Emancipation Proclamation

Random thought for the day: Magic Johnson and Michael Jordon need to shut the fU@K up about LeBron James and his decision to sign with the Miami Heat. First of all Magic Johnson happened to end on a team with two of the fifty greatest players of all time. Of course he wouldn't have tried to play on the same team as Larry Bird. Why should he? He came out of college and went right to a team that was ready to win an NBA championship. In Magic's first year in the league, he played alongside the MVP and eventual all time scorer in the NBA. He was joined by James Worthy two years later. He also had the benefit of a perennial first team all defensive player in Michael Cooper. If Lebron James had the fortune to be drafted on such a well stocked team I think his decision would have been a little different. So Magic STFU!

As far as Michael Jordan goes, he didn't win shit in his first seven years in the league and that was after playing 3 years in college. By his standard, Lebron James still has two more years before he has to produce a championship. Michael Jordon didn't win shit until he got teamed up with another top 50 player in Scottie Pippen. And as MJ showed in his hall of fame speech, he is a classless man. For what reason, I'm not sure, considering he has been given a pass by the public for all of his failings as a husband, father and frankly as a human being. However, he couldn't wait to say that he would never have done what Lebron had done. MJ STFU!

And frankly Charles Barkley needs to STFU too. He unsuccessfully chased a ring at the end of his career by going to Houston and teaming up with fellow top 50 players Clyde Drexler and Hakeem Olajuwan. He also had to chime in and say that he wouldn't have done what Lebron had done. Really Charles? Really? You need to STFU!

Last time I checked Lebron James was a FREE AGENT. Do these people not understand what that means? He wanted to go and play with his friends, who just happen to include one of the best 3 players in the league and the best big man available. It's that simple. His decision doesn't diminish the legacy of those who went before him, but some of the greatest players of all time sure did jump in to make sure that they got their two cents in to try and diminish Lebron's legacy. There is nothing worse than an old ballplayer telling you how much better the players and the game were when they played. That's what Magic, MJ and Charles are doing now. They just need to STFU! I haven't heard from Larry Bird yet, but he should remember that he also played alongside Kevin McHale, who just happens to be on that list of the 50 greatest players of all time.

Brief Respite

The president is still learning on the job. He makes mistakes (sometimes horrendous ones), but I honestly believe that he is as good as it's going to get in this political atmosphere. There is nothing I would like more than a real progressive president, who makes bold moves and helps the people who need help the most. However, we vote for President and not for king. Was health care, financial reform, etc. a lot less than we could have hoped for? Of course, but would it have even been on the agenda for a Republican president? I don't think so. And spare me the, "what we need is a real progressive in the office" language. First of all, a "real progressive" couldn't win the office of President. Anyone with a record of pushing a true left leaning agenda would be destroyed by the right wing press before they even got a chance at the White House. We live in a country where millions of people can be convinced to vote against their own self interest by lies and slogans. And if by some miracle they were elected, they would face a Congress who care more about being re-elected and sucking up to the money men and women who line their pockets than helping those among us who need help the most.

I do not live in the dreamland where this perfect leader exists. I can be disappointed in the President, but I am under no illusion that someone else would be pushing through bolder initiatives. The Congress is ineffective at best and crooked at worst. How exactly would this supposed messiah push through single payer, meaningful wall st. reform and economic stimulus when he's facing a bunch of people who only care about covering their own ass? It's disappointing to have people talk about sitting out the next election. That's perfectly fine, but if you do sit out then you should lose the right to complain about what comes next.

Do I think the President could do a better job? Do I think that the people in the White House should be smarter than allowing themselves to be duped by the noise machine at Fox news? Of course I do, but that doesn't mean that I'm ready to jump ship. I live in the real world. Anyone want to join me?

Basterd! That's right with an E!

I guess my random thoughts aren't all that frequent. Trust me, I'm trying, but apparently my brain is a rocky place where interesting thoughts can find no purchase. Anyway, I recently watched a few of the best picture candidates from last year and came out with the distinct thought that Inglorious Basterds was the best of the bunch. The Hurt Locker didn't strike me as anything particularly new or original and Avatar was "Dances with Smurfs". Up in the Air was quite entertaining, but didn't really have the weight of something that I would consider as best picture material. Tarantino has always been the most original of directors working in the big budget world of Hollywood. His movies are always the sum total of his ideas. If he wants to make a kung fu movie with an homage to every bad 70's Shaw brothers movie, then that's what he does. If he wants to make a movie based on all the bad action drive in movies that he saw growing up, then that's what he does. He has been more successful in converting those ideas to the screen in some of his movies as opposed to others, but he always hits the target that he's aiming at. Inglorious Basterds gives us an alternative view of WWII and while you'll be reminded of movies like "The Dirty Dozen", the actual execution of the movie is something entirely different. I won't give away any plot points, but it was surprising on many levels. It was also fun. And Hollywood definitely needs a little bit more of that.

It Is Alive!

Since I have been unable to come up with a topic to post about and I'm pretty sure that no one reads this blog anymore, I think I'll just go back to putting up some random thoughts from time to time. Today's Random Thought is that Born to Run, by Bruce Springsteen, is probably the most perfect rock and roll song I've ever heard. It's about desperation, urgency, love, rebellion, and ultimately about escaping the bonds of complacency and reaching for a dream. All are themes that rock and roll are built on, but I think this one does the best of putting them all together. There's a great sax solo and an iconic guitar solo to boot. I know they put Chuck Berry on the disc that they included on the Voyager,(and is now sailing somewhere through the Milky Way)as an example of Rock and roll music, but I would have chosen this one as the best example of the art form. Just my opinion and my random thought for today.

In the Eye of the Beholder

The public education system in this country is broken. It is not the fault of the teachers (although mass firings would lead you to believe it is), it is not the fault of the students, it is not the fault of the parents and it is not the fault of the government. The fault lies in the system itself. In a pre Brown V. Board of Education world, the public school system was comprised of two parts, one for white students and one (that was called "equal") for blacks. The schools for the black children were woefully under resourced (and in many cases overcrowded) and had no chance (for the most part) to compete for the best available teaching talent. Flash forward to today, 55 years after the landmark Supreme Court case that outlawed the policy of "separate but equal" and we have a public school system that in many ways mirrors the landscape as it stood in the pre Brown days.

The policy of "separate but equal" was kept in place, in part, to not only keep children of different skin colors apart, but in order to perpetuate a permanent underclass in this country. The policy proved incredibly successful in that respect. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, life for those on the wrong side of the "separate" doctrine remained amazingly stagnant. The tidal wave of prosperity that swept the entire country following the end of WWII somehow managed to elude those at the very bottom of the socio-economic chain. In the south, especially, those born with the wrong skin pigmentation could not realistically hope that their lives would be any better than those of their parents. And the law of land saw to it that their opportunities for advancement were very limited indeed.

The changes that were brought about due to Brown and the subsequent Civil Rights acts and voting rights act of the following decade led to a new outlook. The 60's ushered in a new age of enlightenment. LBJ dreamed of a "Great Society" and of the end of discrimination and poverty and for a time, the country, caught up in the age of Aquarius, went along for the ride. Schools were desegregated; For the first time in the history of the nation a thriving black/minority middle class emerged; affirmative action helped to limit the effects of discriminatory hiring practices; And education, which for over a century had provided a barrier to any chance of upward mobility, gave those with less, a chance for more.

Then came the 80's and the attacks on the hopes and goals of the "Great Society" came fast and furious. Our nation became much less concerned with US and much more concerned with ME. White flight to the suburbs became a rushing torrent and our inner cities were left to be, more and more, the last refuge for those with no other choice. One of the major consequences of the flight to the suburbs was the loss of the tax base that helped to support the public school system. Property values dropped and the stream of revenue that helped to support the education of our children began to dry up. With the loss in revenue came a loss in the quality of education that could be provided to those children who happen to be unfortunate enough to be born in a underfunded district..

Funding for public schools comes from a combination of federal, state and local government money. Federal and State money are usually handed out equally based on school populations, but local money is most often kept within the locality. So the upshot of that policy is that, here in NY there are schools that have computer labs that provide every student with a computer, and there are those that require that multiple students to share one. There are schools that have average class sizes of 20 and those that have average class sizes of 40. There are schools that have modern facilities and textbooks, and there are schools that have to convert closets to classroom spaces because they have no more room to fit their expanding population. I know I've taken a long time to get to my point, but here it is: The simple question that should be posed is why, do we as a country, value some children more than others?

The beginning of one the most quoted and repeated lines in all of history says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". Let's look past the obvious contradictions of the statement at the time it was written, to the actual meaning of those words. We, as Americans believe as part of our DNA, that everyone in this country should have an equal opportunity to succeed. We believe that we are a meritocracy despite all the evidence to the contrary. Life may not actually work this way, but we, as a people, are not ready to admit that a kind of social Darwinism should reign supreme. Yet as we close our eyes to the absolute inequity of our public school system, that is exactly what we are doing.

"Let's fire all the teachers!", some say. "It's all the parents' fault", still others will claim. Yet as we point fingers at each other, another generation of our children is being lost. Wait, let me rephrase that, another generation of lost souls is being created. As it was before Brown and the Civil Rights Acts, we, as a country are in back in the business of perpetuating a permanent underclass. People can go to the movies and watch a Sandra Bullock movie, where one black kid is "saved" and becomes a success and believe that all is right with the world. Unfortunately, that story is not repeated very often. Most of us do not have an extraordinary skill. Most of us would not stand out on a field or court. Most of us would not stand out against the best or brightest in any of the endeavors that we have chosen to undertake. That has not, however, precluded some of us from acquiring some level of achievement or satisfaction in our lives.

I took my education for granted, as I'm sure most of us did. The children who now attend public schools in well funded districts probably take their education for granted as well. They have what they need to satisfy any intellectual curiosity that may be sparked during their typical day. Children who come up on the short end of the birth lottery most typically would not have the resources to satisfy that curiosity. When the intellectual spark is not nurtured into a fire, it eventually disappears. We, as a country, are currently in the business of choosing who gets that opportunity and who does not. And what happens to those kids whose curiosity isn't nurtured? You already know the answer. We all do.

One Giant Leap

I watched the House of Representatives pass the Senate amendments to the health care bill. It's hard to put into words exactly how I feel. When I think of the fact that FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton tried and failed to get any meaningful health care reform passed, I stand in awe of the Democratic leadership and the current President of the United States. I have, at times, been extremely critical of the Democrats and the President over the past year because of there perceived lack of commitment to reform. I berated them for throwing single payer overboard before the fight had even begun. I berated them for trying to find some compromise with the Republicans. I berated them for giving up the public option when they were only fighting against themselves. I berated my fellow bloggers for losing faith. There have been times when I was sure that nothing was ever going to get done. There have been times when I have lost faith in the White House. There have been times when the thought of health care reform seemed an unreachable goal. I stand humbled today. Government can indeed work for the people. Government can indeed make a positive difference in the lives of its citizens. Sometimes I think we lose sight of that fact. This bill is of course not everything we wanted, but as with Civil Rights, once the ball starts rolling, it is very hard to stop. One step will inevitably lead to another and then another. The first one is always the hardest. And now 75 years after FDR first tried to get universal health coverage for all Americans, we have finally taken our first steps toward that lofty goal.

Thank you Nancy Pelosi. Thank you Harry Reid. And thank you Mr. President. This is what leadership looks like. Let's not forget that the next time the Republicans decide to take up arms against the public good. Let's not forget what it feels like to be able to tell the American people that their government actually works for them. And remember, never stop fighting until the fight is done. Here endeth the lesson.

P.S.

Now let's do something about the absolutely criminal condition of our public schools. I have no idea how this country can perpetuate a system that arms only those children who are fortunate enough to live in wealthy districts with the tools needed to compete in a global economy. How do we allow a de facto "separate but equal" policy in education to exist? Something needs to be done now!

Movie Trailer

Here's the trailer from "The likes of Us". Directed by SJ and written by Mycue23

And the Winner is...

Here's the only winner in today's health care debate:

Why We Fight

We fight because "...in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope". We fight because senior citizens should have not have to chose between food and medicine. We fight because American Individualism is not an open invitation to social Darwinism. We fight because Gay and Lesbian are not dirty words. We fight because we believe that all men are created equal. We fight because we believe that people should be judged by the content of their character. We fight because having tens of thousands of people die each year because of a lack of affordable health care is morally unacceptable. We fight because having thousands of children go hungry in the richest nation on the planet is morally reprehensible. We fight because every child deserves access to an education that will prepare them to compete in the global economy. We fight because torture committed in our name is still torture. We fight because everyone should have the right to marry who they chose. We fight because we only have one planet. We fight because the status quo is unacceptable. We fight because a lie repeated often enough must not be permitted to become the truth. We fight because women deserve to paid the same as men. We fight because our veterans deserve to be treated with respect they have earned. We fight because the expenditure for the Iraq war could have paid for health care for every man, woman and child in the country who cannot afford it. We fight because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We fight because the forces massed against us never take a day off. We fight because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We fight because as FDR put it, at the height of the Depression,

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of the those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little".

That is why we fight. We fight because we must.

May Tomorrow Be a Better Day

There's comes a time when you have to face that fact that you've come to the end. I have been contemplating this particular thought for the past 6 months or so. I just don't have anything else constructive to add to the political dialogue among the great group of bloggers that we have gotten to know over the past couple of years, so I think it's time for me to call it a day. I feel like I've said all I have to say. I've gone back and read some of the stuff I wrote during the past couple of years and I realize that as time has gone on, I've become less focused and less effective at making a coherent point. As SJ stated in his recent post, the quality of writing among the blogs I regularly read is outstanding. I certainly feel like there's nothing I could say that couldn't be said equally well or better by a whole host of great writers. You guys are all great (and I won't make the mistake of trying to list you all, but you know who you are)and I would just say, keep on doing what you're doing. As for me, I'll probably spend some time over at my long ignored sports blog. The blog will still be here. Hopefully SJ will continue to add articles from time to time but if not, at least the links will point people in the right direction.

So with more of a whimper than a bang, I wish you all a fond farewell and as Kasey Kasem always says, "keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars".

Tea Time

Tom Tancredo, former Congressman from Colorado, opened the Tea Party convention by attacking not only the President, but the current system that allowed Barack Obama to be voted into office in the first place. Some choice quotes from his "speech":

“people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.”

“the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don’t have the same idea about America as we do.”

“we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.”

This is the "keynote address" for the Tea Party convention. The Tea Party movement, which was started to protest the growth of the Federal Government and a perceived lack of response from elected officials, has devolved into a home for the disgruntled and disenchanted of all stripes. I would ask those who are asking for “their country back”, to define exactly what that means. I do believe that there are people who initially joined the TP movement out of a sincere concern for they viewed as a lack of response from leadership. The movement was quickly taken over by those who saw it as a great way to cover their “Fear of a Black Planet” (to quote Public Enemy). Tancredo is obviously making it perfectly clear what he means. In his America, those who don’t look like him are not welcome in the political discussion. In his America, the President will always be a White, protestant male. In his America, people of color know their place. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for the rest of us), that country doesn’t exist anymore and we are all the better for it.

I honestly believe that there is reason to think that our elected officials have lost touch with the people they are supposed to represent. I believe that there is an argument to made about the size and scope of government as well. However belonging to an organization that is rapidly taken over by bigots looking for cover to attack the very diversity that has made this country what it is, does not seem like the best way to get a point across. As for Tancredo, people like him will always look for an audience to try and spread their particular brand of hate. We can only hope that as time goes on, the audience for this particular brand of “political speech” gets smaller and smaller.

Rose Colored Glasses

Image via WikipediaA poll was done by Research 200 for Daily Kos that asked Republicans some questions about the president (thanks to TomCat for the info). The results are to be expected from the members of the losing party in a historically bitter environment of partisan politics. I can also imagine that the numbers would have looked very similar if those questions (slightly altered) would have been asked of Democrats four years ago during the second Bush administration. I'll illustrate the point below the actual questions.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 1/20-31. Self-identified Republicans. MoE 2% (No trend lines)

OBAMA and AMERICA

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39; No 32; Not Sure 29

Should GWB be impeached?
The numbers from Dems would have been fairly high. Now I thought he should have been impeached for cause, but those on the right would certainly not agree.

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63; No 21; Not Sure 16

Do you think that GWB is trying to a establish a plutocracy?
Not quite the same as the socialist question and actually requires some intelligence, but once again you can see my point on what the Dems would have said.


Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21; No 24; Not Sure 55

Do you believe that the Republicans stole the election by using dirty tricks in Ohio?
Much like the ACORN question, I think that the numbers would reflect the frustration of losing an election and trying to find someone or something to blame it on.

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53; No 14; Not Sure 33

Is John Edwards more qualified to be President than GWB?
I'm using John Kerry's VP candidate as a substitute for Palin, but you get the point. Once again the numbers would probably have matched the numbers in the current poll. Obvioulsly I'm talking about Edwards before the whole "I fathered a child with another woman and tried to get one my friends to take the blame by offering him money so that my political career wouldn't be ruined" fiasco.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31; No 36; Not Sure 33

Do you believe that GWB is a racist who hates Black people?

Certainly in the aftermath of Katrina, there was a sentiment that GWB certainly had no love for those who were not in his social strata. I don't think the number would have been quite as high for this one, but certainly there was a feeling that GWB didn't care as much about the less fortunate in America

It's clear that there is a deep divide in this country, but I don't think that the divide is any worse than it was during the Bush years. The race of the President makes it easier for some to cast aspersions on his motives and his qualifications, but in the end I don't think that the numbers would have been much different if Hillary Clinton would have won the election. Democrats hated GWB. Republicans hate President Obama. It's that simple. If this poll would have been published when GWB was President, the Right would have said that it showed just how out of touch the Dems are. The Left and Right in this country are absolutely sure that they are correct in their assessment of the country, that any opposing views look absolutely crazy to them. I'm not writing to justify the numbers in this poll or to say that I agree with any of them (which of course I don't), but they have to viewed in context.

The point is that we have to remember how we on the Left felt when GWB was in office. We were absolutely sure in our convictions that he had harmed the country and that certainly his first election was illegitimate. Those on the Right disagreed. Those of us on the Left felt that we had the law and the Constitution on our side. Those on the Right disagreed. Those of us on the Left were called loons, crazies, anarchists, communists or worse by those on the Right. My point is that a little perspective is needed now that the situations have been reversed. Everything is colored by perspective. Now I happen to think that those of us on the Left were correct in our assessment of the Bush administration, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican who agrees. The numbers in this poll may appear to "crazy" to those of us on the Left, but then crazy is in the eye of the beholder(or the party in power at the time ).

The Road Less Traveled

I never thought that it would come to this, but the Obama administration is running scared. After the result in the Massachusetts senatorial election last week, the administration is now trying to sound as many populist themes as possible. The latest is the proposed "spending freeze" for the next three years. Of course that spending freeze does not take into account the largest items in the budget and in fact only affects about 1/8 of the total expenditure of the budget. It does not include defense spending, but would include entitlement programs to millions of Americans.

First this "spending freeze" would not, in any significant way, affect the budget deficit. Secondly, during a time of economic crisis, the last thing the White House should be doing is to put a freeze on additional spending. Most economists say that we need a second stimulus package to help to stoke this rather fragile economic recovery that is supposedly underway. Under this new "spending freeze", that would be off the table. The President flat out rejected a spending freeze during the campaign, saying that would be like using a sledgehammer when we needed a scalpel. What has happened in the last 13 months that would have made him now adopt a proposal of John McCain that he rejected out of hand during the campaign? Could it be a loss of a Senate seat that has been Democratic for multiple generations? Could it be sagging poll numbers? Could it be the impending loss of multiple seats in the Senate and the possible loss of control of Congress? Could it be the teabaggers loud protest?

Whatever the reason, it does not sound like a policy decision that is part of a long term strategy. This smacks of desperation. This is a tactic, and a faulty one at that, that is supposed to garner some short term result in the polls. It clearly is not part of the long term strategy that this administration set in place when it entered the White House. I have always felt that the Obama White House had a long term strategy in place and was willing to suffer a short term loss in order to assure that the long term goals were met. This impulsive policy decision has shaken my belief to the core. It there is no long term strategy in place, then what exactly is being decided over on Pennsylvania Avenue? Have they now decided to bend to the wishes of the Teabaggers? Have they now decided that it's better to get along that it is be right?

I have stated before that I do not always agree with this administration, but I have always believed that there is a long term strategy in place. I may not agree with all decisions, but I could always imagine that they were part of a master plan. Now, I'm not so sure. This "spending freeze" is pointless and dangerous. The well being of our economy should not be subject to the whims of the polls or based on whether a decision will be popular with a majority of the people. Obama has always said that he doesn't care if he's a one term President as long as he feels that he did the job that he set out to do. This is a major misstep along that road. And if he starts down this path, he may find himself unable to return the path that he set for himself when he took this job.

Dream a Little Dream

I'm reposting something I wrote last January. I don't think that I could ever say this any better, so I'm not going to try. Hopefully you'll all forgive for not coming up with something new, but I think it's more relevant today than it was a year ago.

"...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.

Daddy Dearest

On "This Week" on Sunday Liz Cheney added her usual insightful comments about a broad range of topics. While she offered no solutions to any problems, she did have one constant in all her answers. She consistently blamed all of the worlds problems on the current administration without admitting that her George Bush Jr. and her father's administration had anything to do with the mess that we currently find ourselves in.

After playing a commercial from the Liz Cheney led group that criticized the response time of the President to the attempted airline bombing, George Stephanopoulos asked this question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Arguing that the responses were much better under President Bush, yet as many Democrats pointed out, President Bush waited, I think, six days before doing much about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

CHENEY: Well, I think that you've got to go back here and look at the way this president has dealt with terror since he's been in office. And the point of that ad was this notion that you cannot win a war if you're treating it as sort of an inconvenient sidelight.

She didn't even attempt to answer the question and Mr. Stephanopoulos, as is his style, didn't follow up to try to get her to answer the question. Why would he let her get away with this? Of course he did the same when he failed to follow after Rudy Guliani claimed that there were no terrorist attacks during the Bush administration.

This isn't about Stephanopoulos, however. The question I have to ask is why is Liz Cheney being given this outlet to spew her partisan nonsense over the airwaves? Liz Cheney has held a couple of positions in the state department during the Bush administration. Having your father as the most powerful Vice President of all time can certainly be a plus when you're trying to get a government job. Does that qualify her as some kind of expert on this administration? Or on what's best for the country? For some reason (oh, what could it be?), the networks just can't seem to get enough of her. Why on earth would the news programs seek out a low level government official from the last administration to give their opinion about anything? I just can't seem to figure that one out.

Anyway, whatever the motivation of the networks may be (wink, wink), it's time that she crawled back into the hole that her father can't seem to stay in himself these days. Her father's contribution to this country was to line his pockets and those of his friends, waste the lives of thousands of American soldiers, trample the Constitution, and help push this country toward an economic meltdown. Not exactly a stellar record of achievement. Apparently his daughter hopes to follow in his footsteps with a big hand up from the mainstream media. I can only hope for the day when we are free from the blight of this current generation of Cheney's. I'm not sure we can survive many more.

Hell is for Children

We, I mean those who label themselves as Liberals, Independents and Progressives are obviously a bunch of children! When we don't get everything we want, we cry and say that we are taking our toys home. Since when do we live in a land where our wishes our granted by our government with the speed and totality that we hope for? How long did it take to turn our economy around after the depression hit? I would argue that we didn't completely get out of the depression until WWII started. That means 1929-1941 spent digging out from financial ruin. Did the country dismiss FDR because he hadn't put everyone back to work by the end of his first year in office? How long did it take to get a civil rights bill? Did that mean that LBJ didn't deserve to be voted into office because he hadn't managed to pass a bill in the year that he had as President? Truman talked of universal health care during his time in office and LBJ got medicare passed on his watch. Is that universal health care? No, but at least those over 65 have health care coverage guaranteed by the government. Does the current health care reform guarantee coverage to everyone? No, but it's a step in that direction. Since when is incremental change no longer good enough? Ted Kennedy, until the day he died, regretted that he didn't take the deal that would have guaranteed that all employees would have health insurance. He held out for every thing and got nothing. He decided that he'd rather take his toys home instead of making a compromise. That is the state of left today. If we aren't going to get everything we want, then we will take our toys home and pout. That'll show 'em.

I don't really have a point here. I understand that people are frustrated. I understand that people are disappointed. But are those on the left any more mature than those on the right? Those on the left are quick to label the tea baggers as nuts, bigots, idiots, radicals, etc., but you have to at least admire their passion. On the left, we got excited about the possibilities of an Obama presidency. Everything was supposed to change. Well, inauguration day came and went and we still had the same problems we had the day before and suddenly everyone on the left started to wonder if they had wasted their time. What do you mean we still have unemployment? Why don't I have health care coverage? Why are we still at war? Why can't gays get married? Why is Gitmo still open? Why don't we have a green economy? Why are there still bad people in the world? And because those problems still exist, we have those on the left who are ready to abandon this administration. They are willing to take their toys home and just let the chips fall where they may.

When did those on the left lose their ability to understand reality? Have they not watched the Republicans oppose everything that this administration had tried to do? Have they not watched the "Blue Dogs" thwart the Senate from putting together a strong health care reform bill? Have they not watched this most partisan of political seasons? Has the President done everything that I wanted? Of course not. I have written angrily many times on this blog about things that I have not agreed with. Do I bitch and moan about the pace of progress? Of course. But am I ready to take my toys home? Absolutely not. The alternatives are to vote for the Republicans or not vote at all. Are those choices that those on the left are willing to make? I wonder when I here of people who are questioning their vote for this President. Are they now wishing that they had voted for John McCain? Perhaps those who are most disillusioned were initially Hillary Clinton supporters who voted for Obama because of party loyalty. Perhaps deep in their hearts they think that Hillary would be doing a better job. Frankly I don't know and it's pointless to think about it, because it didn't happen.

This is reality, not "what if" land". Barack Obama is the President and he is going to remain that way until he loses the next election or until his second term is up. If you regret voting for him because he hasn't addressed the issues that he thought he would or addressed it to your satisfaction, then you can do something about it. You can vote Republican, You can stay home, you can bitch and moan, but what you cannot do is take your vote back. If you feel that the Republicans would be doing a better job, then you are a Republican and that's fine. However don't pretend that you are a disillusioned lefty who is now realizing that President Obama is leading us down the road to socialism. I long for those days when the Senator Obama would give a soaring speech and we would all feel like everything was going to be okay. President Obama is a different animal. He doesn't just speak to his supporters, he speaks to the entire country. I would love to wake up tomorrow to an ultra progressive President, but that's not going to happen and that would not help get policy passed. In this political climate, small steps are about all we can hope for. That is the reality that we live with. If that doesn't work for you then there's always fantasy island.

I don't think that those on the left should ever stop pushing, hoping and dreaming for something better. The greatest social policies of the last hundred years have come because of those who dreamed of something better. The women's suffragette movement didn't give up when they faced their first defeat. Martin Luther King didn't give up after the first time he was arrested (or after the 5th or the 10th). Are we on the left so immature that we cannot continue to fight even though the fight doesn't immediately lead to results? Is there anyone on the left who believes that their agenda would have fared better under a Republican administration? Is there? Anyone? I am willing to hear the argument. So for those who say they are not committed to voting for Obama for a second term, I am waiting to hear your argument as to why you think the progressive or liberal agenda would fare better under a Republican President. Perhaps you'd rather just take your toys home and pout.

Goodnight and good luck.

The Song Remains the Same

I wrote this article about Dick Cheney back in May of '09 and to the surprise of no one, nothing has changed. From the first time I saw him in an interview (back in the early 90's at some point), I thought that he was one of the most competent politicians I had ever seen (and I mean that in the most positive way possible). I also thought that he might be one of the most dangerous politicians I had ever seen. His was able to discuss matters of life and death without showing a shred of humanity. I've never seen another expression on his face than the usual look of disdain at having to answer questions from someone or explain something to someone he clearly views as beneath him.

His latest attack on the President is in line with his previous statements regarding this administration's handling of the threat of terrorism. It has become clear that a breakdown in the intelligence community allowed the "Christmas Day Bomber" to be able to get on board a plane headed for the United States. It is not the fault of the President. It's is not the fault of the TSA (which is still without a leader because Jim DeMint is single handedly holding up a vote on his confirmation by the Senate). it's not something that any amount of vigilance by the administration was going to stop. There are policies in place that should have allowed the intelligence agencies to share the information, that was already in house, to prevent this near disaster. However, somewhere along the line, someone dropped the ball. That revelation did not stop the former from Vice President from claiming that the administrations policies are the ones that almost led to and will undoubtedly lead to disaster in the future. He is practically inviting terrorists to try and attack by claiming that the Obama administration has made America more vulnerable to attack than it was under the previous administration.

It is almost comical to anticipate the attacks on the administration from the Republicans these days. The President was on vacation at the time of the attempted bombing. He personally responded to the attack in a news conference in about under a week. Of course a great cry went up that the President was frolicking in the waters of Hawaii (which happens to be his home state), when he should have been back in Washington handling the "crisis" personally. When the shoe bomber tried unsuccessfully to blow up a plane, the President Bush took over a week to have a press conference and there was no harping in the press or the opposition party about how long it was taking. And if President Bush had taken any more vacation days during his first 8 months in office, he would have had to list "vacation" as his occupation on his tax forms. If President Obama had held a press conference immediately, the Republicans would have complained that he had responded before gathering all the facts. Some Republicans even used the attacks to try and scare people into donating money for their campaigns.

Mr. Cheney has a different motivation for taking on the current administration. Franky, he doesn't care about whether Republicans are returned to the White House (since it won't be him). Dick Cheney's only regret about the attempted terrorist act is that it was not successful. His line of attack against this administration has nothing to do with keeping America safe from attack. He is still hoping for ultimate redemption of his sanctioning of clearly illegal acts. He points to the fact that the leaders of the Al Qaeda in Yemen are former Gitmo detainees as proof that President Obama's plan to close the prison is misguided. However, the fact that the leaders of the terrorist group in Yemen are former detainees in Gitmo, says more about the Bush administration and their overzealous activities in rounding up as many people as they could, than it does about the Obama administration's plan to close the doors on that prison. And also it was the Bush administration that released those particular individuals. How is that now the fault of the Obama administration?

I would ask the esteemed former Vice President if he still thinks that the President has the power to detain whomever he wants without due process of the law? During the Bush administration and under the leadership of the Vice President's office, legal opinions were given that stated that during war time (even though no war has been declared by Congress), the President basically had unlimited to power to detain, torture and deny the rights of anyone that he deemed a threat to the country. And since the Vice President was always quick to question the patriotism and loyalty of anyone who questioned the Bush administration, I wonder how he would feel if the President decided that he was a threat to the safety of all Americans. Would he be okay with being detained indefinitely? How about being tortured (sorry, I meant having enhanced interrogation techniques applied to him)? If he followed his own tortured (pun intended) logic, then he would be fine with that. I wish that the President would take him at his word.

Dick Cheney has no intention of supporting this administration. He doesn't care about the success or failure of the President's domestic initiatives. He's rich and he doesn't care who knows it. He only cares that at some point in the near future a terrorist is successful in taking out a large number of Americans. That way, he and George Bush can rest knowing that they will not go down in history as the only administration that allowed a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil during their tenure. His idea of patriotism is "what's good for Dick Cheney, is good".

New Year's Resolutions

2009 is about to be another page in the history books and as we look forward to the new year, here are the resolutions that I hope a selected few are making:

1) Rahm Emanuel - Grow a pair of testicles

2) Sarah Palin - Read a book, or a newspaper, or a pamphlet or a menu or anything that might actually contain some useful information

3) John Boehner - Spend some more time working for the people you represent and less time working on your tan

4) Dr. Tom Couburn - Read the Hippocratic oath every day and try to remind yourself that wishing for the death or disability of others is not included

5) Mitch McConnel - Buy a dictionary and remind yourself that there are other useful words included besides no

6) Joe Lieberman - Be thankful that Jews don't believe in hell because there's a special level set aside for people like you

7) Max Baucus and Ben Nelson - Save some of that money from the health care lobby for an early retirement

8) Olympia Snowe - Try to remind yourself that unlike a female lead singer in a band, the world does not revolve around you

9) Newt Gingrich - Announce you're running for President on April 1, so that we can all have a good laugh

10) Keith Olberman - Stop doing the mocking voices because it lowers the perceived quality of your sports commentary

11) Glen Beck & Rush Limbaugh - Come to the realization that (in the words of the immortal Dean Wormer) fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life

That's all for now folks. Have a happy and safe New Year's celebration.

It's a Wonderful Life

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring, except for me who decided that it was a perfect time to try and write something to celebrate my favorite holiday. Now I can't possibly hope to match the eloquence of my co-conspirator here at Random Thoughts, but that doesn't mean that I can't add my own little bit of holiday cheer.

It has been quite a trying year for me but thankfully I've always had this blog to help me keep my sanity. I can't really express how reassuring it has been to come here and read the thoughts of SJ and of the all the great writers that we have come to call our friends. The passion of Jack Jodell, the healthy cynicism of Vigilante, the spiritualism of the incomparable Gwendolyn Barry, the honesty of Mad Mike and the overall brilliance of so many others whose writing reminds me that our country has not lost its way. I'm far too old to expect a jolly man in red suit to be dropping off gifts for me tomorrow night, but I can honestly say that getting a chance to read the thoughts of our new friends and to discuss the problems of day with people whose opinions I respect so much, has provided me with more than even jolly St. Nick himself could carry on that magical sleigh of his. So this Christmas I'm satisfied with all the gifts I've already gotten. Thank you Yellow Dog, Oso, Beach Bum, Manifesto Joe, Will Hart, Tom Degan, Burr Deming, Truth 101 and anyone I've forgotten to include (it certainly was not an intended slight). I'll even thank our occasional nemesis, Sepp. You have all made the year immeasurably better than it would have been without our dialogue.

I couldn't end this without saying a few more words about my partner in crime here, SJ. He is, without a doubt the most talented person I know and besides being my friend for almost 30 years (for which I am forever in his debt), he quite literally saved my life this year. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to read his articles is aware of his talent. That however does not begin to scratch the surface of who he is. I hate to get all sentimental here, but suffice it to say that I'm not sure where I would be without his help.

So Santa, I know you're busy. I just wanted to let you know that you can skip my house tomorrow. My stocking is already full.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

The Age of Reason

I have certainly been among a vocal group who have been critical of the Obama administration and some of their policies. I criticized their policy in Afghanistan. I have criticized their seeming lack of commitment to real health care reform. I have criticized the justice department for not going after the crooks who ran the last administration. I have been critical of their lack of focus on our crumbling public school system. I have been critical of the President turning his back on supporting the cause of gay and lesbian rights.

That being said, I am quite sure that the alternative would have been much, much worse. The Obama campaign was one which soared on the idea that Washington was broken. They made change the linchpin of their campaign and people attached their own hopes and dreams to that theme. However, the idealistic tone of the campaign has been replaced by the realism of trying to govern in this era of obstructionism. It was clear from day one that the Republicans had no intention to work with this President. Their leadership has always signaled that if Obama can get things done, regardless of whether they help the country, then it was a losing proposition for them. The Republican strategy has been to complain about any solutions offered by the Obama administration without offering any solutions of their own. They have lied and stoked their base into a frenzy and have to a great extent been able to control the message coming out of DC.

The Obama administration, for their part, has proceeded with a minimum of drama. As was the case during the campaign, they seem to be sure that their long term strategy will ultimately be successful. Their were many times during the primary and Presidential campaigns that I wanted them to strike back against their opponents. The Obama campaign never took the bait. They had a long term strategy and they basically never deviated from it regardless of the situation on the ground. The major exception being the speech on race that Obama was forced to give after the videos of Reverend Wright were released. I think that the ability to stick to a strategy and stay on message served the Obama campaign very well. I'm not sure that it works as well when it comes to running an administration and winning the hearts and minds of the public. During the campaigns, the enemy (so to speak), was clearly defined and embodied by an opponent. As President, the other side now has literally hundreds of opponents to deal with. A single strategy to defeat a single opponent simply does not work as well, when attacks are coming from everywhere. The White House needs to do a better job of getting their message out to the American public. They need to let people know exactly what they are doing to help them. They need to let people know how they are working to improve their lives. They need to let people know how different this administration is to the one that it followed.

The enthusiasm and hope that the supporters of the Obama campaign had, has been dulled by the consistent onslaught of negativity coming from the opposition. By allowing the Republicans to shape the message of the media, the Obama administration has given up their advantage. Now there is reason for some supporters to feel disillusioned, but for the most part I believe the disappointment comes from perception of the facts as opposed to the actual facts. This is a conflict between idealism and realism. Pragmatism is the place where dreams go to die, and dreams do die very hard indeed. After living through the nightmare of the two Bush Presidencies, the soaring oratory and big ideals of candidate Obama seemed like the answer to the dreams of so many. Supporters sent money, knocked on doors, stuffed envelopes, wrote impassioned blogs, made phone calls, talked to their friends and neighbors with the understanding that if Obama were elected, everything would be different. They would finally have someone in the White House who had the same agenda as they did. They would finally have someone in the White House who would take on the special interests. They would finally have a voice at the center of power that spoke for them after so many years in the wilderness. And after the pure exultation of election night, the reality of trying to bring change to Washington DC has smacked a lot of people in the face.

People have suggested that they will not be as enthusiastic about supporting the President the next time around. We already have polls suggesting that a huge majority of Republicans will be voting in the mid term elections while a bare majority of Democrats say the same thing. This feeling of malaise amongst Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama comes from how the message is being framed. Everything that has been done by this administration has been constantly criticized by the Republicans. From questioning Obama's birth certificate to suggesting that health care reform would lead to death panels killing older Americans, the ridiculous claims have come fast and furious from the opposition. The Obama administration has answered these claims, but never with the fervor or volume with which they were made and as we have seen over and over again it is the person who yells the loudest that gets the most attention.

The Obama administration has retained its campaign strategy of sticking to the agenda and not letting the outside noise distract them. The health care debate is a good example of that. I wrote an article back in August that suggested that the White House knew all along where this debate would turn out and that everything that happened along the way was simply window dressing. The administration insisted on first trying to get a bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Looking back (and even at the time) most will admit that this was a waste of time. However the President had promised during his campaign that he would seek to find middle ground with the opposition and this was the first high profile policy debate that would test this promise. We may look back now and say that the first five months of the health care debate were wasted in an attempt to find some or any Republican support, but the President was simply fulfilling a promise made to the American people. The President's supporters on the left have railed about the fact that single payer was never on the table, however candidate Obama always said that we would have to work within the private health insurance system. Some have simply forgotten that point or assumed that the President was just saying what he needed to say. I am now sure that the Obama administration always knew that the debate over health care reform was going to come down to a fight between Democratic Senators. The White House was secure in the fact that they could achieve health insurance reform but were less sure about what other health care reform could be achieved given the deep divisions within the party.

There is nothing wrong with a long term approach or in being able to anticipate the outcome of a debate. However since most people in the country are not privy to the inner workings of the White House, their attitude comes off as extremely nonchalant. To the outsider it may look like the White House was not fully engaged in the debate or that they did not have a hand in the outcome. I'm sure that neither could be further from the truth. The seeming lack of a sense of urgency from the White House is just a manifestation of the "no drama Obama" strategy from the campaign. And while this approach may indeed work well in the long run, in the short term it leaves those who worked so hard and invested so much in this campaign, feeling a little cold. The idealism of the campaign has now run head on into the reality of actually running the country and fending off attacks from outside and inside the party.

Idealism is a necessary part of the political process. Without high ideals, even baby steps are never taken. It took this country 100 years after the slaves were released to produce a piece of legislation that guaranteed the rights of the descendants of those freed slaves. None of that would have come about without the idealism of those who believed that the country should and would do better. But just think of how many people worked and believed and tried to bring about some semblance of equality, only to die without seemingly ever moving the needle. Our ideas and our ideals are what give us hope that tomorrow will be better than today. The campaign of Barack Obama galvanized those ideas and ideals into one recognizable force. It would have been impossible for the Presidency of Barack Obama to live up to the numerous dreams that were built into the smiles and tears of those who celebrated that victory last November.

But I would ask those who are wavering in their enthusiasm for the President to define exactly what is it that he has done that is contrary to what he said he would do. He will increase the level of troops in Afghanistan, as he said he would do. He has worked to bring about the first meaningful health insurance reform ever enacted, as he said he would do. He has guaranteed health care for millions of children around the country. The stimulus package helped stave off a potential depression. He has helped to rehabilitate the reputation of the United States in the international community. He has tried to move forward on climate change. There are still many more issues to deal with. Education, the deficit, job creation, terrorism, etc., etc., but there are still three years left in his administration. It would be unfair to judge someone after a job is only 1/4 completed. It would be like complaining that the trim isn't done after painters were only 1/4 through the job of painting your house. I am willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on most of the issues that he has yet to focus on. I am sure that he has a four year strategy in place. Perhaps he focuses on education next year. Perhaps he decided that education reform was best handled in an election year because it should be universally popular. Perhaps he's decided to wait until his third year to tackle "don't ask, don't tell", because he knows it is a potentially divisive issue. The President and the people around him are smarter than I am and while I can get fairly impatient at times, I have to believe that every scenario has been discussed and planned for.

The Obama administration must do a better job of getting their message out to the people. They cannot lay back in the hope that eventually the news of the day will turn in their favor. It is a fact that 20,000 teachers have jobs here in New York because of the stimulus money. Why don't more people know that? Given the state of the public schools here in NY, I can't imagine the chaos that would have ensued if the number of teachers and administrators had to be decreased by 1/3. The White House should be pointing to that number and to those like it around the country to show exactly what the stimulus money is doing. Don't just site numbers like 1.4 million jobs saved or created. What does that mean? How do you quantify that number? The Republicans have attacked that number as bogus. Well if you actually show real people in real jobs that would not have existed without the stimulus, it makes it harder to refute. I'm sure the people on Fox would never report about the number of state employees who still have jobs because of the stimulus, but if the White House made more of a point of emphasizing these positives, I'm sure the message that is reaching the public would change.

Image via WikipediaIdealism and reality can coexist quite comfortably among the supporters of the President. Idealism is the engine that drives realism. Idealism provides the dreams, realism provides the policy. The next three years are going to be driven by the hopes and dreams of those who voted on that fateful day last November. Those dreams may not always be paid off in full, but I believe that we can rest assured that will be addressed in the full light of day. Every dream and every hope can't be addressed immediately and it is up to those who dreamt and hoped for something better to allow this administration the time it needs to work toward those goals. I will probably still be impatient at the pace of Washington DC, but there is nothing that can be done about that. I will probably still write angry articles about the Obama administration from time to time, but then idealism is almost never practical.