In the ultimate better-late-than-never irony, outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned a group of Army cadets at West Point, “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.”

Gates, a holdover from the administration of George W. Bush who remains in office at the behest of Bush’s successor Barack Obama, has been in charge of the Department of Defense since 2006. His remarks to the effect that the United States should never again fight wars like Iraq or Afghanistan seemed particularly pointed in that both wars were begun on the watch (and presumably advice) of his immediate predecessor Donald Rumsfeld.

Gates, who is leaving office this year, said he was paraphrasing General Douglas MacArthur, although his comments were more reminiscent of Dwight Eisenhower, the man who famously fired MacArthur and later warned against the military-industrial complex. But Gates did not and apparently will not criticize either Bush or Rumsfeld directly for their dumb decisions to make war.

He did, however, deliver the welcome news that, “The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or Iraq – invading, pacifying, and administering a large third-world country – may be low.”

Glad to hear it, Mr. Secretary. I certainly wish you had seen the light much earlier regarding what you rightly call such “costly – and controversial – large-scale American military intervention” as the tragic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – it might have saved a lot of lives — but I’m happy you finally have. On the other hand, what is it about heading the Pentagon that prevents smart people like you and Robert McNamara from figuring out these wars are crazy before you fight them, instead of after?

As my sainted grandmother always used to say, “Yes, better-late-than-never, but better-never-late!”

Correction: It was, of course, President Truman and NOT Eisenhower who “famously fired” General MacArthur. Thanks to reader rduhrich for correcting my faux pas. I always say my readers know as much if nor much more than I do — this is further proof!

Are you as shocked as I am that even Donald Rumsfeld turns out to be a better supporter of free speech than Hillary Clinton? At least the lying SOB former Secretary of Defense didn’t stand by and do nothing as his critics were beaten, arrested and taken away in chains!

But that’s what our current Secretary of State did when peace activist, veteran Army officer and onetime C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern protested silently while she lectured the rest of the world about freedom this week at George Washington University.

Clinton’s talk, which emphasized the need to protect basic freedoms, included her observation that “The rights of individuals to express their views freely… are universal.” But even as she condemned other governments for arresting protesters and inhibiting free expression, Clinton demonstrated her own hypocrisy and profound disregard for those rights by saying and doing nothing while the 71 year old protester was grabbed by campus police, pulled to the ground, and dragged out of the auditorium. McGovern remained silent until just before he was pulled through the auditorium doors; then, bloodied, bruised & arrested, he screamed, “This is America?”

McGovern had been standing silently facing the back of the auditorium where all the news cameras were. His supposed crime? “Disorderly conduct” – i.e. wearing a shirt that blocked the view of guests and the media, and therefore “disrupted” the speech by the Secretary of State.

McGovern discussed his protest and subsequent arrest at Secretary Clinton’s “Freedom Speech” in an interview with blogger Rob Kall.

“I turned my back to her and stood [silently]. When she came in I not only remained standing but I turned my back to her”¦ I didn’t think that would get me roughed up and arrested for disorderly conduct.”

But it did – as Clinton stood by just as silently. Here’s what happened next, according to McGovern:

“They took me outside, put two sets of iron handcuffs that pierced my wrists. The bleeding went all over my pants. One guy said, “I pricked my finger” like it was his blood.”

“I was bleeding in the car so I said ‘I think you need to put some gauze on me.’ They handed me to the DC police and they told I was being charged with disorderly conduct. I was booked, fingerprinted, mug shot taken. They put me in a little cell — must be the same size as Bradley Manning’s– about six by four feet.”

“It was about three hours that they held me until they let me out. I had to take a cab to the hospital where they x-rayed me, treated me and dressed my wounds. Then the doctors told me that since this was an assault on me, I had to inform the police about who had assaulted me. A little humor helped then.”

Speaking of humor, take a look at this Jon Stewart video contrasting Clinton’s reaction with that of Donald Rumsfeld to a McGovern protest at a speech four years ago – this one broadcast live on CNN. McGovern asked the former Secretary of Defense why he had “lied about weapons of mass destruction.”

Comparing the two experiences, McGovern told Kall, “As bad as Donald Rumsfeld was, he let me speak. He let me speak and engaged me in dialog.”

Although he faces charges of disorderly conduct, McGovern says he isn’t worried. “With all those cameras and photos there has to be someone who will come forward with pictures of me and what happened to me to prove I was attacked, I wasn’t warned,” he said.

McGovern is being represented legally by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). Attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard summed things up well: “It is the ultimate definition of lip service that Secretary of State Clinton would be trumpeting the U.S. government’s supposed concerns for free speech rights and this man would be simultaneously brutalized and arrested for engaging in a peaceful act of dissent at her speech.”

Despite his bruises, Ray McGovern says he will continue to bear witness. “I’m sore,” he concluded, “But I’m glad I did it.”

So am I. And shame on Hillary Clinton, who as McGovern rightly points out, “is the driving force, together with a few others, behind the wars in Afghanistan. She’s one of the big hawks in Iran”¦. I have to make clear that we Veterans for Peace think that her policies are an abomination to the nation, that they are at cross purposes to the country and not everybody should applaud and give her the idea that she’s doing the right thing”¦. She is the height of hypocrisy. When people die because we have hypocrites at the top of our government, that compels me to make a statement in whatever way I can.”

For the second week in a row, a top executive of one of the leading international newspapers that recently collaborated with WikiLeaks recounted what it was like to work with the group’s controversial founder Julian Assange.

Ian Katz, deputy editor of The Guardian, detailed his experiences “on the hazards of co-coordinating five newspapers and an information insurgent” in a remarkable piece this weekend.

Following Bill Keller’s catty account in the New York Times, in which Assange was judged to be “alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street,” Katz found Assange “ferociously intelligent, with a control freak’s mastery of detail and an infectious enthusiasm.” This despite the fact that the Guardian’s “pioneering WikiLeaks collaboration,” ended like that of the New York Times before it, “in distrust and legal threats,” as the headline on Katz’s article explained.

The most notable part of Katz’s piece – other than his admission that he had mistakenly emailed the biggest scoop in decades to the BBC – is his actual analysis of the collaboration itself, which he describes as “a model of what traditional media and the new breed of digital subversive can achieve together.” There’s been an awful lot of speculation and analysis – much of it ill informed — speeding through cyberspace of late on the disruptive impact social media are having on all sorts of institutions, especially political and legacy media types. Some argue that the new media are now not just supplementing but actually supplanting the old forms. What Katz experienced and reveals to us, however, is a harbinger of an exciting journalism future-in-the-making — the coming media convergence:

“Much has been written about the culture clash between what many in Wiki-world rather derisively call “mainstream media” and uncompromising information libertarians such as Assange. But if anything, I was struck by how the two cultures converged during the collaboration”¦

Assange brought a trove of raw data and a considerable degree of savviness about how to work with vast, complex databases – and, not insignificantly, the ability to publish outside the reach of any individual jurisdiction. The Guardian and other media partners brought the old-fashioned journalistic skills and deep expertise required to figure out what mattered – and the resources (some 40 Guardian reporters worked on the cables alone) and commitment to deal with highly sensitive material responsibly.”

Remarkably, despite the tensions, distrust and threats, both Assange and Katz learned much from the collaboration – and both began to change:

“Assange started out as dismissive of the need to protect sources in the documents, and now effectively only publishes cables redacted by conventional media partners. As for the Guardian, we have undergone a crash course in working with massive databases, something which is sure to become a bigger part of what we do, and redoubled our commitment to an open, collaborative style of reporting.”

Contrast Katz’ attitude to that of Keller of the New York Times, who instead insists throughout on treating Assange only “as a source,” and adds rather nastily, “I do not regard Assange as a partner, and I would hesitate to describe what WikiLeaks does as journalism.”

C’mon, Bill Keller, if playing an instrumental part in bringing those leaked war logs and embassy cables to public attention isn’t journalism, what is? Keller & Co. are now said to be reinventing the WikiLeaks wheel, developing their own secure whistleblower drop-off site. But like it or not, the top Timesman and other leading mainstream media figures will inevitably soon find themselves learning from and eventually emulating the Guardian/WikiLeaks collaboration. Here comes the new media convergence!

When Need To Know, a new public affairs offering described as “a multi-platform current affairs news magazine, uniting broadcast and web in an innovative approach to newsgathering and reporting,” premiered nationwide in May on PBS – and on line at PBS.org — the hybrid effort was met with an outpouring of negative reaction from media activists and public television viewers alike.

Billed as part of an effort to “revitalize public media,” NTK first came under attack simply because it was slated to occupy time slots previously allotted to Bill Moyers Journal and Now, two hard-hitting, independent PBS mainstays that had just ended long runs. Next, after word leaked that Newsweek’s then-editor Jon Meacham was to join NPR veteran Alison Stewart as co-anchor, the media watchdog group FAIR issued an “action alert” slamming him as “a consummate purveyor of middle-of-the-road conventional wisdom with a conservative slant.” FAIR said Meacham’s prominent role on the program sent “a clear and troubling message about PBS’s priorities,” and his “approach to journalism seems to be antithetical to the hard-hitting approach of Moyers and Now.”

The complaints, which resulted in thousands of emails to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler, were in part a cri du coeur from progressives angry at the simultaneous loss of both Now and the ever-iconic Moyers. Getler said, “I can understand the anxiety of those viewers who feel, rightly in my view, that both Moyers, especially in his interviews, and NOW through its choice of subjects, frequently go after issues and personalities that simply don’t get aired elsewhere”¦” The ombudsman also raised an interesting side issue, noting, “I would think that being the editor of Newsweek is a full-time job, as is the co-host, and driving force, behind a public affairs television program that millions of people will want to depend on.”

It turns out that viewers and media activists weren’t the only ones anxious about Need To Know. As reported recently by Elizabeth Jensen in the New York Times, many public television programmers also had negative reactions, and the future of the PBS newsmagazine beyond June is now in doubt. Jensen referred to a memo sent to the programmers in December by Stephen Segaller, vice president for content at WNET.org, which produces the show, and Shelley Lewis, the program’s executive producer. In it they conceded that the feedback from fellow PBS stations “has been negative, which is never pleasant, but is always useful.” In appraising the co-anchors, the memo said: “It’s fair to say (as some of you have) that Alison is far more comfortable in the anchor role than Jon, and Jon is a far more comfortable guest on other programs than he was (at first) as anchor on his own.”

PBS, which funds the program, recently released a carefully crafted statement, saying its “commitment to “˜Need to Know’ runs through June 2011. As with any renewal decision, we are evaluating the series carefully. No final determination has been made.” In consideration of your own need to know, I present below the entire Segaller/Lewis memo to programmers, which as you will see lays out an equally careful case for the continuance of the program:

December 3, 2010

“It is our right and our duty to criticize the people who have put the fate of our country in peril,” Rush Limbaugh said this week on his syndicated radio show.

Although our country’s leading shock jock spoke in the aftermath of the massacre that left a federal judge and five others dead and Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords critically injured, he was not referring to Jared Loughner or any of the many other well-armed gunmen who increasingly try to hold our democracy hostage. Instead, he typically assured his massive audience of self-described “ditto-heads” that the country is most imperiled by anyone who dares suggest that the daily hate fest on leading right-wing radio talk shows such as Limbaugh’s might have any connection with the violent acts that sometimes follow.

Rush is right”¦sort of. It is our duty to speak out! But Limbaugh’s assessment of who “has put the fate of our country in peril” is cockeyed. He says Democrats and progressives, who are trying to silence conservative voices, are to blame – but I say it’s El Rushbo and his fellow purveyors of hate speech on America’s public airwaves who are America’s real enemy. In fact, I wrote a whole book about it”¦

Limbaugh was among the shock jocks who “pushed back against arguments that their heated political rhetoric had played a role in the tragedy,” the New York Times reported in an article headlined “Talk Radio Hosts Reject Blame in Shooting.”

“Jon Justice,” Rush’s local equivalent, was another. Justice plies his talk trade at KQTH 104.1 FM, which calls itself “The Truth.”

“There isn’t any correlation,” Justice told the Times. “It’s like blaming Jodie Foster for the individual who shot Ronald Reagan.”

Justice and other local hosts “struck a defensive, even embattled tone” in response to remarks by Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, who said at a news conference that Arizona had become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry” and that local TV and radio hosts should do some “soul-searching,” the Times reported. “They said Saturday’s shooting had nothing to do with either their broadcasts or the state’s tense political environment.”

Some callers disagreed and “made it clear” they think the radio hosts bear some responsibility. “You ought to be ashamed,” one told Justice. “You are part of the problem.”

“People need to go and point fingers,” Justice responded. “It’s unfortunate, but some people do. They have to find somebody to demonize.”

Judge for yourself whether or not “Jon Justice” is being “demonized” – or if instead he is part of the problem. I profiled him back in August 2008 in a blog post called “The Truth, Jon Justice”¦ and the American Way?”

In that post, I chronicled how Tucson’s bush-league Limbaugh (who reportedly lost a previous on-air slot when he pretended to drown a dog on-air) made anti-immigrant, racist and homophobic remarks on-air – and then posted sexist and racist videos on YouTube attacking Isabel Garcia, a well-known Arizona-based immigrant rights advocate.

“We’ve been facing down the forces of hate for years,” Garcia told me. “But it has never been like this before – until Jon Justice and hate radio 104.1 FM came around and began making derogatory comments and using hateful language while regularly fomenting lies, fear and misinformation about immigrants.”

Garcia’s associate Kat Rodriguez said she “would usually shrug this off as idiotic, but it has actually gained traction. This right-wing jerk, whose show is a constant stream of anti-immigrant, racist, and homophobic rhetoric, is leading the charge, even commenting the other day that we need “˜bloodshed in the polling places.’ Nobody outside of Arizona knows what is going on, and the madness continues,” concluded Rodriguez.

Having been branded a lesbian, a communist and a terrorist, and likened to Al Qaeda, Garcia was then targeted by a local anti-Mexican immigration activist named Roy Warden. After threatening those he terms “Left Wing activists and Pendejo Thugs” that he will “draw my weapon and blow your freaking heads off,” Warden warned that he might “turn their skulls into red mush” in an attack that “will make the Shootout at the OK Corral look like a Sunday school picnic.”

Given that more people were killed in the recent Tucson shooting than died in the actual OK Corral episode, it seems fair to ask: Who is really putting the fate of our country in peril – hate-speaking shock jocks, or those who criticize them?

Don’t be a dittohead– make up your own mind! Here’s how my post from two-and-a half-years ago about on-air hate speech in Tucson ended:

“It’s not a stretch to ponder whether on-air remarks such as Jon Justice’s call for “˜bloodshed in the polling places’ could one day prove to be the spark that turns such ominous hate speech into real-life acts of hatred – and real people’s skulls into – yes – real red mush”¦”

What do Richard Nixon, Liu Xiaobo and Julian Assange have in common?

As lawyers for Wikileaks editor-in-chief Assange began preparing for a possible indictment by US authorities, two recent, unrelated but highly relevant news items caught my attention. The first involves the gift that keeps on giving in this and apparently every holiday season — Richard Nixon. Although it’s been nearly four decades since he left the Oval Office in disgrace, Nixon’s attitudes and actions, and the lessons we can draw from them, are as timely as ever – particularly so considering the controversy over Assange and his role in the release of secret cables revealing the attitudes and actions of more current American leaders such as Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

The latest evidence of America’s closed-door political chicanery came with the release by the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum of yet another trove of audiotapes of the ever-voluble former president. This time Tricky Dick can be heard chatting in the Oval Office with top aides and his personal secretary – all the while making a range of disparaging remarks about Jews, blacks, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans – some sixteen months before he was forced to resign as president.

For example, Nixon, who claimed not to be prejudiced, told senior adviser Charles Colson on February 13, 1973, that “The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.” The president’s negative attitudes toward Jews extended even to such close colleagues as his National Security Adviser Henry A. Kissinger, but his rampant bigotry did not end with his Jewish brethren.

“All people have certain traits,” Nixon opined. “The Irish have certain – for example, the Irish can’t drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I’ve known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.” He continued: “The Italians, of course, those people course don’t have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but”¦”

Nixon also revealed deep doubts about the abilities of African-Americans. He thought it would take centuries of miscegenation to integrate them fully into American society. He strongly disagreed with his Secretary of State William Rogers, who felt instead that “They are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.”

“My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years,” Nixon remarked. “I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have be, frankly, inbred.”

As with many of the previously secret cables from Wikileaks, the long-secret Oval Office tapes don’t simply reinforce what we already know about our national leaders and what they are like when they think we aren’t listening. They also reveal valuable, detailed behind-the-scenes information about their values, veracity, geopolitical views, decision-making processes and the like. Take the subject of human rights as one example — neither Nixon nor Kissinger seemed terribly concerned over the Soviet Union’s treatment of its Jewish citizens: “If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern,” Kissinger can be heard saying on the tapes. “Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

“I know,” Nixon responds. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”

Just as the latest batch of Nixon tapes was released, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded, in absentia, to the imprisoned Chinese writer and dissident Liu Xiaobo. Liu is now serving an 11-year sentence for the heinous crime of “incitement to the overthrow of the state power and socialist system and the people’s democratic dictatorship.” For only the second time in history, no relative or representative of the winner was present at the ceremony to accept the award or the $1.5 million check it comes with. So no one was able to speak out on Liu’s behalf – although he did somehow manage to send word that he would dedicate the award to the “lost souls” massacred in 1989 in Tiananmen Square.

The Nobel Peace Prize, of course, is used as much to send a politically charged message as it is ostensibly to foster peace. Last year’s surprising choice of Barack Obama, thought by many to be what the New York Times terms a “thinly veiled rebuke to the politics of former President George W. Bush,” came as the current US president prepared to escalate the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. And let’s not forget that previous Peace Prize recipients include not only the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. but also those of the aforementioned Dr. Kissinger. Nobel officials said this year’s prize should be seen as similar to that given Dr. King while he was fighting for civil rights in America in 1964 — a selection that helped create change. They optimistically hope this year’s choice of Liu will have a similar effect on China.

Perhaps over time”¦ But at the moment, Chinese authorities are doing everything they can simply to make Liu invisible and voiceless. Nevertheless, a statement by Liu, read aloud at the ceremony by actor and activist Liv Ullmann, proved they have yet to succeed. “Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth,” Liu’s statement noted in part.

Let’s try to remember that this week when trying to contemplate the fate of Julian Assange, who according to news reports may soon be prosecuted under the provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act (which was used unsuccessfully to try to stop the New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers in the Nixon era) for the release of confidential diplomatic documents by Wikileaks.

Assange’s attorney told ABC News that she did not believe the Espionage Act applied to him, and added: “In any event he’s entitled to first amendment protection as publisher of Wikileaks and any prosecution under the Espionage Act would in my view be unconstitutional and puts at risk all media organisations in the US.”

But US Attorney General Eric Holder disagrees, saying Assange and Wikileaks had instead put the United States at risk. “The lives of people who work for the American people has been put at risk,” Holder says. “The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that are, I believe, arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way.”

I’m every bit as much in favor of accountability and constitutionality as Attorney General Holder is – it’s just that we have different people we want to hold to account, and differing views of the Constitution. As prominent supporters of Assange noted in a letter calling for his release, the Wikileaks actions have actually “assisted democracy in revealing the real views of our governments over a range of issues”.

Imagine if Julian Assange and Wikileaks had been in existence during Watergate”¦ He might have succeeded in “revealing the real views” of our government over a range of issues at that time. We might have found out what was really going on in Nixon’s mind and heart decades earlier – and we might even have been able to do something about it.

Instead, as per a recent Supreme Court decision, we have now begun to criminalize not only Julian Assange and Wikileaks — but also nonviolent First Amendment speech and advocacy as well if it is deemed to be “coordinated with” or “under the direction of” a foreign group listed by the Secretary of State as “terrorist.”

Where will the prosecution and persecution of Julian Assange end – and what will it mean for the rest of us who may be engaged in non-violent First Amendment speech or advocacy? Last year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama would do well to rein in his Attorney General and Justice Department – and to remember the words of this year’s Nobel recipient: “Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth.”

A decade ago, I was in India, directing a documentary film about global poverty.

While shooting there, I met a mischievous, roly-poly researcher named Sugata Mitra, who was then working for NIIT, a billion dollar Indian high tech firm with headquarters in New Delhi.

“So, you’re making a film about global poverty,” Mitra said with a slight smile. “There are two kinds of poverty, you know.”

“Do tell,” I smiled back thinly, intrigued but also a bit annoyed, after months of research and weeks of shooting all over the world, to receive a lecture on the subject of my film.

“Yes, there is material poverty, such as you are examining in your film – but there is also information poverty,” Mitra suggested. “And from where I sit, it appears as if the developed world has been trying for decades — mostly unsuccessfully — to do something to solve the problem of material poverty.

“But I always thought that if we could instead do something about the problem of information poverty,” he continued, “Then maybe poor people could solve the problem of material poverty all by themselves”¦”

At that instant, I was struck by one of those rare, Eureka-like bolts of inspiration. The next film I made would have to be about this man, his theories and his work.

And so it was. I’ll spare you the parts of the story that reveal how much of the work of an independent filmmaker is akin to independent fundraising”¦ suffice it to say that after nearly a year of begging, and the eventual intercession of a private family foundation whose board members included my former intern, production funding was secured and the story of Sugata Mitra and his “Hole in the Wall” experiment became its own film.

Working with my friend, the late and lamented Gil Rossellini, as co-director, we were first to tell the story of how Mitra embedded a high-speed computer in a wall separating his firm’s headquarters from an adjacent slum – and his resultant discovery that the slum children could quickly teach themselves how to surf the net, read the news, and download games and music. We then documented how Mitra replicated the experiment in other locations – and how, stunningly, each time the results were similar: within hours, and without instruction, untutored children began browsing the Internet.

As Mitra’s experiments showed, the ongoing digital information revolution has redefined poverty, making how much you know as important, if not more so, than how much you own. Could children, given only access to computers and the opportunity to play with them, really teach themselves the rudiments of computer literacy with no instruction? His hole in the wall model, which pointed to one possible solution to the rich/poor gap known as the “digital divide,” had the promise to lift millions out of an information underclass to which they had been consigned by accidents of birth and fate.

Thanks to Sugata Mitra’s brilliance, the compelling story of the Hole in the Wall became a worldwide sensation, inspiring millions of people around the world – including Vikram Swarup the author of the novel Q & A, which eventually was turned into the Academy Award-winning feature film Slumdog Millionaire. Mitra now is a Professor of Educational Technology at the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences at Newcastle University, in the UK, where he continues to focus on “minimally invasive education.” Meanwhile, his series of Ted Talks on “˜child-driven education”
has become one of that series most popular downloads.

Now, ten years after, I’m pleased that the story of Sugata Mitra and his amazing street urchins is now freely available to all, just a click away, thanks to an amazing new multimedia content platform just launched by Link TV. Called ViewChange.org, it’s a next-generation Web site featuring the most comprehensive and relevant multimedia information about global development issues and concerns. The site combines powerful videos and films with the latest semantic web technology, highlighting images, articles, blogs, and actions about efforts to eliminate hunger, poverty, and disease in the developing world.

Now you can watch and share the Hole in the Wall story along with other videos about progress in global development through the platform’s innovative media player, link the work to a global audience – and share with that audience great characters, stories, and information about global game-changers n a wide variety of fields.

So please send your friends and followers to www.viewchange.org to watch videos like my film “The Hole in the Wall,” to comment, and with one click, to share your thoughts through 306 different networks, from Facebook to Digg to Twitter.

This holiday season, let’s get together, give thanks for our own blessings — and then start changing the world, one story at a time.

Mr. President,

As the world waits to see just how badly we fare in Election 2010, it’s not too early to look ahead to that all-important contest just around the corner – Election 2012.

Here’s my considered assessment: As Jon Stewart might put it, dude – it’s bad out there.

How bad?

This bad: nearly half of all Democrats are now turning against you and say you should be challenged for the party nomination. A new AP poll found “widespread disenchantment” with you within our own party, not to mention, of course, the other half of the country — which really hates you!

Who are these Democratic Party poopers? Hillary’s people, of course! Less educated, less liberal and likelier to have backed her in the primaries, and then McCain in the general. Whites, men, and seniors”¦ still clinging to Hill along with their religion and their guns, no doubt.

Giving her State was the wisest insurance policy we ever bought.

And yes, I know, we haven’t even lost the midterms yet and here I am worrying about 2012 “¦ And I know that that early polls mean little, your re-election campaign is still a long way off, and that any real challenge is unlikely (although I’m sure Dennis Kucinich can be persuaded to jump in again.)
☺
I also know that at this stage in their presidencies, both Clinton and Reagan had approval ratings that were lower than yours now — and that both won second terms — while higher ratings for HW and Carter didn’t forestall their defeats.

BUT

We still must take this as an early warning sign. Here are some things to focus on turning around:

* 1 in 7 who voted for you on Election Day 2008 now say you should be defeated.

* More than 1 in 4 who thought you understood “the problems of ordinary Americans” now say you don’t – and that you don’t care about people like them and or share their values.

* one-quarter of those who had a favorable opinion now view you negatively.

Still, there is some good news: three in four Democrats still want you re-elected and you are only trailing among Independents by ten — 46 percent to 36 percent.

Boss, let me make one thing clear: Campaign 2010 — make that 2012! — should begin today – right here, right now.

I suggest we get cracking and start blaming the Republicans straight away!

We all know Bill O’Reilly is a good Catholic boy. After all, the top-rated Fox News (sic) Channel host took the title of his best selling “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity” from Sister Mary Lurana, his third grade teacher at Saint Brigid’s parochial school. Speaking as a schoolmate of Bill’s from his later days at Chaminade High, I implore him now to confess his sins and seek absolution for killing the NPR career of Juan Williams.

As first reported by Brian Stelter in the New York Times, NPR has terminated its contract with its “˜senior news analyst’ Williams, following comments he made about Muslims on Fox, where he is still employed as a “˜political analyst.’ But O’Reilly is one who should be castigated. Although Williams took the fall, O’Reilly was the cause.

The controversy clearly has its roots in the deliberately provocative and offensive comments O’Reilly had made earlier on The View, such as “Muslims killed us on 9/11.”

Moreover, taken in their entire seven minute context — and not just this 46-second edited video clip - it appears that Williams’ remarks, although bigoted and fairly stupid, were made in an ill-executed attempt to counter O’Reilly’s even stupider and more bigoted assertions.

Of course, beginning by saying “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” was probably not the wisest move on Williams’ part. But should we attack Williams for then proceeding to reveal his bigotry?

“But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

NPR said in a statement that the remarks by Williams “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.” I’m no fan of Juan Williams – his credibility as a news analyst was undermined a long time ago.

I wouldn’t go so far as some in saying that Williams is the new Shirley Sherrod. But William Salaten at Slate is partially right when he says, “It was wrong of conservatives to take Sherrod’s remarks out of context. It’s just as wrong of liberals to do the same to Williams. The USDA, after reviewing Sherrod’s remarks in their entirety, offered to rehire her. Now it’s your turn, NPR.”

NPR shouldn’t have fired Juan Williams for being stupid, bigoted – and honest.

Now it’s your turn, Bill. Man up, as Sharron Angle might tell you. You murdered Juan Williams’ public broadcasting career — so please for once be honest. Confess and seek our forgiveness.