The List: Yes. No. What?

+YES+
+Ellen Goodman's piece on the Bush "No Regrets Tour." He doesn't worry about history in the short term. He doesn't worry about history in the long term. That's because he has people telling him who the good historians are--see Condi Rice below.

+A simpler Christmas and Holiday season, aided and abetted by a Pacific Northwest snowfall.

+Dan Rather making gains on his $70 Million lawsuit against CBS, which seems to be leading to the conclusion that a) the president did pressure CBS and b) CBS caved to the pressure on the Abu Ghraib story.


-NO-
-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggesting that we will soon thank Bush, and when "Asked about historians who say Bush is one of the worst presidents, Rice said those "aren't very good historians." on CNN.com. Yes, because historians aren't normally trained to look back at things and compare them... they just must be bad ones.

-Lexus commercials for reliving your childhood Christmases by delivering a car to your loved one. 1) these commercials have always been ridiculous, and 2) they are just crass at a time when I have spoken with so many people who have simplified and realized how little they miss all the "stuff."

-Dick Cheney on torture on The Moderate Voice.com “Did it produce the desired results? I think it did…it’s been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves.” Yes, we don't have those bothersome principles to stand up for anymore...


?What?
?Evangelist Joel Osteen's blank stares on Larry King's interview with him, when he was asked about gay marriage, and the article in Newsweek contesting the conservative right's interpretation of it. He claimed to not really have looked into the issue of gay marriage (but he can still oppose it), had not read the article, and indeed, almost seemed to be unaware that there was a printed media outside of his own media circle.

?The Madoff pyramid scheme and the losses to people who should know better. What happened to all of the advice about diversifying your accounts so that you didn't lose everything. Goes to show, once again, that greed trumps common sense when deregulation is the mantra. Does this give you faith in privatizing social security for everyone? Of course it does...

?Obama buddy Axelrod on Rick Warren's presence at inauguration as a "healthy thing." Unless you happen to believe in equal rights, not discriminating, or think that there is such a thing as a kinder, gentler homophobia...

?Chip Saltsman, what are you thinking? "The Magic Negro"? "Star Spanglish Banner"? Who knew that the RNC "big tent" would be back, but for bigots... Must have been going for Colin Powell's vote.

Obama and Rick Warren--inclusiveness versus vision

Gay rights activists are upset at the inclusion of Rick Warren for the inauguration, to which the Obama camp replies that they are seeking inclusiveness, and they are reaching out. This is where the future Obama administration needs to distinguish between inclusiveness versus laying out a progressive vision. The choice of Warren is a problem, because it is suggesting that inclusiveness is vision, which it is not.

The United States, especially since the McCarthy era, has demonstrated a notable lack of inclusiveness, discussion over wide-ranging ideas, and a willingness to consider and debate ideas from the left and from the right. That millions of Americans can not only hear about, but actually believe that Obama is a socialist, displays an astounding lack of understanding of what anything remotely on the left stands for, in terms of policy. While this may seem like an unrelated, I would argue the contrary. At this point, U.S. politics has been so devoid of intelligent debate from left, right and center, that we mistake inclusiveness for vision.

Warren can be included by being invited to the inauguration as a guest. However, acknowledging his ideas (which as a Christian, I myself find impossible to get to his oddly split-personality decision) is much different from laying out the the path Obama believes we should take. The use of Warren is not "inclusive," it is tacit approval of his position. Have him there, but then show Warren, Americans everywhere and the world that you have a different and more progressive way of looking at the world; you do this by having someone who is acceptable to the gay community and to those who are supporters of the gay community.

So now we are left to wonder; is Obama really just being inclusive, or is this just a muddled vision?