Bad Form

Last night, watching "Countdown" on MSNBC and then "The Rachel Maddow Show", I was regaled with information I didn't want to hear about Governor Sanford and his mistress. Keith Olbermann read the content of personal emails from Sanford and the enigmatic "Maria" with soft music playing in the background. It sounded like someone reading a poorly written romance novel. It made me want to leave the room which is what I eventually did.

I really object to this type of "reporting". I usually am a big fan of Olbermann and Maddow, believing that they often provide a view of what's going on in the world that I subscribe to. They question all parties and people when things don't make sense, and in general (although you have to dump most of Keith's rants against Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush), are fair in their commentary and criticism.

Last night however, both of them went beyond what I consider to be responsible journalism. It moved into "People Magazine and Page Six" gossip nonsense. This kind of stuff from supposedly sober professionals makes my head hurt.

I think it is absolutely none of our business what the governor says to his girlfriend. That's between him, his girlfriend and his wife. Unless the guy is selling state secrets or doing something illegal, it needs to be left alone. I believe we have an inherent right to privacy within our country. Even celebrities should be entitled to privacy. Sanford is a hard right conservative governor who i absolutely disagree with in almost every policy position, but this is bull-shit. You, me and anyone else wouldn't want personal message between someone we care about published across TV or the newspapers.

Keith, Rachel, Bad Form! Pretty ashamed of you both for stepping into Matt Drudge territory

sigh,

tell me what you think of this nonsense,


regards,
Dennis

Torture

A recent interview done with former Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales brought forth some interesting details about the debate of the use of torture during the Bush Administration.

As reported by the New York Times, both Ashcroft and Gonzales danced around whether or not the enhanced interrogation technique called Water boarding was torture and in-fact illegal. Quoted Gonzales: "I think that the U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No. Were the interrogations harsh? Yes. Did they save lives? Absolutely."

Ashcroft followed with a somewhat vacillating defense by saying: "the word water boarding can be defined in a lot of ways." He added that "I don't think they got it wrong. It's different now ... Because the law has been changed."

This is one instance of many regarding torture that has been discussed for years and years now, both in the context of political campaigns and in the colder more analytical legal discussions that have occurred.

So what are the real answers? Is Water boarding torture? Does the United States torture (both officially and unofficially)? Well, the best I can find out is this: It depends on who you are asking.

According to former President Bush and current President Obama, the United States does NOT torture. According to some members of congress we do. According some of the usual talking head commentariat we do and it's wrong, dead wrong. Conveniently, some of the usual talking head commentariat acknowledge that we do and it's justified and correct to do if we save lives.

Acknowledged legal minds such as law professor Alan Dershowitz has gone so far to justify torture in certain circumstances. While other just as laudable as Constitutional law professor Johnathan Turley have said exactly the opposite.

To be sure, this point has been argued for hundreds if not thousands of years. Some practitioners of torture believe it yields valuable information that could save lives, while others who have practiced torture have come away denying it's value.

Two people we wouldn't necessarily put in the same room with regard to ideas about democracy and justice come together basically with the same conclusion:

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte - ruler of France from 1804-1815 wrote to Major-General Berthier in 1798 that "the barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity."

General George Washington, commander of US Continental Army and 1st President of the United States of America - “Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Many subsequent American leaders, whether presidents or generals have had the same view. The following excerpt from the great blog "CommonDreams.org" shows just a few of our leaders and their decisions with respect to treatment of prisoners and torture.

President Abraham Lincoln instituted the first formal code of conduct for the humane treatment of prisoners of war in 1863. Lincoln's order forbade any form of torture or cruelty, and it became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention. Dwight Eisenhower made a point to guarantee exemplary treatment to German POWs in World War II, and Gen. Douglas McArthur ordered application of the Geneva Convention during the Korean War, even though the U.S. was not yet a signatory. In the Vietnam War, the United States extended the convention's protection to Viet Cong prisoners even though the law did not technically require it.

So, it's a conflicted question in that we have an emotional desire to protect ourselves and our kids. Who wouldn't want to be able to use every means necessary if we knew it would protect our families? If one of my children had been kidnapped by say some gang-bangers or drug dealers or anyone for that matter and I had one of their members or friend in custody and they knew where my child was would personally torture them until they told me. I would do it. I would cut off every one of their fingers until I found out where my kid was. I think most people feel that way. However, even by doing this, it still doesn't guarantee my child will be safe. I might find them only to discover they were already dead. And that, I think is the rub. The torture provides me with no real guarantee of my end-stated desire: The protection of my children.

If we go beyond the personal and think about it from the state's perspective, we can apply those same emotional feelings towards trying to protect against another 9/11 or a sub-way bombing in Madrid or London. However, the same result occurs. We have no guarantees as to a positive result. In fact, many learned scholars of this that say exactly otherwise. As described in this excellent piece from the VetVoice that torture is "sub-optimal" and doesn't yield the results. Here's an excerpt from Major Matthew's article:

"Torture or inhumane treatment, even in isolated cases, such as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, is not worth the price. The integrity of our country is more important than any singular terrorist attack, even if it costs American lives. We must come to understand that the measure of our country is not in lives or resources, it is in the validity of our ideas of liberty and justice. We cannot sacrifice those values, even to stop a terrorist attack because if we do, then we allow the Islamic extremists to achieve one of their major goals - to defeat the idea of freedom. Yes, I said the idea, because that's what's important. "

So, scholars, practitioners, politicians, the general public all have a diverse opinion about whether torture is useful or legal.

In my opinion, torture is simply torture. As long as there are other avenues to achieve the same result, this is a method that is repugnant to our ideals and dangerous in the long-run in that it brings more people to the cause we are fighting than to our side.

The legality of torture in my opinion is not questioned. No, I'm not talking about the Geneva Convention treaties that we signed and that have the force of law. Don't believe me? Well, just see how many trips outside this country the former members of the Bush Administration take in the future. No, I'm talking about United States Law. US Code: Title 18 section 2340 expressly defines and prohibits the use of torture by anyone in the United States or by anyone from the United States using these acts in other jurisdictions. Here is the entire citation:

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2340
Title 18 U.S. Code Document Library Legal Dictionary Legal News FindLaw Guide LawCrawler Web US Gov Sites Mailing List Archives Sup Court 1893+ US Fed Circuits US Constitution
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04 Section 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and
(3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction
of the United States including any of the places described in
sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

Section 2340A. Torture (a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Section 2340B. Exclusive remedies Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the
application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall
anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive
or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil
proceeding.

The link for the citation above is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html

There it is: torture is against the law. We practiced torture as officially sanctioned techniques during the Bush Administration's tenure and perhaps we did so in other, previous administrations. More disconcertingly, we may still be doing it.

So now, the question brothers and sisters is what do we do about it? I think we Stop it. Investigate it. Prosecute it. And I'm not talking about sending some private from a prisoner camp to jail. I'm talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and any Democrat who sanctioned this use. I think it is the only way to close this ugly chapter of our history and start down the path to redemption. If this was too repugnant for Washington and Lincoln, why is it o.k. for us?

Tell me what you think,

Dennis

Progress Report? C+

OK, so it's been a while since I've posted. Sorry about that, work's been a bit hectic with all the f'ng economic catastrophe going on and all.

Back in the posting saddle anyway. Well. It's day 100 or so if my counting is correct of the Obama administration and how's he doing? I think it is a decidedly mixed progress report. Several things have been accomplished that I am very pleased with. I appreciate the immediate executive directive banning the use of torture. I applaud the decision to close Gitmo. I am very happy to see the President stay focused and on point with the majority of his campaign promises. So, why not an A+ you say?

So here's the punch-line. I'm extremely pissed at the administration on their lack of transparency regarding the financial bail-outs. I'm pretty damn certain that Larry Summers, an acolyte of Robert Rubin was one of the schmuck's who got us into this economic tsunami, so what the hell is he doing try to get us out? Not going public with the results of the financial stress tests on the banks bothers me as well. Suffice to say in this brief post that Secretary Geitner, Mr. Summers and the rest of the team working the bank rescue don't inspire a great deal of confidence. Mr. President, what's your measure of success here? When will it be time to replace these guys? Stay focused on this please and don't let it drag on too long.

The other thing that upsets me is the waffling on the investigation and prosecution of the policy makers who authorized the use of torture. During the time since my last post, de-classified memos from Bush Administration lawyers (John Yoo, Jay Bibey, others) have come out describing in a detailed manner what was allowed and what wasn't. This information as well as the acknowledgement that Water boarding was used against two prisoners, Khalid Sheik Mohammad, and Abu Zabaida 183 and 83 times respectively. Now, Michael Hayden, former CIA chief indicates these methods yielded high value information regarding plots against the United States, therefore were worthwhile. Republican talking heads Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of their ilk (not to mention the former Vice President, Darth Cheney), are bleating that we can't publish the information or those naughty terrorists will know what we are doing. Please. What really burns me though is the administrations position that they won't prosecute the people who performed the torture nor the policy makers who told them to do so. The Obama Administration has repeatedly said they want to look forward. What are we to make of this? I don't know, but am sorely disappointed.

I hope the President reverses himself on this position. Upholding the rule of law is one of the things that has been a bedrock principle in this country since its founding. Torture is against the law. So much so that we have prosecuted people in the past for doing exactly what we have been doing. We need to stay true to the principle that we are better than that.

There needs to be accountability and this involves yes, looking backward. "Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes" We have an opportunity now to say to ourselves and the rest of the world the US is better than that. We can say, "We will clean our own house. We don't stand for our elected officials to break the law with impunity."

To do otherwise dishonors those kids (more than 4 thousand) and adults who put on the uniform and died attempting to take our principles to Iraq.

So, Mr. President, you get a C+ from me right now. We will continue to monitor your progress, but we may need to have some counseling sessions if things don't improve.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

A Brand New Day

At 12:00 Eastern Time today, a remarkable event in the history of this nation will occur. The inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as our 44th president brings forward a new chapter in our story. Born of mixed race, father Kenyan, mother a white American, Obama is our first "post-baby boomer" man elected to our highest office.

Obama, to me, is the American Dream realized. Born of fairly humble beginnings, with no political heritage or enormous wealth to leverage. The president-elect came to his new job in the "old fashioned way. He earned it."

God speed Mr. Obama. May the wind always be at your back.

2008 - Good Riddance

As we say goodbye to what I consider a pretty crappy year, I just want to add, Good Riddance!

Man, what a ridiculous year. I won't belabor the nonsense that we had to endure. You were there, you saw it for yourself. Personally, there is a single malt scotch with my name on it for tonight. I plan on erasing much of 2008 with my favorite medicine, an 18 year old Macallan.

Let's all hope, plan, and work for a better 2009.

Happy New Year to all.

Dennis

Peace On Earth

The continued strife in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians seems oh so natural. It's hard to remember a time where there wasn't violence between the two peoples. Regardless of where you come down on the Israeli-Palestine issue, it is clear that the violence will continue until people in both camps demand a cessation of violence. Until that happens, until someone says "I don't care who started it, I don't care who is to blame, I just want it to stop", we'll see this tragedy play out again and again and again. Seems that if God truly exists, and really gives a damn about humanity, he would intervene. I thought the following lyrics of a U2 song were relevant during this holiday season. I hope all of you can find some peace.

Peace on Earth

Heaven on Earth, we need it now
I’m sick of all this hanging around
Sick of sorrow, sick of pain
I’m sick of hearing again and again
That there’s gonna be peace on earth

Where I grew up, there weren’t many trees
Where there was, we’d tear them down
And use them on our enemies
They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you

And you become the monster
So the monster will not break you
And it’s already gone too far
You said that if you go in hard
You won’t get hurt

Jesus, can you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line?
Peace on earth
Tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on earth

No who’s or why’s
No cries like a mother’s cries
Fore peace on earth
She never got to say goodbye
To see the color in his eyes
Now he’s in the dirt, peace on earth

The reading names out over the radio
All the folks, the rest of us
Won’t get to know
Sean and Julia, Gareth, Ann and Breda
Their lives are bigger than any big idea

Jesus, can you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line?
Peace on earth
Tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on earth
Jesus and the song you wrote
The words are stickin’ in my throat
Peace on earth
Hear it every Christmas time
But hope and history won’t rhyme
So what’s it worth, this peace on earth

Peace on earth
Peace on earth
Peace on earth

It's from the album "All That You Can't Leave Behind". Terrific music, thoughtful lyrics. Check it out.

Tell me what you think

Regards
Dennis

Without a Doubt

I am always amused when people voice an opinion that they are absolutely certain about but have no factual basis for their belief. This usually comes up in religion, but is also so prevalent in politics. Of course, there is little distinction in my mind between the methodologies that the political and religious arenas employ. They both want you to "trust" or "believe" that their way is the best and proper and only way.

This morning while reading my newspapers and blogs, I read several articles and posts regarding President Elect Obama's decision to have Pastor Rick Warren lead his inaugural day invocation. Of course, this has upset many people who view Pastor Warren as a bigot towards gays. While Mr. Obama has remained fairly silent on the matter, Pastor Warren has not. He is not, as one of his defender's mentions in this post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-leo/rick-warren-and-gays_b_152166.html , a "hater" of gays and believes they shouldn't have equal rights. Mr. Warren is parsing his words and is according to the article referenced above, in favor of equal rights (e.g. domestic partnership or civil unions, take your pick), for gays. He is not in favor of "forcing" a re-definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

OK, take that for what ever you think it is worth. Is Warren homophobic? I think probably not. Is he holding to a deeply held view by religious people that homosexuality is a choice, and is therefore something that can be controlled? Yes. Like many other ministers, Pastor Warren believes in the notion that being gay is sinful. His entire ethos is constructed around dogma found in the Christian Bible that describes what is sinful and what isn't. So, it is fairly obvious which side he'll come down on. Does this make him an odious person that should be ridiculed, castigated, condemned as a bigot? Well, you be the judge. I personally don't think so.

Perhaps Mr. Obama has made a mistake. Perhaps he hasn't. Perhaps this was an intentional choice designed to portray the President Elect as a "big-tent" guy, someone open to all Americans, and yes, even to bigoted ones. The pastor leading the benediction for the inaugural is Reverend Joseph Lowery, a well known progressive and civil rights advocate. The following post describes the Obama team's talking points on the matter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.html.

Regardless of what you think if the inaugural invocation dust-up, the point of this post is certainty without proof. I wanted to make the point above as an illustration that one person's certainty that the "gay" is a choice and a sin is without factual basis.

The meat of the discussion topic centers around religion. Last night my daughter and I attended a Christmas Pageant at my mother's church. The title of the pageant was "An Old Fashioned Christmas", and the theme was taken from Laura Ingall's "Little House on the Prairie" stories. The setting was the late 1880's, and the point of the story was that we have somehow lost the true meaning of Christmas. The pageant was good, the music, fine, the costumes great (made by hand by my 82 year old mom (shout out). However, as usual, after the carols were sung, the pastor had to get up and exhort everyone to come to Christ. I know, I know, this is the price of admission to most any evangelical church. But while I was sitting there listening to the good reverend do his dead-level best to save our heathen souls, I started thinking about how certain he was in his message. No doubt there buddy. Without any hesitation, the good reverend quoted scripture indicating that if we just believed in the lord and committed to him, we'd gain internal life.

How does the good reverend know this? Well, the Bible tells him so. Just like the old children's tune "Jesus Loves Me", this minister is dead certain that because he is "saved", the instant he dies he'll be in heaven with Jesus.

Now, no one has ever experienced heaven and knows what it is like. We have the story from the Bible that Jesus told his flock that "in my father's house there are many mansions...". Other sections describe streets paved with gold, no suffering or sadness, a place full of rejoicing. Of course, the good pastor was also certainly of the yang to Heaven's yin: Hell. He was sorrowful for those of us who hadn't found salvation yet, because just as certain as Heaven for those who have accepted Jesus, so was eternal sorrow and misery guaranteed for those of us who had not become disciples of the Carpenter from Nazareth.

Certainty. Absolute, rock-solid, doubt free knowledge. This is what the pastor had coursing through his veins. All of it based on a collection of books, allegories, fables, wisdom, law, history, and opinion known as the Bible. None of it factually proven.

Of course, right now in Tel Aviv there is a rabbi in Hebrew School teaching the Torah to his students with absolute certainty that the law, the history, the actions and the declaration that the messiah has not yet arrived is absolute certainty.

At the same time, there is an imam in Tehran or in Jeddah teaching his students that the prophet Mohammad is the true messenger from God and that Jesus, while a great prophet was not God's son. He will say this with absolute certainty because the Koran teaches his this.

There are approximately 4200 discrete "religions" in the world today according to this site: http://www.theologicalstudies.org/classicalreligionlist.html. While some of them are organized around a similar god-head or deity (e.g. The Abrahammic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam), many others are totally different, and in most ever case, they are certain of their dogma and belief systems.

John Adams once said: "Facts are stubborn things". His point was that while someone may hold an opinion, a belief or a point-of-view, facts usually refuse to conform to those things and remain what they are. So, it is interesting that there can be such certainty with so little fact.

I wonder, in this season we are spending celebrating the birth of the a messiah to some, a prophet to others and a myth to others, if we can't just all take a breath, step back and think about the notion that the things we are some times so certain about are those that we should always take with a grain of salt. Especially if those beliefs can harm others.

The idea that a child was born to show humanity a way to peace and love has always been attractive to me. Did it really happen? I hope so. I'm not certain though. You won't convince me that it was a fact.

What I do know (Without a Doubt) is that I wish all of you peace, happiness and good health for this season and the coming new year.

Pace,


Dennis

What Will George's Legacy Be?

It's fairly certain that George W. Bush will not be held in high regard by historians or the general public for some time to come. Mr. Bush's legacy will be tarnished by many things, but none more significant than the financial crisis we are currently experiencing. The irony in this is that it is probably one of the many problems experienced in the course of his presidency that he had the least to do with causing.

There are many causes and drivers of the economic situation that we are in. Some are cyclical, some are made by poor policy decisions. Suffice to say, the era of Reagan era Laissez Faire economics is over. When I hear conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley call for immediate and extensive stimulus spending (read: Deficit Spending) by the government to get the economy going, I think "we aren't in Kansas anymore Toto".

Anyway, I digress. This post is about George's legacy. Like an old Polaroid photograph, time will fade the clarity of just how damaging the Bush Presidency has been. I suspect several authors, both insiders in the Bush White House as well as the usual punditry will attempt to capitalize on the foibles of the Bush years with books out as soon as possible. However, like most political tomes, these will find their way to the remainder table at Barnes and Noble fairly soon. Time will cause a blurring of the egregious sins Messrs Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. have committed against you, me and the rest of the world.

Barack Obama will have an influence on the Bush Legacy. Should he decide to support the pursuit of congressional inquiry into things like the Attorney General firings, he could place the Office of the Presidency in the middle of (now, take your side here) "trashing George Bush", or if you think like me, "Shining the Light on the Darkness that was the George Bush presidency".

Did George Bush do only terrible things as president? Was he just Emperor Palpatine in a Brooks Brothers suit? Is he really that evil? No. He's not. Dick Cheney is. Sorry, a little humor there. George did do some good. His efforts on increasing funding to combat AIDs in Africa is laudable. He should be commended for this. Africa is often the forgotten continent (continent Sarah!). It is per capita the poorest and most tragic place in the world. It is also likely where humanity got it's foothold. It is our birthplace. President Bush gets little to no political capital for saving hundreds of thousands of poor Africans dying from a terrible, devastating disease. He did this because his faith, his principles (however fucked up they may be on other things) drove him to it. I sincerely appreciate his efforts here.

However, that's the only thing I can see that is worth mentioning on the plus-side of the ledger. There are too many things in the negative side that I can't get away from my contention that he is literally the worst president we have ever had.

I know I'm biased. I couldn't stand the guy when he was governor of Texas. But that's just me. I would really like to hear from my readers (all 5 of them) about what they think the legacy of George Walker Bush might be.

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

Transition

I've been thinking a lot about transition lately. Transition in it's simplest description is the hand-over of responsibility from one person or group to another. My business (IT Services) does this all the time. We transition responsibility for information technology management and services from one company to another. There are rules associated with transitions. In my business, we have agreements, contractually specified levels of service that must be adhered to for the client even during the transition period. Service is not to be disrupted because of the change.

Watching what is happening in Washington as we transition the responsibility of the presidency from Mr. Bush to Mr. Obama has me wondering what rules or "Service Levels" must be adhered to during the transition.

Mr. Obama has said this many times. We only have one president at a time. George W. Bush is still the president until January 20th, 2009 at about 12:30 pm. At that time. Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in President-Elect Obama and he will be formally responsible for the office of the presidency.

Until then, President Bush is in charge. Since the election however, we have seen significantly more of President-Elect Obama than President Bush. The President has surfaced occasionally to discuss among other things the financial crisis, but on the whole, he has been conspicuously absent from the national scene.

I'm concerned about this. When we see an incumbent president retreat into the confines of the Oval Office with little information regarding significant national issues coming forth, it makes one wonder if there is really anyone doing anything. It is expected that the outgoing president won't launch a major policy initiative after the election, but it is also expected that he will focus on more than who to pardon. I expect my president to be on the job until the appointed hour and day in January, then certainly we can say Bon Voyage. However, right now, there are serious problems that need his attention. I would like to see more coming from the office on the financial crisis, on the Indian terror attacks, on just about anything that concerns us. What we are getting is the Bush Legacy project; a series of interviews, public appearances, attempts at re-writing history now so Bush isn't seen as poorly as people now see him.

One thing he could do that would be redemptive: Instead of excusing his behavior regarding Iraq, the lack of focus on the financial markets, the horrible situation we have with respect to our health care system, the inglorious way we managed the Katrina crisis; he could apologize. Think of how this would sound: "I'm responsible. The buck stopped with me and I didn't make it work. I sincerely apologize for the failures of my administration. I was wrong to go into Iraq. I should have been more mindful of corporations run amok. I should have done a better job on health care. I will work with President - Elect Obama over the next month to insure the transition works as well as possible, and then I, as a private citizen will be at his disposal to work on any project he needs my assistance. I am after all an American. I love my country. My way didn't work like had hoped. I look forward to helping my President be successful. Again, to the country and indeed the world. I apologize."

One would only hope to hear something said sincerely. It would set the stage for the healing and redemption that is needed inside this country and to the rest of the world.

That would be a transition speech for the history books.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Well Done

A remarkable event occurred this past week. A man of (at least half) African American heritage was elected President of the United States. I'm turning 50 in the next year and it's safe to say this is the second most significant (positive) event outside my marriage and children in my lifetime. The first was the Apollo Moon landing in 1969.

The reason this is so significant to me is that I have seen first hand from family to friends, to the general public, the rampant racism that existed in the area I grew up. It was inconceivable to me 20 years ago that this would happen. I would have bet someone of Asian descent would have been elected before a black man. Thank God I was wrong.

Barack Obama is not a super human. On the contrary, he is a very ordinary person. He, like many of the people in this country worked to achieve his success. He wasn't the scion of a political family like the Kennedys or the Bushes. He wasn't a bazillionaire like Warren Buffet or Mike Bloomberg. He's a pretty ordinary guy. Except that he's a pretty extraordinary guy as well. Everyone not living under a rock the last 2 years knows his story of being of modest means growing up with a single mom and being raised by his grandparents. Sidebar: Mr. President - elect, my sincere condolences on the loss of your grandmother. I'm very sorry she didn't get to witness your success.

Mr. Obama blew past conventional wisdom and prejudice with his victory. Not only is he black, he's a first term senator with little Washington experience. Does he have the judgement, intelligence, coolness under fire and the heart to lead? I think so. I hope so. Time will tell. It will be very important that Mr. Obama's first term starts off better than Bill Clinton's. The "Man from Hope" started off badly, and lost the congress as a result. Clinton eventually found his sea-legs and was able to achieve a second term and overall a good presidency, but it was a rocky start. Obama will not have the chance to "take his time". This is not the 1990's. We have a serious economic crisis already with us. We are fighting two wars. We have a country that has been led by an administration singularly focused on the betterment of a small sub-set of the populace to the detriment of the larger portion of the country.

Mr. Obama is young, energetic, passionate and smart. He will need all of these qualities plus the added benefit of surrounding himself with the best and brightest. It's time for the competent and the intelligent to come to Washington and help. Not just the most loyal. Loyalty is a wonderful trait, and Mr. Bush demanded this above all else. Mr. Obama must take a different path. He must build his team with differing opinions but respect for the fact that the new president is the "decider". I believe Mr. Obama is comfortable enough in his own skin that he can have his advisers disagree with him without being considered disloyal.

Mr. Obama really has nothing to prove except that he will keep his promises to the people of this country. He has already achieved success that truth be told, he probably never expected.

Well done Mr. President-elect.

What's Going to Happen?

So. The debates are over. All the new tag lines, new people (Welcome to the party, Joe The Plumber) new allegations (ACORN) and new threats such as the recent wave of RoboCalls from the McCain camp indicating that Obama "worked closely with Bill Ayers whose organization bombed and killed Americans".

It's pretty sad really. The last 4 weeks of the campaign and it has sunk down into the gutter yet again. Despite all the promises from McCain and Obama to run a respectful campaign, both sides of the contest have thrown out much less than respectful adds. Obama accuses McCain of being erratic, losing his bearings and many other age based innuendo. One of Obama's supporters, John L Lewis, a congressman and former hero of the Civil Rights movement, loosely compared the crowds at the Palin and McCain rallies as echoing the past days of the early 1960's and the Civil Rights issues at play during that time. He even mentioned George Wallace. Bad form Congressman. You didn't need to do that.

McCain and Palin are almost laughable in their attacks on Obama. First, they've tried attaching him to terror. His name is weird right? He is not well known. "Who is Barack Obama?" After attempting to tie him to Osama Bin Laden, which hasn't worked for anyone with an IQ above Forrest Gump's, they brought up Bill Ayers. If you don't know who Bill Ayers is, look him up on Wikipedia. I'm tired of explaining this guy. Anyway, that hasn't really worked, so now McCain is attempting to convince everyone that Obama is going to take your money and "re-distribute the wealth".

Oh no! Redistribute the wealth! How awful! How terrifying! How ridiculous. The basis of this country and society is the fact that we are all Americans and support each other. How do we do this? Well, we tax income. That's how. Like roads? Like the Fire Department? Like the Police Department? Like Schools for our kids? Well, these are funded by gasp! Redistributing wealth. We tax, then fund. Why? It's the most efficient way of doing it.

So, that old saw doesn't work, especially coming from a party and a man who have supported the most profligate spending in history. It's a shallow argument that McCain is a reformer when he has supported every dollar of funding that has gone into Iraq. Please don't give me the bullshit that if you reduce funding for the war you put our soldiers in danger. Utter nonsense. A significant amount of money goes to private contractors in Iraq, whether they are security companies such as Blackwater, Dyncorp or Services companies like Kellogg Brown Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney's old stomping ground: Halliburton.

Well, this post is titled What's Going to Happen? Well, I think Barack is going to win. I won't guarantee it. I'm not Joe Namath. I do think the country is ready for trying something new. As I'm typing this my favorite curmudgeon on the right, Pat Buchanan is warning about the massive swing to the Liberal Left when Barack gets elected. Pat's great, even if he's completely out of his mind. I don't think we'll see the Marxist approach all the conservative citizens of Crazy Town say we will, but there you go. That's our country. Let's not find common ground, let's swing from one side to another. Sheesh.

Tell me what you think,

Dennis

The Palin Effect

Ok, Sarah Palin has now been the nominee for Vice-President of the Republican part for almost a month. After the initial excitement of about the “pit-bull” with lipstick, as Ms. Palin described herself, the sea of republican talking heads attempting to justify her selection as a brilliant move has dwindled considerably. Ms. Plain is quickly becoming an albatross around John McCain and indeed the Republican party overall.

Consider this. How can anyone seriously consider this woman as being ready to be president of the US? Oh, Ms. Palin’s supporters will say that she’s running for Vice President. I’m sorry, but she isn’t. Anyone considered as a nominee for VP is actually running as the President in waiting, an understudy if you will. Implied in their nomination is the capability of assuming the presidency on a moment’s notice and being able to keep the country moving. Ms. Palin is woefully unqualified to be president of the United States.

Ms. Palin may be a genuinely nice person, although news reports coming out of Anchorage are trending to the contrary. She may be a quick-study as many of her proponents claim. She may be smart, committed, idealistic and loyal to the Republican Party and to John McCain. The one thing she is not is ready.

The effect of the Palin candidacy is twofold. First, it has caused a retrenchment of the McCain candidacy to put the old warhorse out front and on the attack against Obama’s relative inexperience. I believe whoever convinced McCain to put her on the ticket did so by telling John that she would be the catalyst that would bring out the base, excite the women and get some of the youth movement headed her way. After all, who doesn’t like a somewhat hot, moose-hunting, former beauty queen who, by the way knocks out all this government all the while taking’ care of all them babies? I believe the thought she would be a knockout on the stump, wowing the crowd with her pugilistic vocals against all the sins and nastiness in Washington. Oops. Then comes Charlie Gibson, who asked her a dirty no-good trick question. “What do you think of the Bush Doctrine”? Charlie, you sexist, liberal-loving bastard, how dare you be so mean to Sarah. Then came that hard-hitting, no-holds barred bastion of political objectivity Sean Hannity, who asked her “What’s it like being a mother and a governor all at the same time”? Wow, there’s one that will let you know how she’ll deal with Bin Laden. Finally, the real low down occurs. Katie Couric. What a set-up, those liberal commie pinko news-media types sent a woman out to ask hateful questions like “Can you name one instance when John McCain wanted tougher regulations”? She couldn’t but promised to do some research and get back to Katie real soon.

The second part of the Palin effect is the distancing from the traditional supporters of the conservative and Republican causes. George Will, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Chuck Hagel, Laura Bush, have all commented on her lack of readiness to be president in one way or another. Will is the most vocal, with his column and commentary lamenting both the choice of Ms. Palin, her incredibly lack of readiness and John McCain’s withering campaign. As we see more and more of the Republican moderates pull away from Palin – McCain, will we see more of the residents of Crazy Town USA (Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc. etc) start to come into the McCain fold with both advice and money? If James Dobson starts showing up at McCain rallies, be very worried folks.

The Palin Effect has screwed up the horizon and the gyroscope is completely out of whack. Up is down and down is up. The woman has actually used the term “Palin – McCain” administration in her speeches. It’s like she’s running for president and he’s not doing much to beg to differ other than having her start practicing Cheney’s gambit of “working from an undisclosed location”. She’s an embarrassment that will likely not last until the election and we may see her step down for health or family reasons.

So the “Straight Talk Express fighter plane” is going into the mountain. The question is, will McCain eject (he’s had experience with this before) before it crashes, or will he ride it down with Sarah McBush in a blaze of Glory?

Where is the John McCain of 2000?

Hope versus Experience. Change versus Maverick. Brash, charismatic, inspiring young pol versus the war hero. Historic election. Two people who couldn't be farther apart vying for the top-spot. What does it say about our country? What does their selection for Vice President say about them?

Last night, John Sydney McCain III, scion of the McCain naval family, long-time Senator from Arizona, and self-proclaimed "Maverick" politician, accepted the nomination of the Republican party for the Presidency of the United States of America. This has been a long journey for Senator McCain. He ran for president in 2000 and was ultimately defeated by George W. Bush for the nomination. The candidate of 2000 was markedly different than the candidate who claimed the nomination last night. In many respects, the current version of John McCain fits the recent mode of the Republican party. He is avidly pro-life, pro free market, in favor of lowering taxes and of course, a staunchly pro-military candidate. His bonafides are without repute. Everyone knows his story of his time as a Prisoner of War in the Hanoi Hilton. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention. I'll make it easy for you. Click HERE.

The problem with recent candidate McCain is that he is a significant different candidate than the one who ran in 2000. That candidate was fiercely independent. He challenged Republican orthodoxy in several areas such as immigration, the fealty given to the religious right, the wastefulness of the republican politicians as well as the democrats. He was a darling of the media, and they couldn't get enough of the "Straight Talk Express".

Something happened between 2000 and 2008. No, it wasn't 9/11, although many people would like to think so. What happened in my opinion in the interval between the Straight Talk Express and the "Say Anything to Get Elected Express" of 2008 was that McCain sat by and watched as George W. Bush ran his country into the toilet. I'm convinced that the switch flipped in his head and told him, "Do whatever it takes, say whatever you have to, do anything you must, just don't let another moron like this become the republican candidate for president".

I think John McCain truly loves his country. His speech last night was a strong reminder of how tragedy can change some one's perspective. It certainly did with him. The McCain prior to the stint in the Hanoi prison was a ne'er-do-well playboy from a well-heeled military family who's granddad and father were both flag admirals. McCain had a reputation as someone who didn't work very hard, played much harder, and basically was sliding by. Oh, he was brave. He was and probably still is a very courageous man. Don't think so? Just look up the story about the fire on the USS Forrestal, where McCain risked his life to pull comrades to safety.

His refusal to take special treatment after the Viet Cong found out about his dad was was the commander of the Pacific fleet is another example of courage under-fire. All in all, quite a heroic example for our soldiers.

However, John McCain of 2008 has turned his back on those times. Oh yes, he'll use them to remind you why you should vote for him. He'll show flashes of this when lobbying against some popular opinion (e.g. anti-immigration). But for the most part, he's simply an old politician now, trying desperately to win the job that he feels he was bypassed for a petulant, frat-boy whose daddy kept him out of the war that forged McCain's storied past. I can't imagine how much resentment McCain has for Bush. Not only did he lose the presidency to him, but he has had to watch as Bush's complete disdain for the government, the Constitution and rule of law have damaged our country beyond measure. How much better it would have been had a democrat been in office. McCain certainly would have been more vocal about the path that we have taken. With Bush, he had to hold his tongue. Oh, he yelped when Bush and Cheney were advocating torture as policy, and even put a bill forward that banned the use of torture. He rolled over on this however, likely due to some notion that Bush would be there for him when his time rolled around.

He's also come full circle with the lunatic fringe of the Republican party: The Evangelicals. Formerly the "agents of intolerance", McCain has reached out to John Hagee, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and other religious leaders who have advocated all sorts of nonsense. All of this, including the recent selection of Sarah Palin as his candidate for Vice President and the subsequent sham of saying she was the best qualified candidate for the job shows how desperate McCain is to win. He knows, the independents can't carry the election for him. So, what does he do? He caters to Crazy Town USA. He goes after those who would continue to torture, deny a women the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy even in the event of risk of her life, those who would teach creationism as science, and those who believe that the state of Israel must be protected to fulfill biblical prophecy.

This image of McCain is a far, far cry from the man who endured unspeakable pain, misery, horror in that cell in Hanoi all those years ago. It is a shame.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

Youth and Experience vs Experience and Youth?

Ok, by now we know the line-up. It's brash, up and coming inspirational, agent of change Barack Obama and crusty, experienced, not afraid of a fight, knows more than you will ever know about foreign policy, been in the Senate since Lincoln was president Joe Biden versus Crusty and experienced, POW, cancer surviving, maverick, been alive since George Washington, flew jet planes in the War, not afraid of a fight and knows more than you will ever know about foreign policy John McCain along with brash, up and coming inspirational, moose hunting, snowmobile riding, 5 kid hatching, sportscaster and 1 term governor of Alaska Sarah Palin.

So, who has the edge here? What do you think of Obama's choice of Biden for VP? What do you think of McCain's choice of VP? Who made a better decision?

Now, who will win in November? Will it be because of the candidate's Vice Presidential election?

Tell me what you think. I really want to know.

regards,


Dennis

Why Are We Suprised With This Stuff?

John Edwards has joined the ranks of political candidates, officials, patrons and other famous people by committing adultery. Yawn and sigh. This information of course was brought to you in blazing headlines and full-front page color photos by none other than the National Enquirer, probably one of the few "newspapers" who still has a decent circulation.

Of course, initially Edwards danced around it and made vague denials and assertions that the rag was full of lies so he wouldn't comment on it. Then, he decided to "come clean" and admit to the affair. He held an interview with Bob Woodruff of ABC News where he explained his version of the events. Basically the affair started and ended in 2006. He told his wife about it. They've decided to move on. Should be the end of the story. Wrong.

How we love our sexual scandals and peccadilloes. How we love to shake our heads and cluck-cluck or tisk-tisk or whatever we do and say "what a sleaze!" How could he do this to poor Elizabeth? Does the man have no shame? Or, if you were in the Edwards camp, say "Why John? Why would you do such a thing? Say it isn't so!....

Alas, it is so. It is all too common place to see these types of admissions come to light. Of course what Edwards did was wrong. He admitted to Narcissism and Ego-Centric behavior. He is contrite and remorseful. He said his wife has forgiven him. However, what he did was also very stupid. Gone is any chance of an appointment to an Obama administration. Gone is his credibility and likely gone is his ability to continue to focus on his poverty program.

However, before all the right-wingers, TV Evangelists, News Pundits, Gossip Queens, Political Enemies decide to jump on the "Let's trash Edwards" bandwagon remember he was not the first to do this nor will he be the last. Whether it's a politician or a powerful businessman, or a powerful military leader, academician, reverend, or whomever, powerful positions attract egocentric and narcissistic people.

We know our political history is replete with sexual scandals in the White House and out. As far back as Thomas Jefferson, we've known that presidents and other politicians have mistresses and affairs. We can fast forward through the history of the United States focusing on the affairs of presidents and basically identify either a president or a senior political figure that is involved in an affair in about every other decade. Don't think so? Please just Google "Presidential Mistresses". One president, James Buchanan, likely our first gay president had such a cozy relationship with William R. King, that his political opponents called King Buchanan's "better half" or his wife.

In the 20th century presidential affairs and sexual scandals are well known. Warren G. Harding had Nan Britton, FDR had Lucy Mercer, Dwight David Eisenhower had Kay Summersby (although while he was head of the Army in WWII), JFK had just about every woman that could breathe, LBJ had Alice Glass, Gary Hart had Donna Rice, Bill Clinton had Gennifer Flowers and Monica, Newt Gingrich fooled around on his wives, John McCain fooled around on his first wife, Larry Craig, David Vitter, on and on and on and on.

So I'll ask. Why are we suprised at this. The country at large acts like Claude Rains does in the scene from Casa Blanca where as the Vichy Police Chief Louie, he closes down Rick's cafe because he's "Shocked! Shocked! to find gambling going on at the joint". Of course, this is said right before the croupier comes to Louie and hands him his winnings thereby immortalizing a terrific example of hypocrisy. We know politicians lie, cheat, steal, fornicate, etc. etc. etc. It's a given this will continue. What we should be doing is not paying attention to this as it is all deeply personal. Why do you want to hash over ground that has already been plowed over and over again by the politicians in the past. It's old news, it's sad news and it's not really news, at least not worth listening to.

Tell me what you think,

Regards

Dennis

Freddie and Fannie

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.” - Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln's message to Congress in 1862 was discussing the emancipation of slaves. It was a purely redemptive message in how to save the soul of the union. Obviously, the nation was already at war with itself, with the eventual loss of over half a million men under arms, and a country devastated both physically and emotionally.

However, Lincoln was prescient in his notion that we must think anew. The times called for sweeping change of perspective. Our time calls for thinking anew on many, many things. Our economy is perhaps the one area that is on most Americans minds at this time.

We have our own Stormy Present now. The various situations we are facing today are new for the most of us. The generation who lived through the Great Depression as children are passing on, and the lessons they learned seemed to have been lost on the rest of us.

We have an economic situation that is continuing to worsen. Last week, Wall Street displayed it's confidence in the economy by seeing the equity markets lose value yet again. The DOW Industrials dipped below 11,000 on Friday and then rallied somewhat to post just above the mark albeit with a 120 point drop for the day. While Wall Street is not the only indicator of economic fitness, it is the proverbial "canary in a coal mine". When the value of the markets continues to drop and trading sees more sellers than buyers, then there is obviously a problem.

The problem that caused the most recent drop in equity value was the revelation of troubles at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the largest holders of mortgage debt in the country. So why does Freddie and Fannie get the credit for the most recent dip in the market? NPR has a great piece explaining the matter. Here's an excerpt. Click the link above for the whole story.

Why are investors so worried now about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the largest buyers of home loans in the nation. They buy home loans from lenders, then hold them in their portfolios or repackage them into bonds — known as mortgage-backed securities — that are traded on Wall Street.

But the big thing they do is guarantee all the loans that they sell to investors. So if a homeowner defaults on a mortgage, Fannie and Freddie will step in and make good on the loan. Right now, they are guaranteeing trillions of dollars' worth of loans.

Of course, now homeowners are defaulting and being foreclosed on at alarming rates, so Fannie and Freddie are being forced to make good on those guarantees to investors. Already they've posted combined losses of $11 billion, and investors are worried there's much more to come.

Ok, everyone knows about the sub-prime mortgage mess. Now, the government is considering stepping in to bail-out Freddie and Fannie and guess who gets the bill? That's right, you and me. Additionally, Ben Bernanke has posited that the Fed needs more powers to regulate the economy. Now, here's where my head starts to spin. All the bloviating right-wing, free market disciples who lined up to support the appointment of Bernanke to Fed Chairman haven't made a peep about this. It should be considered heresy for a conservative to recommend more regulation of financial markets. (Oh, they don't mind doing it when it comes to social issues).

What's happening here is the core value of the big money players (Goldman, Lehman, etc. etc) is disappearing. The economy in this country has for years been propped up on two things: Housing and consumer activity. The more we bought, the more capital flowed. The more houses we build, the more mortgages were available for selling, then selling again, then bundling into bonds that could be sold yet again and backed by the security of the US Government. Well, guess what? We really don't know how to fix this except to let the matter run its course and bottom out. When will the housing market bottom out? No one really knows, but some say in the next 13-18 months. What does that say for the markets? Well, unless you like selling short, I'd recommend getting out of anything supporting mortgage backed securities.

The Stormy Present indeed.


Tell me what you think.
regards,
Dennis

Iraq to US: Yankee Go Home!

Last Night on MSNBC's Hardball, the opinion, quasi-news program hosted by Chris Matthews had representatives for Vets For Freedom and VoteVets.org on to discuss a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki that called for a withdrawal of US Troops from Iraq or at least a hard time-table for a withdrawal. The representative for Vets For Freedom considered this a "victory" for George Bush and John McCain and evidence that the surge worked. VoteVets.org representative John Soltz called it a victory for Obama in that the candidate had been saying that we should be withdrawing troops as soon as the Iraqis told us to do so.

Huh?

Ok, these guys (VFF and VV.org) are on either side of the political spectrum. One supports McCain and one supports Obama. Neither get the point. Iraq has said it's time to come home. The response from the Bush administration has been "not so fast". They've indicated that they'll come home when "conditions on the ground" warrant it.

Not congratulating the Iraqi's for stepping up and taking ownership of their future and saying we'll get started on the withdrawal plan is a mistake (yet another one) by the Bush Administration. Not only does it give the anti-Bush crowd the ammo to say we are definitely an occupier and not a liberator if we don't leave, it also gives the Obama candidacy a hammer to beat John McCain senseless with for the rest of the campaign. This is a gift for Obama. If he's smart, every day he'll get up and castigate Bush and then McCain for not embracing the Iraqi request and starting work on the "withdrawal" plan.

What is sad, is that this statement from the Iraqi's will be used more for political purpose than take it for what it really is: A call from a sovereign country for an occupying force to get the hell out of their country.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Stare Decisis

Stare Decisis - "to stand by things decided", or in other words. To base decisions on what has come before. Stare Decisis, two words that Chief Justice John Roberts repeated his reverence for over and over during his Senate Confirmation Hearings .

This week, Stare Decisis took a decided turn for the worse with the decision in The District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the handgun ownership restrictions in the District of Columbia unconstitutional and for probably the first time "affirmed" the right of citizens to purchase and possess handguns. The last Supreme Court Case that dealt with this matter up front was a 1939 case , United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, where the court decided that the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only.

Gun rights advocates achieved an astounding victory with this weeks decision. The vote as is common with this court was split along ideological lines coming up 5-4 with Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy in the Majority.

Gun ownership to me is not a problem. I don't agree with Scalia's majority opinion or the conclusion that we have an inherent right to bear arms, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I do care if someone is careless with them to the point their kids shoot themselves or someone else. But this isn't a post about personal responsibility or the right to bear arms. It's about the Supreme Court and the upcoming presidential election.

The decision makes clear that this court is fairly balanced with respect to how decisions are rendered. Often times, the results of a vote on a case come out 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy being the typical swing vote. In most of the major cases decided by the Roberts Court, 5-4 decisions seem to be the rule and not the exception.

OK, so what's the big deal? Well, if you are a conservative and like conservative judges who are "activist" judges, then not much. Don't believe all the BS about conservative judges being 'strict constructionists". They are only strict constructionists when they want to find against something they disagree with and claim that the constitution doesn't provide a right for whatever it is, whether it's privacy, civil rights, whatever. However, if you don't like "activist judges", and respect the notion of Stare Decisis, then this should bother you. But, we know that like most peoople judges most of the time vote their perspective and not for precedent unless it supports their opinion. Very few judges have the principled approach of respecting precedent if they disagree with the precedent. It's not unusual, it's human nature.

Anyway, if you are a liberal like me, you now know that the Roberts Court is and will be actively engaged for years to come. The Conservative wing of the party, particularly Roberts and Alito, are young and will likely be on the court for many years. John Paul Stevens is 88 years old, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in her late 70's, David Souter is becoming more disenchanted with the court and has made noises about retiring for some time. So, within this next presidency, there is an opportunity for 3 positions to open up on the court. That concerns me if John McCain is president. His commitment to appoint judges in the mode of Alito, Scalia and Roberts would guarantee a right wing ideology would permeate the court's decisions for many years to come.

If you are conservative then you welcome this. Roe v. Wade would likely be overturned on the first challenge presented to a new court with a 7-2 swing toward the right.

If you are a liberal, then you need to be like me and be very concerned and work very hard to get Barack Obama elected president.

Oh, and by the way, the notion of "Stare Decisis" having influence on the Roberts Court? I think it will only if it suits their purpose. Other wise, it's just a Latin phrase nobody knows much about.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

The "Media"

As probably anybody who follows politics knows, last Friday, Tim Russert, long-time host of the Sunday talk program "Meet The Press" died of a massive heart attack. Mr. Russert had been the host of the venerable program since 1991, and by all evidence coming in from friends, competitors and politicians who sat across the table from him on Sunday morning, he was a well regarded and well respected man.

His passing and the subsequent tributes from friend and foe alike got me thinking about our news media today. In my early years (1960's and 1970's), there were very few media people that were well know. The major networks each had their news bureaus. CBS had Cronkite, NBC had Huntley and Brinkley, ABC had Peter Jennings, Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner. Most of the local affiliates had popular anchors, but the point is there were very few. Newspapers provided the majority of opinion related content. Most editorials, either local in nature or syndicated columnists provided a perspective on events that were then "talked" about by family and friends.

Today, with the advent of the Internet and Cable and Satellite television, there is a never ending stream of content available. This is both good and bad in my estimation. It's good because opinion from every point of view is readily available. It's good because at the touch of a button, we can read, see and hear what others in the world think. It's good because it allows one greater opportunity for learning.

It's also a bad thing. The reason I say this is because people rarely talk about issues like they used to. I think the easy access and nature of the media today keeps people tuned in and out of touch with their relatives, neighbors, friends, etc. When I was a kid, our conservative commentator was the guy that lived across the street from us. He listened and read William Buckley and William Safire and then provided color commentary ala Rush Limbaugh. My Uncle was our Chris Matthews in that he liked to be bombastic and talk over every one to make his point. My point is, and perhaps its just nostalgia and the fact that our families are different today, that we don't spend much time with our own Sunday round tables. While Mr. Russert and his compadres on the Sunday morning circuit (My favorite is "This Week") will provide a high degree of quality information and multiple perspectives, it's not the same as arguing about a policy in Viet Nam with my Dad, or discussing a political campaign with my best friend.

Look, the media is a valuable thing depending upon how one uses it. I'm resolving to reboot my own internal "Meet the Press" with my family. So my kids need to look out: Next Sunday, at lunch, I'll honor Mr. Russert's opening line on Meet the Press and say :"Our Issues This Sunday are....."

RIP Mr. Russert

regards,

Dennis

Thank You Justice Kennedy

Ever so often, just when I feel like this country's government has spun completely out of control, something happens that restores my faith in our system. One such event happened yesterday with the Supreme Court ruling on a 5-4 majority that the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have an inherent constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.The ruling was 5-4, with the majority votes coming from Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer and Kennedy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority said the following: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the case known as Boumediene v. Bush. "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is,' " Kennedy added.

Indeed and well spoken Justice Kennedy. We are by establisment a nation governed by the rule of law. Even in extraordinary circumstances, which I submit we are not in, the rule of law should take precedence over any single individual's opinion, directive or policy.

The Bush administration expectedly indicated their dissapointment with the ruling with the president saying that "He would abide by the ruling even though he disagreed with it." He also stated that he may seek legislative remedy to the court's decision. Fine, so be it. Mr. President, you have seemingly forgot that you are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution. That is your sworn duty, pledged in front of the American people and to the God you so often invoke. You have for the sake of "security", whittled away at the constitutional checks and balances that men much smarter than you, me and many others carefully constructed to keep tyranny at bay. However, the administration's response is not surprising. This is after all an administration who's leader proclaimed the Constution as "Just a Goddamn piece of Paper".

More dissapointing however is the response, written for posterity one of the dissenting opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative bulwark of the right-wing component of the Court. Justice Scalia said: "that the Boumedienne ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed." Scalia warned, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

Really? Will we regret upholding the rule of law? Even if, for some completely obtuse reasoning I don't understand, restoring the writ of habeus corpus may in some form or fashion wind up causing the death of an American, which seems completely ridiculous to me, do we not have a responsibility to stay true to the law? Do we have carte blanche then to violate or ignore every legal tenet on which we've built the nation? If we decide tomorrow that the President must have the ability to wage war or attack another country because of the fear of a perceived threat that he or she no longer have to get authorization from Congress in order to attack, is this simply OK?

I think not. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, and I think very germane to this discussion is this quote: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". I believe it sums up the point I am trying to make very well. We were given the gift of a Constitution developed by men who had lived under the heavy yoke of tyranny and lack of self-determination.

The genius of our "National Experiment" as George Washington termed our newly formed government, is that it was constructed to adapt and to sustain itself as long as we stay true to the principles by which it was established. The checks and balances developed by the founders was one of the greatest gifts a people could receive. It will provide us with a wall of security that tyrants and demagouge's will not be able to penetrate. That is if we as the people who consent to be governed are wise enough to keep it.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Best President Since Dennis Was Born Poll Results

Well, the results are in. The poll for determining the Best President since Dennis was born (1959) has determined William Jefferson Clinton was the best. The rankings in order of most to least votes attained are:
1. Bill Clinton with 5 votes
2. (Tie) - George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy each with 4 voes
4. Ronald Reagan with 3 votes
5. Dwight Eisenhower with 1 vote
6. (Tie) - Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush each with 0 votes.
Thanks to all who participated the poll, and keep looking for additional surveys and polls coming soon.
Dennis

Bush's Legacy

For some time now, there has been a claim floating around the blogs, the newspapers, and even the press room in the White House that the Bush administration was planning on establishing "permanent military bases" in Iraq. Some said 4. Some said 6. Some said 14. Regardless of the number, the Bush talking heads, whether it was Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellen, Tony Snow, or now Dana Perino have always tap-danced around the question of whether or not we are planning to stay indefinitely.

Even the president waffles on the subject. He says "we'll stay as long as necessary". What the hell does that mean? Well, now we may have a clue that we are indeed planning on a long-term stay. A story reported in the Independent, one of the United Kingdom's leading news-papers has revealed that the Bush administration is working on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), with the Iraqi government and planning on getting agreement with the Iraqis prior to the expiration of United Nations Mandate that authorizes US presence which ends in July of this year.

What does this agreement do? Well, according to the article, it plans on 50 military bases being established in the Iraqi country and a force strength of between 60 and 130 thousand troops present in the country indefinitely. That's not all. The agreement calls for immunity for US troops and contractors (read: Blackwater, etc) from Iraqi Law. It calls for the free entry and exit of US troops and other personnel from Iraqi territory without having to disclose to the Iraqi government what the US is doing. It also calls for total control of airspace to 29,000 feet to allow for continued combat actions in the "war on terror". It also allows for US troops to arrest any Iraqi at any time without consultation with the Iraqi government.

The Shiite leadership is against such a deal, the Sunnis and Kurds seem to be interested in it as they believe they need US support indefinitely. The Maliki government is caught between needing US support for their legitimacy, and the growing distrust and unrest by the rest of the Shia's especially those aligned with the Muslim cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr.

The US has some leverage on this deal, as it currently holds about $50bn of Iraqi funds in the US Federal reserve bank and will likely use the release of those funds as a carrot to sign the deal. Additionally, a UN sanction dating back to the first Gulf War still defines Iraq as a threat to international security under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The US price for getting this sanction removed: Sign the agreement.

I don't know about you, but this smacks of extortion. It seems to me if the Bush Administration really believed in self-determination and sovereignty of the Iraqi people, he'd agree to this agreement being part of a referendum voted on by the Iraqis themselves. He doesn't. This agreement, if signed by the Iraqis is one of the most blatant acts of imperialism conducted by the United States since the occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Boys and Girls, now that the noise level of the presidential primary season has passed, perhaps we can pay attention to what the current occupant of the White House is doing in our name. I'm not in favor of this agreement. Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

Bravo, Mr. Obama

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" - August 28, 1963. Location: Steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Speaker: Dr. Martin Luther King.

I was born in 1959 and raised in Texas. While not the deep South, our attitudes on race, culture and politics were close cousins of Alabama and Mississippi. I grew up in a culture of intolerance and prejudice. I heard not only were blacks less capable than whites, Mexicans, or rather the favored pejorative "wetbacks" weren't worth much consideration either.

Fortunately, and I owe this to my parents, racism and prejudice were not tolerated in my home. As devout Christians, my parents never allowed my brother or I to think less of someone because of their skin color. It was a lesson and principle that I honor them for.

I write this because it has been within my life-time that lynchings have occurred. I write this beause it has been within my life-time that blacks were not allowed to use the same toilets as I or eat in the same restaurants as me and my parents. I write this because last night we have seen a historic turn in the tide and cycle of the American experience and I believe we are moving ever closer to Dr. King's words at the head of this post.

During my life-time, several historic events have occurred. Some, like the Apollo program that landed a man on the moon in 1969 were almost miraculous. I truly believe that if Barack Obama wins the presidency in November of this year, that event will be very close to the top of the list.

The race for the nomination has been clouded by pundits, endless noise and more 24x7 cable shows than we can count and most of them have been focused on the sound-bite, the pastor issues, the "Obama/Osama" issue, the "Is he Muslim or is he Christian?" nonsense.

People, think hard for a minute. Not only has this man effectively captured the nomination of the Democratic Party to be president after only serving in the US Senate for 1 term. Not only has he done so at the tender age of 46 (Only, JFK and Bill Clinton, U.S. Grant were nominated at such young ages). He is black. Well, he is of mixed race, but by and large he is considered the first African American to have gotten to this point. I can't say he has won the nomination, because first of all, Senator Clinton has not conceded and who the hell knows what might happen between now and the nominating convention in August. However, for all intents and purposes, Barack Obama will be the candidate of the Democrats running against Senator John McCain. This is a monumental moment in the short history of the United States. It is a remarkable turn of events for our nation and it truly gives me hope that America will be brought closer together as a result of this (as Lincoln said) "by the better Angels of our nature".

Bravo Senator Obama, Dr. King would be very proud of this moment. I know I am.

Tell me what you think,

regards,

Dennis

Never Forget What Not Paying Attention Costs

Well, we are almost at a point where we have two candidates for the presidential election in November. While the Democratic Primary play winds up it's last act and it looks as if the Jr. Senator from Illinois will be the nominee against John McCain, it's appropriate to take a short rest from the campaign activities and reflect on what has happened over the last 7+ years.

I was moved to write this article because of something our current Commander in Chief said in an interview on Tuesday that he decided to stop playing golf in 2003 because of the war. The sheer stupidity of this statement got me thinking about the presidency of George Walker Bush.

It is no secret to my readers (all 5 - 10 of them) that I do not like Mr. Bush. To me, it was a tragedy for America that he was elected. I felt it then, and I've not changed my opinion. However, many people voted for the man, found something in him they liked and respected, and believed he was the best choice of those available to lead our country. I'll never understand what they saw in him, but will acknowledge the fact that this country elected him president twice.

The irony to me is rich. This is a man who ran on the notion of bringing "honor and integrity" back to the White House. He would be the CEO president, running the administration like a finely-tuned business. After all, he was a businessman before he was a politician. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and is a graduate of Yale. He was in the oil business and the managing partner of the Texas Rangers professional baseball team. As governor of Texas, he was able to reach across the aisle and work with the Democratic Lt. Governor, Bill Hobby.

The resume looks good. So, why the absolute catastrophe as president? This should have been easy. It should have been, according to the advertisement of the man an efficient, ruthlessly effective government that shrunk the role of government over time and provided more freedom for the people at large.

What happened? OK, 9/11 is an easy answer. We all heard that this changed the world forever. We were told that nothing will be the same ever again. I don't think this is the reason. I think the reason is massive incompetence and malfeasance.

First and foremost, this government has been one of the most ill-conceived and structured administrations in recent history. Cabinet official after Cabinet official have come and gone. After the war in Iraq, the commanders of the armed forces have turned over like pancakes on a griddle. Mr. Bush has one rule and one rule only for remaining in his government. Absolute loyalty. Any questioning of policy, decision or thought results in removal. Don't believe me? Ask Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, Ricardo Sanchez, Peter Pace, and on and on and on. Cronyism was and maybe still is rampant in the administration. Harriet Meirs? Alberto Gonzales? Please. These people were imminently unqualified for their positions and Bush tried to get Meirs appointed to the United States Supreme Court for Pete's sake.

The malfeasance thing is more troubling to me. Secrecy, overstepping of privilege and authority, blatant disregard of the law. All of these are attributes of the Bush Administration. How did it come to this? Why do we, the American People, the engine of the greatest democracy in the world allow this to happen and continue? Well, perhaps we're spending too much time worrying about what Britney Spears is or isn't wearing when she goes out. Perhaps we're more concerned with a sex-scandal for the governor of New York (or New Jersey). Perhaps it's just we're exhausted, don't give a damn anymore and just aren't paying attention. We're paying an enormous cost because we can't seem to be bothered by what's going on around us. How will we explain this to our kids and grand kids? It's both embarrassing and shameful what we've done. Not only have we elected probably the worst president in the history of worst presidents, we did it twice and don't seem to care. There is a poll on this blog that asks the question of who has been the best president since 1959 (when I was born). Shockingly, as of today, 4 of the 12 who've voted (33% overall) have said George W. Bush has been the best. I am quite astonished after all we've been through with this guy.

For your reading pleasure, I'd like to list a few events that have occurred on his watch and have occurred either as a direct decision of his administration or his lack of action in order to prevent it.

1. 9/11 - Well before the towers came down, Richard Clarke, the chief of counter terrorism on the National Security Council when 9/11 occurred attempted many times to get the administration to pay attention to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, even going so far to apprise National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice about an plan to crash airplanes into buildings in the United States. On August 6, 2001, the President was given his daily security briefing which indicated the plan mentioned above that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States. The resulting failure to act or even pay attention now has us mired in a war that has been going on longer than World War II.

2. The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 - Despite lack of credible evidence. Despite of pleas from the International Community to wait. Despite information from Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector on the ground in Iraq prior to the invasion, George W. Bush approved the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We now know with almost absolute certainty, that the information used to justify the invasion was false. We know that well before the invasion (summer of 2002, according to the Downing Street memo) that the US had plans to invade Iraq. We know that after 9/11, the president, his Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, and his Vice-President, Dick Cheney were making every effort to tie the attacks in some way to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We know all of this has led to the deaths of over 4,000 US Soldiers and countless Iraqis. We know that the economic situation in our country has been hurt by the billions of dollars spent on the Iraq war. We know this is the largest fuck-up in US history.

3. The torturing of detainees - Rendition, black operation prisons in Romania, Guantanamo bay, water boarding, Abu Ghraib, Egypt, and on and on and on. Perhaps one of the more insidious gifts George Bush and his cronies have left us is the enormous black spot on the integrity of this country. Bush, Cheney, and many others in his administration are willing advocates of the use of torture. How low have we sunk when this has become US policy? In World War II, we executed Japanese officials for their use of torture against US soldiers. We have consistently decried this as a crime. Until now. There is no debate, we torture people. The United States of America tortures people. Thanks to George Walker Bush.

4. Complete and utter failure to manage the disaster aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Remember "Heckuva Job Brownie"? The Bush administration's FEMA team was the equivalent of the Three Stooges. They couldn't do anything right. The visual of the thousands of people (mostly poor black people) standing at the Superdome for days waiting for assistance is hard to erase. The lack of coordinated response by FEMA was a national embarrassment. While the Bush administration attempted to blame the problems on Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin, the Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans respectively, it is clear that they could have done much more to alleviate the pain and suffering of the victims of this disaster. This single event is perhaps for me the summation of the Bush Administration's legacy. Incompetence run amok.

There are literally hundreds of web-sites listing hundreds of Bush administration scandals and they are so numerous it is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad. Google up Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Walter Reed, Signing Statements, Wiretapping, Jack Abramoff, John Bolton, etc. etc. etc. and you will see what I mean.

I hope the last 7 years have taught us one thing. Those that don't pay attention are doomed to the consequences of decisions by the few. Get active, Get informed, Get concerned.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

28% Approval

Gallup's latest poll on George Bush's job approval is registering at 28%. The president has not seen his approval rating in the majority side of the ledger since December of 2005. Polling Point.com, a register of major poll results has a terrific table that shows presidential approval ratings since early 2005.

OK, so the president is unpopular. This is certainly not news. As the polls show, less than half the people polled believe he is doing a good job. He doesn't have a lot going for him right now. Continued violence in Iraq, an economy that is suspect, food and fuel prices soaring, and a general lack of confidence from the American people in government have contributed to the low numbers. He also has not helped himself, because in spite of all evidence to the contrary he and his administration continues to pursue a course of leadership that is more and more secretive, more accumulating of executive power, and more ignoring of the will of the people.

The arrogance of this administration is staggering to me. Bush, Cheney, Rice and the other key players in the executive branch have consistently maintained they are right and every other person is wrong.

When the dust settles on this administration and the historians write their perspectives about George W. Bush, he is hoping he'll be considered differently than the conventional opinion of him held today as a poor performing president. His belief is that over time, historians will view his decisions on the "War Against Terror" as correct policy. He would like to be the next Harry Truman, another president who was vilified while in office, but after leaving office gained respect and admiration from the American people. That's his goal. I hope somehow he achieves it, but in all candor, I can't possibly recall a worse president in my life-time. Certainly economic times have been worse (1970's under Ford and Carter). Certainly we've had presidents who were of incredibly bad personal character (Nixon, Clinton). Certainly we've had presidents who got us embroiled or escalated America in an unnecessary and tragic war (Johnson, Nixon). But George W. Bush to me is the entire package. Almost nothing the man has done in office has had a positive impact on the country overall. His tax cuts stimulated the economy, so if you benefited from that, then certainly credit him for that achievement. I think the tax cut did more harm than good, and the consequences of that decision will affect this country for a long time to come. The economic policies supporting the energy companies have been terrific for the oil companies, but it's been a negative impact to consumers overall.

I was biased against George W. Bush from the beginning. I lived with him as the governor of Texas prior to his election to the White House, so I was already of the opinion this was an empty suit before his election. I know I'm biased, but I do believe he is the worst president in my life-time, and I've been alive since Eisenhower was president. Check out the poll and give me your views on who has been the best president since 1959, which was the year I was born.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Circus Maximus

"Media Jumps Ship From Obama" is the gigantic headline this morning on one of my favorite Political Blogs: The Huffington Post. While becoming much more like "The Sun" newspaper in the UK (lots of tawdry pictures of young actresses. But no page 3 girls. Yet.). Anyway, I digress. After the butt-whooping Obama received from Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, the media, who once had anointed Barack Obama as a cross-between Jackie Robinson, and JFK, have started to run away from the Illinois Senator as if he was infectious.

Yes, he did lose big in Pennsylvania. Yes, it was a drop-the-trousers heinie spanking by 10% points for the front-runner. It seems to be a pattern with this campaign that just about the time it seems Obama is going to close this out, Mrs. Clinton comes along and says "Not just yet". But the media has taken this as a queue that Obama is a loser. He's George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, etc. etc. etc. He can't win the big one. He can't close the deal. As someone once said: "Yadda Yadda Yadda".

Ok, my question is so what? This is after all a political campaign, and there are many states (almost 10) who have not voted yet. It seems reasonable to me that people should be allowed to vote and choose their candidate. I'm one of the few who think we should have a one day national primary (with run-offs if no clear majority wins) where everyone picks their favorite candidate. It will never happen because of the money involved. No candidate will raise enough funds for one shot.

But, back to the media. What an enormous pile of wasted space this "4th estate" has become. The cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) as well as the networks have turned this into one giant, seemingly never ending circus where they beat the same old horses to death. Want proof? The last Democratic debate moderated by ABC, where the usually solid Charlie Gibson and George Stephanoupolus asked questions like "Senator Obama, Do you think Reverend Wright loves the United States as much as you do?" Aw, come on George. You are better than that aren't you? Wouldn't we be better served by asking questions about say, How would you get us out of Iraq? Or, how would you deal with the current fuel and food issues facing us today? Or perhaps, What's your plan on Healthcare? Instead, they ask questions about a preacher, ask questions about a lapel pin (a freaking lapel pin for God's sake!) and why Obama won't wear one.

Of course, they have a right to ask these questions. If this is what the American People are that concerned about and have written thousands of letters telling the media this is what they want to know, then fine. I don't think it is however. I think it's the media continuing to stir the pot so the talking heads continually have something to talk about. One of the cable news networks I regularly watch is MNSBC. I enjoy Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Dan Abrams shows a lot. However, they have (as many of the others) reduced this down to "can Obama reach the common man?" "Is he too elitist to win?" "Will pastor Wright's comments cost Obama the white blue-collar vote?" And on and on and on.

I don't think most of us give a rat's behind about those topics, but with 24 hour news channels bleating away with this refuse all the time, it's hard not to start thinking about it.

I believe most of us are concerned about the economy, health care, this never ending cycle of violence we seem to have initiated in Iraq. What do you think?

Regards,
Dennis

April 4th, and Heroes

April 4th is a day of reflection for me. I know, it's April 13th today, but I was busy and didn't have time to post. So sue me.

April 4th is the day that two very important people in my life died. The first I didn't know personally, but is someone whose life history had a profound impact on my view of how people can work together. His name was Martin Luther King. Dr. King, as everyone who has gone to school knows was an iconic figure of the 1950's and 1960's responsible for moving the cause of civil rights forward. Killed in 1968, he died doing what he did best: working for the common man. He was shot in Memphis while working with local garbage collectors who were on strike for better wages.

King was a memorable figure for me because of his view towards non-violence as a way of protesting and solving conflict. King, Gandhi and the other fellow I'll tell you about in a moment all had a point of view that violence only begets other violence. The idea that you could work through your problems rather than fight about them was a central theme in the philosophies of these men. This has had a profound impact on my world-view.

Dr. King was not only a voice for civil rights, he was also a voice for America in that he wasn't a blind patriot in the mode of Dick Cheney or George Bush. He loved America like one loves their children. Praise them when they do well, rebuke them when they need it. His speech at the Riverside Church (pastored by another of my heroes: Rev. William Sloan Coffin) is as relevant today as it was when he made it in 1967. One excerpt from that speech is timeless. Simply substitute the word Southeast Asia for Viet Nam, add in Latinos and see what I mean:

"Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor."


Dr. King was as right now as he was then. I see no difference in the futility of purpose of Viet Nam and Iraq.


The other fellow I mentioned above is my Dad. He died on April 4, 2004. He was a cancer victim and passed away at age 79. My Dad was as heroic and impactful to me as King, John Kennedy, Mickey Mantle, etc. etc.

Sam Sherrard, or S.C. as his friends called him was a working man. He was in the grocery business for about 45 years. Anyone who has worked in this field knows of the long hours, back-breaking work and minimal pay that it brings.

Self educated, he was the first of his family to finish high school. After completing his military service in World War II, he came home and decided to go to work rather than college. The mythology I grew up with said he went to work because his family was effectively destitute and he had to support his mother, father and "no-account" brothers. The reality that I learned later in life from him personally was he was "too frightened" to go to college. So, he took what he considered the easy way out and went to work. I find deep irony in this. Here was a man, who at the age of 18 was drafted and sent into the bloodiest war in history, and after surviving that, comes home and is too afraid to try college. He takes the "easy" way out by deciding to work in a field that pays very little and requires a lifetime of hard labor.

However, he read voraciously. He had an immense vocabulary and became a self-taught historian, particularly regarding the Civil War and World War II. The conversations he and I had later in both of our lives was as valuable to me as gold bullion.

What's heroic about my Dad is that he lived his life without a lot of complaint. Oh, he was distrustful of the rich, as most non-rich people are, but I never heard him complain about his life decisions. He sucked it up and made the best of it. He loved his work. He taught my brother and I simple lessons: Integrity is of paramount importance. Always give a dollar's value for a dollar's pay. Be faithful to your friends, your loved ones and your family. Stand up for what you believe.

Pretty simple stuff. Pretty courageous stuff. I miss him a lot.

Same Old Song

Yesterday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee to report on the state of affairs in Iraq. In eight hours of testimony, questions, political pontification and posturing, the net of the conversation is this: We've made substantial but fragile progress. Some political progress has been made along with the diminution of violence that has occurred in the last year. The General reported that violence had significantly subsided since the surge began and they were seeing positive results since the last report to Congress in September of 2007.

OK, on its face, this is good news. Anytime violence is down is good news. Anytime political progress is made it is good news. What's troubling in the General and Ambassador's testimony is the revelation that the progress is so fragile that we must pause troop withdrawals. According to the testimony, General Petraeus believes that we must maintain the current levels in Iraq or face an increase in violence and a loss of some of the progress that has been achieved. The Armed Services Committee was not pleased with this and many members, republicans and democrats alike voiced their displeasure.

I believe, based on why I've seen and what I've read that both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are decent, competent and honorable men. There is little denying that progress has indeed been made. The frustration I feel about this isn't directed at them, they are doing their jobs and by all accounts doing them pretty well. The frustration I feel is directed at the president, republican presidential candidate John McCain, Senator Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the pro-occupation/pro-war crowd that this is now normalcy. We've all heard Senator McCain say they it would be OK with him if troops were in Iraq for 100 years. While some people believe this is OK, citing the Japanese, Korean and German models as evidence of US troops in other sovereign nations as being a "good thing", I find it just about bat-shit crazy.

Military alliances are one thing. I believe in them. They make us more secure. I do not believe in permanent military presence in foreign countries. This is fertilizer for resentment, bad behavior and breeds violent actions such as the current situation in the middle east. We've been kicked out of the Philippines and Saudi Arabia, and we saw massive protests in the 1980's at our military bases in Europe and the United Kingdom. The value of having forward military installations has waned since the fall of the Soviet Union. George Kennard's policy of containment worked with the Russians, it will not with Islamic theocracies.

Who knows how long this circle jerk will continue? Meanwhile, there are over 4,000 US soldiers dead and countless Iraqis dead or homeless. It is time to end this tired, old song.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Rampant Hypocrisy

Within the last week, Senator Barack Obama has been forced to explain his relationship with his pastor of 20 years, Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Dr. Wright, now retired, has been the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for over 30 years. During that time, he became close enough to Senator Obama to perform his marriage to Michelle and to baptize his two children.

The controversy bubbled to the surface for basically two reasons. One, Jeremiah Wright said some pretty incendiary things, such as the government was responsible for AIDs in the black community, and that instead of "God Bless America", it's really "God Damn America". The second is that this is the pastor of a leading candidate for the presidency. Had Obama still been a state senator in Illinois, this would never have made the Chicago papers, let alone U-Tube and the endless stream of talking head morons (yeah you Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson).

Ok, he shouldn't have said that the government is the cause of AIDs in the black community. Dumb. However, the "God Damn America" was taken way out of context in that the pastor was paraphrasing US Ambassador Edward Peck.

Nonetheless, the damage is done. Obama is being eviscerated in the press and in the blogosphere for not leaving Wright's church and making a more strident condemnation of Wright's message. Forget the facts that Wright is someone who is a veteran, served his country, and has preached many more positive messages to his flock than negative. Forget all that. He said two stupid things and now a presidential candidacy is taking water as a result.

The rank and rampant hypocrisy here is that most of the noise is coming from the conservative right, who have repeatedly knelt at the feet of such bastions of Christian ethic as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and many others who have said such idiotic things like God caused Katrina as retribution for our moral decay. No one (listening John McCain?) on the right has repudiated them. No one in the media (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Carlson, Blitzer, et al) have covered their outlandish behavior and comments with the scrutiny they have Obama's pastor.

It is enough that Obama made a speech that repudiated Wright's comments. He spoke to us as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show said: "He spoke to us as adults". He took on race. He discussed white as well as black resentment and anger and he did so with understanding and class. He noted positive improvements in our racial story, but reminded us we have much to do. His speech was exactly the right thing to do. He acted with good judgement, not blaming someone else, but explaining and separating the preacher from the candidate. He was presidential.

For the rest of the masses out there using this as a cudgel to bash Obama around the head, stop it. "Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone".

For Limbaugh and his crew of festering carbuncle's who think this is a way to take Obama down: "Go Cheney Yourselves",

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Hubris

Hubris, the greatest sin in the ancient Greek world found another conquest this week. The (dis) honorable governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer resigned his position in the wake of the disclosure of his involvement with a High-End escort service (read Prostitution club) known as the Empire Club.

What is it with these guys that after they get caught become so concerned about the feelings of their family? Seems like perhaps they should have considered them before spending $80,000.00 on hookers. But, Mr. Spitzer's not the first to be caught up in this. No, by a long shot. Men have been using the services of prostitutes for a long time. I'm not so much amused that Eliot Spitzer is spending the equivalent amount it would take to by a new Jag XKE to get his nut off as I am about the irony.

Eliot Spitzer as many know made his name as the hard-charging righteous defender of the American People prosecuting white collar criminals and yes, yes, wait for it: prostitution rings as the Attorney General of New York. Mr. Spitzer was justice, in all its glory raining down on the evil investment banking community, escort services and any other vice he could find in his jurisdiction. He did some good work, without a doubt. Any investment house that fleeces its customers deserves to get caught. That's not the point. This guy was filled with a self-aggrandized sense of macho and righteousness. He was the good guy. He said that it's pretty simple, "it's either good or bad, right or wrong".

Well Eliot, the lady standing next to you in the picture has been terribly wronged, if she didn't know and approve of what you were doing. If you withheld this from her, only to have her stand beside you while you crash and burn, you're not only a hypocrite, you are a prick.

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Now What?

Ok, so we now have essentially a deadlock in the Democratic Primary race. The primary races last Tuesday in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont were opportunities for Senator Obama to close the deal or for Senator Clinton to capture momentum and keep the contest alive and on to Pennsylvania and 12 other state primaries and caucuses.

The latter happened. Senator Clinton won Ohio handily, and out performed in Texas as well. It should be noted at the time of this post that caucus votes in Texas are still being counted, so while Senator Clinton captured the primary vote, the caucus vote is still outstanding and could actually swing the delegate count in Texas over to Senator Obama. Leave it to Texas to have the most ridiculous democratic primary rules in the nation. No other state has both a primary and a caucus. It's patently absurd.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain locked up the delegates necessary to capture the Republican nomination and has already started his general election campaign. This is where the results for the democrats on March 4 are troubling.

Had Obama had a clear and decisive victory on Tuesday, then there would have been significant pressure on the Clinton campaign to break camp and throw their support behind Obama. Now, just the opposite has occurred. Time, energy and most importantly money will now be spent on a race that neither side can win outright and will likely wind up being decided at the convention in Denver next August. All the while, the republican machine will have time and money to get in to gear and start running ads, do opposition research against both candidates, press the message of unification inside the party and give McCain time to court the conservative outliers who can't stand him.

This should have been the Democrats year. There should have been no question that the Republicans would be swept from Washington like dirt off a rug. But no, we may be seeing the emergence of the traditional Democratic Modus Operandi, "Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory".

God help us all,

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Why I Support Barack Obama

I voted for Barack Obama in yesterday's primary here in Texas. Here's why.

1. It's time for the youth in the country to take the controls on the ship of state. Do we Boomers still have something to offer? Of course. We're smart, energetic, have great ideas and can get things done. However, this election should be about the future, and the future belongs to the young. Obama is the first candidate running for president that is younger than me. The youth of this country are energized and enthusiastic about this man. It's a refreshing thing to see. I believe that he can keep that optimism and spirit alive through the general election process. The compare and contrast between Obama and McCain are plain. McCain represents the old way, Obama the new.

2. The man has experience where it counts. Obama left Harvard and moved to Chicago as a community organizer. This is someone who works with local communities to support a particular interest, whether it's civil rights, economic justice, the right to collective bargaining or another issue where groups must get together to be heard. Rather than go to a corporate job, or go into some other field, Obama chose to help people who needed assistance in the most basic things like housing. Obama also became a teacher. His subject? Constitutional Law. Wow, wouldn't it be nice for a change for someone to be president who actually knows what the Constitution is and will abide by it?

3. He's a better bet than McCain. If you believe as I believe, If you think like I think, that there's something terribly wrong with the way the country operates, then I think you will agree that change is necessary. John McCain has been part of the problem. Oh yes, you'll say. He's a "maverick". True enough, McCain has danced around the edges of the establishment and taken on some sticky issues. Campaign Finance Reform anyone? He did a good job with that. However, I believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His behavior since the 2000 election has become more and more of a panderer to special interests than an independent thinking conservative. The last straw for me was his recent roll-over voting against the ban on water-boarding after making speeches, entreaties and demands that we outlaw and decry torture. This was done in an effort to shore up conservative base votes who seem to think water-boarding is just fine. Shame on you John. You, of all people should understand the insidiousness of torture.

4. Obama's own words. This is an excerpt from his keynote speech in the 2004 Democratic convention. I believe it says all we need to hear:

"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

Here's hoping he stays true to his words.

Tell me what you think

Regards,

Dennis

It's Time

Barack Obama made it 10 in a row last night with Primary wins in Hawaii and Wisconsin. His candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president is appearing to be a juggernaut that will plow ahead racking up delegates and primary wins. While he will likely not accrue enough delegates to claim the nomination outright, he certainly has the momentum now. As of last night, Obama has 1301 delegates to Senator Clintons 1239 when including the Super Delegates. 2025 are needed to claim the nomination and it looks like neither will achieve this number.

So, what to do? The Clinton candidacy is fading by all evidence to date. Super Delegates are now saying they'll support the candidate that achieves the most votes which is code for switching support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama. Even still, should Mrs. Clinton choose to battle on to the convention, she could sway people to her camp. It's highly unlikely at this point, but should she claim large victories in Ohio and Texas then it is possible for her to achieve the nomination.

From my perspective, if she does succeed in this effort, it is a Pyrrhic victory. She'll do more damage than good and I think it guarantees a McCain presidency.

So, in my view it is time for Mrs. Clinton to take a break, think about it and then concede. She'll do much more good than harm, and a Democrat will likely be sent back to the White House.

Tell Me What You Think,

Regards,
Dennis

Legacy

President Bush travels to Africa today on a six-day, five-country tour to promote the administration's 15 billion dollar foreign-aid package designed to combat the spread of HIV-AIDs in the impoverished continent. Indeed, one of the president's harshest critics, Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) has said: "It may be the greatest legacy this president leaves or any president could leave.”

It is a good thing when we can bring the power and wealth of this country towards working on a non-political, clearly necessary issue. Combatting the spread of AIDs is most certainly a noble goal. Mr. Bush must be applauded for supporting this program.

However, I believe George W. Bush's legacy doesn't lie in the African sub-continent. Regardless of the amount of money the president promotes towards this cause, it will not remove the blood that is on his hands from Iraq. Whether it's combat fatalities or injuries incurre on the ground by our troops, or the by-product of sending young men continually into harms way, or civilians killed because they simply happen to be born in one tribe or the other, the thousands of people who have died in Iraq since the invasion and subsequent occupation have done so primarily as a result of his decision to go to war.

I'd like to introduce you to a young man who when described by his superiors is talked about in lofty terms such as someone with "an intense desire to excel", and "unbridled enthusiasm" and an "unswerving devotion to duty". This young man won the Bronze Star for valor during a 55 hour battle with the Mahdi militia in Najaf. His name: James Jenkins, and his rank: Lance Corporal, United States Marine. The best of the best. The ones always put in the front lines. Corporal Jenkins is a veteran of two combat tours in Iraq and saw some of the most brutal hand to hand combat of any soldier in the field.

I'd like to introduce Corporal Jenkins to you but I can't. He's dead. No, he wasn't killed in combat in Iraq. He was killed in combat in his head. Corporal Jenkins committed suicide in 2005 after spiraling out of control and getting addicted to gambling, and writing bad checks to support his habit got him busted, thrown in the brig and scheduled for a court-martial. After he was released, pending his trial, he ran. On September 28, 2005, Corporal Jenkins was hiding out in his fiancee's apartment when a local deputy sheriff and US Marshal came to get him and take him back to jail. Rather than go back to jail, he shot himself in the temple.

Corporal Jenkins is not counted among the combat fatalities we see in the press. However, his death is as much a combat fatality as those men who were killed in the field. Corporal Jenkins' death led the United States Marine Corps to attempt to deny death benefits to Jenkins' family. They claimed he had died as a deserter. A Deserter.

This claim was refuted by an investigator from the Naval Criminal Investigation Service who described Jenkins as a "salvagable marine", who suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PSTD. The investigator described Jenkins as a "bonafide war hero" and said that the military had failed him when he needed help most.

Thousands of soldiers suffer from PSTD, a condition which keeps soldiers from re-assimilating into society and often drives them away from their families, jobs and in some cases their lives. It is a affliction not new to soldiers in Iraq. Many veterans of combat in Viet Nam have been diagnosed with PSTD. It is a lasting nightmare for many veterans and their families.

Corporal Jenkins received no honor guard for his funeral. His remains are not interred in one of the many national cemetaries across this country. He is buried in a cemetary local to his community and close enough for his mother to visit his grave. Corporal Jenkins was 23 when he took his life.

No, Mr. Bush's legacy will not be in Africa. It is buried in the dirt along side Corporal James Jenkins, who, if still alive would be 26 years old.

Tell me what you think,

regards

Dennis

340 Days

Okay ladies and gentlemen, we are less than a year away from Liberation Day! 340 days, 14 hours and 5 minutes from now (as I write this post), the books will close on arguably the worst presidency in the history of the United States. We'll be able to wish George and Laura "Bon Voyage" and watch them step on Air Force One for that final ride back to where ever the hell they will go.

I'm very hopeful about this. I have wanted nothing more for the last eight years than to see this man off the national stage and cease embarrassing this country. The damage he's done to the country internally and externally is almost incalculable. Inauguration day on January 20, 2009 will be a day when we will all be able to take a deep breath and utter those famous words of Gerald R. Ford: "Our Long National Nightmare is Over".

Won't it be a terrific day?

Regards,

Dennis

More Evidence John McCain is George Bush in a Hero Suit

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.' - Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984".

Ok, so now we see the real John McCain. He has decided perhaps that the election is more important than principle, and is voting against the Intelligence Authorization bill which contains a provision describe a "standard for interrogation" that supports the use of the instructions in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding. The bill passed in the Senate 51-45, but is expected to be vetoed by the president.

John McCain isn't traveling on the "Straight Talk Express", He is traveling on the "Double Speak" Express. The man who surely is the most well known victim of torture as a Prisoner of War, has effectively endorsed the use of it against "our enemies".

This is the man the Republicans want to be president. This is George Bush redux. "America does not torture" - George W. Bush.


What a noble thought.


Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

How Hillary Can Make History and Save the Democratic Party

Today is the "Potomac Primary", with delgate contests in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. By no means is the race for the delegates for the nomination of the Democrats to be the Presidential candidate in November over, but it's become increasingly evident that a clear winner in delegates may not emerge. Even if it does, there's a strong likelihood that the "super-delegates" will carry the day relative to who wins the nomination.

Senator Clinton's campaign lost 4 caucuses and primaries over last weekend. She will likely lose all three contests today. The momentum in the campaign has swung towards Senator Obama and unless Senator Clinton wins handily in Texas and Ohio, this contest may be effectively over.

Assuming I'm right, I see that there are basically three ways this could go:

1. Senator Obama wins the pledged delegates and the Super Delegates support him as the candidate to run against John McCain in November.
2. Senator Clinton stays close to Obama in terms of pledged delegates and sways the Super Delegates to support her to become the nominee.
3. This goes to the convention and there is a floor fight until someone comes out on top.

In my opinion, Senator Clinton doesn't win in any case described above. Oh, She might sway the super delegates to her side for the nomination, but the downstream impact of that would likely keep her from winning the general election. If she doesn't do anything and Senator Obama wins on his own, then she's essentially a non-player in future discussions regarding the ticket, policy or influence relative to the 2008 election.

My view is that Senator Clinton should continue through the March primaries, and if she doesn't win very big in Texas and Ohio, she should suspend her candidacy and throw her support to Obama.

Here's what could happen if she does.

1. She immediately gains credibility relative to her desire to see the Democrats win in November.
2. She immediately gains the gratitude and admiration of the Obama supporters (youth) and avoids them not staying home during the general election if she presses on to win the nomination.
3. She makes history in that she, she would have been the single most influential person to see Obama gain the nomination.
4. If Obama puts her on the ticket (he should), then she makes history again as the first woman in the 2nd highest office of the land.
5. She allows for the Democratic national committee to immediately organize around competing with John McCain.
6. She puts the relatively strong campaigning capabilities of Bill Clinton at Obama's disposal.
7. She is considered one of the top 2-3 Democrats relative to power in the party.

There is a whole lot of good that happens in my opinion should she choose to go that way. It gives us a great ticket and puts the Democrats in position to achieve a historic milestone: An African American President and a Female Vice-President.

We'll have to wait and see.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

You Decide

Much talk recently has been given to the matter of candidates "Flip-Flopping" on issues or statements they've made. In 2004, remember, John Kerry was eviscerated because he "Flip-Flopped" on the war. John McCain made much of Mitt Romney's "flippyness" during the primary season.

Please take a look at this video clip of St. John discussing the war in Iraq. Is he also a "Flip-Flopper"? You decide. Please click on the link below for the clip.

McCain’s Double Talk Express: A Day at the Beach

Barack Cleans Up

Another weekend, and another set of primaries and caucuses. It's a very interesting season for those of us who are political junkies. Barack Obama won all four contests over the weekend, picking up a healthy set of delegates. He won 69 more delegates for Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington, and has potential for picking up another 8-10 from Maine when all the votes are counted. Three caucuses (Maine, Nebraska, Washington) and one primary (Louisiana) have all gone Obama's way.

Mike Huckabee made a strong showing over the weekend, winning in Kansas and Louisiana. While important wins for Huckabee, he is still far behind the prohibitive front runner, Senator John McCain. McCain can't have liked seeing the populist evangelical former governor take Louisiana and Kansas, but seemingly doesn't have much to worry about at this point.

The Democratic race on the other hand is a complete toss-up. Obama is surging in the popular vote and racking up pledged delegates at a faster clip than Senator Clinton. The delegate count has swung his way as result of this past weekend's victories (943 for Obama and 895 for Clinton). Remember however, there are a significant number of 'Super-Delegates' slanted towards Hillary's way and that the total mentioned above doesn't include the votes from Michigan or Florida, who had their delegates stripped as a consequence of moving their primaries up. Clinton has been making noise about how the delegates/votes in Michigan and Florida should now count, and I think it's unlikely that the party leadership will allow this.

Obama has momentum. It's going to be very interesting over the next 20 primaries to see how this shapes out. Howard Dean, former governor from Vermont, and now head of the Democratic National Committee has said he believes there will be a nominee sometime in April. With big contests coming up in March in Ohio and Texas, the numbers could tighten up further as these are generally favorable toward Senator Clinton. It's going to be close, and some level of discussion among the candidates may ensue and one may withdraw in favor of the other. I see a ticket perhaps of Clinton/Obama. I don't see a Obama/Clinton ticket. I don't think Hillary would take the 2nd chair, although I could be wrong. If Obama is nominated I think he wins the general election. I don't think Hillary has another chance if that's the case, and it wouldn't be a bad thing for Hillary to be the first woman Vice President in US History.

Tell me what you think.

regards,
Dennis

Predictable? - No Way!

Well, so much for my prognostication capabilities. See this excerpt from my post on

Tuesday, October 30, 2007, (full post is below).

Prediction: Clinton vs. Giuliani in the general with Rudy winning by a small margin. Why? Beats the hell out of me.
Posted by Dennis at 6:44 AM 0 comments Links to this post

--------------------

I had "America's Mayor" winning the general election over Hillary. Turns out I was way off. Rudy's history, and it looks like Hillary is getting Obamacized.

We still don't know who will get the Democratic nomination. It will involve some deal making as both Obama and Clinton have effectively split the delegates to the point, the "super-delegates" will come into play in order to make a choice. I make no predictions on that.

John McCain is the prohibitive nominee for the Republicans. Barring some unforeseen 3rd party entrant (Bloomberg?), the contest this November will be against the Arizona Republican and either an African American Senator or a Female Senator. For the first time since John Kennedy was elected, America will vote to put a sitting Senator in the White House. It's a historic race, and one that at least according to the primaries is causing record turn-out among the voters. So why do I feel so depressed about this?

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

McCain & Romney Go Over The Line

Mitt Romney, one-time governor of Massachusetts, one-time presidential candidate, bowed out of the race for the Republican nomination for President today. In his speech explaining his reasoning, he as almost every other candidate who has left the contest, came up with another reason for withdrawing than the obvious one: He was getting beat senseless, spending his own money and couldn't win. He said that he was withdrawing now because a long, protracted fight for the nomination might allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and he couldn't support this because it would lead to surrender to terrorists if either Clinton or Obama won.

Yes, he really said this. Ok, Mitt go "Cheney Yourself".

Now for John McCain. I used to somewhat respect this man . I thought his "maverick" streak was a sign of principled standing on issues that were counter to conventional wisdom or party dogma. I was wrong. Turns out, McCain is just a contrary old bastard. He's not independent, he's not even principled. He's turned his back on almost every statement he made before in order to win the nomination and maybe the presidency. Why? Because the egomaniac wants desparately to be president and get over the humiliation of losing to George W. Bush in 2000. Yeah John, that's a memory I would want to get over as well.

Well, Mr. McCain, you too came out today and accused the Democrats of being appeasers and surrender-monkeys. Shame on you. You know damn well that neither Obama nor Clinton nor anyone in this country who is against this amazing cluster-fuck in Iraq are appeasers or in favor of surrender. What Obama and Clinton are supporting is what the country is supporting: Getting out of this quagmire and not allowing another US soldier to die for George Bush's folly.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You, who suffered imprisonment and torture at the hands of an autocratic regime should know that War is not the answer to our problems. Certainly, this war in Iraq is not the answer. You say we have to stay, even if it is for 100 years. You say we have to stay until we have "victory". What is "victory"? No one has been able to explain that. You sir, have signed on to a foolish attempt to change the thoughts, hearts and minds of a people who wanted none of it. You have signed on to the deaths of almost 4000 US military, the maiming of over 30 thousand US military and God knows how many Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of our invasion. So what we got rid of Saddam? All we have done by removing him is change the name and faces of the killers. The killing continues. The country is in tatters. There is no functioning government. The unemployment rate is over 50%. The infrastructure of the country (water, power, roads) are demolished. Oil production is STILL belo pre-war levels. Is this progress? Is this intelligent?

You sir have sacrificed any credibility you may have had by signing on to the Bush view of the world that you are simply a caricature of your former "hero" self. Maverick? Independent? Principled? No fucking way.

I am so tired of you, Romney and all conservatives who think the only answer is an American answer and if you don't like that, "we'll ruin you financially (through sanction), kill you through dropping cluster bombs, then invade you until you see things our way. " It's high time for your sad, immoral and idiotic ilk to get out of Washington and let someone else have a crack at this. They certainly couldn't do worse than you morons.

Respectfully,

Dennis Sherrard

ps: 2/8 update - This picture really sums up the depths that John McCain will go to get "in" with the uber-conservative neocons. It's pretty disgusting that someone wants a job so bad he'll degrade himself to the point of embracing this walking pile of refuse.

A Decision That Changed Our World

35 years ago, on January 22, 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States authored a majority opinion that has ever since affected everyone in this country and influenced every political contest for the presidency. The decision was regarding a woman's right to privacy manifested in her right to have a legal abortion. The decision title was Roe v. Wade, and it changed the course of political history forever. Justice Blackmun was writing for a 7-2 majority that held a woman's right to privacy was the primary issue. Using a previous case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that recognized an inherent right to privacy, the majority opinion identified that the "liberty" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution included "a women's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy," which decision was a fundamental interest that could be restricted only on a showing of a compelling state interest.

Unless one has been living on another planet or in a cave in the darkest regions of the Amazonian rain forests, everyone that has been to high school has heard of Roe-v-Wade at one time or another. Indeed, it is because of Roe-v-Wade, that we have abstinence only education regarding sex education in schools. It is because of Roe-v-Wade that we have had interest groups such as NARAL, Planned Parenthood and others on the side of abortion rights, and others such as NRL (National Right to Life), Operation Rescue, and religious organizations such as Focus on the Family, and Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority on the anti-abortion or pro-life side of the argument.

There have been subsequent opinions that have altered Roe v Wade by either affirming the general opinion (as in the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey, in which the court reaffirmed the opinion in Roe, but the dissenters, including Antonin Scalia who noted that abortion rights are of great importance to many women, but he found no constitutional guarantee of the right of an abortion), or that have restricted abortion rights as in the cases of Gonzales v Carhart where in April of 2007, the court in a 5-4 decision upheld the constitutionality of a Nebraska law outlawing Partial-Birth abortions. The court had earlier struck down the law because it lacked a provision for the health of the mother.

Suffice to say, this issue will be with us for some time. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been approximately 48 million abortions performed legally in the United States (Source: National Right to Life website) The number is dubious because of the bias of the organization conducting the count, who have decided the Centers for Disease Control have a significant under count in the number of abortions and have inflated it to the aforementioned number.

Regardless of the total numbers, abortions are declining in number and have been since 1990. There was a small spike in the number of abortions in 2002, but according to the CDC, the number has been falling since. This is encouraging news, as it seems that there is a leveling factor in the circumstances that occur when an abortion is sought. Indeed, the majority of the abortions that occur are among women lower than the age of 20. The highest amount of reported abortions are among those who are at the age of 15 or less. Comparatively speaking the ratio of abortions per 1000 live births is at it's highest among those 15 years of age or less, with a number of approximately 800 abortions for every 1000 live births. The numbers decline sharply between the ages of 15 and 34 where the ration drops to under 200 abortions per 1000 live births. At ages 35 through 40+ years, the numbers increase as the chart above indicates.

One can read many things into the data. One could say the declines in abortions are the result of the active and vigorous promotion of abstinence in schools. One could attribute this to the high-profile protests of groups such as Operation Rescue and other "Right to Life" groups. One could argue that people are smarter, and are using more contraception in order to avoid pregnancy, are abstaining from sex prior to marriage or the decision to have a child. It's almost impossible to determine the reason for the declines, because of the emotion around the organizations who track the data. There will be a bias in favor of one opinion or the other. However, it doesn't really matter why abortions are declining, only that they are.

OK, as anyone who has read this site knows, I'm a Liberal. I completely subscribe to the notion of the "Right To Choose". However, I also abhor abortion. I also believe that most people do. The myth that women use abortion as a means of birth-control is a specious and egregious lie. Abortion is a life-changing event. It is a termination of a life, no matter how one decides to argue it, and women who decide to have an abortion must make a decision that anyone not of their gender (guys such as me) have no conception of what they go through to make the decision. I've known several women who have had abortions and indeed when I was a young man, drove one of my best friends to the clinic to have her abortion. I can say without fail that these women were conflicted and did not make the decision lightly.

My opinion regarding abortions are as former President Clinton had said, "Abortions must be safe, legal and rare". I'll add to that the following: This is a woman's issue. Period. This is a democracy, and if the woman of this country through a super-majority (2/3rds of women of child-bearing age) decide to ban abortion, then I'll go along with it. Until then, the right to an abortion must remain.

Roe v. Wade or a variant thereof will be with us for some time. Supreme Court Justices will be selected (as they have been) on whether or not they will support Roe v. Wade. It is a tangled web of politicization that drives the opinion and perhaps it should be. The Court changes in accordance with general popular opinion, good or bad. It is one of the prices of liberty.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Is Mike Huckabee Serious?

Today, a small report in the Huffington Post (click the title link and it will take you there) reports on a speech that Mike Huckabee made where he proffered support for those who are upset about John McCain calling the Confederate battle flag, (The Southern Cross) a racist symbol. Mr. Huckabee was given praise by a group known as "Americans for the Preservation of American Culture", and have independently of the Huckabee campaign aired an ad castigating John McCain and praising Mr. Huckabee.

Ok, We don't need to do a history lesson here. Everyone (I hope) who went to high school knows the story of the Civil War. Essentially, 11 states seceded from the United States to form the Confederate States of America. A terrible war spanned the years of 1861 - 1865 before the CSA surrendered at Appomattox. The war was responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 soldiers and countless civilians (and slaves).

The flag has been a hot-bed of controversy for years. "red-necks" bemoan the fact that they are losing their "southern heritage" if they can't wear the flag. Out and out racists dressed as southern politicians (yes, you David Duke), use the flag as an inflammatory device to get those with one less chromosome all excited and to the polls.

The flag is a symbol of racism. The South lost the war. The Southern States were traitors to their country. Why anyone would want to fly that flag is beyond this Southern born and bred (Texas). It is a sign of the worst of this country and should be consigned to the ash heap of history in my opinion. Mr. Huckabee, I hope for your sake that you don't really believe what you said. If you did, you're no better than those nimrods wearing the white hoods.

Tell me what you think,

Dennis

Take that Punditocracy!

Well, so much for the talking heads. According to the polls, the pundits and other prognosticators, Hillary Clinton and John McCain were essentially dead in the water. Double digit leads for Barack Obama were getting the talking heads at CNN, MSNBC, Fox Noise, and pretty much any other news outlet so worked up about an Obama sweep, you would think that Hillary had withdrawn her candidacy.

Senator McCain was supposedly yesterday's news, with Evangelical Mike Huckabee, CEO and Olympic saviour Mitt Romney, and Mr. 9/11 himself, Rudy Giuliani all supposed to run rough shod over the septuagenarian maverick from Arizona.

Boy were they/we/everybody wrong. It seems the only people who thought they would win the New Hampshire primary last evening were Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain.

Just goes to show you how different this country is. With Iowa, you could see the energy that Obama and Huckabee had unleashed. New Hampshire voters said "hang on a minute". We'll vote the way we want to thank you very much.

Ms. Clinton brought women and older voters back into the fold. Mr. McCain, has always had a strong relationship with the folks in the Granite State. They gave him a primary victory in 2000, and have renewed his campaign with another 1st place finish.

So, it's on to South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan. Who will win? Who knows. That's kind of cool isn't it?

Tell me what you think?

Regards,
Dennis

Iowa's done, now on to New Hampshire

Well, Joe, it didn't work out. I'm sorry your campaign didn't catch fire as I still believe you are the best guy for the job. It's unfortunate that events in the campaign relative to Mr. Obama and Clinton overshadowed a clear discussion on the issues and in particular foreign policy.

So, Vaya Con Dios mi amigo. Go back to the Senate and reclaim the leadership position you've held as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. You and Senator Dodd, who decided to withdraw from the race as well, are examples of good, reasonable and experienced men who are imminently qualified for the job but overshadowed by the hype.

Ok, who do I support now? Well, I'm not declaring at this point. I have to seriously watch and consider the candidates going forward. I like Richardson and Edwards, but not am not a fan of either Obama or Clinton, but favor them over any Republican candidate. So, it's a decision I'll hold onto for a while.

As to the Republicans. It is the same old story, different verse. George W. Bush redux won the Iowa caucus. I'm talking about a former governor who loves the death penalty, has no foreign policy experience, and is a "nice-guy" who talked up a populist agenda and gained the endorsement of the conservative Christians in Iowa in a big way. His victory over Mitt Romney was considerable given the amount of money spent by the former governor from Massachusetts. Romney seems to be imploding taking shots from McCain, Huckabee, Thompson and all the other "stay the course" guys who think the last 7 years have been just great. I'm convinced that the people in this country want to go in a different direction. They want to go in a different direction on the war, on the economy, on our relations with the world, on science (all those who don't believe in evolution, raise their hands) and are tired of the degradation of our standing, our value in our money, our education system and want something fresh.

We'll see.

Tell me what you think,


Regards,

Dennis

Happy New Year

We here at Indies Are Us wish each and everyone of you a Happy New Year. Here's hoping that the year finds us closer to peace and that everyone experiences a better year than last year.

Regards,

Dennis

Come on 2008!

What does the clock flipping to 12:00 am tonight mean? Besides putting the past year behind us and getting ready for: hangovers, junk food while we watch football, resolutions we won't keep and another year of insipid campaign ads? January 1, 2008 will mean that we will only have 384 days to go before the worst presidency in the history of the United States comes to an end.

I wish we could speed up time to 1-20-09 12:01pm eastern time, when the oath of office is taken by someone, anyone else besides George W. Bush. I'm so tired of this man's desecration of the office that I want to be Rip Van Winkle and just go to sleep until it's done with.

My hope and wish for 2008 is that we end this travesty of a war in Iraq. According to the Pentagon, casualty counts for Iraqis are down since June of this year. That's excellent news on its face. Anytime fewer people are dying because of policies we implement so much the better. General Petraeus has attributed this to better security from both the "surge" of US troops and an interior "sure" of upwards of 100 thousand Iraqi military and security services coming online in the area.

To be sure, this is good news. I'm not going to get into a debate here about the surge. Those who agree with the surge will use this information to say "see, it's working". Those who didn't agree with the surge will point out rightly that no political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia communities in the Iraqi government has been achieved. In either case, strong argument for each side can be made. The only thing that matters to me is that the killing, at least in Bagdhad, has lessened.

For the politicians, this has become a mixed bag of messages. Those with a more sophisticated view of the matter (Biden, McCain, Richardson, Dodd), all seem to embrace the view that this is excellent news. McCain sees it as vindication of his criticisms of the Rumsfeld era of war planning, but support for the Gates/Petraeus strategy of adding resources. The Democrats are all calling for different actions, but each seem to believe that the primary focus should be on political agreement among the various factions in the Iraqi government. Iraq will be a key campaign issue throughout 2008. Should things continue to improve, it helps the Republicans salvage something from the Bush disaster. Should conditions deteriorate, then it helps those Democrats (especially Obama) who have decried the Iraq war from the beginning.

I personally opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. And, unlike Bill Clinton, I have documentation to prove it. I still believe this was the worst foreign policy decision the US has made since we (CIA) helped overthrow the government of Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953 and installed the Shah. Man, talk about your decisions coming back to haunt you.

Anyway, I'm not posting any resolutions, and only hoping, hoping that the end of George Bush's reign of terror comes with no more major screw ups from this administration.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

PS, all the best for 2008

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Joyeux Noel, Feliz Navidad, etc. etc.

To My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Mr. Reid, You've Let Us All Down

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-UT) has made a decision to move legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) out of committee and on to the senate floor for debate and vote sometime this week. OK, no problem there, that's his job. The problem is with which bill he is moving to the floor. The one he decided to take out of committee, over the objections of the ranking Democrats and ignoring a hold placed on the legislation by Senator Chris Dodd (D-MA) is the bill the president prefers. Why? Because this version of the bill contains a provision granting retroactive immunity to the major telecommunications carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, etc. who assisted the government in eavesdropping on communications without a warrant.

There was another version of the bill, that the Judiciary Committee had openly debated in public and that 14 Democratic senators have sent a letter to Reid asking that he move to floor for a vote. It does not contain the immunity provision and the president has threatened to veto it as a result of it lacking the protections for the telecommunications companies.

Senator Chris Dodd has decided to filibuster the bill. This will be the first filibuster in the Senate in 15 years, and he's interrupting his candidacy for the presidency to do something he cares greatly about. Protect the US Constitution.

Now, this entire mess is a result of the Global War on Terror and the Bush Administration's voracious expansion of presidential powers. Dodd thinks the warrantless eavesdropping is a violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution protecting against warrantless search and seizures. So do I.

But regardless of the content of the bill, or why Dodd will filibuster, both of which are important topics for another post, the question to me is why is Harry Reid doing this? He was swept into power as Majority Leader as a result of the American people's resounding rebuke to the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration in general. Why is he consistently caving in?

My thoughts here are relatively sinister. I think Reid, Pelosi and others in the Democratic leadership have done something that the Bush Administration is holding over there heads. This somewhat came to light last week when it was revealed that Speaker Pelosi among others attended a briefing in 2002 where waterboarding was discussed as a tool used in our interrogations and kept quiet about it. So, is that the deal? Does George and company have some type of leverage against the Majority Leader? Perhaps. If so, it's sad, and Mr. Reid, you've let the country down in a moment where we need serious leadership. Thank goodness for Chris Dodd.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Say It Isn't So, America

This past week former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell published his report on his two year investigation of drug use within Major League Baseball. As expected, the report was full of reports of abuse of steroids, use of human growth hormones, and other performance enhancing drugs. Of course, like people slowing down to view the aftermath of a traffic accident, the American people (especially those of us who love baseball) paused briefly to see who the report would name. Big names such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Palmeiro, Jose Canseco and several others were identified as allegedly taking steroids or some other performance enhancing drug over the course of their careers.

Also, expected, denials from the players, especially Clemens came swift and vigorous and Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig promised action.

Sigh.

One of my favorite movies is Casablanca. I never thought anyone has been cooler than Bogart playing Rick. But, my absolute favorite scene in this film is when Claude Raines, playing the Vichy police Lieutenant Louie proclaims to Rick after closing down his club that "I'm Shocked! Shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!" Immediately after saying this, the croupier comes up to Louie and gives him his winning which he immediately pockets with a hearty laugh. See, the deal is that Louie is being enormously obvious and hypocritical.

Commissioner Selig isn't Louie in this sense, rather he is the pious, somber guy who promises to reform the game. Bullshit. Selig, along with the rest of the owners (he owns a stake indirectly in the Milwaukee Brewers), the players and the fans (yes, my friends, us) is complicit in allowing this to occur. My beef is we exclaim disgust, disappointment, outrage (see Congressman Chris Shays R-CT bloviating about this on the House floor this past week) that we cheaters in Major League Baseball.

Please Bud, get over it. Stop trying to sell us a line. We know you've ignored this as just about every other baseball commissioner has since Kennesaw "Mountain" Landis. As long as the game has been played there have been people cheating. Anyone remember the Black Sox Scandal of 1918? Perhaps the name Shoeless Joe Jackson brings it back to you? Whether it's stealing the other teams signs, cheating by throwing spitballs, corking bats, running out of baselines to avoid being tagged, there are a number of ways that one can and does cheat in this game. The fans have been there all along, never doing anything more than shaking there heads in disappointment when one got caught, but lining up the very next day to buy their tickets, hot dogs and beer to watch some other juiced guy hit a home run.

Didn't we always know? Didn't we understand that when men turn from lithe, graceful speedsters who can hit for average to hulking, muscle rippling, homer pounding behemoths whose heads look like they've been inflated by an air pump, that something was up? Sure we did. We kept going anyway. We'll keep going anyway.

The problem with drug abuse or any other type of performance enhancing activity in professional sports is that it is expected behavior and the only time it's punished is when it is caught. To stop this, the fans (yes, you and me again) will have to cut the monster's head off. We'll have to stop going to the games. Can you do that? Would you do that for Baseball, Football, Hockey, Soccer, Tennis, Running, Golf, etc. etc. etc? Can I do that?

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis