Less Than Zero

The Republicans in the House showed us what their version of bi-partisanship last night. Not a single Republican voted for the stimulus package in an amazing show of solidarity. President Obama has gone out of his way to try and reach across the isle for this vote, including making a lunchtime visit to chat with House leaders. The stimulus package includes some $200 Billion in tax cuts, some of which was added after Republicans balked at the initial proposal. Every time the Republicans brought a particular aspect of the package that they didn't like, President Obama made a concession in order to try and appease them. And what did he get for his troubles? ZERO votes! Zero. So not only did he not get a single Republican to vote for the stimulus package, but the country is now stuck with a watered down version of the original proposal. Instead of a package that focuses on putting people back to work through infrastructure projects, we have a plan that includes tax breaks that do not pay immediate dividends in the form of jobs. The Republicans, who have gutted the bill to some extent, can now place the blame fully on the President and the Democratic leadership if the package fails to adequately stimulate the economy.

The President went to the Republicans in a show of good faith. He did not need their votes. The Democrats have unassailable majorities in both houses of Congress and the package can be passed without a single Republican vote. The President made a conscious effort to try and get a consensus and in doing so proved himself a man of his word. During the presidential campaign, he said time and time again that the old ways of Washington would not work going forward. He talked about the things that united us, not the things that divided us. He talked about ushering in a new age of cooperation in Washington. And he backed up those words by doing everything that he could to try and respond to Republican concerns about the Stimulus package. And what did he get for his efforts? Zero votes. The Republican leadership (which had initially complained that there weren't enough tax cuts in the plan, and then complained that there was funding for contraception in the plan, and then complained that the package was too expensive), told their members to vote against the package even before the President showed up. The truth is that there was nothing that the President could have done to convince those Representatives to vote for the package. The Republicans offer no alternative except a continuation of the same financial strategy that has gotten us into this mess but since they are led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh these days, obstructionism is apparently their strategy. I know the President will continue down this road because his goal is to build a consensus. Unfortunately, the people across the aisle are following the Rush Limbaugh mantra of "I hope he fails". The idea of true bipartisanship is a pipe dream.

Do As I Say

President Obama signed an executive order last Friday that put in place tough new regulations against lobbyists working for his administration. Here are two of the three paragraphs:

2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

Obama had promised during his campaign that his administration would not contain lobbyists. Of course at some point he realized that it would be impossible to eliminate all the lobbyists, so he amended his promise to say that lobbyists would not be running his administration. I just assumed that this was an empty campaign promise and it was certainly not one of the things that I was going to hold him to. So I was pleasantly surprised by the tough new ethics standards that the President created last week. Of course I very unpleasantly surprised to learn of this:

Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin said the administration has removed an obstacle to the confirmation of Bill Lynn to be Deputy Secretary of Defense by waiving the provisions of President Obama's Executive Order on Ethics Commitments that would have precluded Mr. Lynn's service. As a former defense lobbyist for Raytheon, Lynn's service would conflict with the Administration's new ethics rules. Those rules prohibit former lobbyist from working in the area they once lobbied, unless a waiver is given.

So let me get this straight, the President signs tough new ethics legislation and then immediately issues a ethics waiver in order to get around that very piece of legislation. While we try to get a handle on that, let's just think about Bill Lynn and the fact that he will be second in command at the Department of Defense. He was recently working as a lobbyist for Raytheon, which just happens to be one of America's largest defense contractors. His new position would would give him the authority to basically control access for people such as, let's say... lobbyists for various defense contractors. Now I am not suggesting that in his role he would favor lobbyists from Raytheon or perhaps show any favor to Raytheon in a contract bid situation, but wouldn't it be easier to avoid the appearance of possible favoritism by just picking someone else. Why on earth would the President feel the need to counter his own brand new legislation in order to fill the number two job at the Defense Department? I could almost understand this if the Secretary of Defense had a conflict or any of the number one people at the cabinet posts, but for the number two person? I want a better explanation as to why this was necessary. It's great to have brand new high standards for government service, but the don't mean much when the President basically says that they only apply to the people who meet the standard. If you don't happen to meet the new standard, don't worry, the President can just make it go away.

This is slightly troubling to me. Just as potential loopholes in our torture policy is troubling. Just as closing Gitmo, but leaving open similar detention facilities in Afghanistan is troubling. I have stated on this blog that Obama's moral compass is going to be variable at times, but I never thought that he would contradict himself so quickly and in such a public manner. What exactly is our new President trying to say, "Comply with the law, unless I tell you not to"? That sounds dangerously close to the Richard Nixon defense of, "it's not a crime if the President does it", that George Bush and company wrapped themselves in. This is not quite the start I was expecting from this administration. Is Mr. Lynn so singularly qualified that he forced the President to essentially "break" his own law? Is he so indispensable? As the quote says, graveyards are filled with indispensable people.

It's About Time

The New York Times took a long overdue step recently and killed Bill Kristol's column. Mr. Kristol's columns were well known, not because of his ultra right wing views, but because of the almost constant mistakes. He was known to use right wing blogs as his "sources" for information. He never met an accusation against a Democrat, regardless of it's credibility, that he didn't like. He defended the choice of Sarah Palin as if his life depended upon it without ever disclosing the fact that he played a part in her selection. Bill Kristol represents the worst of American journalism. The New York Times is a better publication without him in it. Unfortunately the Washington Post is going to be printing his nonsense from now on. I honestly have no idea how someone as dishonest, disreputable and disgustingly partisan can find a job at publications that claim to be objective distillers of the news of the day. The likes of Bill Kristol should be confined to the fringes of society, but only in America can someone who is this bad at his job see the light of day. My co-contributor SJ, longs for the day when "“news analysts,” commentators and pundits could present their slants or opinions as fact are over". Unfortunately, as evidenced by Mr. Kristol's Washington Post gig, we are not there quite yet.

Work To Be Done

The euphoria over the inauguration is starting to subside as the Obama administration gets down to the work of running the country. The Republicans in the House and Senate are starting to show what their idea of bipartisanship is by slowing down the confirmation hearings of both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The overwhelming Democratic majorities will help to push Obama's agenda over the next two years, but I don't think that we are quite in the era of cooperation that we would have hoped for. There are a host of issues that this administration has to tackle in order to undo the damage of the past eight years, but I just wanted to pass along my personal wishlist. These are not the only issues facing the country, but they are the ones that I believe demand the most attention.

My first issue for the Obama administration is Afghanistan. Concurrent with our withdrawal from Iraq, the President has already said that he will be increasing our presence in Afghanistan. The issue that I have with the war in Afghanistan is the same one I had with Iraq. There is no real definition of "victory". We are essentially fighting a guerrilla war against small bands of terrorists across a vast stretch of land. I really would like to know what our ultimate goal is in Afghanistan. Is the goal to wipe out the Taliban and all the terrorists in the area? If so, that seems to be an unreasonable goal. Is the goal to set up a government that is capable of withstanding the challenges from the Taliban or a similar terrorist group? That also seems unreasonable. The Soviet Union tried and failed to subdue similar elements in Afghanistan. In fact that war played a big part in their ultimate dismantling. While I don't think a war of any length would have the same effect here, I do think that the United States is in for a similar fate in the disposition of the war if we do not decide exactly what our goals are there. They cannot be a moving target, as they were in Iraq, but a definite set of reachable objectives that would signal the end of our involvement there. I never heard that from the Bush administration and I have yet to hear from Obama. During the campaign he stated that our efforts in Iraq were misdirected and that we should have been focusing on Afghanistan all along. I have no issue with that, but I do need to know what our exit strategy is. A long term occupation of a country in the Middle East only leads to the breeding of more extremists. Without an exit strategy, we risk a never ending war and the creation of a new generation of people who are dedicated to our downfall.

The second issue on my list is healthcare. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare for its citizens. There are currently almost 50 million people in this country who do not have healthcare. There are many more whose coverage is insufficient to meet all their needs. I have heard many Conservatives bemoan the possibility of a government run healthcare system. They seem to feel that even when it comes to the health of their fellow citizens that the rule of nature should apply. However, this is not the jungle. It seems almost inconceivable to me that this country, which is still the richest on the planet by far, would allow it's citizens to die needlessly because they can't afford a visit to the doctor or dentist. How can any of us sleep at night knowing that there are children who will die needlessly because of simple infections? How can we allow people to be saddled with mountainous debts because the treatment that saved their lives, wasn't covered by their insurance? How can we continue to make people chose between debt and death? I am sure that the Republicans in the Congress would never allow real comprehensive healthcare reform to take place. Obama has promised some form of universal healthcare, but there are many forces lined up against him. The lobbyists for the drug companies, the lobbyists for the medical profession, the lobbyists from the insurance companies, are all going to be applying as much pressure as possible to make sure that this gravy train keeps on rolling. The human cost in lives lost and lives destroyed is never taken into account.

My next issue is education. President Obama is an example of what a superior education can produce. Unfortunately, our public schools, are for the most part, incapable of producing such a person. We have allowed our public schools to fall into such a state of disrepair that practically every parent who can afford an alternative takes it. The teachers in our public schools are underpaid and overwhelmed. The facilities are crumbling and pushed to their limits. The textbooks are as outdated as the technology. We put programs in place to try and improve performance, but they are not adequately funded. No child left behind is a great idea, but if there is no follow through, then there are many who are left behind. The election of President Obama will give our children hope that they can become anything they want, but our public education system will give them their first taste of reality. Something must be done and done quickly. We are losing generations of kids to crime, to drug addiction, to hopelessness. Obama is in the best position of any President of modern times to address this situation. He has the ability to inspire, but more importantly, the children of this country need more than inspiration, they need a better system. The kids are willing to meet the system half way, but we cannot ask them to do it all themselves.

The last issue for today (I reserve the right to add more issues to the list) is probably the most important and that is having an Executive branch that acts in accordance with and respects the Constitution. For the past eight years we have been subjected to an administration that viewed the Constitution as a nuisance. Will we, as citizens of the United States, be allowed to live our lives free from the threat of torture, free from the threat of illegal search and seizure, free from the threat of recriminations for political dissent? That is the question for this administration. President Obama said in his inauguration speech that the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one. I can only hope that he will live up to that statement. When I hear about possible loopholes in the ban against torture, I shudder. Who ever thought that there would come a day when the government of the United States would be in the business of institutionalized torture? As more information about the transgressions of the Bush administration comes to light, we will see just how far down the road we came from the republic that we are supposed to be. It is up to this administration to put us back on the right track. It will be tempting to hold on to some of the measures that were put in place under the previous administration, but the President cannot allow us anything less than a complete repudiation of those methods and measures that are counter to our Constitution. This country was founded on the ideals of freedom and transparency, let us hope that we are seeing a return to what made us great.

Dream A Little Dream

"...in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope". Those are the words that Barack Obama used in his now famous speech after the New Hampshire primary and it illustrates perfectly his connection with the man whose birthday we celebrate as a nation today. Hope is the tie that binds Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. The hope and the belief that America can do and must do better. Obama's speech not only made the point that the destinies of all Americans are intertwined, but that people must have hope in order to make a better world. MLK's most famous speech was all about hope. It spoke of a nation that didn't exist. It spoke of the dreams of an America where someone like Barack Obama can reach the highest position in the land. They share the dream of a better America. Whether it is an America where people are judged by the "content of their character", or an America where we strive to build "a more perfect union", their goals were the same.

There has been a lot of talk about whether Obama's election is the culmination of MLK's dream. It is clearly a part of what he hoped for, but it is not the end of what he hoped for. Before his death, he was working on organizing another march on Washington. This one was going to be a poverty march. He looked across the country and realized that the underclass had no one to speak for them. He realized that the poor had no voice and no power to change their situation. His dream had expanded to include the poor of all colors. Whites in Appalachia, Hispanics in California, Native Americans in Oklahoma, they all became part of the dream. Injustice will always exist, that is why the dream will never be fulfilled. It is a moving target, as is Barack Obama's dream to build a more perfect union. Obama's words imply that the union can never be perfected, but we must always strive to make it better.

MLK led the greatest moral campaign that this country has ever known. He led a generation of people who were willing to put their lives on the line to make this country a better place. Tom Brokaw wrote a book about the WWII generation entitled "The Greatest Generation", however I think that designation should go to those who worked and fought and died so that the dream of America could be shared by all Americans. It is somewhat easier to make those sacrifices when the entire country agrees with you, but when you are faced with the opposition of the majority of the citizens of this country, it takes an extraordinary type of intestinal fortitude to persevere. Barack Obama is not the successor to MLK. As President, his moral compass will not be as consistent as MLK's was. His goals will not be as single minded as MLK's were. They can't be. The job of President is much more complicated and Obama is not just the representative of some of us, he is the representative of all of us. Those who have expectations that Obama will lead a moral revolution on the scale of MLK will be disappointed.

MLK was the leader of a movement that changed this nation forever. Barack Obama is about to become the leader of the country and his election has changed this nation forever. They will always be inexorably linked. The fact that Obama will be inaugurated on the day after this nation celebrates the birthday of MLK would lead many to invoke the term, poetic justice. MLK's dream is alive in Barack Obama as it is in every person who strives to make this world a better place. The Dream and the Perfect Union remain out of reach, but it is in the striving for those things that we tap into the better angels of our nature. It is our willingness to try, regardless of the obstacles in our way, that keeps the Dream alive. MLK would most likely be very proud of Barack Obama, not only because of what he represents, but because Obama is still challenging the nation to be better. Indeed that is ultimately what links them. We can be better, we just need someone to show us the way.

Fool Me Twice

If you tell a lie enough times, does it become the truth? George Bush and Dick Cheney and their various apologists would have us believe that the greatest victory of this administration is that they have kept us safe from terrorism. Everything they have done, every transgression of the law, every attack on the Constitution was done in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism. The story they wish to tell us is that the ends have justified the means. I live in New York City and I lived here on that fateful September day in 2001. I would like to remind the President, the Vice President and all those who would seek to perpetuate the myth that the Bush administrations responsibility somehow magically began on 9/12/2001, that 3,000 people lost their lives on that day. I would ask them to talk to the families and friends of those who were killed that day and try and convince them that they have been kept "safe" during the Bush administration.

On September 11, 2001 George Bush had been in office for almost 9 months. He had been on vacation for 3 of those months. He was given ample warning of a potential terrorist attack by the use of hijacked planes. He and his advisors chose to do nothing about those warnings. When told about the attack he sat stunned and unresponsive for several minutes as he listened to school children read books aloud. At that very moment he realized that his incompetence had cost the lives of thousands of Americans. He realized that history would blame him for being asleep at the wheel and for ignoring the multiple warnings that he had received. To some extent, his administration did begin on 9/12/01. The campaign to systematically destroy the rights of the citizens of this country and to bring about the neocom dream of military action and nation building, began in earnest on that day.

President Bush came to NY and said all the right things to a shocked and dazed nation. He promised retribution and America stood up and cheered. There was no talk of the fact that this could have been prevented. There was no talk of the fact that the President had ignored warnings of just such an attack. There was no talk of the President being on vacation almost as much as he was on the job. There was no talk of blaming the current administration for the needless loss of American lives. The press focused on the tragedy and the talk of retribution. The American people wanted blood and the Bush administration was going to make sure that they got it.

There was a commission put in place to investigate 9/11. The commissioners were appointed by the President and Congress. Eventually they came to the conclusion that it was the intelligence community and not the President who was to blame for the attack. Of course that was just one part of the strategy to distract and deflect the gaze of the American public. The coup de grace was the war with Iraq. The administration decided to go to war with a country that had neither attacked us or played any part in the 9/11 attacks. Iraq posed no credible threat to the United States and yet George Bush and his pals were able to convince the American people that it was a moral imperative for us to commit our troops to this endeavor. The administration sent out its Boy Scout (Colin Powell) to convince the rest of the world that Iraq posed the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler's Germany. Even today, when it has been proven that there was no like between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq, the Vice President still insists on trying to muddy the waters by claiming that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda.

The truth played no part in any decision that the Bush administration made regarding 9/11. Illegal wiretapping, torture, no bid contracts in Iraq, etc. are all just part of the plan that began on 9/12/01. A lie repeated can sometimes become the truth. We here at Random Thoughts can only hope that there are enough people who will remain vigilant about reporting what actually happened during this administration, that the lie does not become the truth. We were not kept safe by George W. Bush. We died (in war and in terrorist attacks), we were tortured, we were bugged, we were ignored after natural disasters, we had our rights taken away and we were lied to on a daily basis. That is the truth of Bush administration. Let's make sure that we never forget it.

There's a New Sheriff in Town

The Attorney General Designate uttered the words that should long ago have come out of the mouth of the chief justice official of the United States. "Waterboarding is torture". There was no equivocation, no moderation, no ridiculous attempt to claim that he didn't know what waterboarding is (as amazingly our current AG did in his confirmation hearing), he just stated the truth. Mr. Holder stated that waterboarding has been considered torture and prosecuted as such by this country for decades. Even American troops in Vietnam were prosecuted for using this technique against enemy troops.

How hard is it for a government official to actually speak the plain truth? If one were to hold up the Bush administration as the example, then it is practically impossible. The babble that has come out of the Department of Justice during this administration has turned the organization into a sad reflection of what it used to be. The Monica Goodling Scandal and now the finding that the Civil Rights division was run as if to define the word "irony", demonstrate just how dedicated to mediocrity this administration was. Bradley Schlozman , who ran the Civil Rights division of the DOJ was found to have:

"...inappropriately considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the civil rights division. In doing so, he violated federal law and department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations and that he committed misconduct. Moreover, Mr. Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the committee.”

Of course, our esteemed Attorney General has decided not pursue any of these charges against Mr. Schlozman, just as he refused to pursue charges against Monica Goodling or Alberto Gonzalez. This is standard operating procedure for the Bush administration. Hire inept people, they commit immoral and possibly illegal acts, and then thank them with the assurance that they will not be prosecuted. How has this been allowed to go on for this long? I always ask SJ my co-contributor if we still actually live in the United States. Have we slipped into some Bizzaro universe (sorry about the obscure Superman reference)? The Civil Rights division is ground zero for discrimination in the Department of Justice! Does that strike anyone else as unacceptable? The fact that this administration has allowed the rule of law to fall to its current state of disrepair should be enough of a crime to send everyone responsible to jail.

In my previous posting, I talked about how important it is for the new administration to demonstrate that America is indeed committed to upholding the rule of law. They can start by cleaning up the DOJ and turning it back into the non-political organization that it was intended to be. I have managed to survive the last 8 years with my ability to hope for better, somehow still intact. I can hope that that the incoming administration will be able to repair the damage done by the current one. I know that it won't be easy or particularly quick, but I can hope that it will be done. There are many voices who will say that going after Bush administration officials only detracts from the more important issues that the new President is faced with. I understand those concerns, but the last time I checked, the Department of Justice is not particularly involved with solving the economic crisis. Mr. Holder's charge is to turn around a department that is now filled with career employees who have been hired under false pretenses. How does one go about affecting a change under those circumstances? Mr. Holder's words yesterday make me hope that perhaps things are about to change.

"No one is above the law, and we will follow the evidence, the facts, the law, and let that take us where we should."

The Theory of Relativity

We have written on multiple occasions about this administrations criminal culpability for its use of torture. However I did not expect the almost brazen admissions that we would be subjected to by the chief architects of that policy. Both the President and Vice-President have admitted in interviews to knowledge of and approval of torture. They seem to believe that there is no chance of any repercussions for their transgressions of international law. President Bush is basically using the same defense that served Richard Nixon so poorly. That being that if the President does it, then it isn't a crime.

Over the weekend Barack Obama, when questioned about possible criminal charges, said that his administration would like to focus on looking forward, not backward. The defense that the people who could be charged in these cases is going to be that had legal clearance (in the case of administration figures) or that they were simply following orders (in the case of the CIA operatives) to engage in the torturing of detainees. Barack Obama has promised a return to at least an appearance of transparency in government and a rebuilding of America's moral standing around the world. If his administration were to start off by forgiving the sins of the previous administration, it would be an exercise in moral relativism that would be the opposite of what he has promised.

I am sure there are many Democrats in Congress (I'm talking especially to you Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller) who would be happy if this kind of talk would just go away. There are many in the Democratic leadership who were informed of the illegal activities of the Bush Administration and did nothing about them. In fact, I am sure that there are more than a few who agreed with their tactics. If indeed there were to be an independent investigation into the use of torture in the Bush Administration, the Democrats in Congress will certainly not come out of it with clean hands. I think that the softening of Obama's stance on the possible prosecution for torture is coming from his talks with the Democratic leadership.

The Bush administration has provided a clear example of moral relativism. In their minds, torture was only torture if they said it was. Illegal wiretapping was only illegal if they said it was. In their world, the Constitution and the laws of this land were obstacles for them to navigate around by the tools at their disposal. The Democratic leadership in Congress went along with that attitude and are therefore just as culpable for the crimes that took place. Our new President has a chance to show that the ideals and morals that America has always prided itself on are more than just window dressing. I understand that there are incredibly pressing problems that have to be the priority of the new administration. However, there must also be an admission of what was done in the name of the citizens of this country by those who held our morality cheaply. I am not asking for wholesale prosecutions, but I am asking that the crimes that took place in the name of the citizens of this country be exposed. I am asking that those people responsible are named and exposed to public scrutiny. I am asking that the criminals, who are hiding under the guise of politicians, be exposed for what they are. They are not patriots (which is what they would have us believe), they are the opposite of that. They are enemies of the Constitution. They are the enemies of what this country was founded for. They are the enemies of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

This is one of the first conflicts that President-elect Obama has had to face between campaign rhetoric and actual governing. There can be no doubt that the United States Government approved of and carried out a program of torture. I'll say that again, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT APPROVED OF AND CARRIED OUT A PROGRAM OF TORTURE. Those are the facts. President Obama can either chose to do nothing about that, or he can show the citizens of the US and the rest of the world that the rule of law actually means something. He can either show that the words in our Constitution are universally meaningful or universally meaningless. He can show that the United States believes in it's own laws or that we apply them only when we feel like it. He can either chose to engage in moral relativism or in morality. The choice is his.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

Roland Burris has been named to fill Barack Obama's seat in the US Senate by embattled Governor Rod Blagojevich. Mr. Burris is the former Attorney General of Illinois and was the first African-American elected to statewide office in the history of the state when he became Comptroller in 1979. Mr. Burris arrived in DC today and is planning on attending the meetings for freshman Senators tomorrow. He will be faced with a few obstacles however. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, has said that he will not seat Burris, and his appointment has not been validated to the Illinois Secretary of State.

Mr. Burris is proceeding under the assumption that he has been legally nominated by the Governor and he is now the junior Senator from the Illinois. We are now set up for a confrontation on the steps of the Senate tomorrow. According to the rules of the state of Illinois, the Governor is indeed the only person in the state who can appoint someone to take Barack Obama's place. He is under investigation by the US Attorney's office, but until he is removed from office, he still has the power to fill that seat. The certificate of appointment is supposed to be signed by both the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois, who is currently refusing to do so. This is the technicality that will be used to refuse admittance to Burris to the Senate.

The question is, should Burris be allowed to take Obama's seat? There are many who will say that Governor Blagojevich is in a compromised position and therefore anyone he picks illegitimate. No one is suggesting that Burris offered anything for the seat, but the fact that people were excluded from the process because they refused to play ball with the Governor, means that even an appointee who is apparently clean would be tainted. I personally don't think that Burris should be penalized because of the ongoing scandal. He is qualified for the position and he has been appointed by the Governor. That really should be it.

The fact is that the Governor has actually made a very good tactical choice. It may very well be a public relations ploy, but it is a very good one. He picked an African-American who has been elected statewide on multiple occasions and is someone who seems qualified for the position. Barack Obama was the only African-American in the Senate (in fact he was only the third Black person elected to the US Senate) and there has been a lot of talk about trying to find a qualified African American to replace him. By picking Burris, Blagojevich has provided himself with some political cover. The press cannot accuse him of making a bad decision or of having sold the job to the highest bidder. The press is now split over seating Burris. Blagojevich has managed to deflect unanimously negative coverage of him and turn that into a debate about the Burris appointment.

I have no idea what is ultimately going to happen, but it may come down to how badly the Democrats need the extra vote. With Al Franken's apparent win in Minnesota, seating Burris would mean that they would only need two votes from the Republicans in order to have a filibuster proof majority. I think that in the end it's not going to matter who appointed the replacement for Obama, but whether the Democrats need the vote or not. I'm sure that Harry Reid would never admit to this, but because the Blagojevich impeachment may drag out for months, he's probably going to blink first.

What A Time It Was

2008 will long be remembered for the momentous election that brought America its first Black President. It will also be remembered for the disastrous economic collapse. The American people bought into Barack Obama's message of hope and possibility, while watching the economy collapse around them. It was a year in which America showed that it still had some idealism in it while bearing witness to the catastrophic results of unbridled greed and cynicism.

I'm not sure how you wrap up a year like this one. However, I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of 2008. I don't know if there's a lot left to say, so I'll just include a portion of an article that I wrote back in March.

Imagine what it would be like to wake up the day after the general election in November and realize that America had elected it's first non white-male President. It would say so much about how far the country has come. It would be a significant step to showing how far we have come toward fulfilling the ideal of America. We are supposed to be that "shining city on a hill", we are supposed to believe "that there is a placed called hope", we are supposed to think that we are guided by "the better angels of our nature". That is the dream that we have been asked to buy for so long.

I don't know the answer to the question of whether Obama or Clinton would be a better President than McCain, but no one does. If we allow fear and hatred to make that decision for us then we turn our back on everything that this country is supposed to stand for. I am not saying that people should vote for the Democratic candidate to prove a point. What I am saying is that each candidate must be judged on the merits and not pre-judged on their race, religion or gender. That really is all I ask. Is that so much? Judging by what I hear and read every day, apparently it is. I do hope that this election cycle will prove me wrong. I can hope that we have a fair and above board election. I can hope that the majority of Americans stand up and reject the politics of hate and fear. I can hope that this is the year, that we as a country, (as Dr. King so eloquently stated), "rise up and live out the true meaning of our creed". I can only hope.

I'll end this post with the lyrics to "Bookends" by Paul Simon:

"Time it was, and what a time it was, it was. A time of innocence, a time of confidences. Long ago, it must be, I have a photograph. Preserve your memories; They're all that's left you."

Beating a Dead Horse

The Rod Blagojevich scandal is continuing to drag on with no end in sight. He US Attorney Fitzpatrick is refusing to release the wiretapped conversations of Blagojevich, which are the backbone of the case against the Governor. Therefore any planned impeachment hearings against him are basically stalled because they don't have the primary evidence needed to remove him from office. The Obama camp has released their internal investigation which shows that at least two of members of the President-elect's staff had contact with Blagojevich. The nature of these contacts is basically what is being questioned by the more desperate elements of the Republican Party and the press. Fitzpatrick has already stated that nobody on the Obama team is under investigation and the facts that have been released to date seem to point to the fact that they never offered or seriously discussed any sort of payoff for the Governor for the Senate appointment. That doesn't seem to be enough for those who are hell bent on trying to stain the incoming President.

The internal Obama report said that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel spoke with the Governor on two occasions. The Fitzpatrick report seems to suggest that they may have been a couple of more instances than that. That discrepancy should not scream COVER UP to any rational person, especially when the nature of the contact is not in dispute. However the Right Wing would have you believe that the discrepancy is evidence of a lack of transparency from the Obama team. The release date of the Obama team report was itself a cause of a great outcry because it was delayed at the request of the US Attorney's office. The press tried to make a story out of this along with the usual suspects on the Right.

All accounts of Blagojevich's contact with the Obama team confirm that no one was willing to offer him anything other than "appreciation" for the appointment. His recorded conversations include some profanity laced tirades in which he blows off Obama and his team because they are unwilling to offer him anything for the seat. This is clearly a national story because it involves corruption at a high level and it impacts the Senate seat from Illinois, however this story is not about Barack Obama. The press and the far right continue to try to play the guilt by association game (which worked so well for them during the campaign) but there is literally nothing there.

I have even heard the ridiculous claim that if somehow Obama had been more forthcoming initially, this would no longer be a story. First of all, Obama delayed the release of his report at the request of the US Attorney and secondly that is just a bunch of nonsense. The Obama name is like gold for a news starved press and there is no doubt that regardless of the speed of his response, there would continue to be "questions" raised in order to maintain the appearance of a scandal. If this is the level of nonsense that we can look forward to in the coverage of the President-elect, then we are in for a long four years indeed.

Money For Nothing

$1.6 billion. Let's just think about that number for a moment. $1.6 billion. That's one thousand and six hundred million dollars. According to the AP, that is the total of the salary and bonuses that were given out to the top executives at the banks and financial institutions that were involved in the government bailout. I know that some financial institutions were in better shape than others, but I don't remember hearing about any that had a great year. Certainly if there were banks that had not invested heavily in derivatives, then they would not have been in line to get a government handout. Every single institution who accepted a government handout played fast and lose with the money that was entrusted to them by the public. They were reckless and greedy at best and immoral and criminal at worst. Somehow, even while pushing the international economic system to the brink of collapse, it turns out that the executives of those institutions were doing a stellar job.

Apparently there is no executive in the financial industry who feels the slightest bit responsible for squandering billions of dollars and for creating a situation that will force millions of people to default on their home loans. Do these people have a conscience? How do you suppose they feel as they spend this holiday season at one of their seven homes, which they flew to via private jet provided by the same companies that are receiving billions of dollars in aid from a public that can't even afford to pay their mortgages? Actually, I'm sure they feel pretty good. Isn't a free market system based on the principle of survival of the fittest? Therefore they must be the fittest people in America.

Clearly, the people upon whose blood, sweat and tears, the fortunes of the privileged few have been made, don't deserve to be helped the way the fittest have been helped. Why should the government help the least among us, when it can secure the fortunes of the ones with the most among us? Why would this administration, in particular, come up with solutions that might actually help someone other than the people who contributed heavily to their election? Why? Why you ask? I'll give you 1.6 billion reasons why! The ridiculous compensation of top executives cannot continue without a reasonably healthy middle class. Even out of their own greed-driven self-interest, Wall St. and the White House should realize that if the middle class collapses, their seemingly endless gravy train comes to a complete stop. Our economy, as we know it, comes to a complete halt and crumbles under the weight of the artificially inflated wealth at the top of the scale.

It does seem extremely shortsighted, for the government to bailout banks in order for them to be able to extend more credit to people who can't pay their bills now. How does that fix the problem? The financial institutions think it's a great idea because they get to buy other banks. The executives think it's great because they get huge bonuses and they still afford to keep their wives and their girlfriends happy. The Bush administration thinks it's great because they look like they get to look like the heroes on the white horse coming to save the day. And that is all great for them, but what about the tens of millions of people who actually make this economy work? Where is their bailout? Where are their bonuses? Where are their stock options? The bottom line is that when more than 1 in 10 people can't find a job (if you include temp workers (who are not included in the unemployment statistics), and those that have run out unemployment insurance and those that have simply given up trying to find work) and perhaps double that are at jobs that don't pay them enough to afford a reasonable standard of living, then you can see that we are living on borrowed time. If something isn't done soon, we will look back on the financial crisis of 2008 as the good old days.

There will be many parents who don't have the money to give Christmas gifts this year. There will be many a young child who will not get that bike or big wheel or barbie doll or Hannah Montana CD or MP3 player or computer that they wanted. But the adults can always explain to those disappointed children that they took part in real spirit of the season by giving to those in greater need. And as those kids curl up in their beds with a tear of disappointment rolling down their cheeks, perhaps they will find some comfort in knowing that there are 1.6 billion reasons why they shouldn't feel so bad.

No Rest For the Wicked

Barack Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration has created a firestorm of protest from the left and the right. The people on the right are upset with Warren for accepting the invitation and Obama's supporters are upset with Obama for inviting someone they see as an agent of intolerance to such a historic and symbolic event. Obama has explained his pick by saying that he has always believed in trying to find common ground with those who hold opposing views.

Rick Warren has stated that he sees no difference between Gay marriage and pedophilia, incest or polygamy. In his mind they are all equal. He not only doesn't think that gays should have the right to get married, he sees their unions as equal to the most despicable form of child abuse. He has equated abortion to genocide and said that the supporters of abortion are basically supporting murder. I would like to ask the President-elect to show me the middle ground in that argument. My co-contributor SJ made perhaps one the most astute observations I have ever heard when he said, "you can't argue with people who think they're going to heaven". Mr. Warren believes that he's going to heaven and unless you believe everything he does, you are not. There is no ground for compromise in his position.

Mr. Warren has put a kinder, gentler face on the same kind of intolerance that the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made so popular. His great claim to fame for being a "new" school evangelist is that he is "environment friendly". He thinks that we should be doing more to reverse global warming. Well, that and the fact that he doesn't wear a jacket and tie every day. However intolerance dressed down and warmed over, is still intolerance. It is true however that his stance on gay marriage essentially mirrors the public stance of the President-elect. While Obama has never said that he equates gay unions with vile criminal activity, he has publicly stated his opposition to same sex marriage.

I have already stated my position on same sex marriage, however I think it's important to realize just how fundamentally wrong it is to arbitrarily decide that certain people don't have the same rights as everyone else. Suppose Rick Warren were opposed to left handed people marrying each other. That position would be viewed as ridiculous, but his argument would be that those people are choosing the left handed lifestyle and until the decide to do things the right way, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The position of evangelicals is that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle choice, therefore those who make that choice should not have the same rights as the rest of society. Throughout history, people have been persecuted for things are ridiculous as hair color, eye color, and believe it or not being left handed. They all seem unthinkable to us today, but at the time, people believed that had perfectly legitimate reasons to discriminate and shun those afflicted with the various "maladies".

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those "practicing" the homosexual lifestyle are not doing so by choice. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that there are currently more homosexuals "practicing" the heterosexual lifestyle than there have ever been of the reverse situation. Homosexuality is no more a choice than being a heterosexual is, or being white is, or being left handed is, or being blue eyed is. Why would someone chose to be part of one the last minority groups that it is still perfectly acceptable to discriminate against? The line to sign up for daily persecution would be very short indeed. And yet this is the premise that people like Rick Warren ask us to accept. And trust me, they know they're right because they are going to heaven and you're not.

Ultimately, I have to have to believe that Barack Obama's reasons for making this choice will bear fruit is some manner. Perhaps he's just using this selection to provide him some cover for some sweeping announcement that will benefit the gay community. I have to believe that because otherwise this choice makes absolutely no sense to me. Has he chosen to offend a significant portion of the people who supported him in order to make a point? And what point would that be? That hatred and intolerance are part of the fabric of American society? I think we all got that point a long time ago. The inauguration is the wrong place for that kind of civics lesson.

Look Back In Anger

President Bush is on his so called "Legacy Tour" in which he is attempting to make the case that his presidency has been an unequivocal success. Among his claims are that he kept America safe from terrorism, won the war in Iraq and stabilized the Middle East. He takes no blame for the current economic situation because he says, he inherited these problems from his successors (including his father). His Vice President is also in the process of reinterpreting the past. He feels so secure in himself that he is actually admitting in public that approved the torturing of prisoners and that we are safer because of it.

I'm sure that every President tries to make his case on the way out of office, but this administration has been particularly dismissive of the public’s perception of their actions. Vice President Cheney infamously answered “So”, when he was informed of the fact that the majority of Americans wanted the US to leave Iraq. A monarch never feels the need to explain to or seek the approval of the people and the Bush administration has certainly been run as if they had that power. They have ignored and trampled on the Constitution and blatantly ignored the rights of everyone and everything that came across their path. This Imperial presidency was planned for and carried out with ingenious precision by George Bush and his team. Just a year ago, the President seemed confident that history would show that he was not only correct, but that he was prescient in taking the steps that he did.

The failures of this administration are almost too many to list, but they never felt the need to explain themselves before. Did you know that everything is great in New Orleans? The President himself said so a mere matter of weeks after the Katrina disaster. Never mind the fact that to this day, there are still people who are living in trailers. Never mind the fact that the emergency trailers that were provided were later found out to have been built with toxic materials. Never mind that there are people who lost their lives needlessly. The President said everything was fine and so in his mind, it is so. The war in Iraq, which this President declared over five years ago, is now a success because of the last 12 months. Never mind the fact that over 4,000 Americans have lost their lives. Never mind the fact that up to a million Iraqi’s may have lost their lives. Never mind the fact that terrorists continue to kill innocent Iraqi’s to this day. Never mind that fact that Al Qaeda never existed in Iraq until we go there. The President says it’s a success and so it is.

This is an example of the revisionist history that the President and Vice President are now trying to sell to the American people. It seems they have forgotten the rule about monarchs and their lack of accountability. They now seem to be worried that their legacy is not going to be the stuff of Mount Rushmore. And they have every right to be concerned. If there were a monument for the worst Presidents of all time, George W. Bush would be sitting for a sculptor as we speak. I’m thoroughly convinced that Dick Cheney’s soul is a dark place that long ago had a place reserved on one of the lower levels of hell.

The Legacy tour should instead be a tour of apology. He should personally apologize to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children and friends of every single soldier who has died for his folly. He should have to apologize to every family who lost a loved one in New Orleans. He should have to apologize to every Iraqi family who has had their lives irreparably harmed by the baseless incursion of our armed forces into their country. He should apologize to every family who has lost a home in the mortgage crisis. He should apologize to every person who has lost a job during this economic disaster. He should apologize to every single inmate who was tortured or held indefinitely without the benefit of counsel. He should apologize to every American for stripping our rights away and making us fear our government. That is what he should be spending his time on. Not on making speeches in which he tries to take credit for successes that could only be seen that way by someone with blinders on. If he would like to take credit for keeping us safe from terrorism then he should have to talk to the families of every victim of the 9/11 attacks and ask them how safe their loved ones were from terrorism.

Heir to the Throne

Caroline Kennedy has risen to the top of the list of candidates for the New York Senate seat that will be vacated by Hillary Clinton when she is approved for Secretary of State. Caroline Kennedy has never served in public office or run a campaign or frankly taken a public position on any controversial issues. In fact, her sole foray into politics was campaigning for Barack Obama's election. It is crystal clear that this ascendancy is based solely on her last name.

Caroline Kennedy has degrees from Harvard and Columbia, so her intelligence is not in question. What is in question is how someone who has no political history can rise to the top of the list of candidates for appointment to a Senate seat. If Mrs. Schlossberg's last name happened to be Johnson, do you think that she would even be in the conversation? I have railed against the Bush administrations policy of appointing unqualified people to important positions (Alberto Gonzalez anyone?), but I also feel the need to point this out when the Democrats engage in the same underhanded activity. New York City has had to put up with a Mayor who refuses to leave office regardless of the law and now we are being asked to swallow an appointment based some sort of "Kennedy privilege doctrine". What about what's best for New York? Is Caroline Kennedy the most qualified person to advocate for this state during these difficult economic times? Will she be able to effectively lobby her fellow Senators for help on legislation that will benefit our citizens? Is having a "celebrity" with no legislative experience the best that we as New Yorkers can hope for?

There are direct parallels between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin. Palin was chosen for a variety of reason, but none of them were about her qualifications for the position. Caroline Kennedy is undoubtedly more intelligent than the Governor of Alaska, but her qualifications for the position are as dubious as Palin's were. In fact they may actually be worse. While Governor Palin was in over her head as a Vice Presidential candidate, she had at least been elected to multiple positions and had to take a public stance on a multitude of issues. Caroline Kennedy has never had to face the public and answer for anything. She has never given a press conference on her political positions, she has never faced the voters in an election, she has never faced an opponent in an election, and yet she would like to be anointed (oh, sorry), appointed as our next Senator.

Some will point to other "celebrity" politicians who didn't have any experience when they entered politics. They will point to Hillary Clinton or Arnold or Jesse Ventura or Al Franken, but the difference with all of those individuals is that they had to face the voters and opponents in elections. In fact, I question whether Caroline Kennedy would even have gotten involved in this at all if this seat were up for a vote instead of an appointment. Caroline Kennedy has never shown any interest in running for public office and has fiercely protected her privacy. She has never really been a "public figure". She has always been in the public eye because of her name, but she has never sought the limelight. She is not like Hillary Clinton, who was willing to state her positions and face the public in order to get into office. Kennedy is basically using her name to try and avoid this step.

The Kennedy's are political royalty in this country, but none of them have ever been given their positions in Congress. Robert Kennedy was appointed as Attorney General by his brother, but even he had to face approval from the Congress. And when the Senate seat from New York opened up, he ran for and won that seat. Clearly a lot of his support came from the fact that his name was Kennedy and that his brother had been killed in office, but he had to run on his own. He had to face an opponent. He had to face the voters of New York and tell them what he was going to do for them.

I have to assume that Caroline Kennedy's views are basically in line with my own on most important topics, but that has nothing to do with whether she is qualified or whether she deserves this position. If Caroline Kennedy really wants to be the Senator from New York, then let her run for it in two years when the seat will come up for election. She can certainly spend the next two years explaining her positions to New Yorkers and building up her qualifications for the job. I have no doubt that she will be able to easily raise tens of millions of dollars for her Senate campaign. I have no doubt that if her name (or her last name to be exact) were to appear on a ballot that New Yorkers would be falling over themselves to vote for her. I have no problem with a candidate who faces the voters and is then approved by them. That's our process. That's the way things work.

The thing is that we have a person here in New York who I do think would make a perfect choice. I'm sure he was never considered because he isn't a Democrat, but the person who could make the best case for New York during these trying economic times is none other than our Mayor (or Emperor as he likes to be called) Mike Bloomberg. He understands the legislative process, his economic experience is unquestioned and he would be a great advocate for the people of this City and this state. Of course that would never happen because Mike Bloomberg initially ran for Mayor as a Republican, even though he is now listed as an Independent. His actual party affiliation is Pragmatist. He ran as a Republican because he saw that as his best opportunity to win in the primaries. He's now an independent because he doesn't need the party affiliation to win. Everything comes down to politics though, even at the expense of the well being of the people of this state. But as I've stated before, the welfare of the people is always the last factor in the equation. Clearly our job is to stand silently by as the aristocracy divvy up the spoils.

Three is a Magic Number

The Republican Senators who killed the proposed bridge loan to the Big 3 automakers did the people of America a disservice last night. The southern Senators who have big foreign car plants in their states have a two-fold agenda. First they want to try and kill the domestic competition for their new best friends and secondly they want to break the UAW. Last night they succeeded in killing a bill that would have helped to keep Ford, GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. By doing so, they have left a handout from the previously approved $700 billion bailout as the option left to help the companies.

There are multiple reasons why I believe the loans to the car companies was the right thing to do, but there is one that is paramount. The 3 major car companies are directly tied to millions of jobs in this country. If they are allowed to fail, literally entire towns and cities will be devastated. 1.5 million auto workers will have to find other jobs to help pay their mortgages and credit card bills. Retired or disabled auto workers who rely on their benefits to get by will either have to go back to work or receive government help. The state of Michigan would probably default on every loan it currently has outstanding and would certainly not be able to pay its healthcare bill. The ripple effect on the US economy would be catastrophic.

The reason that the bridge loan was my preferred way to go about a temporary solution was that it came with strings attached. The car companies would have to be accountable to Congress for their actions. Their was going to be oversight and they would have make positive steps to creating more fuel efficient cars and funding alternative fuel research. Bailout money for AIG didn't have any strings attached. They are currently funneling millions of dollars to their high ranking employees. They aren't calling them bonuses of course. They are called "retention payouts" or something equally ridiculous. So a company, whose business it is to assess risk is rewarding the very people who failed to see the risk involved in their business practices. That is appalling to me. The bank bailout, in which the bill to the American tax payer was $700 billion has had no effect on the credit markets that it was supposed to help free up. In fact, most of the banks that have received money from the bailout have spent it by buying other banks and laying off employees. That feels like money well spent, doesn't it?

The ridiculous statement about the employees of the American car manufacturers making $70 an hour has been used over and over to justify beating down the UAW and trying to get concessions from the workers. That dollar figure takes into account all the retirement/disability payments that are being paid to millions of people who no longer work for the companies. The actual hourly dollar figure is almost exactly what Honda and Toyota pay their employees. The Senators who continue to harp on the higher number know exactly what they are doing. Their goal isn't based some high minded ideal about being fiscally conservative. They want to help big business at the expense of the worker. Auto workers and the UAW have very willing over the years to help out when their was a crisis, after all, having a job is better than being unemployed (even if it is one that pays less than it used to). But asking workers to take less because the people who run the company have been incompetent is just wrong. Where is the accountability for the people in the board room? American auto workers want to make the best cars in the world. They want to make cars that make sense for the future, but they don't decide what they build. It wasn't their idea to keep on building more and more SUV's, but they are the ones who are being asked to pay for the mistakes made by people who don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck.

I understand the feeling that we should let the free market decide who makes it and who doesn't. However, the government has already decided that it can play God. Is now the time to say enough? Does that not seem arbitrary to you? It does to me. This is just another example of the class warfare that takes place in this country every day. The Government acted with all speed when the financial markets needed help. The Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury were on TV every day explaining why a bailout was needed. We couldn't allow these institutions to go under without facing an economic catastrophe. Well some of those institutions did go under and despite almost $350 billion in aid, there has been no tangible evidence of any change in the situation. Of course their answer to that is to ask for Congress to release the other $350 billion that it approved. I guess it doesn't hurt to have friends in high places. People on Wall St. ask DC to jump, the only question coming back is, "how high?". The bailout still hasn't addressed the millions of people who will be defaulting on their mortgages, but then again, those people don't have the Fed Chairman's cell phone number handy.

The Big 3 have agreed to repay the loan from the Government, they have agreed to federal oversight, they have agreed to design and build more fuel efficient cars, they have agreed to work on alternative fuel research, they have agreed to wage concessions, and yet, unlike the financial institutions (who didn't have to promise anything in return for their payday), they have yet to get any help from Congress. I personally don't care about the people who run these companies. Clearly they are all really bad at their jobs. What I do care about are the millions of regular Americans who will suffer if these companies fail. I don't know if America can sustain three car companies anymore. Perhaps there needs to be a merger (Ford and Chrysler merging would seem to make sense from a size perspective) of some sort. I do know that without some Government aid these companies will go bankrupt in the very near future. They can file for Chapter 11 reorganization but that would mean that some of those bailed out financial institutions would have to give them loans and they seem to be too busy giving out bonuses and buying each other to actually get around to lending any money these days.

Separate but Equal

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:
"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually has had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all. Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:

"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference. The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Spoils of Victory

It has been less than 48 hours since the results of the historic election on Tuesday and the Republican response has been swift. There has not been an official from the Republican party to appear on TV without mentioning that America is "a center-right" country and that Obama would be best served to govern with that in mind. The Republicans were unable to come up with a strategy for the McCain campaign, however it seems they have decided upon their post-election strategy. Their idea is to try and convince the American people that Barack Obama has to govern as a Republican would in order to be effective.

Apparently it has not occurred to them that they lost this election. They do not get to dictate the terms under which the Obama administration goes about its business. And where do they get the idea that America is a center-right country? The Right has certainly been very vocal and organized, but with the rise of the Internet, the Left has found its voice as well. We are a 45/45 country. The 10% in the middle (who are truly persuadable) decide the fate and the direction of the country in every election. In this election they have decided that we are a little more left than right. In fact in they had pretty much decided that during the '06 election, where the Democrats made dramatic gains in the House and regained control (tenuous though it may have been) of the Senate.

Barack Obama may indeed govern from the center, but it won't be because he feels that he has to follow the dictate of the Republican party. One of the main themes of his campaign was civility. While I believe that there will be times when he takes advantage of the Democratic majority in Congress, for the most part I think that he'll try to find a position that can attract the moderate Republicans, at least, to his side. The economic realities that he will face won't allow for much creative law making anyway. The economy will dominate his domestic agenda and I suspect that while he will find very vocal opposition (to whatever position he takes) from the far right, he will also find those who are willing to cross the isle and work with him.

Republicans have to come to terms with the fact that the American people have rejected the center-right or far-right policies of the Bush administration. In the end, voters do not elect a Democrat as President for his center-right policies.

Speechless

The President-elect.

One of the People

What is the future for the Republican party? Whether they win or lose on Tuesday, it seems that there are more than a few members of their party who seem to think that Sarah Palin is going to be the face of the party going forward. Many believe that a victory tomorrow means that she will become the standard bearer for the party as she serves an apprenticeship under John McCain, a loss leaves her positioned to run for the Presidency in 2012. The most often mentioned reason for her support is that she's "one of the people". There is a general consensus that she more like "Joe six-pack" than Joe Biden, and that is seen as a positive.

Sarah Palin recently complained that the press criticism of her, may in fact be infringing upon her First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects the American people from Congress enacting laws that would infringe upon their right of free speech. How does that relate to the press criticizing Sarah Palin? It doesn't, but since when do the facts have anything to do with the popularity of Governor Palin. In her world, the First Amendment would protect the government from the criticism of the press even though the document actually says the complete opposite. In her world, the Vice President is not only part of the Executive branch, but the most powerful member of the Legislative branch as well. It is that lack of basic understanding of the Constitution that makes Sarah Palin not only unqualified to lead this country but highlights one of similarities between her and the current administration.

Governor Palin has said that she never wavered when asked to be John McCain's running mate, but in hindsight, perhaps she should have. I don't believe that George W. Bush always wanted to be President. I think a group of interested parties believed that they could make him President and he went along for the ride. As with President Bush, Sarah Palin's ambition got in the way of common sense. There clearly was no vetting of her before she was picked by John McCain. From her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter, to her ethics violation investigation by the Alaska state legislature to her husband's ties to an Alaskan secessionist party, she was a ticking time bomb when she was tabbed for the VP slot by John McCain. McCain hoped that she would not only excite the base of the party, but bring in disaffected Hilliary Clinton voters as well. While she has succeeded in the former, she has not been able to bring over Hillary Clinton supporters in any great numbers. She knew what kind of baggage she would be dragging with her into the national spotlight (including exposing her children to excessive scrutiny), but that all took a backseat to the chance to advance herself.

She has shown a glaring shallowness of knowledge about national and international politics. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were disasters. She has been abandoned by some of the leading figures in the right leaning press (who are now branded as "elitist" for failing to support her) and many prominent Republican figures have thrown their support behind Barack Obama, while pointing to her selection as a major reason for their decision. None of this has seemed to matter to the base of the Republican party. Sarah Palin is one of them. All attacks against her are viewed as unwarranted and just symbolic of the bias of the "liberal media" (that of course ignores the fact that people like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan are far from being liberals). According to her supporters, she is the perfect face for the Republican Party because of her mistakes, not in spite of them. Her lack of understanding, her misstatements, her outright gaffes, all show that she is a regular person and that is what they value in a leader. Well, that and a committed opposition to abortion.

The standards for leadership in this country have fallen to the point that actual competency no longer matters. Intelligence is now viewed as a detriment. Who wants to hang out with someone who's going to make you feel stupid? We would much rather have a President who we want to have a beer with and talk about the game with than one who is going to bore us with their "elitist" rhetoric. Ronald Reagan started us off down this path, but he was playing a part. While he may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, he spent his entire political career being indoctrinated in Conservative dogma. He learned his politics from Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, so upon arriving in the White House, he was well versed in the game. He decided that folksy was the way to go and as an actor used to playing roles, he played that one to the hilt. He was Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He was the regular guy who happened to have made it to top, but never forgot where he came from. He claimed to be the champion of the little guy and a true patriot and that's the role he successfully pulled off. George Bush, who followed him into the White House, was as far from a regular guy as you could find, but even he dumbed himself down, so that people would feel more comfortable with him. Bill Clinton (who actually was a Rhodes Scholar) also played the regular guy role. He felt our pain and earned the nickname "Bubba".

This succession of leaders who felt the need to play the role of "regular guy", led to the election of someone who wasn't playing a role. George W. Bush clearly lacks the intellectual capacity of his immediate successors and has led this country to the brink of disaster. He came into office as a "compassionate conservative". His eight years in office have shown him to be neither particularly compassionate (ask the survivors of Katrina) and certainly not a Conservative (how exactly do you inherit a surplus of $200 billion and turn that into a deficit approaching $1 trillion?). He will leave his eight year term having taken almost a full year of vacation time. George W. Bush was undoubtedly "one of us" but the truth is that "one of us" is not qualified for the job.

So now we return to Governor Palin, who claims that whenever she gets a question from the media that she doesn't answer correctly that they are engaging in "gotcha" questioning. If asking a question about what newspapers you read is a "gotcha" question, then every question ever posed to a politician in the history of makind is a "gotcha" question. Sarah Palin is undoubtedly one of the people, but the question becomes, is that who we want to lead us? Do we want someone who doesn't understand the Constitution? Do we want someone who thinks that being able to see Russia from their home state gives them foreign policy credentials (I can see the moon from my backyard, but I don't think that makes me an Astronaut)? Do we want someone who can only talk about issues in soundbites? Do we want someone whose greatest ambition in life was to be an anchor on Sportscenter? Do we want someone who can't pronounce the word nuclear (oh that's right we already have that)? Do we want to settle for mediocrity? If you answered yes to those questions, then Sarah Palin is the person for you. And it seems that a lot of people in the Republican Party would agree.