Please sign the petition below to remove the statue of Jefferson Davis currently in Kentucky’s Capitol Rotunda, and replace it with a tribute to Muhammad Ali, “the Louisville Lip” and “the Greatest of All Time.”
I just heard from the Ali family: It is the Champ’s belief that Islam prohibits three-dimensional representations of living Muslims. Accordingly, I have adjusted the petition to call for a two-dimensional representation of Ali (a portrait, picture or mural) in lieu of a statue.
UPDATE (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)
In this interview with WHAS-TV’s Joe Arnold, Governor Steve Beshear endorses the idea of honoring Muhammad Ali in the State Capitol (although he disagrees with removing Davis). Arnold explores the idea further on his weekly show, “The Powers that Be.”
Click here to check out WDRB-TV’s Lawrence Smith’s coverage of the story.
And here’s my op-ed in Ali’s hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal.
UPDATE (Saturday, June 4, 2016)
In the wake of the 2015 Charlestown tragedy, in which a Confederate flag-waving murderer united the nation against racism, all of the most powerful Kentucky policymakers — U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, Governor Matt Bevin, Senate President Robert Stivers and House Speaker Greg Stumbo — called for the removal of the Davis statue from the Rotunda. Today, as we commemorate last night’s passing of Muhammad Ali, there is no better moment to replace the symbol of Kentucky’s worst era with a tribute to The Greatest of All Time.
UPDATE (Wednesday, June 8, 2016):
Great piece by Lawrence Smith of WDRB-TV in Louisville on the petition drive to replace Jefferson Davis’ statue in the Capitol Rotunda with a tribute to Muhammad Ali.
UPDATE (Thursday, June 9, 2016):
Excellent piece on the petition drive by Jack Brammer that was featured on the front page of the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Highlight of the article:
Miller said he has received a few “angry comments” on his call to honor Ali.
“One of them encouraged me to kill myself,” he said. “You can quote me that I have decided not to take their advice.”
UPDATE (Friday, June 10, 2016)
The petition drives continues to show the Big Mo(hammed): check out these stories from WKYU-FM public radio in Bowling Green and WKYT-TV, Channel 27 in Lexington:
UPDATE (Saturday, June 11, 2016):
Still not convinced? Check out this excerpt from today’s New York Times:
By Stephanie Doctrow, RP Staff, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM ET
In Key Largo, Florida, three pilot whales may be stranded on the shore but they’re not alone. [NY Times]
The economy may be on its way back up, but couponing lives on as a not only practical, but also a hip option for consumers. [Time]
Remember Elizabeth Smart? She took her life back, and is now serving as a missionary and children’s advocate. [Newsweek]
Here’s a little something to pep up your day. Even though The Script has been on the music scene for awhile, this song never fails to make your day better. [YouTube]
By Jonathan Miller, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM ET
Today marks the 43rd anniversary of one of the most touching eulogies in American history: Senator Ted Kennedy’s poignant speech at the funeral of his fallen older brother, Robert F. Kennedy.
I shared my thoughts upon the anniversary of RFK’s eulogy to Martin Luther King a few months earlier — which I believe is the greatest speech of my lifetime.
But today, I will let the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s words speak for themselves:
By Robert Kahne, RP Staff, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM ET
Whose Side Are You On?
I started watching the NBA in earnest back in 2004, when the Detroit Pistons defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in one of the most classic NBA Finals in history. That year, Shaq and Kobe were joined by Karl Malone and Gary Peyton in hopes that the two aging stars could vault them back to finals glory. It almost worked, but they ran into the tough defense of the Larry Brown coached Pistons. In stark contrast to the hodgepodge Lakers, the Pistons had a solid core of a team–Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Price, Ben Wallace, and Rasheed Wallace. That Pistons team was fun. They were hard working, defensive minded, and represented all that was good about basketball. I remember many people reveling in the failure of the hot shot Lakers and enjoying the success of the plucky Pistons.
This year’s NBA Finals feature the Miami Heat, who remind me quite a bit of both teams from the 2004 NBA Finals. As any hoop-head will tell you, this Miami team features LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh; three men who came together in the offseason and acted quite foolishly, claiming they would win multiple titles with the three of them at the helm. Like the 04 Lakers, the Heat stumbled a bit in the regular season, and many wondered if these players coming together was a mistake. When the playoffs started in both 2004 and this year, the teams really kicked in. In the run up to the Finals, the Heat lost all of three games–one in each playoff series. The 04 Lakers, likewise, only lost five games before the Finals. Both the 2004 Lakers and the 2011 Heat have a lot in common–superstars, playoff mastery, and most importantly, general disdain from the populace.
Indeed, many people hate the Heat. Maybe for the way in which LeBron James left the Cavaliers, perhaps because of
This pep rally was a stupid Decision.
“The Decision” or the introductory press conference, or maybe just because fans do not approve of a consolidation of talent. For whatever reason, people don’t like this Heat team. However, all the reasons I fell in love with the 2004 Pistons are present with this Miami Heat team. The Pistons had great defense and great chemistry. The Heat have both of those–LeBron James and Udonis Haslem have really stepped their defense up in the Finals, and this team really seems to enjoy playing together.
The Other Guys.
While it may be in vogue for people to root against the Heat, for whatever reason, I don’t. I think too often our culture builds stars up, just to tear them back down. I reject that. This Heat team is full of great players, and I wish them success. However, the other side has their share of great stories also–Dirk Nowitzki playing for a title, Jason Kidd being in contention for a ring again, after so many near misses. Whoever you choose to support, the Finals have been great entertainment. I can’t wait for Game 5. You really should tune in.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 at 8:30 AM ET
Last week Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) introduced H.Res 292, which declared that President Obama “has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya,” and placed the White House under a 14-day deadline to respond to these concerns and to explain why the action is justified under the War Powers Act. The resolution passed 268-145, and was immediately denounced by the White House as “unhelpful and unnecessary.”
On its face, this routine—the Republican-controlled House passes a measure designed to annoy the White House, and the White House responds with annoyance—is not particularly unusual these days. In this case, though, the back-story is much more interesting. The original impetus came not from Republicans, but from liberal activist Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), whose resolution calling on President Obama to withdraw troops from Libya within two weeks and accept other restrictions forced Boehner’s hand. The House rejected Kucinich’s more forceful resolution, but just as many Democrats joined in supporting H.Res 292, many Republicans, especially Tea Party icons Ron Paul (R-TX) and Michelle Bachman (R-MI), voted for it, and Boehner himself realized that the House needed to put together some sort of resolution.
The real issue here goes beyond the immediate politics of the day. It is decades old, and it relates to the ways that the Cold War destroyed the constitutional balance between the Executive and Legislative branch. The Constitution clearly says that only Congress has the power to declare war, but the Executive has control over foreign policy.
The permanent emergency of the Cold War, with troops stationed overseas, intermittent crises requiring fast action, and Congress members unwilling to appear weak on national security, all tipped the balance very far in favor of the President. Added to this was the President’s ultimate control over the nation’s nuclear forces (what Garry Wills has called his “Bomb Power”), which made both Congress and the concept of declaring war appear essentially irrelevant. Encouraged by a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of containment, the US Empire grew exponentially after 1945, and with it an increasingly imperial presidency.
Read the rest of… Ronald J. Granieri: The Imperial Presidency — Now and Forever?
By Stephanie Doctrow, RP Staff, on Tue Jun 7, 2011 at 2:15 PM ET
French radio and television anchors are no longer allowed to say “Facebook and Twitter” on-air during their broadcasts. Is the United States next? Nah… [Time]
YouTube still rules the online video universe, but a startup company from Chicago is trying to carve a place for itself in social media. [NY Times]
A writer at Good Magazine responds to an age-old question in journalism: If a reporter sees someone in trouble, should they remain impartial or try to get involved? [Good Magazine]
Girl power! What Jill Abramson’s appointment as executive editor of the New York Times, the first female in the position, could mean for women in journalism: [Poynter]
CBS is taking its Weinergate coverage to the next level: tracking down the man who does the congressman’s laundry. [NY Magazine]
If John Edwards goes to prison, then many other politicians should join him, according to the Department of Justice’s logic.
I have a friend, for instance, who during his first campaign unintentionally did almost exactly what Edwards did. After my friend’s first campaign event, the host pulled him aside and said, “Great job! But, can I be candid with you?”
“Sure.” Sure, he said, wondering if his rhetoric had been too strong for some in the room.
“OK. Please don’t be angry,” she said. “But people think you look like a kid, not somebody who could be in Congress. Your suit’s too big. Your shirt is threadbare, your slacks look like rags, and your shoes are scuffed. Basically, you like a boy in your dad’s hand-me-downs. Oh, and you really need a haircut. Your hair looks like a hornet’s nest. You‘ve gotta go see my girl Melissa, she can help you.”
My friend went to Melissa for the duration of the campaign, and her handiwork was by all accounts a huge improvement. Melissa refused to charge him, no matter how vehemently he tried to pay her.
A few weeks later my friend ran into his high school tennis coach, who also commented on his suit. “You can’t go around looking like that,” said the coach, and gave my friend several stylish suits and blazers that he hadn’t worn in years, with instructions on where to get them altered.
Little did my friend know that he had his own Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron, on a slightly smaller scale. And like John Edwards, he neglected to report these gifts on his FEC filings. (FEC rules state that any gift to a federal candidate that is meant to influence an election and which has not been given routinely prior to the benefactor’s candidacy must be reported.)
But if Lanny Breuer, the Assistant AG who is prosecuting John Edwards, has anything to say about it, there will be a precedent set for candidates, even those like my friend – neophytes who know precious little about the intricacies of federal campaign finance law. Any failure to report such gifts would merit a felony charge and, potentially, prison time.
***
Let’s lay out a few pertinent facts about the Edwards case.
A centenarian billionaire gave almost a million bucks to help him hide his pregnant mistress while he ran for president. Edwards failed to inform his campaign treasurer about these gifts.
Who was hurt here – other than Elizabeth Edwards?
We can agree that John Edwards make a mistake by succumbing to the “charms” of a bleach-blonde New Age party-girl who approached him (“You’re so hot”) at a NYC hotel bar one evening. And he compounded this initial mistake with many more along the way. By carrying on an affair as his wife’s cancer progressed, he was appallingly self-indulgent and callous. By running for president while concealing it, he became one of the highest-stakes gamblers in history, literally risking the nation’s well-being on a Houdini-like escape from this tangled web.
But that doesn’t mean the government should have spent two years and millions of dollars to prosecute him.
The crux of the case is that Edwards failed to report the “gifts” as campaign contributions. However, no Bunny-money ever touched any of John Edwards’s campaign or personal accounts. Prosecutors don’t even allege that it did. And apparently Ms. Mellon even paid gift taxes on the money. So should Edwards really be prosecuted and potentially incarcerated for misleading his campaign staff about the fact that a billionaire kept his mistress living in style?
Is there anyone in the country who doesn’t think John Edwards is a world-class heel? Probably not.
Would you like to help pay the millions of dollars for his prosecution and possible incarceration? I didn’t think so.
***
As regular readers know, I lied to federal agents about my knowledge of a postcard that was mailed out by an independent group during my 2004 congressional campaign. With my knowledge, one of my aides had given publicly available information about my opponent’s legislative attendance record to the independent operator, a fact that my aides and I hid from investigators. The wire worn by one of my best friends for two months in 2009 revealed my awareness of the plan to send the mailer, along with the fact that I frequently use four-letter words.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Your Tax Dollars at Work, Prosecuting (& Potentially Incarcerating) John Edwards
By Kristen Hamilton, RP Staff, on Tue Jun 7, 2011 at 10:00 AM ET
Inspired by Michelle Obama’s simple but sophisticated black Ralph Lauren gown that she donned in her recent visit to England (and how can I forget about the breathtaking white Tom Ford gown – oh my gosh!), I was moved to write about one of the most strenuous responsibilities that come with being the First Lady: being fashionable. It may sound vain, but America has an obsession with the First Lady’s wardrobe. Don’t believe me?
Read the rest of… The Politics of Fashion: The Pressure of Being the First Lady AND a Fashion Icon
Let’s stipulate that John Edwards’ misdeeds are already legendary. Whatever your view of the linkage between sexual misconduct and public life, Edwards picked an usually sordid path to travel–the betrayal of a dying spouse, the failure to own up to a pregnancy, and a political cover-up that traded on the loyalty of people who believed in him deeply.
But sin is still not criminal, and I am in the camp that thinks the prosecution of Edwards last week is misguided.
These are the basic facts around the case: in 2007 and 2008, several major Edwards donors funneled just under a million dollars to Edwards for the purpose of paying off Realle Hunter, Edwards’ mistress, in the hope that she would remain silent about the affair. The Edwards campaign did not disclose the money in its quarterly FEC filings, and there has been much subsequent wrangling over whether they should have.
Whether the money should have been revealed turns largely on how it is classified: gifts need not be reported to the FEC, campaign contributions must be. If the funds had a political purpose like preserving Edwards’ candidacy from scandal, they are arguably campaign contributions. If they were political, they also might be what campaign law calls independent expenditures, and in that case, it would be a campaign finance law violation if Edwards “coordinated” the expenditures in any way.
The Edwards camp responds that the money, which came from two longtime friends of the former Senator, was a personal gift meant to help Edwards by shielding his wife and family from finding out about the affair. In its charging, the Department of Justice contends that the Edwards team is wrong and that its receipt of the money, which is way outside the legal limits for individual contributions, and its subsequent failure to disclose it, are criminal violations. Edwards alone has been charged.
Again, a concession is in order: a candidate’s receipt of sizable amounts of money from a few sources is not a good thing for those of us who worry about the sway big money donors have on politics. Moreover, the idea that money has either a “political” or a “personal” purpose is a rather obvious fiction: keeping an extramarital affair out of view helps save both a marriage and a political career.
But imagine a scenario that is slightly less salacious. Let’s say a major cable television network pays a potential presidential candidate a significant salary to host a program on public affairs, and regularly features that candidate as a commentator on its other programming. The candidate has no previous experience as a journalist and the show performs poorly enough in the ratings that the network derives little benefit. Is this generosity a campaign contribution, on the grounds that the free time and the salary boost the candidate’s presidential interests in obvious ways, and spares him the inconvenience of a day job? Or is it just an act of kindness meant to sustain a figure whose views are shared by the network’s management?
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Former Fed. Prosecutor Calls Edwards Prosecution “Misguided”
The RP started the discussion this afternoon, and the battle is engaged.
Jonathan’s piece opposing John Edwards’ prosecution has stirred a real debate at The Recovering Politician. Tomorrow, you will hear from a few more contributing RPs, including a former federal prosecutor and a former federal prisoner. (Hmmm… I wonder who that is?)
In addition, our own RP staffer, Kristen Hamilton, debuts her first full essay on her pet passion — the politics of fashion. Read how Michelle Obama makes the careful balance between political leader and fashion icon.
By Robert Kahne, RP Staff, on Mon Jun 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM ET
The Politics of Film
I love Quintin Tarantino. If you like movies, you probably do too. His last film, Inglourious Basterds, was the first film in which Michael Fassbender really shined. Fassbender is in the new X-Men film out now, and is fantastic in the film. Rumor has it that he will join up with Tarantino again in Tarantino’s next picture: Django Unchained. Color me excited. [The Movie Blog]
The blog Film Junk has a nice rundown of the box office from last weekend with a few interesting insights: The Hangover: Part II, dropped off more than 60% in the second weekend, and X-Men: Origins grossed less than any of the previous four X-Men films on its opening weekend (after inflation is taken into account). What does all this mean? [Film Junk]
Here is an interesting article from The Guardian about documentary film making. With fewer and fewer people going out to see documentaries, it is harder and harder to profit from making these important works. Read this to see how film makers are coping with this new reality. [The Guardian]
Don’t text in the movies. It’s super distracting to see a bright screen in the corner of one’s eye while trying to watch a film. The Austin theater Alamo Drafthouse has a simple rule: if you text in the theater, they kick you out. This happened to somebody, and they got upset, and left a voice mail. The Alamo Drafthouse is now running that voice mail as a PSA before their R-Rated films. Be careful if you watch the video, though, its certainly R-Rated. [/Film]
Blog this!
