Rachel Maddow Gets A Show!

It took a little while, but the smartest woman on TV, Rachel Maddow, just got her own show!

Rachel Maddow will replace Dan Abrams as host of the 9PM hour on MSNBC, the New York Times' Bill Carter reports. Just last month in a Times article by Jacques Steinberg, MSNBC president Phil Griffin declared Maddow "at the top" of a "very short list" for those who should have their own show, though at the time he said he "[didn't] know when" that would be. As Carter reports, the final stretch of the 2008 election season will be Maddow's debut as the host of her own MSNBC show:

Just in time for the closing rush of the presidential election, MSNBC is shaking up its prime-time programming lineup, removing the long-time host -- and one-time general manager of the network -- Dan Abrams from his 9 p.m. program and replacing him with Rachel Maddow, who has emerged as a favored political commentator for the all-news cable channel.

The moves, which were confirmed by MSNBC executives Tuesday, are expected to be finalized by Wednesday, with Mr. Abrams's last program on Thursday. After MSNBC's extensive coverage of the two political conventions during the next two weeks, Ms. Maddow will begin her program on Sept. 8.

MSNBC is highlighting the date, 9/8/08, connecting it to the start of the Olympics on 8/8/08, as a way to signal what the network's president, Phil Griffin, said "will be the final leg of the political race this year." He added, "We making that Rachel's debut."

Mr. Abrams, who is well liked at MSNBC, is expected to remain at both that network and at NBC News, where he is the chief legal correspondent. He will also serve as an anchor during some of MSNBC's daytime coverage, as well as a substitute host on NBC's "Today" show, Mr. Griffin said.

The last broadcast of Abrams' "Verdict" will air Thursday.

Abrams, the network's former General Manager, told the Times that he understood the decision.

"Putting my general manager's hat back on, considering where the network is right now, it is actually the right call," he said.

Almost immediately, Keith Olbermann took to DailyKos to celebrate the news, brag about his involvement in the decision — "Yes, I had something to do with it," he wrote — and remind readers that though Maddow's rise at the network was quick ("less than five months between first paid appearance and own show"), his was quicker ("I believe I still hold the MSNBC record: I came back to guest host for three days in 2003 and 39 days later I had a contract to do the 8 PM show.").

Update: Better picture now (wiki)

Saddleback: Who Cares? (Hertzberg Does)

I love Hertzberg. He is smart as hell, and a great writer, and sees things others do not. He is concerned about how poorly Obama did in his Warren interview. I personally don't give a shit, because pandering to the religious makes me sick. Hertzberg wrote about his reactions to the Saddleback thing here. Here is the good part:

Today’s evangelical Christianity may be thriving on TV and at the megachurch collection plate, but it has yet to find a cause worthy of its fervor. Its crusade on behalf of the unborn and unquickened—which, if successful, would make criminals out of actually existing women and doctors while doing less than nothing to relieve actual human suffering—is a sad waste. A century and a half ago, the great evangelical blockbuster was “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” by Beecher’s sister Harriet. Now it’s Warren’s self-help manuals and the “Left Behind” series. This is a progression that offers meager evidence either for evolution or for intelligent design.

Saddle Sore

I had hoped for a more fluid, energetic performance from Barack Obama at Saturday night’s Saddleback Church forum—something along these lines:










Alas, it was not to be. Obama didn’t seem to know how to go with the flow and make a real emotional connection with his audience, both in the room and beyond. He seemed a little out of sorts—tentative and wan and much too careful, introducing too many of his comments with a choked “y’know” and keeping his eyes downcast instead of locked on Warren’s. He was wilted, not crisp. Or so he seemed to me.

I was especially disappointed by his answer on same-sex marriage. He said what he has often said before: that he sees marriage as a union of a man and a woman; that he supports civil unions that extend rights and obligations to same-sex couples; that under the Constitution marriage is a matter for the states and should remain so. It felt chilly and legalistic—not quite Dukakis on capital punishment for wife-murderers, but perilously close. He missed a chance to challenge his evangelical audience and connect with it by pointing out the human contradiction between sectarian doctrine and Christian compassion. Christian denominations take all manner of views of homosexuality, but it’s hard to find a Christian these days who insists that simply being homosexual—having a gay or lesbian orientation—is sinful in and of itself. If two people love each other and wish to commit themselves to each other and are eager to take on the responsibilities and joys of family life, including the raising of children (biological or adopted) in a loving home, isn’t that a good thing, not just for them and the children they give a home to, but for all of us? Obama said, “I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view.” But how helpful is it to imply that other people—people whose faith and/or marriages aren’t so strong—are in danger of abandoning their faith or their marriage because gay people are permitted to get married?

There are observers I respect—Andrew Sullivan, for one*, and members of my family with whom I watched the program, for two more—who saw thoughtfulness and humility where I saw hesitation and eggshell-walking and, watching McCain, saw pandering and bloviating where I saw shrewdness and confidence. If they’re right, and I hope they are, I still wish that the thoughtfulness and humility had been accompanied by a bit more passion and force.

Everyone, me included, seems to agree that Rick Warren was the undisputed winner of the night. Granted, he isn’t a particularly probing questioner. But at least he was polite, and he didn’t commit any of the sins James Fallows enumerates in the current Atlantic. With his genial personality, his emphasis on happiness over hellfire, and his instinct for (relative) moderation, he reminds me a little of the young Henry Ward Beecher, a fascinating biography of whom I happen to be reading at the moment. Not that they’re in quite the same league, of course. Warren’s willingness to admit the reality of global warming and his admonitions to his fellow evangelical heavies to quit demonizing Democrats are most welcome, but he’s still got a ways to go before he can match the content or courage of Beecher’s stirring antislavery sermons.

Today’s evangelical Christianity may be thriving on TV and at the megachurch collection plate, but it has yet to find a cause worthy of its fervor. Its crusade on behalf of the unborn and unquickened—which, if successful, would make criminals out of actually existing women and doctors while doing less than nothing to relieve actual human suffering—is a sad waste. A century and a half ago, the great evangelical blockbuster was “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” by Beecher’s sister Harriet. Now it’s Warren’s self-help manuals and the “Left Behind” series. This is a progression that offers meager evidence either for evolution or for intelligent design.

*See also Andrew’s superb series of posts yesterday on the questionable provenance of McCain’s “cross in the dirt” anecdote.
(Photograph: Alex Brandon)

My Obama VP Prediction

Joe Biden

Why don't you vote for your VP pick above? Sorry, poll was created before Musharraf was available, and can't be altered.

The Drug War: We're Losing

Do you think we have a drug problem in the U.S.? Well, we do. Too many of us get arrested for smoking pot (well, not me), but take all kinds of mind-altering drugs prescribed by our doctors. McCain apparently loves Ambien. Which is the bigger problem?

Watch this, then tell me...

Go To Newshoggers

This Newshoggers story is an important read because it reminds us that McCain is dangerous, and Obama must win. Visit Newshoggers.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

By Ron Beasley

I was late to endorse Obama - late January. I was afraid that he was not up to fighting the Republican slime machine and that he was an empty suit - lots of talk and little substance. I haven't seen anything at this point that would lead me to believe I was wrong. This is very disturbing because the though of John McCain as president truly scares the hell out of me. At he first sign of trouble he looks for somebody to hit.

Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now if that doesn't scare you it should. Digby as usual says it very well:

I remember writing a long time ago that John McCain is the man George W. Bush was pretending to be, right down to the flight suit. The Real Thing is actually far more dangerous than the cheap imitation. If he wins this thing, we could find ourselves in a very, very serious crisis, of both economic stability and national security ---- and very likely of our government itself. This man is unstable.

But she also gives us a branch of hope. The corporate types know this and they also must know that Armageddon would be bad for business.

The funny thing is that I don't think the Big Money Boyz expect the Republicans to win this election so they didn't think there was much danger in putting Buck Turgidson on the ballot. You can't help but wonder if they are having some second thoughts about allowing for even that slim possibility.

All those tax cuts and deregulation won't be worth much if the hot headed John McCain brings on a nuclear winter. That said race still a lot closer than it should be because Obama is not connecting with the average voter and he needs to go after John McCain. Obama already has a handicap. We don't like to talk about it but he is a black man running for president in the US of A. John McCain has some handicaps as well.

• His age - there is nothing wrong with making that an issue.
• He's a Republican.
• He didn't have the "right stuff' to be an admiral.
• He admits that we are worse off than we were 4 years ago but plans to continue Bush policies.
• He's a hot head.

And that's just a few. Use them all. I'm sorry, but nice guys usually finish last in US politics and this is too important.

McCain: Rich, Stupid Bastard!

My house, which cost about 350K is now worth about 250K. I hope it goes up before my kid starts college!

Here is a video that shows John McCain and his very rich wife are ignorant, unfeeling bastards (or cunts, depending on who's talking). Oh, and he owns a bunch (10) of houses!

Principals: God's Gift To Teachers?

Over at LeaderTalk there is a post by Chris Hitch (not Hitchens) on how to handle the prima donna teacher. Basically, if a principal has a teacher who's students consistently do well, but rubs the principal the wrong way, the principal should fire the teacher. Hmmm. I think principals, for the good teacher, are a hindrance, not a help. Read this ridiculous screed with the 4 comments here, and the article only below the fold.

Handling Prima Dons (and Donnas)

I had a colleague in a school ask me about how to handle a prima don on his staff. He feels he is being held hostage by this individual. The individual is loved by parents, does great things with his students, is creative in the classroom, and get his students (all of their students) to perform at their best. He's also also cranky, arrogant, and think the rules apply to everybody else but him. This summer, the prima don may implicitly (or explicitly) say that if things don’t go his way, he will leave the school.

I suggested two filters to use at the outset-I had my suggestions, which you'll see below but I am quite curious about what readers of this blog suggest instead of or in addition to what I've suggested.

1. Ethics and Policy: If the person is violating any ethical canons or school board policy, you have no choice but to confront and quickly use whatever disciplinary measures you have to in accordance with your local and state policies and procedures. It’s one thing for a teacher to care about the children under her supervision or for a technology teacher to show how streaming video websites work, it is an entirely different matter for her to dispense pain medications or temporarily disable your system’s website filtering system without following your district policies. Whether the person is teacher of the year or a family member of the school board chair, you have to handle this person in the exact same manner as any other employee.

2. Consistent High Performance: All three of these words matter. If the person is not giving you consistent high performance, then you have a much easier decision-cut them no slack and look for removal, dismissal or nonrenewal. If you have a person who is rude to everybody and doesn’t do a good job, you are under no obligation to keep them around. We’d suggest that each time you work with a prima donna, you think through whether the person is still exhibiting consistent high performance.

A. Find the combination: While many prima donnas exhibit the same annoying and destructive behavior, they generally have different sets of needs. Some may need additional “air time” to demonstrate their superior knowledge and intellect. Others may want public recognition for the work they have done. Still others may want to be perceived as a “power player” by being asked to serve on a district level committee. By looking for what you see that they want, you have a tool that you can use to help leverage better behavior from them.

B Build a wall: Prima donnas know they are good and some may simply want to be left alone. If your prima donna simply wants to be left alone, put their expertise to use on a lone ranger project that aligns with your strategic goals and they don’t have to spend time in what they consider wasted time in endless meetings.

OR

Build a fence: If your prima donna loves the limelight, and wants to be perceived as a leader, have them lead a committee, but with conditions. Your conversation may go like this. “I’m glad you’ve agreed to lead this committee. Remember that one of the key aspects of this committee is to get a set of recommendations that that everybody will buy in to. You’ve got a lot of skill and talent and your perspective is valuable. One of the areas that will be important for you to focus upon is building upon the ideas of everybody in the group. What ideas do you have to make sure that everybody is listened to and heard?” When the prima donna pushes back, you have an opening to discuss how their skills in this committee can help increase their credibility with the others on the team not only for her specific skills but also being perceived as someone who listens to others.

3. Ensure accountability: You can certainly include high performance in the interpersonal realm as well. If one of your key values is client service and you have individuals who are rude and inconsiderate to others (internally and externally), you have to have this conversation with the prima donna. Point out that he runs the risk of alienating and distancing himself from others with his actions. Serving as a mirror to his behaviors serves as a start to demonstrate the linkage between his behavior and the actions and behaviors you want from him.

4. Check the “will”: You have to make the determination whether the prima donna is acting the way he is because of his interest in improving your school or if he is simply castigating you because he doesn’t like anybody telling him what to do or actively undercutting what you are trying to achieve. If, in your conversations, you find out that the individual thinks there is a better way to do this, you should certainly listen. On the other hand, if he is doing end runs, generating rumors, and generally trying to undermine you and what you are doing, you have an entirely different (and we hope, quick) resolution to the issue.

What other suggestions do you have in place of or in addition to what I have noted?
Chris

What a tool! This moron's first mistake is thinking that principals help teachers teach. They don't. They don't have time, and many, mine included, have no teaching experience in the grade level they are principal for (my principal was a middle school English teacher, now she is principal of an elementary school, and has to be taught what younger children need).

The second mistake Chris the principal makes is thinking that teachers want principal input. We don't (unless the principal is a great teacher, which we wouldn't know)! And that does not mean we don't want our students, school, colleagues, or district to succeed. We just want to be the professionals that we are, and do our job without hindrance, unnecessary committee responsibilities, and fear of reprisal from power-hungry, career-minded principals.

This screed by principal Hitch should be looked at as part of the problem in education; professional teachers being reviewed, retained, or fired by folks whose mission it is to foster conformity to a norm not yet affirmed, in a desire to wrest control of education away from those who provide it--teachers! Reminds me of HMO's power over doctors, which is waning. When will principal overwroughtness wane?

Four More Years

Here's a rather sobering anti McBush ad. Pass it around.

Bring Back The Draft!

Andrew J. Bacevich is a retired colonel who makes a lot of sense. Here he is on Moyers. Give this guy a position in government!


I say bring back the draft because this guy is basically saying that unless we the people take back our country, and have a vested interest in it (like sacrificing for it)we will continue to imperialize the presidency, and demean our own citizenship. The draft seems an exceptionally good way to get folks vested!
From Open Left

Update: Sullivan gets an email from a former soldier serving under Bacevich. Impressive.

A. James Bacevich was my Colonel while I was in the 11th ACR stationed in Fulda, Germany. Not sure if you know much about his background, but he was, I believe, passed over for general and retired. His being passed over was at the time attributed to his having been the CO of the unit during the largest accident ever, which happened on July 11th, 1991, at Camp Doha in Kuwait, when our motor pool blew up injuring a few people and rendering the base inoperable. I was there, and it was a terrifying mess. You can read about it here.

Long story short, some folks in them motor pool were doing some maintenance, and put the halon fire extinguishers in an ammo carriers for m109's (artillery vehicles) on mechanical safe, a heater caught on fire, ammo cooked off, and it caused a chain reaction.

My squadron was the one on rotation to be guarding (the other two were in the field doing maneuvers and border stuff), and I was asleep in one of the big airplane hangers when a 100 pound 50 caliber machine gun came flying through the roof and landed about 10 feet from my bunk, part of one of the vehicles blown up in the initial series of explosions

If rumors are true, because of that accident, a few weeks later, Schwarzkopf himself came to the base and and visited Bacevich, and a few months later, he was replaced. Col. Bacevich allegedly took full responsibility for the mess, even though it was not his fault (it was the idiot mechanics who had the halon on mechanical safe), but he believed in accountability. As such, he is the only man to ever be CO of the 11th ACR to be passed over for Brigadier General. Before that, command of the Blackhorse was a sure stepping stone for General. Another soldier who was also there discusses it here.

At any rate, when you talk about Bacevich, not only has he lost his son to this stupid war we both supported, but he is just a decent, honest, honorable, good man. At a time when no one ever takes responsibility, he is a man who believes in it, and walked the walk.

The Democratic Platform: We Sort Of Like NCLB

We have an education angle in the new Democratic Platform. Unfortunately it bends towards the kind of reform I think is dangerous to public education. You can read about it here. Here is a key snippet:

We will promote innovation within our public schools–because research shows that resources alone will not create the schools that we need to help our children succeed. We need to adapt curricula and the school calendar to the needs of the 21st century; reform the schools of education that produce most of our teachers; promote public charter schools that are accountable; and streamline the certification process for those with valuable skills who want to shift careers and teach.

They are embracing the research meme, charter schools, and have removed opposition to vouchers. Michell Rhee surely will be advising Obama soon. Ugh!

Update: I realize that research is crucial to knowledge. I love and revere science, the scientific method, evolution, and chocolate. Education research has issues of validity many other research endeavors don't have. The whole "research-based" pedagogy thing is problematic because when you look at teaching, it appears more art than science; or maybe art based in science. It's more like jazz. It's hard to teach jazz, you can either do it, or not.

Update II: I wrote this in June, and it relates.

They're Underage!!!!

Like we didn't know already, the Chinese Woman's Gymnastics team is in violation of the rules. They are supposed to be 16 in the Olympic year, and these kids are like 6 or something. Here is the proof!
So. What do we do now? Cause a stink? If you watched the opening ceremonies, you should be scared to death that the Chinese, if they so desired, could crush us like so few ants. I say let them have the gold, and we step back, slowly.

Happy Birthday Social Security!

73 years ago today FDR gave us Social Security. Now let's see if I ever get to collect!

Thank God!

This is a fantastic development! A judge just ruled that the University of California can deny course credit to bible-thumpers!!!! Praise Jesus! Here is the article.

Judge says UC can deny religious course credit

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

(08-12) 17:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

He also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion.

UC attorney Christopher Patti said Tuesday that the judge assessed the review process accurately.

"We evaluate the courses to see whether they prepare these kids to come to college at UC," he said. "There was no evidence that these students were in fact denied the ability to come to the university."

But Monk, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said Otero had used the wrong legal standard and had given the university too much deference.

"Science courses from a religious perspective are not approved," she said. "If it comes from certain publishers or from a religious perspective, UC simply denies them."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/BAQT129NMG.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Hillary's Campaign Did What?

They were planning on portraying Obama as unAmerican? No way!

I'm Back!

But after a 10 hour drive, I am not ready to blog in earnest. Must shower, then sleep, then find out what happened while I was in the woods.