constituency to please to level criticism in the appalling stalemate in government of the past year squarely at Congress’s feet. He was quick to interject that, although the President has tried, Congress hasn’t tried hard enough; and that the deeply-ingrained partisan atmosphere had been ripening for the past thirty or forty years at best, until coming into rank fruition during the first year of Barack Obama’s administration.

Furthermore, Spitzer reiterated, the Democrats – and he included himself amongst that equation – just weren’t good at communicating a message in terms that the general public would understand. This is something I’ve been tearing my hair out about for ages, and something Laura Flanders alluded to a couple of years ago in her book “Blue Grit.” The GOP learned earlier on, through studies done by operatives like Frank Lutz, that the average American – i.e. the one who’d stand to gain most from a Democratic Administration – has the mental and reading comprehension of a 10 year-old. So, the GOP printed campaign literature and manifestos in language a fifth-grader could understand; it worked with its operatives to train them to speak simply and plainly to get a basic message across. Flanders observed people at Republican gatherings and noted how all or most of them, afterwards, would marvel at how clear and concise the speakers or the literature was – in a language they could understand.

In a nutshell, it’s as I’ve perceived for the better part of the last six months: Obama’s treating us like a nation of adults. He’s speaking as he would his intellectual equals, but the majority of Americans, satiated with faux wealth and plastic greed of the Bush years, augmented by the fear nurtured by the neocons in the wake of 9/11, still want that Big Daddy President who talks tough and isn’t ‘afraid’ to ‘fight.’

The image of perceived weakness led into a discussion, first centering around the threat of filibuster and how the minority Opposition party can hold the majority, ostensibly in control, by the proverbial short and curlies, simply by the threat of one Senator to filibuster – and the threat doesn’t have to be made in person; a Senator can simply phone in his displeasure, and the Democrats will run for the hills.

The solution, according to the panel (and, indeed, according to any reasonably intelligent citizen pleb watching this kerfuffle), is obvious: use the old gambler’s ploy of calling the Opposition’s bluff.

Make them filibuster. They threaten, Harry Reid and co sit back, put their feet up on their respective desks and say, “Fine. You do that.” And you follow the time-honoured Senate tradition of filibuster – no meal breaks, no drinks (except water and milk), no bathroom breaks. The Senator filibustering reads the newspaper, reads the phonebook, reads the Bible – hell, reads the Koran! – he just keeps talking and labouring his right to filibuster in order to delay the legislation impending.

And, taking advantage of the 24/7 cable news saturation, the whole damned thing should be televised, allowing everyone of any doubtful persuasion to see, in real time, what willful obstruction of government looks like.

It wouldn’t be heroic, like James Stewart’s idealistic Mr Smith, who was protesting something viably bad …

Instead, it would be a supreme act of cowardice, laced with cynicism, solely for the purpose of de-legitimising this Administration.

Spitzer is sharp, and his talents should be being used by the party in power; but McFarland has the makings of a statesman, as well, in his mettle. The filibuster discussion morphed into how Republican spin had cleverly managed to convey to the public the ‘weakness’ of the current Administration, especially regarding terrorism and terrorist suspects. Norah O’Donnell deftly pointed out that the Obama administration had actually managed to secure and prosecute more terrorist suspects than the Bush administration had done, and, indeed, they carried on the practice, begun under Bush, of according most of these suspects civil trials. There had been three military trials for suspects, O’Donnell pointed out, and two of those suspects had been released back to their home countries.

Of course, Cheney’s name came up, as did the fact that he admitted on last week’s This Week what amounted to an open admission of favouring torture, and this brought up the proposed terror trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and its venue of New York City. If there be any criticism I have to make about the discussion in general, it’s here. Bill still insists that the reasons behind removing the trial from New York City is all about the Democrats bowing to the will of the Republican spin machine. Sorry, but I distinctly remember Mayor Bloomberg, initially, being in favour of Holder’s intent to hold the trial in New York City, and Bloomberg is a Republican. But once  he and Democratic Senators Schumer and Gillibrand had been assailed by various and sundry residents local to the venue, as well as various city departments concerned with the costs and the logistics of the trial, it was they who suggested a change, and Holder who is obliging. That other Republicans cynically took advantage of this situation to proclaim a security alert or whatever, is pure grandstanding and posturing of the worst partisan degree.

The blatant hypocrisy behind the Republican spin machine and its total irrationality was the reason for Seth McFarland’s appearance, and this was linked, indirectly, to the White House Chief of Staff’s recent controversial comment picked up by one Sarah Palin. It was the use of the word ‘retarded’ and the portrayal of a character in McFarland’s Family Guy series who has Down’s Syndrome.

Bill was at pains to remind the audience and the panel that he’d got into a spot of bother some years before on Politically Incorrect when he compared mentally challenged children to dogs. There’s liberal use of the word ‘retarded’ in this clip from about a decade ago, included its use by an actress whose young nephew has Down’s Syndrome.

But, as McFarland reiterates, this isn’t really a term by which anyone should describe people with Down’s Syndrome, rather it’s a word which has entered colloquial vocabulary meaning an act which is less than intelligent or backward, retrospective in outlook.

As good as this part of the discussion was – and I applaud Bill for using the word ‘retarded’ twice during the broadcast, first, to illustrate the context of actual freedom of speech, and, secondly, to show how this word can be effectively used to describe certain situations which have nothing to do, whatsoever, with any mentally-challenged person – I felt it lacking to a certain extent.

The panel could have driven home the point more forcefully in two ways:-

1. By reminding everyone that the Emanuel remark was taken out of context to the extent that it actually ended up being a lie, picked up by Palin, but handed to her, indirectly, by one of the most Progressive members of the Democratic Party, Jane Hamsher. Hamsher was present at a White House meeting between Rahm Emanuel and various members of the Progressive media, when someone disclosed to Emanuel, that certain Progressive groups were entertaining running television ads were being commissioned by and paid for by these groups to run against Blue Dog Democrats who were more than a bit iffy on healthcare reform. In other words, Democrats would be running negative adverts against other Democrats. For real.

Emanuel went ballistic and termed such action “fucking retarded.” The action, not the people proposing it. But by the time Hamsher had returned to her Firedoglake blogosphere, she’d connivingly managed to convey to all and sundry who comb the internet that Emanuel had referred to liberals, to the Progressive base as “fucking retards.”

For Palin, mistress of the victimised spin, it was a gift that keeps on giving. In a fair and balanced way, which would have made Fox News look silly, and which would have enhanced Bill’s independent credentials, Hamsher should have been called out for this naivete. Not only did it give the likes of Palin a necessary weapon, it made the Democratic Party look divided, to say the least.

2. Bill’s often made no secret of his correspondence with Levi Johnson. In this instance, he should have pointed out forcefully that Palin, herself, as disclosed in Johnson’s interview in Vanity Fair and his interviews on CBS, often would refer to Trig as “the retarded baby.”

Bill’s fourth panel guest (and the inevitable celebrity) was comedian Wanda Sykes.

Wanda was brilliant and showed astutely why sometimes in the course of modern conversation, crudity can be blazingly essential.

As everyone familiar with her knows, Wanda is a black, gay woman. I must admit, I thought the reason for her appearance would have something to do with the recent hearings initiated on Capitol Hill regarding the repeal of DADT. It did, but Bill’s first question was anticipated by Wanda and answered succinctly.

In attempting to ask her how she gauged Obama’s first-year performance in Office, she cut the question short and stated shortly and definitely that everything levelled at Obama in the way of criticism during his first year as President had everything to do with one thing: race.

I stood up and applauded at that point. That needed to be said and needed to be heeded – by the Left as well as the Right. That Sykes didn’t directly allude to the Left in particular, rather keeping the criticism within the realm of the Right’s nuttery, didn’t mean she wasn’t aware of the criticism emanating from the Left regarding Obama or the fact that, at more times than not, it was unduly excessive. There were loads of names with which various groups and individuals had seen fit to label the President during the course of the year – socialist, communist, conservative, nazi – but they all conspired to be various disguises of the same ugly word. As Sykes aptly pointed out, “nazi” is just an n-word substituted for another n-word, just like the racism claims levelled at the Right is euphemistically defined as the cognitive dissonance of the Left. Sykes isn’t just witty, she’s canny.

In the ensuing and inevitable debate about the repeal of DADT, something Eliot Spitzer said niggled me a bit. Spitzer opined that he didn’t see why Obama didn’t just do what Harry Truman did when he de-segregated the army: do so by Executive Order. That shocked me, simply because Spitzer, as a lawyer and the ex-Chief Executive of a major state (who would have, on occasion, made use of the Executive Order facility, should have known better.

Executive Order legislation can only be repealed by another Executive Order, and legislative acts can only be repealed, likewise, by other legislative acts. Therefore, as DADT is an act of Congress, Obama could not repeal this with an Executive Order. It simply wouldn’t be Constitutional. Clinton, whose Administration cobbled together DADT with the collusion of Congress, could have and should have issued an Executive Order allowing LGBT citizens to serve in the military without discrimination due to sexual orientation. That this would most certainly have been repealed by the ueber-faux religious Bush regime is a given, but how easy it would have been to reinstate in the Obama administration, although it could have risked becoming a political yo-yo, I suppose.

The panel discussion ended on the topic of the Teabaggers and how, in their wake, the Democratic Party seemed to be losing momentum, thus bringing the discussion full circle to the original topic at the beginning of the segment and touching briefly on the mainstream media coverage concerning the Haitian earthquake, for which Bill had received considerable criticism during his hiatus because of the tweet he’d made.

Although Bill tried to link the events in Haiti with the way the evening news broadcasts focus chiefly on the main news event of the day (after day after day) to the exclusion of all other things, Spitzer and the rest of the panel demurred and disagreed, especially in relation to this tragic event. I would have rather seen more emphasis given to the irresponsible 24/7 cycle’s role in heightening the attention and importance given to the Tea Party movement, which – as Bill stressed in his first New Rules editorial of the season – is little more than a cult and should be treated that way.

I don’t know if this pass on the media’s role in over-emphasizing certain newsworthy items was due to O’Donnell’s presence or not, but one of the more consistent features of Real Time last season was Bill constantly chiding the news media for giving excessive attention to things which clearly didn’t deserve it – flogging a dead horse, if you will, for the sake of ratings and bums on seats – but it deserved to be mentioned, O’Donnell or not, because as much as Fox aided, abetted and supported the Teabaggers throughout the year, their inception can be credited solidly to a subsidiary of NBC: CNBC and the hedge fund trader-turned-commentator, Rick Santelli.

The best line of the night was found in the season’s first New Rules segment, in response to this picture, posing this question:

Bill’s response? “No … and the only person who misses you is the guy who threw the shoe.”

This is Bill at his acerbic best – sharp and off-the-cuff quick wit, ending with a prescient observation of the Tea Party movement as a cult who projected a particular image on the President as something and someone he’s clearly not:-

Brilliant, perceptive, humourous and to-the-point in an often biting way – if Sarah Palin were capable of really understanding satire at its best and most provocative, she would be well advised to watch any of the repeats of this season premier HBO are offering this week; but this would well be above and beyond her ken, when compared to the crudity and ‘rudity’ of Rush.

Based on a few minor omissions and slight mis-statements in the broadcast, I should give it an 8 or a 9 out of 10, but I’m so glad to see Bill back, on form and at the top of his game, I’ll give Real Time’s season opener a full-on 10 out of 10 and keep my fingers crossed that he keeps the standard high and aims higher for the rest of the season.

This is the Bill I like and trust. Welcome back. You’ve been sorely missed.

Here’s the audio for the trailer of the new horror movie (for the GOP), “Night of the Living Reform”

NARRATOR: It was hacked into pieces! It was smothered alive! It was buried and left for dead! Now…it’s b-a-a-ack!!!

HOWARD DEAN: “When ya kill a bill, ya better make sure it’s dead!”

LINDSAY GRAHAM: “No! No! Don’t shove it down my throat! Yes! I mean no!”

MITCH MCCONNELL: “What he said!”

(GROWLING SOUNDS OF A BEAST)

RUSH LIMBAUGH: “Get out of here! Get away! I’ll sit on you! I’ll eat you! Get away!!! YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE DEAD! NOOO!!!

(SOUNDS OF PRESIDENTIAL HOPES CRUMBLING)

SARAH PALIN: “But…I killed you…you can’t be alive…I stabbed a death panel right through your heart! You can’t…Y-A-A-AH!!!

(SOUNDS OF A TAN TURNING WHITE)

JOHN BOEHNER: “This isn’t happening! This can’t be happening! I know how to stop you! ‘NO’! ‘NO’! It’s not working! Then eat filibuster!

(SOUNDS OF A FILIBUSTER GOING LIMP)

JOHN BOEHNER: “NOOO!!! Stop! For corporation’s sake, stop! You can’t roll over me! I’m TAN!!! ARGH!!!

NARRATOR:  Sometimes killing what a majority of Americans want…isn’t enough! HCR is back from the dead…and this time, it’s reconciled to kill the opposition! Night of the Living Reform! Coming soon!

Yes, momentum and possibly even reason has returned to the minds of Democrats in Congress. Their brilliant minds seem to have recovered from the Scott Brown election mentality of “Only 59 seats now! We’re helpless!” to “Hey…if we can’t do anything with 59 seats, how can I win re-election by saying keep us in the majority?”

So, a growing number of Dems in the House and most importantly, in The Senate are championing bringing back real HCR including a public option and using reconciliation to get through the changes to the Senate bill that couldn’t pass a filibuster. Just as many of us have been hammering them to do for a long time.

The House is 100% right not to sign the Senate bill until its horrible provisions have been overridden by the reconciliation bill…which needs to include a Public Option. If that is done, public opinion on all of this will turn around.

The main reason most opposed the bill was because the public option was killed and there would be mandatory purchase of policies from insurance companies who can, as Anthem tried, raise premiums 39% at a time and bankrupt citizens who would be breaking the law and penalized for not allowing themselves to be bankrupted.

This two step approach is so simple and reasoned. Pass the aspects that all can agree on then pass the aspects that favor Americans over corporations by 51 Dem votes.

Aside from reforming the filibuster, reconciliation is the only path for the Dems and Obama to turn around the perception of a gridlocked and helpless government. It is an absolute.  And they must not stop here, just as the GOP is using the filibuster to block everything, the Dems must use reconciliation to pass everything they possibly can through that method.

That means a jobs bill, bank and Wall Street reform, energy and carbon emissions bills, etc. Of course, there must be a budgetary element to any bill to qualify for reconciliation but how difficult would that be to have financial elements involved in each of these bills?

To me, it’s very simple. If the GOP is going to pull the emergency cord on every bill, the Dems should be prepared to pull their emergency cord in response. They are in the better position and could even use that as leverage to make agreements that if the GOP won’t filibuster, they won’t go around them with reconciliation and let them be part of the process.

I doubt this would work for a while but do they want to go 8 years without having any influence on any legislation? If public opinion turns around to support the progress occurring under Obama and Dems in Congress, what will they have to campaign on? Not one vote for anything?

I am FINALLY encouraged again that momentum is on our side but we need to keep it up and keep hammering any of our Senators and Congresspeople who are not already on board.

BTW, MoveOn.org is collaborating with DailyKos and a number of other sites and groups on Feb 24th to organize a 1 million message protest which I recommend to all members here to join. Here is a link to their site, click the article to sign up if you wish: http://moveon.org/

This can really happen if we fight hard enough against the GOP and corporations and for real health care reform, for all Americans, current and future!

Sarah Palin comes out on Larry King against the teaching of gravity in our classrooms and for the teaching of Intelligent Denial: