just my 2 cents

Diana

2007-08-31T05:33:00.000-07:00

I know I haven’t written in awhile, but I want to today…

This may sound stupid to my regular readers, but I need to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Princess Diana’s death. I know in a political blog it doesn’t hold much weight, but as a (now) 37-year-old woman – it was a watershed moment in my life…

I started reading a daily paper when I was ten, in 1980, and much of the news at that time was about the impending nuptials of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer; for a ten-year-old, it was a real-life fairy princess tale…

Diana was a decade older than I, yet the event still held that “could hope for” factor. I, at ten, collected a folder’s worth of press clippings - everything about Diana as well as everything wedding. I watched the wedding in the wee hours of the morning and she was everything a fairy princess could be. Seriously, it was an entire fantasy world.

I kept up with Diana and her sons – I remember the day Prince William was born – I kept up with her faithfully – she was such an antithesis to what us Yanks stereotyped Brit royalty to be, and she struck a place in my heart and mind and made it hers both because of her great compassion and her intense drive for some sense of normalcy in her life in spite of her title.

Like many of us, no doubt mostly women, we watched her life go from something to admire to the bit of a prison that it was in reality. Even through the muck and the mud and the contentious divorce, Diana still had a common touch and empathy – no matter how dignified and first class she was – she still was always and will remain – one of the people. She was a woman in her own class – she defied traditional typology.

She transcended boundaries that it was not thought that a royal would ever even cross. She brought attention to things that were not talked about - things that had an impact, especially on those less fortunate - and she made a difference. She was brightness in a world that seemed more and more self-absorbed.

When I heard about her death, I was at my folk’s house, and I got a phone call; it was a time when I needed to sit down. I did not have the press clippings folder from my childhood anymore; but I did have the memories of watching her grow from naïve teenager to full blown people’s princess, who brought voice to many who didn’t have it, who was virtually shunned by the royal family during that period, and who raised two very fine young men.

On this day, the day of the tenth anniversary of Diana’s untimely death, I am mourning again. Yes, I know that may seem strange, but to all who were girls in 1980/1981, she was such a hope – an example of you could become - of possibility.

She was so young; she was so beautiful; she was so vibrant; she was a beacon of hope to those not so fortunate among us. And she would be so proud – she is so proud – of the men her boys have become – trials, travails and all. Just looking at William and Harry today must make her so proud – they make me feel fortunate to have gotten to watch them grow up.

So today I am mourning as well as proud, not only for the many causes she herself brought to the forefront of consciousness, but also for the fine legacy she left behind, both in cause and offspring.

Princess Diana – English Rose – I miss you and mourn you today – 31 August 2007.

Let's Take It Back!

2007-07-31T02:19:00.000-07:00

There are many things the GOP has either trumpeted, co-opted, been inadvertently given, or outright stolen during the past 15 years: terms of language, ideologies and philosophies, even tangible things. These things are either now found to be somewhat (and that’s being nice) lacking in the GOP; some are even blatantly contradictory. As a Democrat, and actually as an AMERICAN, I say, LET’S TAKE THEM BACK!

I’ll start with the somewhat obvious things and go from there; feel free to add to the list.

The Constitution, in all its glory: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Rule of law: a country where no one, and I mean NO ONE is above the law: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The ability to vote and not have to (seriously) wonder whether or not it was going to count: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Going to vote without having to find out that you are not on the list as “registered” even though you know you DID register: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Our courts, especially the Supreme Court; remember when justices were chosen for their respect for the law and not simply raw ideology? And remember when justices, once appointed to the Court, would give their best reading of the law and constitution while trying their damnedest to leave their partisan natures out of it? Maybe, just maybe, (has it not crossed anyone’s mind) the reason so many justices are thought to be conservative, yet once they get onto the Supreme Court, turn out to be more liberal, is that the law unfettered by partisan bias IS in fact Liberal-leaning? Hmmm… Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people”: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Religion and faith: who ever said these would be so narrowly construed as to mean only marriage, abortion, and gay rights? Religion and faith encompass so much more than just these things: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Family values. The party of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Newt Gingrich, Ted Haggard, Rudy Giuliani, et al, has been preaching about but not necessarily living a family values worthy life. Family values they’re for? I don’t think so: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Freedom of speech, which means the ability to protest government without fear of retribution or invasion of privacy: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Raising taxes as a total detriment – they say it’s a terrible thing; and when you think about it, it is, for a very VERY small segment of the populace who have forgotten the duty that comes along with wealth, which was known to families like the Roosevelts, Johnsons, and Kennedys; the solemn duty to help others less fortunate; this is consistently mentioned in the Bible; perhaps those who have forgotten it need to re-read: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Where Contempt of Congress is a serious issue and doesn’t refer to, as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it, “the existential disgust we all feel for Congress”: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The term “bipartisanship” – talk about hijacked… We should get this straight from here on out and be VOCAL about it: bipartisanship is NOT a fancy way to say “agree with me;” it’s actually a way of denoting two opposing parties truly working together – with real give and take – to find real solutions for real people in this country and those representing this country in various ways around the world: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The term “tax and spend”: last I checked, if I didn’t save money for something, I either couldn’t buy it or had to borrow on credit for it, which added an interest bill for each month I could not pay in full. Now conventional wisdom tells me it’s much MUCH better and cost efficient for me to save the money and then buy what I would like (borrow and spend leaves a bottom that could fall out and who wants that?) So “tax and spend,” or more commonly known now as “pay as you go” is a pretty good solid economic philosophy, and most anyone who’s ever held a credit card can vouch for that; Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The term “big government” as a detrimental thing. Anyone, seriously, who has kept his or her eye on government for the past 7 years, cannot with a straight face, say that this government believes in “small” government. The argument of “big” government is simply a boogeyman that the righties can use, even though it’s pretty blatant that they don’t truly believe in it themselves. And railing against “big” government is one of their signature issues even though “big” government can be beneficial; Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Diplomacy in our foreign affairs and responsible use of our military resources; we owe it to our men and women in uniform who do their duty for our country not to use them frivolously and to exhaust every last option before asking them to put their lives on the line. For years, the righties have claimed this issue as their own: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Science, the study of, the findings of, the experiments of… So many people nowadays seem to think that if they can manage to get somewhat scientific words out of their mouth, then they have formed a scientific theory (such as “intelligent design.”) But scientific theory is much more than a regular theory; in order to be a scientific theory, the hypothesis (first stage) MUST be testable over and over again: if it’s not, then it CANNOT become a SCIENTIFIC theory – it’s just a regular old run-of-the-mill theory along the level of “I think the world will be greener looking tomorrow.” Oh wait, even that’s testable. So as far as intellectuals know, there is a vast difference between scientific theory and other theory. Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The hearts, minds, and ethics of MSM journalists. Ok ok – I know this is a tough order, but watching guys like Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert do it every night proves that it can be done, if we can find more journalists with ethical scruples and get them out there. Let’s TAKE the airwaves BACK!

The term “liberal;” it has been made into some kind of dirty word when by definition it’s not. It actually means “open-minded” “tolerant” “marked by generosity” “broadminded”: who wouldn’t want to be these things? Yet as the righties would have it – these things are BAD, very very bad. Must. Be. Lock. Step. And Disciplined. Anti-Liberal. Let’s TAKE LIBERAL BACK!

The term “hate” being co-opted to mean anything said that is contradictory to anything the righties stand for. It’s time they were told that “hate” is NOT an interchangeable word with “disagrees with” or “thinks is bad.” “Hate” also is not something indigenous to the left, alone; Let’s TAKE IT BACK to its original definition!

And my last one for now, shallow as it may seem: the color red. I happen to like the color red and am not gonna stand here while some right wingnut (or anyone else) tells me it means anything but red is a good color. It shouldn’t mean Republican. Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Oh yeah, one more thing: the Presidency: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!!!!!

Until next time, a bientot!

The New American Unspoken Manifesto

2007-07-21T01:28:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking lately about that old quote from Nobel prizewinning author Sinclair Lewis: “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Thinking in terms of the past several years of the Bush 43 Administration, I can’t help but draw many parallels; from the claims of “compassionate conservatism” to the current occupier of the White House consistently trotting out his faith, in a way to reassure that we’re on the side of the angels and being led by a guy who is a really devotedly religious fellow. And we all know about the patriotism, or lack thereof, that have been regularly employed in an attempt to stifle any dissent. “Wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” How easy it would be to take over this country simply equipped with well-crafted and sellable rhetoric…

Like several of my fellow citizens, many Democrat or Libertarian, but Republican as well, I worry that what began seemingly in the name of “protection” of our “homeland” has evolved, blatantly and more rapidly as time goes on, into a raw power grab consolidating ultimate power in a “unitary executive” which is essentially a fancy name for a King.

So have we come full circle as a country? From throwing off the chains of oppression by a monarch and attempting our experiment in a free republic to letting a “monarch” take over our republic just a mere 231 years later? What does that say about us? What does that say about our fear, which seems to be guiding us? What does that say about how much the terrorists have taken from us?

I would be forced to conclude that perhaps we are coming full circle; there is still some time left to stop the procession towards monarchy again (and by using monarchy, I am using the nicer word, even though tyranny may be more apt at this point.) It is also clear to me that the citizens in this great country don’t care to exercise the advanced citizenship we are afforded; we simply don’t care; as long as we are getting ours, we have a collective “it doesn’t affect me attitude.” Most people won’t realize that anything is different until they are told that they can’t do or have that. But by the time this happens, it will too late to rectify without some sort of coup, overthrow, or revolution.

By letting our government have carte blanche in the name of our own fear that the downfall of the country can ONLY come in the form of violence and physical destruction, we have given them tacit approval to remake the fabric of this country that the founding fathers so carefully wove in their grand experiment. The reason for the separation of powers was specifically to prevent one branch from becoming the main power branch. The theory of the “unitary executive” is a theory proposed by conservatives who clearly don’t truly buy into the “strict constructionist” idea, though many of them do claim to be proponents of so-called “original intent.” Being a proponent of a “unitary executive” and a subscribing to “original intent” or “strict constructionist” views are contradictory at best and hypocritical and nefarious at worst.

Even the theory of “original intent” is conclusive that the framers put all into the constitution that they (in collective agreement) thought suitable and necessary to guide the nation. Nowhere in there is anything close to a “unitary executive.” That is unless you are a judicial “activist.” And it would be the height of hypocrisy for those judges who have so vocally claimed that they are “original constructionists” and railed against judicial “activism” to back such a brazen activist reading into the constitution. If they do, they are simply political opportunists, and not worthy of the mantle of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Clearly, to me, the terrorists are winning and must be laughing as we not only make just about every mistake we possibly can regarding the war in the Middle East, but as we sit silently by while the powers that be attack, surreptitiously, the very fabric of our nation. The million dollar questions are how much damage has been irreversibly done already and how much more will be done before the citizens of this country WAKE UP!

Like the quote from Sinclair Lewis at the beginning: “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

We need to WAKE UP!

It Ain't Over Til It's Over...

2007-07-05T05:20:00.000-07:00

previously posted elsewhere...

I wanted to share a few things that I read Sunday that were a bit of U.S. History but also were, to me, good omens...

I am a contributing author to a couple political science textbooks that will be published later this year. I have been writing about various people and issues in politics and Sunday I profiled Harry Truman for the elections section of the American Gov't book.

Anyway, I was doing some extra research and I ran across several things that I thought I'd share with you all. It was somewhat of a comfort to read them, and there are some parallels... The excerpts come from both the Truman Library as we well as PBS: The American Experience. I bolded some of the more important parts. Sorry it's so long...

On Truman's Senate Re-election in 1940 (TruLib):

His 1940 reelection bid was much more difficult. The Pendergast machine was in ruins. He had no campaign funds and no support from President Roosevelt. Truman barnstormed the state, emphasizing his experience in Washington.

"I was nominated by a plurality of 8,400 votes [out of 665,000 cast] in the August primary, after the most bitter, mud-slinging campaign in Missouri's history of dirty campaigns."

On the Press (TruLib):

Truman liked the "working press" and got along well with the reporters who covered the White House. He also gave photographers new status. They made Truman honorary president of the "One More Club," named after their constant request for "one more" photo. Publishers and columnists were another matter. In his view, most of them were Republicans who provided hostile and biased coverage of his administration. He bristled at criticism he received from syndicated columnists such as Drew Pearson and Westbrook Peglar. Truman was known to call his press critics "guttersnipes" and "character assassins," and their newspapers "lie outlets."

On his agenda:

Harry Truman had an ambitious agenda. He hoped to enact a broad program of domestic reforms including national health insurance, public housing, civil rights legislation, and federal aid to education. [This was referred to as the "Fair Deal."]

And finally, regarding the 1948 election (from PBS):

Harry Truman entered the 1948 presidential campaign an almost certain loser. As America moved from war to peace, the economy faltered. The country suffered through strikes and shortages of consumer goods. Two years earlier, in the 1946 midterm elections, voters had delivered solid majorities in both houses of Congress to the GOP. Now Truman, known as a lackluster campaigner, faced an uphill battle against Republican Thomas Dewey, the popular governor of New York. Every poll, every journalist, and even Bess Truman, the president's wife of 28 years, predicted that Truman would lose by a landslide. But Harry Truman would not give up.

The president began an unofficial campaign early in June, during a cross-country train trip to the University of California at Berkeley, where he was scheduled to receive an honorary degree. Along the way, Truman made a series of what came to be known as whistlestops -- quick stopovers in cities and towns along the path of the railroad. At each whistlestop, Truman made a brief public appearance, often speaking to crowds from the back of the train.

The whistlestop tour proved an unexpected success. During the trip west, a new Harry Truman emerged, one who spoke casually, yet confidently, one who relaxed in front of a crowd. The president smiled and laughed. He introduced his family to audiences, so people got to know him as a family man. And he peppered the Republican Congress with accusations of laziness, incompetence, and bias toward the rich and influential. People loved the new Truman, yet he returned to Washington weeks later, still an underdog.

In his nomination speech at the Democratic national convention, held in Philadelphia that July, Truman rallied a weary crowd by hammering the Republicans with the charge that their 1948 platform was built only for the purposes of the election. He vowed to call Congress into a special session to give Republicans a chance to make good on their campaign pledges. He also promised a Democratic victory.

The Democratic party had problems of its own. Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's former vice-president and secretary of commerce, had left the Democrats to run as the Progressive party candidate. His candidacy threatened to draw some traditional Democratic voters -- liberals and African Americans -- away from Truman. Conservative Southerners, angered at Truman's support for civil rights, split from the Democrats after the convention to form the States' Rights Democratic party, with Strom Thurmond as their candidate. The defections, from the right and the left, meant trouble for Truman.

The Republicans chose New York governor Thomas E. Dewey as their candidate. Confident, handsome, and a polished public speaker, Dewey had run as the Republican presidential candidate four years before, losing to the revered Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But Harry Truman was no FDR. Dewey seemed capable of losing the election only by shooting himself in the foot.

When the official phase of Truman's 1948 campaign began, the president repeated the whistlestop strategy he had honed on his trip to California in the spring. He blasted the Republicans in speech after speech, telling voters that Dewey and the GOP wanted to dismantle Roosevelt's New Deal and make America a nation by the rich and for the rich. "Give 'em hell, Harry" became the battle cry of his supporters.

Meanwhile, Dewey focused on looking good, speaking in platitudes, and being inoffensive. And his strategy seemed to be working. Just days before the election, the media still gave him a big edge. Some of his aides had even bought houses in Washington, D.C., anticipating work in a Thomas Dewey White House.

On the evening of the election, November 2, Truman stepped out of the spotlight, retiring to a hotel suite in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. He ate dinner, had a drink, and went to bed early. At midnight, an aide awakened Truman to tell him that he was ahead, but still expected to lose. At 4 a.m., the president was awakened again. This time, he found his lead growing, not shrinking as expected. It seemed that the impossible -- a Truman victory -- was about to happen.

At just after 10 a.m., Thomas Dewey conceded defeat. Harry Truman had refused to surrender, and he had engineered the greatest upset in the history of American politics. But for Truman, perhaps the most triumphant moment of 1948 was yet to come. On his way back to Washington by train, Truman was handed a copy of the November 3 Chicago Tribune . "Dewey Defeats Truman," the headline read. As photographers' flashbulbs exploded, a beaming Truman held the paper aloft. The headline -- and the campaign of 1948 -- would become political legend.

And from the Library:

How did he do it? His civil rights program attracted black and liberal voters. Farmers rewarded his backing of price supports and other benefits. Labor backed his attacks on the Republican's anti-union record. Urban machines delivered the cities. And despite the defection of the "Dixiecrats," he still held on to several Southern states.

Now, Truman is my favorite president, so I am biased. (I'm not saying he was perfect, mind you - he wasn't, and even he knew it.) But there are parallels in Truman's story that give me hope.

He was a blunt, honest, and plainspoken man who didn't hold back or mince his words.

The publishers and columnists and MSM didn't like him.

In his 1940 successful Senate bid, he had no campaign funds or party support.

He had a similar agenda (to JRE) as President, known as the "Fair Deal" and saw the bias toward the rich and influential - a country by the rich for the rich - essentially, the Two Americas.

He took his campaign to the regular people via his whistlestop tours; sort of like Small Change for Big Change.

He ran against a popular New York politician that the MSM were sure would win and to whom they gave a big edge.

Every poll, every journalist, thought he would lose in a landslide, but he wouldn't give up.

So to me, viewing this in a different light, I have to say regarding our guy JRE - it AIN'T over til it's over.

Here are the reference links if you like:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/ 33_truman/index.html

Again, my apologies for length and going wonky on y'all again...

--poligirl

p.s. yes, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an Edwards supporter

Crossing That Partisanship Border: Can It Be Done?

2007-06-20T01:34:00.000-07:00

Well. There certainly are a lot of people talking about “amnesty” these days, and I’m reasonably certain that most of them don’t really understand the term; they’re just parroting the right-wing talking heads, Lou Dobbs, and a few not-so-distinguished members of Congress. So perhaps I should try and explain to them so they might understand what the word “amnesty” actually does mean; ya know, for those who don’t “do” 10-dollar words.

According to my dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, circa 2001, the word “amnesty” means “a general pardon, especially for political offenses.” Did you all get that? Lou? Rush? Senator DeMint (R-SC)? Republican presidential candidates? (Except for Senator McCain (R-AZ) of course.) It does not mean forgiving a bunch of criminals and letting them stay here and feed off of our welfare programs, etc… That’s what they’re doing right now without the bill. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) probably said it the best this past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos; he stated that it would bring the 12 million illegal immigrants under the law.

Yeah, that’s right, UNDER THE LAW; it will force them to have to obey our laws, pay a fine for their political crime, learn English, pay into the tax system, the Social Security system, etc… In other words, no more free ride for them; plus, in exchange, they won’t be exploited by some rather nefarious people that happen to be citizens of THIS country. It’s a win-win situation.

And it’s either put them under the law or nothing; anyone who’s ignorant enough to think that we would actually be able to round up 12 million people and deport them is off their rocker and may seriously need to have their head examined. How do we find them? And IF we do, how do we afford to round them up and deport them all? The people advocating against this bill I don’t think truly understand what they are talking about. They haven’t quite thought it all the way through to the bigger picture.

A political crime. Hmmm… A political crime is a lesser crime than Scooter Libby’s crime. Rush Limbaugh has committed far more serious crimes and he’s still here (as much as I wish we could deport him…) A political crime is a lesser one than getting pulled over for speeding; think about that for a moment; most of us are guiltier of far worse crimes than the people who, simply and without permission, crossed the border to find a better life here. Sure, there are some bad apples, no more so than in any other group of people in this country, and those illegal bad apples will be deported, unlike our own bad apples.

The new immigration bill being revived, thank God, is going to get a second chance to pass the yahoo squad of idiots named above, plus a few other notable yahoos from both political affiliations. And I can tell you this, I am going to get some major heat for this column from my party too, but ya know what, this bill, this immigration bill, is an example of people from both political affiliations working across the aisle, giving and taking, (just like New Dogs), and crafting a bill that encompassed an acceptable compromise. I’ve said it before - there is no such thing as a perfect bill – no such thing. Most of the people fighting tooth and dagger against this bill have no sense of history and perhaps a twinge of racism in them as well – they don’t want to beef up the Canadian border, where some of the September 11th hijackers crossed, they want to beef up Mexico only. They’ve got no problem with Russian mail order brides, but heaven forbid we have Mexicans living among us en masse.

And the bill HAS the “beef up” the borders components in it; try reading the damn bill. And seriously folks, I don’t know how many of you have actually done this, but hiking in the hot damn desert for miles and miles and possibly having to make a run for it or packing 25 people into a small van for a long ride – these are probably not gonna be the ways of choice for major terrorists to get through – most of them have at least minor standards. And luggage.

It’s not like we haven’t had this problem before either; we as a people have never been terrifically welcoming to other groups, ethnic or religious; this is just another one of those times in our history where our, ahem, bias is showing (and that’s the kind b-word, not the original one I thought of.) And like Senator Graham said Sunday - this is it, this is the last chance for a long time; if we don’t get this done NOW, that 12 million will still be hear illegally and we will be up to 20 million in no time. Is that what the aforementioned idiot squad wants? There will not be a Republican immigration bill passed. There will not be a Democratic immigration bill passed. The only hope for an immigration bill IS this bipartisan effort. Period.

I feel terrible for guys like Senators Graham and McCain, who seem to be taking most of the heat (at least from their party and in the public) for this bill. Heaven forbid they (gasp) work with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)? Good God! He’s a Democrat! How could they possibly want to make a law if it includes that devil Kennedy? And how can a law that Ted Kennedy has his hands in possibly be good?

Our big problem is that since bitter partisanship has dug its heels into our national psyche, we can’t see past “my” way or “their” way; we just see “us” and “them”; we don’t seem to want middle ground. People complain that there is gridlock in Congress, this is precisely why; no one in this country really wants us to unite, people only want to divide us, and those people are doing a hell of a good job. And the few that dare try to be uniters in this time of apocalyptical partisanship get trashed up and down by their own party and the MSM for trying to do so; controversy always got ratings and most regular people don’t understand the intricacies of legislation enough to appreciate a good, solid pragmatic compromise.

Let me give you a little American history lesson kids. Most of the laws in this country have been passed in bipartisan fashion. Once upon a time, the members of Congress, as partisan as they were, still understood the value and virtue of a well-made law that both sides could agree upon. They understood what the word “compromise” truly meant. The parties and Congress were not “at war” with each other. Ted Kennedy has been in Congress long enough to remember those days; McCain may even remember, though probably not from his days in Congress; but Rush, Jim DeMint, even Lou Dobbs – they were just young kids back then and possibly did not grasp what was going on politically. But age is no real excuse, seeing that age doesn’t factor in with Lindsey Graham - even young Mr. “Is this Watergate or Peyton Place” gets it - and he’s come a long way since he uttered those words. Now let’s hope the rest of them can find their way across that rabidly partisan border. Here’s to New Dog Politics! God Bless ‘em!

My Random Thoughts: 11 June 2007: Joe Gets 5 for Fighting

2007-06-11T05:16:00.000-07:00

Ok. It’s official. Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) has made it into the penalty box; I think at minimum five for fighting, or at least for trying to instigate a fight; and he may get traded this time. His remarks about Iran on Face The Nation are not only irresponsible and reckless, but are fairly naïve. Lieberman’s bravado rhetoric shines a bright light on just how little he knows about the Middle East. It almost seems as though he is lumping Iran in with Iraq and the rest of the Middle Eastern countries; this is one of the dreadful mistakes we made in regards to Iraq, yet here’s Joe spouting a “wash, rinse, repeat” philosophy yet clearly skipping the “rinse” phase.

I believe that intelligence on Iran is considered sketchy at best, but apparently not too sketchy for good ole Jostlin’ Joe. I’m not sure whether he’s just trying to match his Republican buddies bravado in preparation for becoming one of them, or if he’s listening a little too hard to special interests, or if he seriously thinks that adding yet another country to the list of countries we are at war with is a good thing. I have no idea other than the man has seriously lost his senses. He should go over to Rudy Giuliani’s (R-NY) house and borrow some of the books Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) sent to Rudy a few weeks ago so he could brush up on the Middle East. I agree with the anonymous blog commenter I once quoted in this column – watching Joe Lieberman now is akin to watching your favorite uncle succumb to Alzheimer’s.

Speaking of Rudy Giuliani, here’s my rundown of the Republican debates that took place last Tuesday on CNN.

I think Senator John McCain (R-AZ) held up really well; not being the front-runner is a better place for him to be; he comes across as more genuine. He also had the cajones to stand up and hold his own on the current Immigration Bill, in spite of the fervor against it, whipped into a frenzy by the hard-core conservatives. An act of political courage that was; kudos to you Senator McCain.

Rudy did ok, but so far I believe this was his worst showing. His decision to embrace his personal views is commendable in that crowd, and he had the line of the evening when the thunder zapped the sound as he was asked about abortion. Made me wonder how many watching truly thought that it might be a sign from God not to go with Rudy?

And what was Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) trying to say with his non-sequitur/null set mumbo jumbo? I swear, at that moment I almost thought he seemed like one of us wonky Democrats. Of course, it took me a few seconds to realize that he didn’t really know what he was talking about or at the very least wasn’t phrasing it adequately, and trying to sound fancy-schmancy in that crowd probably didn’t do him well either. It probably just drove home the fact that he was from Massachusetts, home of Senator John Kerry, also a fancy-schmancy wonky.

Governor Tommy Thompson (R-WI) struggled a bit; I felt bad for him – his line about not sending Bush to the UN was funny, but the crowd took its time in giving him a laugh. Both Governor Jim Gilmore (R-VA) and Gov. Thompson suffered from what I think Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) suffers from: an easily recitative and always at-the-ready laundry list of accomplishments, and when they cite them (every time) they lack the charisma that a candidate needs to possess. It would be one thing if they were just tired once, but these guys do this every debate – that’s 3 times for Thompson and Gilmore, and twice for Richardson. I’m not saying these guys are bad guys; they just don’t have the aura we expect to see in a president.

Senator Sam Brownback’s (R-KS) speaking style is very soothing, easy to listen to; I don’t agree with him, but if my beliefs were similar to his, he would have my rapt attention. He just sounds very down to earth, very pragmatic. He’s got a likeability factor for me, though I would never vote for him.

And the same goes with Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR). He’s just so damn likeable. He seems like the great down home guy you want to hang out with and just talk to; he’s friendly, funny, and easy-going. If my beliefs were anywhere similar to his or Brownback’s, one of them would get my vote.

With this last debate, was Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) even there? He was almost off the radar for me. He seems to be caught in a web similar to Govs. Thompson and Gilmore – not much new to offer, not much charisma. He built that border fence, by God, and that’s what we know about him.

And oh, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), where do I start? He’s got a very pleasant manner about him – an easy speaking style, like Sen. Brownback, and his answer to what he would do with Bush made a lot of non-die-hard righties (and lefties) laugh heartily; and he was justified in that answer too. But the problem I have with Tancredo, and it really showed in this last debate, was he is pretty much a one-issue candidate. And he takes such a hard-line on immigration, especially from Mexico, that he almost sounds like he’s a bit racist – mind you – I’m NOT saying that he is, I’m just saying that his rhetoric almost makes him sound it. And being a one-issue candidate is not going to help him out much in the long run anyway.

I saved the best for last. Representative Ron Paul is the smartest man up on stage during these debates. He’s pretty articulate, but not enough to overwonk folks. And he knows what he’s talking about, especially in terms of the Middle East. As soon as he mentioned Mossadeq when Iran was being discussed, I knew he knew what was up. If the Republicans are smart, they will at the very least take a foreign policy tutorial from this guy – he knows. I wanted to stand up and cheer that there was actually a man on stage learned in the Middle East, and not taught by simply military service, or September 11th, but a guy who had actually gone out of his way to do some studying up on the area and all of its complexities. God bless Ron Paul – he may be able to salvage the GOP.

But of course, nothing can help a party that really doesn’t want to be helped. Going back to tried and true hasn’t worked very well; you actually have a few brave members willing to work together to try and piece together decent laws and the hard-core partisans just shoot them down. Seriously, when I’m reading about a Republican chairman urging other Republicans in his state not to support their own Senator (Lindsey Graham R-SC) because of one issue – yeah - ONE, that’s when I’ve had about enough of partisanship. And don’t y’all get it? Most people aren’t fond of hard-core partisanship, and it’s fostered great cynicism about politics among the general public. Granted, there are other factors, but geez, can we let up on the partisanship? The GOP was heavily partisan from 1994 onward and now it’s biting them in the leg – you are losing guys like my pop – a loyal and active Republican for more than 40 years – yet your own hubris, having tasted the cup of power, won’t let you find your way back down to where the humbled masses stand on most issues. And that my friends is going to be why you lose in 2008.

And one other thing for tonight, regarding a possible no confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: Do you think for yourselves? Do you think about your country and what’s best for it? If you answered yes to either of these questions, then you have no choice but to stand up and symbolically vote no confidence. Of course, that is, unless you think Alberto Gonzales is doing a great job, lying and all. If it’s acceptable to you that end runs were made around a sitting Attorney General while he was almost incapacitated in the hospital. If you thought Gonzales’s testimony was really believable in Congress (and we all know it wasn’t.) I know it sucks to be between the dilemma of becoming a circular firing squad or just mere lemmings of your party – I’m a Democrat for crying out loud! But you guys need to cowboy up this time; we know you like political theater – you all perfected it for roughly 12 years, and yeah, it sucks to be on the other end, but you guys can rise above it if you can find your political courage.

You know, Republicans, being in the Senate IS a tough job, and sometimes you have to do tough things. And your job is partly political – you all know this – hell, y’all exercised it with impunity while you were in charge; don’t prove to the world that you’re hypocrites now. And a vote against cloture is the same thing as a vote of confidence in Gonzales. A “No” vote on cloture says you think that what Gonzales is doing is acceptable. You want to win an election, but you can’t seem to stop loving Bush, his cronies, and his policies; and I don’t need to remind you - I’m sure you know where his poll numbers are. Besides that fact, what did George W. Bush ever do for you? Dragged your entire party down the toilet with his idiot policies and advisors like Gonzales, he did; but you still love him; just like the little obedient servants you are. I guess the saying is true: Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line.

Speaking of hypocritical, didn’t you guys impeach a sitting president for lying under oath and obstructing justice in a civil lawsuit based upon an extramarital affair? But Gonzales, his crimes are ok in your opinion? And so are Scooter Libby’s? And you all wonder why you are so closely associated with a “culture of corruption?” Sure there are 2 Dems in ethics trouble – 1 indicted and 1 being investigated, but 2 is nothing compared to the 9 Republicans (from Congress to staff to White House) who have already plead guilty, been indicted, or were convicted. In addition to those 9, there are at least 7 more Republican members of Congress who are currently under investigation. So you all go give Gonzales his free pass and Libby a “Get Out of Jail” free card; it’ll give the oppo plenty of ammunition going into 2008. Possibly even might be like shooting fish in a barrel – fun for me, bad for the fish.

And my wrap up – yep, that’d be the Angels and the Red Sox on top of their divisions – best 2 teams in baseball… And oh yeah, the Stanley Cup will be residing in Southern California until at least next year… Congrats to our Ducks! And it looks like I may be able to play Fantasy Football again this year (last year was the first I’ve missed since 1995.) I pay to play on ESPN – I like high-level competition, so if anyone wants to be in a league, lemme know, my user name is manihi on ESPN. I warn you though – I have 4 league championships to my name. ;D

Until next time! Adieu!

My Random Thoughts: 04 June 2007: May The Force Be With You

2007-06-04T04:35:00.000-07:00

It’s time again for my monthly awards in Brilliance in Rhetoric so let’s start there. Of course, “brilliance” depending on the quote, can be tongue-in-cheek. Again, Madden Rules apply. So here are the winners for May.

Honorable Mention:

To Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM), who very well may have lost New England as well as New York with this little paradox: “My favorite team has always been the Red Sox. I’m also a Yankees fan…” Ouch!

To Senator John McCain (R-AZ), commenting on Governor Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) bashing of the Senate’s new immigration bill as constituting “amnesty”, in spite of the fact that Gov. Romney supported a similar yet less restrictive Senate bill a mere two years ago on the basis that that one was not “amnesty”. Of this, Senator McCain said: “Maybe I should wait a few weeks and see if [Romney’s position] changes.”

Runner Up:

To Aasif Mandvi of The Daily Show, doing a riff on one of President Reagan’s classic lines when commenting about the “sado-optimist”-heavy rhetoric during the first Republican debate: “It’s midnight in America, Jon.”

Finally, May’s Best In Show:

To the unnamed Republican on a short hop-flight back to D.C. from South Carolina following the Republican debate there last month. As noted by Republican political consultant Tucker Eskew in The State (a South Carolina newspaper), in addition to himself, there were several prominent Republicans packed onto the small plane, including four of the presidential candidates, South Carolina’s own two Senators, and two high-level strategists from other campaigns. Said the unnamed Republican (one of the above as reported by Eskew): “You could really clean up American politics with one plane crash.”

Also in the news, the CNN Democratic Party debate was this past evening, so here’s my take: I think Edwards, Obama, and Biden did much better this time around than in the first. Edwards (and yes, I’m biased) again injected substance into his answers, only this time, it prompted some actual issue discussions. He got scrappy with a few of his compadres and I believe necessarily so. I thought he was very strong in this debate. He needed to distinguish himself and he did that marvelously last night.

I also disagree somewhat with the assessment that Hillary gave about the differences being very few amongst the Dems and more apparent between the Dems and the Repubs. First off, in very generalistic terms, that’s a “no duh” statement. Secondly, that’s sort of changing the subject to a viewpoint that benefits Hillary the most. Essentially, she is taking some flak from Dems about some of her positions, especially on the War in Iraq, so she needs to point out that we Dems are all one big family; she needs that friendly cloak. And her statement, while it in and of itself is true, does not mean that there are not bona fide differences between the Democratic candidates. In order for the Democratic voters to pick the best candidate for them, these differences need to be shown. Unfortunately for Hillary, she is forced to use the past, her husband, and platitudes to overcome her deficiencies amongst Democrats, which does not bode remarkably well for a presidential candidate.

Obama legitimately held his own tonight; gone was the greenness of the first debate. He dealt with criticisms well, and did not get completely dressed down as he was during the first debate. And although he is starting to put together plans, he still speaks mostly in platitudes.

Biden was forceful, and while he was on the wrong side of some of the issues for many of the rank-and-file Dems, he was knowledgeable and spoke like a true statesman last night. He was blunt and forceful in getting his points across and made some very good ones.

Dodd, for me, impressed me more tonight than he has so far in the race. He had his ideas, which are in line with much of the base, and he articulated them with strength, and that’s one thing I’ve not seen him do until tonight.

Richardson still doesn’t look or sound too good. Unfortunately for him, although he does have the credentials, as far as form and delivery, he just doesn’t have that impact that many of the others do – that presidential “aura” if you will…

Again, Gravel and Kucinich seemed to be largely on the outskirts, both in physical positioning as well as in views. They both made some good points, but in all, I felt they were looked at only in terms of comic relief. And CNN could’ve been a bit better with time in terms of speaking – these two guys could’ve possibly benefited from a bit more time. Very differing views are essential in the Democratic Party; we are the big tent party…

So there you go. I hope to have commentary on this Tuesday’s Republican debate up soon afterwards as well.

On the subject of the new immigration bill that’s being discussed, criticized, and basically bad-mouthed by folks in both parties, here’s my view. This is a good bill. This is not a perfect bill. There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect bill seeing that there are at least two parties with members who have varying degrees of viewpoints as well as an electorate with the same, if not even more, varying degrees of opinion. I mean, come on folks, what exactly is the definition of a “perfect” bill on immigration? That question will get a plethora of answers, most differing a little at the very least.

I think the 12 Senators got it as right as they could, and they did it exactly the way laws should be made – a coming together by members of both parties in serious meetings over several weeks, discussing their views and constituent stories and hammering out a bill that encompasses a compromise palatable to those on both sides. That’s working across the aisle; that’s bipartisanship. That’s compromise – there is no such thing as a one-sided compromise.

Everyone (except the 12) seems to want to pick on any flaws in this bill, but I certainly didn’t see the critics putting serious effort into any other immigration bill. Not to mention, like I said before, there is no such thing as a perfect bill: no such thing. And I think in terms of immigration, this may be as close to perfect as it gets; bravo to the 12 for their valiant attempt to seriously tackle a very tough and divisive issue. It’s right along the vein of my New Dog Politics philosophy; I would’ve nuanced it down a bit further, but with the time constraints and the fact that something needed to get done ASAP, this by all means was a good effort in terms of viewing it through the prism of the New Dog approach. Good pragmatic politics – God bless it.

And what’s up with the two Senators from Oklahoma? They seem to be on a warpath, though not a terrifically advisable one methinks. One, Senator James Inhofe (R), thinks that global warming is a complete hoax foisted on the public by Vice President Al Gore and a bunch of scientists with intentions of a dubious nature. The other, Senator Tom Coburn (R), blocked a simple senate resolution honoring environmental pioneer Rachel Carson, who would’ve turned 100 in late May. These types of resolutions are approved all the time in the Senate, and Rachel Carson was one of the first people to bring attention to the environment through her book The Silent Spring. Though her book was about the dangers of the pesticide DDT (which was banned as a result), recently the World Health Organization approved it for use indoors to combat malaria. Seizing on this, Senator Coburn believes Carson created an “unscientific” (sic) bias against the cancer-causing agent and that this hysteria within the environmental movement caused millions of deaths in the developing world. It’s so nice to see that Senator Coburn finally cares about those folks in developing countries, now maybe we can do something about the overwhelming poverty and genocide happening in them as we speak. And Oklahoma – what’s with your Senators? Both of them seem rabidly anti-environmentalist - not just non, but anti. What’s going on there in the heartland?

Also, I have decided to name this presidency the “Mistakes Were Made” Presidency. Blame was assigned to everyone but it, and I believe we will be haunted by its doings for years to come. Lord let’s hope for something better this next time…

On another topic, I watched the tributes to Star Wars that were run last week on the History Channel. I loved the movies, from seeing the first one in the big theater (Big Newport) when I was a kid, to seeing the prequels in the theater as an adult. Star Wars was the first movie to knock my socks off, and I did see the inherent good versus evil philosophy played out in it, even back then. But in watching the Star Wars: The Legacy History Channel special, I was blown away by just how deeply rooted the story was in many things including past history, philosophy, literature, religion, mythology, etc… It was a learning experience – even for someone who like me has seen the movies an umpteen million times a piece. Kudos to George Lucas for his innovative nature and love of storytelling in a way that was much more layered than I could’ve ever imagined. Bravo to you sir!

One last aside – how ‘bout those Angels and Red Sox – still tops of the AL West and AL East respectively! And hey, did I mention that the Ducks are leading the Stanley Cup Playoffs 2 games to 1 over Ottawa. My my, I AM a happy girl… :D

Well folks, that’s it for this time! See you soon! Ma’assalama!

All Gave Some, Some Gave All; Now It’s Our Turn To Give Back To Them

2007-05-27T06:30:00.000-07:00

I love our military. My father is an Army veteran; two of my uncles served during WWII; I came very close to enlisting in the Air Force in 1991. A few of my closest friends are active duty, a few are veterans, a few are reserves. Many have served at least one or two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some are there now, and those here may get called back anytime.

I grew up literally right next to Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, the helicopter sister to El Toro Air Base. Our house was maybe 500 yards from the base fence; we were close enough that I heard Reveille, Taps, the Marine Corps Hymn, and The Star Spangled Banner every day of my life until I was 21. I went to grade school with military kids, I played on the bases, my first co-workers were mostly military wives. I supported the first Gulf War; my father and sister and I participated in Support the Troops rallies – we even organized one. I knew 23 guys over there during that war.

When I moved down to south Orange County I was a barmaid at a local cowboy/biker bar; a large portion of the clientele was the local enlisted guys and NCOs; some even regularly came up from as far as Camp Pendleton. I loved every one of those guys that came through those doors (and maybe some of them a bit more than others ;D ). They taught me what good old-fashioned chivalry was; they taught me how to two-step and swing; we all hung out – played together, sang and danced together, occasionally dated one another – I still keep in touch with a few of them, now 15 years later.

In addition to my upbringing, some of my greatest heroes are veterans; I am still in awe of the great sacrifices made by the members of our Greatest Generation, as well as members who served in all of our past wars, in addition to our service members serving in the current ones. I am in awe and humbled by not only their sacrifices, but the sacrifices of their loved ones as well; I have written in the past of my intense appreciation of those who pull the often unheralded duty of doing without a spouse, a parent, a child, or a sibling, for months and sometimes years at a time; I cannot imagine what going through the agony of worry they go through on a daily basis must be like; the pride that all service members, veterans, and their families feel is so soundly and righteously deserved; you guys and gals are my heroes. I will be participating in the Arlington West candle lighting ceremony this evening honoring those heroes who have fallen.

I wanted to make sure you all know of my deep love for our country and our military; because now I am going to post the plan that my candidate has put forth for our military. Most of you know I try to keep this blog middling and try not to let it become an advocacy blog for one issue or one candidate, so please bear with me here if you are of a different political persuasion; try to see the plan through non-partisan eyes. Pretend if you have to – these are really good ideas; at the very least, please read the whole thing before writing it off due to your political persuasion. And remember that this is not an Iraq War plan of any kind – this plan deals strictly with military needs and care.

The reason I post it is because I think the members of our military and their families deserve the best treatment and it kills me that we don’t take nearly good enough care of our military men and women. This plan is the least they deserve. I will have a few comments after. So without further ado, the plan (with intro quote):

"I believe in a sacred contract between our country and America's veterans and military families. We must stand by those who stand by us. When our service men and women sacrifice so much to defend our freedom and secure peace around the world, we have a moral obligation to take care of them and their families." – John Edwards

* Fully Fund Veterans Health Care: The VA has already seen over 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. We must do everything we can to properly care for these brave men and women and help them get timely access to care by fully funding veterans' health care. Edwards is committed to providing the funding the VA needs to care for those who have sacrificed for the rest of us. [Washington Post, 10/13/06; DVA, 2007; VFW 2007]

* Prevent Another Walter Reed: John Edwards is committed to helping the military medical establishment continue to deliver the best quality medicine in the world by properly funding all aspects of medical care, including maintaining the facilities and expediting boards and dispositions of the injured service members. As president, he will order a stem-to-stern review of military hospitals to ensure that our service members are getting the excellent care they deserve. He will also reject the Bush Administration's ideological drive to outsource federal jobs; a questionable decision to hire contractors to manage Walter Reed facilities contributed to the shocking conditions there. [Mattera, 2007]

* Dedicate Resources to the Signature Injuries of Today's Wounded Warriors: The VA's prosthetics programs and polytrauma centers need increased resources. Traumatic brain injuries have been described by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the "signature wound of this war." Rather than addressing these problems, the Bush Administration is pretending they don't exist. As president, Edwards will increase the research and treatment of these injuries and the conditions that follow from them. [VFW, 2007]

* Provide a "Plan for Coming Home" for Every Service Man and Woman: As a nation, America did not deal well with the care and reintegration of veterans after the Vietnam War, leaving thousands of veterans without the care they desperately needed. We need to admit our mistakes and learn from them. As president, Edwards will require that all service members returning to the U.S. or leaving the military be provided with a new "Homefront Redeployment Plan," including thorough PTSD screenings, benefits information and seamless transfer of medical records. [VFA, 2007; PAV, 2007]

* Create a National "Chain of Care," with Improved Treatment of PTSD: Once our service members become veterans, we have to make sure the system doesn't fail them. As president, Edwards will create a new national chain of care to ensure that no veteran again falls through the cracks. Because many veterans receive treatment outside the VA system, this chain will coordinate treatment and benefits in outreach centers and clinics in every county where a veteran resides, both within and outside the VA network. Edwards will also improve training for health personnel to recognize and treat PTSD; establish uniform standards for mental health care to address the wide range of quality of care; increase counseling resources within TRICARE and VA networks and permit access outside of the networks; and ensure that outreach is extended to family members who can help recognize symptoms. Caring for the newest generation of veterans must be accomplished without neglecting the continuing needs of veterans from previous generations.

* Close the Gap Between Military and Civilian Pay: After 30 years, it's time to finally close the gap between military and civilian pay. The White House's recent decision to "strongly oppose" improved pay and benefits as "unnecessary" is part and parcel of this Administration's neglect of our troops and their families. Edwards believes we need to do everything we can to better stand by those who stand by us, starting with a commitment to closing the pay gap, and strongly supports legislation now in Congress to do just that. [MOAA, 2007]

* Enable Guard and Reserve Families to Continue Health Care Coverage: When Guards members and Reservists are mobilized, health care coverage for their families is often disrupted. Edwards has proposed a specific plan to guarantee health care for every man, woman and child in America. Under Edwards' plan, Guard and Reserve families will be given the choice of receiving military health care or receiving help to continue their families' existing health care coverage. [MOAA, 2007]

* Give Military Families a Voice in Family Policies: As president, Edwards will create a Military Families Advisory Board within the Department of Defense to give family members a voice in considering how to adjust family policies -- such as separation allowances, life insurance and savings rules -- based on operational needs.

* New Respect and More Resources for Family Readiness Groups: Currently, it is difficult for Family Readiness Groups (FRGs) to raise sufficient funds to support their activities. FRGs are critical to maintaining a sense of community among military families during deployments, and providing crucial services. Edwards believes FRGs play an invaluable role supporting families under stress and deserve more resources and respect.

* Modernize the GI Bill: Edwards will enact a new Total Force GI Bill that meets the needs of all of today's military and veterans, including Guards members and Reservists. It would give members of the Guards and Reserve benefits proportionate to the service they perform. It would also expand benefits for all eligible personnel and veterans, including job training education for high tech jobs and other growth sectors of the economy.

* Provide Student Loan Relief for Mobilized Guard and Reserves Troops: No one should return to civilian life in deep debt because they served their country. However, under current law, interest on federal student loans continues to accrue. As president, Edwards would make sure our troops do not pay interest on their loans while defending our country.

* Restore Vocational Training for Disabled and Occupationally Challenged Veterans: The Bush administration terminated the well-regarded program at the Department of Labor that offers skill training and job placement for veterans whose military specialties are not easily transferable to the civilian workforce and disabled veterans. Edwards would renew the program to help meet the post-Iraq needs of large numbers of military personnel returning from active duty. [American Legion, 2005]

Now I know there is going to be grumbling about the plan from one political persuasion. So first I have a few points to make. The grumblers are going to ask how we are going to pay for the plan. I say we’ve found excessive money for Halliburton to lose track of; we’ve given rich folks and corporations tax cuts, shelters, and write-offs (and none of them usually serve nowadays); we find funding for all kinds of things that are less important than the care of our military and their families. So if we can find the money for the above, certainly we can find funding for these simple steps to take care of those who sacrifice so much to fight for our country – they deserve the best.

For those grumblers who will say that John Edwards is simply going to skyrocket taxes: that’s an old Republican talking point that is getting old and over worn – I know - I was an active Republican during the mid and late 1980s and it was just as standard of a talking point then as it is now. And rolling back tax cuts isn’t the same as raising them – we still won’t be paying any more than we were in 2000 even if Bush’s tax cuts were rolled back. It’s simply a disingenuous word game that the Republicans have played (and very well I might add) for the past 20 some years.

And aren’t our troops and their families worth it? They are over there doing what their country asked them to do – their solemn duty – the men and women who look out for us, and do the most difficult task in the country; all of them gave some, and some of them gave all. How dare anyone think they aren’t worth the steps outlined above? Regardless of who the next president is, this plan should be put into effect; the military men and women of this country are what make it possible for several of the candidates and the current administration to keep crowing about protecting America. How about also protecting and caring for the Americans that make their rhetoric possible - those folks actually serving in the military?

What I say to all of the grumblers is this: either put up or shut up. You’ve had plenty of time to advocate for these kinds of plans (4 years now I believe), and yet you really haven’t mustered much more than a whimper. Instead you dallied with short workweeks and issues like Terry Schiavo intervention while our brave men and women were and are still going without. So get a move on or knock off the criticism. This plan is good; the best I’ve seen in a while, and I am very proud to say it came from the candidate that I support – Edwards is the real deal.

And finally, for our service members and their families, I wrote about my appreciation of you on Veterans Day last year. If you would like to read that love letter to you, here is the link:

http://justmy2cents.blog-city.com/to_our_veterans_and_their_families_past_and_present.htm

In closing, God bless all of our troops, all of our military men and women, past, present, and future, and their families, for all of their sacrifices, especially the fallen and their loved ones on this Memorial Day 2007. Thank you all very much and very gratefully, from a regular citizen who appreciates you all and every sacrifice you make in the name of our great country.

My Random Thoughts: 19 May 2007: Pure Torture, GOP Style

2007-05-19T04:59:00.000-07:00

Well, there’s been a lot of stuff in the news lately so here are my thoughts.

First, during the Republican debate on Fox Noise (yes, I actually watched it – I had to look at the TV guide to figure out which channel Fox was though, lol) I was startled at just how quickly almost every candidate morphed into torture lovers…uh…oh yeah…I mean “enhanced interrogation technique” lovers. Now, everyone with half a brain knows that the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” is just fancy language usage straight out of the Gingrich manual (circa 1990s) Language: A Key Mechanism of Control. Everyone knows that “techniques” like water boarding were considered outright torture until this newspeak was introduced into the lexicon. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig…

I was really proud of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for taking the moral – yes, that’s right – the MORAL stand that he did, in spite of it not being popular in the room. Kudos to him for having a spine. Not to mention the fact that as a guy who WAS tortured, I would think there would be at least a show of respect and deference to him on the subject of it, but apparently not in that crowd.

Small-minded hysterics like Giuliani and Romney and the rest of the cabal on the stage sounded like they couldn’t wait to have those “techniques” applied to suspects. I know they all love the show “24” – I do too – problem is, they don’t seem to realize that it’s FICTION for crying out loud. McCain even talked about the studies that have been done, and so has General Petraeus for that matter – even recently – torture doesn’t work, but no one on stage or in the audience seemed to have been listening at that point. They’re all just enamored with Jack Bauer.

And Romney going on about enlarging Gitmo “where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil” – how absolutely un-American of him. According to Romney, the laws on our soil are too humane for the detainees so we must keep them on foreign soil in order to properly and legally deprive them of rights. I was stunned when I heard it come out of his mouth; it was at this point that I realized he would do or say anything to get elected. Whatever personal respect I had left for Romney evaporated at that moment.

And McCain got it exactly right too; it IS about US, not them. He pointed out that it’s beneath us as Americans to torture, even using “enhanced interrogation techniques.” We treat our prisoners with dignity and respect (at least we should); that’s the American way; just because terrorists may torture us doesn’t give us a pass to treat them the same way. And for a bunch of Christian men on that stage, don’t they remember that “eye for an eye” is Old Testament and that “turn the other cheek” is New Testament and that New tends to override Old in most cases? I suppose that would be too inconvenient for them to remember though; call it an “inconvenient truth.”

And wet noodle lashes to Rudy (and the MSM) for not really listening to the gist of what Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) was trying to say. Granted, Paul stumbled a bit and used the worst example right off the bat, but the gist was right on target. They hate us and want to attack us because of the policies (both secret and public) we have had towards the Middle East. It does not take a genius to figure this out (well, maybe in the GOP it does.) Let’s start in recent history - with our involvement in the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran in the 1950s. And our installation of the Shah, who was not a really nice man to his people or a particularly good leader… How about our willingness to play any side off the other over there, regardless of whether we were motivated by the Cold War or our own oil interests? Most people can agree that when you are found to have had a hand in both sides, neither side tends to be very appreciative, especially as they are counting destruction and casualties. So gee, I wonder why they would hate us so much? Surely it must be our freedom that they hate? (I am rolling on the floor laughing out loud at this thought, just so you know.)

As for what is likely to happen in Iraq when we leave – will the terrorists follow us home, as is popularly thought in GOP lore? As we have seen as recently as last week, methinks the terrorists are already here. As for Al Qaeda in Iraq - they need us to stay. There is an old Arabic saying that goes something like “me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the outsider.” Right now, we are the outsider and the different sects are united against us. When we go, Al Qaeda in Iraq – the cousin – gets slaughtered. After that, it goes back to brother against brother. So the civil war in Iraq will continue – we have, however inadvertently, given an arena for a 1400 year old fight to be fought in, and that will likely continue; but will the terrorists follow us home? – they won’t be that lucky…

To be fair, I do have to say one nice thing about Rudy and the debate; it took quite a set at that debate to publicly embrace his pro-choice viewpoint. That was an act of political courage and I can’t NOT give him kudos simply because I don’t agree with most of his other views. Fox Noise may not be, but I am trying my damnedest to be fair (and attempting some balance too, though I may not always achieve that.)

On another note - how about that Comey testimony in the Senate the other day? I was stunned (my word of the day apparently), absolutely stunned, listening to him recount the episode; it was the stuff conspiracy movies are made of. I have had both gall bladder surgery and an appendectomy, and I can tell you that the only reason you go to the bedside of someone who is probably on some pretty potent painkillers (and I mean POTENT) is to make an end run. There is no other logical and/or reasonable excuse, not when there’s another LEGALLY ACTING Attorney General. It will be serious political theater to watch the creative excuses the Republicans in Congress can come up with to vote against the “no confidence” resolution, both for cloture and for the actual vote. As a Democrat who hated watching Clinton put though his impeachment in the late 1990s, it will be fun for me to watch the Republicans squirm on this one. Alberto Gonzales is making Clinton look like a choirboy, and with most Republicans’ blessings no less.

Also this week, I have to give lashes to Joe Scarborough; normally I really like Joe, I think he makes many reasonable points and he’s entertaining and not normally a whack job, but everyone has their moments. He was doing his show and covering the bipartisan immigration agreement that was reached this past week, and it was pretty clear that he stood in opposition to it. This, in and of itself, didn’t bother me, but then he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) way out of context, and used it to bash a ninth grade teacher somewhere in South Carolina. Joe quoted Senator Graham as saying that this was what Lindsey’s ninth grade teacher told him government was all about. Joe then proceeded to state that the ninth grade teacher ought to be fired. Joe, dear, if you actually listened to the whole conference OR read the entire transcript of it (as I have) you would know that the Senator was speaking about the PROCESS that was gone through to come to this agreement – the good old-fashioned bipartisan law-making process. The many long meetings talking about their differences and then slowly hammering out a bipartisan agreement - that’s what Senator Graham was saying. Not that the immigration bill was what his ninth grade teacher thought government was all about. Get a grip Joe, and perhaps an apology to Senator Graham AND his ninth grade teacher from you would be nice. I won’t hold my breath though…

When the MSM gets it wrong so loudly and prominently I have to give lashes for it. Journalism should never be so shoddy; at least the journalist, regardless of who he or she is, should strive for at least some modicum of accuracy. As one of my Professors (a working journalist he is in addition to being a professor) says, you don’t need an advanced degree to be a journalist; any idiot can be one. And from what I’ve observed, there’s not much quality control either. Not being accurate and misquoting can be either a sign of shoddy work or of nefarious intentions; neither of those should be tolerable in professional journalism. Joe Scarborough, you let me down.

In his favor though, I had been enjoying Scarborough’s early morning tryout on MSNBC – “Morning Joe” – it was pretty entertaining and I thought he was a pretty good replacement for Imus. Oh well, if he can get back to reasonable and responsible entertaining journalism (like Keith Olbermann, not like the Fox Noise style crap that this last mistake was) maybe he will make a decent host to replace Imus; right now though, he’s on my persona non grata list.

An election aside for those of you watching the Unity 08 movement - wouldn’t a Hagel/Bloomberg ticket make it NOT such a Unity-style ticket? If one of them changed party just for the ticket wouldn’t it be a bit disingenuous? So a suggestion for you Unity 08 folks – how about Hagel/Sestak? Representative Sestak is a moderate Democrat from Pennsylvania and a former 3-star Navy Admiral – the highest-ranking military official to ever serve in Congress. Hagel/Sestak – now that’d be an interesting ticket.

Lastly, in this mostly Republican-style column, I have to say that Tom Delay (R-TX), (yes THAT Tom Delay) did something a little brave. He actually agreed to be a guest on the Colbert Report. Now, I’m sure that might’ve been against his own better judgment, and Colbert was tough on him, but Delay stuck it out through the whole interview without getting really smarmy. It was a very interesting interview to say the least.

One final note – my Angels and my Red Sox are still at the tops of their divisions… And UCLA just became the first school to reach 100 NCAA championships… Add to that the (NHL) Ducks are still hanging in there against the Red Wings… Yes, I am a pretty happy girl… :D

Until we meet again! A bientot!

My Random Thoughts: 12 May 2007: Kudos and Polls

2007-05-12T03:46:00.000-07:00

First off, let me say that I am already sick to death of presidential polls - not the campaign coverage - just all the damn polls. Seriously, it would be easier to make a list of people who are NOT polling on this race. It’s eight months before ANY voting is done – eight months for crying out loud! How much can a poll really tell you right now other than people are aware of the candidates? Eight months is a very looooong time, plenty of time for numbers to change. In addition, the many, MANY polls that are being released have varying (sometimes wildly varying) numbers, which tells me that the poll numbers are pretty soft and that surveys of only 1000 people cannot be as accurately extrapolated as they normally are in terms of the general public this early in what is a very different and very long election season… So enough already with the poll overload!

Second I want to give some kudos to Congress for not caving in to the Bush regime on the Iraq War funding bill. Bravo, and keep up the pressure; be relentless. As I heard someone say Friday on one of the cable news shows, Bush and his minions will only change by force; force is the only tactic that is going to work with them regarding their Iraq War policy. And let’s be honest, we know they are fond of force; they seem to believe it is the ONLY real option to use to achieve goals…

Now I am hearing that there is an Iraqi Parliament draft bill signed by more than half its members that was presented to their Speaker for review; it calls for a timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign forces as well as a cap on the number of forces in Iraq at the amount that are already there. They see us as an occupying force and they would like us out. And to top that all off, the Iraqi Parliament is STILL considering taking a two month break this summer while our guys are still over there fighting and dying in Iraq’s civil war. Unbelievable!

Major kudos to General David Petraeus, our commander of forces in Iraq, for speaking out very publicly and unequivocally against torture in the wake of a mental health survey of our troops, in which 1/3rd of them indicated that they approved of torture. Said Petraeus, “Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong.” He went on to state, “Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they often are neither useful nor necessary.” Thank God for this man! We couldn’t have put a better guy in charge over there; I admire him greatly…

And some kudos go to Defense Secretary Bob Gates. I believe him to be a good man, and him having been a major part of the Iraq Study Group, I think he is well aware of the things that need to be done regarding Iraq. I understand that now as part of the Bush Administration, he has to toe some of the Admin line, but he has shown himself not to simply be just another Bush lackey. He is getting flack from both sides now as he recently had given praise to the Democratic efforts in Congress to set a timetable for withdrawal and also has said that time is running out for Iraq to act. I think Secretary Gates may be an honest man; quite possibly the only candid and honest man in the entire Bush Administration…

Another note: I think that author and analyst Reza Aslan is one of the smartest guys around when it comes to Middle East insight; he should be in a high-level advisory position on the formation of U.S. Middle East policy. Every time I see him interviewed just reminds me of how much this country needs to listen to smart people who know what they are talking about; guys like Reza Aslan…

And bravo to the show Law & Order for dealing in part with the state of veteran’s care in this country with so many of our men and women returning from war and needing health care. It’s shameful that situations like the one at Walter Reed happened in the first place; doubly shameful that it was allowed to go on for such a long time; and triply shameful that with all the money being spent by our government, our veterans are still lacking in adequate care. What on earth are our priorities that are more important than this? There certainly can’t be many… Treating our war vets like this is a lapse in moral judgment as well as egregiously unbecoming. This subject needs attention and needs to be fixed ASAP. And good for Law & Order for not letting us forget about it now that the issue isn’t prominent in the news cycle anymore…

One final note: I’ve gotten so conditioned to Countdown w/Keith Olbermann that I turn toward my TV every time that Lexus commercial with Elvis Costello comes on, the one where the first notes of Beethoven’s Ninth, Second Movement are playing… It’s very similar to the conditioning I have to that short NBC theme that tolls when they are about to show updated football scores… I feel a little bit like Pavlov’s dog…

Until next time! Woof!

My Random Thoughts: 05 May 2007: Long Time No See

2007-05-05T20:37:00.000-07:00

Well gosh - it’s been a while! The past couple of weeks have had me running hard, both with the campaign and schoolwork; but the good news is that the late April early May crush is over, so I can get back to my writing. And of course, much has happened, oh where to begin?

First order of business, my Brilliance in Rhetoric awards. Again, “Madden” rules apply. So without further ado, here are April’s winners:

Honorable Mention:

To Stephen Colbert, talking about the use of scare tactics as a motivator: “Fear is a renewable resource.” Sad, and too true...

To Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). In the wake of Senator McCain’s high profile and very heavily armed visit to a Baghdad marketplace and subsequent proclamation that the city was “safer”, Senator Hagel was asked his opinion on security in Baghdad at the end of his own trip to Iraq; he replied with a smile: “We did no shopping while we were here.”

Runner Up:

To Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), when asked about his possibly sharing a presidential ticket with Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “I think he’d make a lousy vice president.”

And April’s Best In Show:

To Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), allotted 60 seconds to answer during the Democratic debate in South Carolina, when asked whether he would be able to control himself on the global stage in terms of his well-known and seemingly undisciplined verbosity, he answered with uncharacteristic brevity: “Yes.”

Next up tonight, the debates. The first primary debates on both sides have come and gone now, so here’s my take:

On the Democratic side, Hillary held up pretty well, Obama stumbled a bit in the beginning and looked a little green, Edwards did his best to try and inject some measure of substance into the debate, Richardson looked very uncomfortable and almost nervous, especially compared to Biden who was as relaxed and confident as ever and had the best one-liner of the evening. Dodd did as well as he could with the slim time allotted him, and Kucinich came off looking like a reasonable alternative in light of the presence of “crazy grandpa” Gravel, who was the most entertaining as far as political theater goes.

On the Republican side, McCain seemed a bit nervous at first but seemed to settle down, Giuliani got himself trapped on the subject of abortion, which may hurt him with the base, Romney showed himself to be a polished and easy speaker, albeit maybe too politician-like, and dammit if Huckabee isn’t a really likeable guy. Gilmore gave a good presentation on his bonafides, Tommy Thompson tangled himself up a bit and actually looked green, Brownback seemed strong and confident in all of his answers, and Tancredo seemed flat. Hunter did ok but appeared very “establishment” and Ron Paul made a good showcase of his libertarian leanings.

All the above said, I am looking forward to seeing debates with a lot more substance to them. To me, these two previous ones were too short-form sound-bite get-to-know-the-candidates; this is fine for those not paying attention until now, but I believe folks need to hear the contenders’ plans as well in order to make the best decisions on a candidate. It’s not only who the candidates are, it’s what their policies are for the country and its citizens.

I attended the California Democratic Convention last weekend in San Diego; it was my first convention and hopefully not my last. Now, as you know, I am biased – I work with the Edwards campaign – but I have to say as a long-time lover of rhetoric, my candidate gave an unforgettable speech. It was one of the most exciting speeches I have been privileged to hear in person; by the end of it, the delegates were on their feet and the electricity in the room was palpable. John Edwards hit it out of the park last Sunday morning.

I had the opportunity to talk to several delegates the day before the speech, and many of them had come into the convention pretty open-minded. After hearing several of the candidates speak on Saturday, they were saying they thought Hillary’s was average, Obama’s was very good, but also very scripted and repetitive, and they were eagerly anticipating hearing John’s speech on Sunday. The thing I most often heard was “Well, I’m wavering between [so-and-so] and Edwards. I can’t wait to see what he says tomorrow.” He didn’t disappoint.

There was so much excitement after the speech that fire marshals had to block off an Edwards supporter meeting immediately following it due to over crowding and the Edwards table was busy all afternoon, sometimes with a crowd five deep. The delegates that I had spoken with the previous afternoon who had been on the fence were pretty much solidly in support of Edwards after the speech.

It was a great convention in general and an especially good one for my candidate. And for those of you who tilt right, I hope to be able to provide you with a California Republican Convention rundown after it takes place next September, albeit second-hand, but I’ve got some active righties among my friends.

On another front, whether it's timelines or benchmarks or whatever the latest term used is, we really need to start forcing Iraq’s government to take responsibility for its country. We need more than just the promises that we’ve managed to squeeze out of Prime Minister al-Maliki; we need to see them step up. We have been propping them up for so long that maybe they’re just used to it and if we continue to do so without consequence for them, why should they step up? Our soldiers are the ones over there in danger trying to create some sort of safety in civil-war-stricken Baghdad; it’s high time the Iraqi government starts taking the reins; if they do not, there need to be consequences. The honor system has not been working very well - the Iraqis need to do more than just say so; they need to do so. And I am outraged that the Iraqi parliament is even considering taking two months off this summer! They need to start doing their jobs before they get any sort of vacation time. For crying out loud!

My last thought for this evening: how about my Angels and Red Sox – 1st in the West and 1st in the East respectively; it’s a mighty fine season so far… Though I have to say, it’s hard seeing Darin Erstad in a White Sox uniform and even harder to root against him…

Until next time (and it won’t be as long of a wait…) Happy Cinco de Mayo! Despedida!

A Personal Column About A Cause Near And Dear To Me

2007-04-20T02:14:00.000-07:00

This column is going to be a major departure from the usual political rants you get from my keyboard, but it’s about an issue near and dear to my heart as well as pertinent in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, and the recent suicides by comedian Richard Jeni and musician Brad Delp.

Often the first reaction in the wake of such incidences is shock; shock that it happened, and shock that the person could do what they did. But after all the surrounding knowledge comes to light, it’s really not that surprising that it happened or that the person in question could do it. Such is mental illness; only visible when we choose to see it.

I am lucky in regards to the topic of mental illness. Well, I guess some might say not that lucky, but I consider myself lucky. I grew up in a house where there was mental illness. Mental illness runs on my mother’s side of the family; her grandmother had it, her father and a few of her uncles had dealt with it, including one suicide; my mother grappled with and still occasionally deals with major depression, and my brother is bipolar.

So in my house, mental illness never had the stigma it has in public. To us, it was just another thing, a fact of life. My parents and our extended family members always watched all of us kids and if any of us showed the signs of it (and there are always signs), they got us treatment. It was never taboo to talk about; it was dinner-table-worthy conversation. Because of this lack of stigma, and in spite of rough going sometimes, mental illness has never been allowed to take over any generation of us; openness has probably literally preserved my family.

Not knowing enough about mental illness, which enables the perpetuation of the stigma, is something that until we deal it as a society, incidences like Virginia Tech will keep on happening. It’s almost as if society deplores it when something tragic happens, but not enough to truly deal with the core issue; it’s as if the idea of mainstreaming the topic of mental illness and working to destroy the stigma is a worse scenario than periodically dealing with these tragedies. How quickly we forget that we could have done more to prevent them.

To be sure, I know there are no easy remedies or ways to deal with mental illness. In my brother’s case, though he was treated during his teens, once he was out of my parent’s purview, he rarely sought treatment and instead sank into drug and alcohol addiction, a very common remedy for people dealing with mental illness (even those unaware they have one.) But because he always knew in the back of his mind that he did have bipolar disorder, he periodically did seek treatment. Eventually, a few stormy years later, he summoned his inner strength and started getting regular treatment; during its course, he also is now a recovering addict, and is successfully getting on with his life.

I wish the other major brush with mental illness in my life had as happy an ending. My very first boyfriend, my first love, was bipolar as well; actually, he and I went out way back when I was 16 and his illness did not manifest until afterward. We managed to retain our close friendship even after our breakup; we had a very tight group of six of us who were the best of the best of friends; he was one of them. About a year after we broke up (when he was 18), I started noticing some of the signs in him; many mental illnesses tend to manifest in the late teens and early twenties. I was not terribly close to his parents, but I told our friends; they brushed it off as perhaps me just being a bit of a vengeful ex. This was the first point in my life that the topic of mental illness was broached outside of my family; I was stunned to see just how socially unacceptable it was, especially when we were talking about one of our closest friends.

Throughout the ensuing years, I periodically mentioned it as he showed more symptoms, but most of the time it fell on deaf ears. It was heartbreaking for me (and my sister who was also close friends with him), to watch him slowly disintegrate into the fog that is mental illness without being able to do much for him. As many in his situation do, he became dependent on alcohol, and wandered between school and assorted jobs. Some of our common friends began to see the enormity of his problems, and I know everyone tried to counsel him in some way or at the very least be there for him in support, but he never seemed to stay in one place for long. And after many years of battling his illness, in 2003 he took his parents hostage to gain access to a gun (they escaped), used a fake explosive that required the evacuation of the surrounding area, and after a 12 hour standoff with the SWAT team and an emotional hours-long attempt by another close friend to talk him down, he took his own life.

When I looked at his father after the funeral, I knew he knew, and we spoke about it; there had been an incident a few years before that had gotten his family’s attention, but even when you know a lot about mental illness, it’s hard to deal with; baptism by fire is the most difficult initiation of them all. His family did the best they could with the limited time they had left with him.

I still feel an enormous amount of guilt – I could have done more – and I don’t suppose that I will ever be able to completely reconcile that feeling within myself. However, I do know that guilt and searching for something or someone to blame are our natural reaction in trying to make sense of the insensible. I also know that we can’t let these things consume us; we need to be proactive in changing the way we deal with mental illness. Virginia Tech is yet another wake-up call.

There is a high correlation between substance abuse and mental illness; there is also a high correlation between homelessness and mental illness. Suicide is the third leading cause of death of people aged 15 to 24. And now we have Iraq war veterans who are coming home to sub par and inadequate treatment for mental illnesses such as PTSD. We are a nation who desperately, now, needs to come out of its box and confront this issue head on. Virginia Tech, Columbine, Andrea Yates, John Hinckley, and the many other incidences, including the many daily suicides in this country, we could have seen them coming. People nearing a breaking point exhibit “tells;” we as a society are just ignorant of them. And we need not be.

We need to do more as a society to understand mental illness. We need to do more as a society to give treatment for mental illness parity with regular health care. We need to pour more research into this treatment; one of the biggest complaints is that some of the medications have such unbearable side effects that many times, people quit taking them and go back to whatever substance had become their crutch. We need to not treat mental illness as something shameful; that shame alone prevents so many people from seeking help as well as stops possibly concerned friends and family members, co-workers, fellow students and teachers from broaching the subject with the person or their family. We need to learn the signs so we can be a source of support for those we know who might be going through it; they need to know that it’s ok, they’re not alone, there is help. We need to stop using words such as “psycho” and “deranged” about people suffering with mental illness – they only serve to feed the stigma. Mental illness is not crazy; it’s just another illness like all the rest. We need to wake up America, and realize that there is something we can do to help prevent many tragedies that take place today.

As you can tell, this is an issue that is near and dear to me, as well as something I feel very passionately about. If I were ever in the position to add the title "philanthropist" to a description of me, mental health awareness would be my pet cause. For now, other than being vocal on a local level, this column is my forum to send out my call. So let’s wake up! This column is dedicated to James (1968-2003) and to Scott who is successfully plugging along…

My Random Thoughts: 16 April 2007: Just Exercising My Freedoms

2007-04-16T03:28:00.000-07:00

First: Come on kids, the Imus firing is not a freedom of speech issue. I can’t believe I am still hearing educated people arguing the viewpoint that it is. In a nutshell:

It’s not about freedom of speech. He didn't have his freedom of speech taken away; he had his forum taken away. Last I checked, Imus still has the same type and amount of freedom of speech that I have.

This was simply a case of free markets (the cost of capitalism) and the self-censorship of MSNBC and CBS. These 2 things are things most of us practice every day: we choose where to buy things and don't buy them at places we don't like; we also self-censor our own speech in terms of where we are and who we are talking to (like when we talk to children.)

So, while we are all guaranteed the right to freedom of speech, we are NOT guaranteed the right to a venue in which to speak. Hence, the Imus issue isn't about freedom of speech. Geez!

Next up, the Democrats refusing to hold their primary debates on Fox News (and I use the word “news” loosely) does not mean they are afraid to confront critics or any other perceived enemies. It simply means why give the enemy any ammunition when you don’t have to? It’s not like they aren’t already going to have several debates anyway. I’m sure, if invited, the Democratic candidate will attend Fox News debates during the general election. But as for the primaries, debating Democratic stances on Fox News is a bit like Republicans doing their primary debating on Air America; somehow, I think the Republicans (except maybe Rudy) might bristle at that idea. Yeah, yeah, Fox has Alan Colmes, their token liberal; what they don’t get is that the only people more liberal than Alan Colmes are…liberals.

In the Mellman Group’s 2004 poll with Media Vote using Nielson diaries, the largest block of support for Bush other than Republicans in general came from Fox News viewers. I believe the numbers were 88 percent of Fox Viewers went with Bush and only 7 percent for Kerry. There just aren’t very many Democratic votes to be had from Fox News viewers and Fox News knows exactly why that is. Those who view Fox exclusively will just have to wait until the general to see the Democratic candidate. Then Fox can report and they can decide.

Speaking of the current state of the Republican Party: you know it’s pretty bad when I’m talking with my father and I mention “your party” and he quickly says “I don’t have a party.” This is a man who has been a very dutiful Republican for the past 40 some years, even serving as an officer in the California Republican Assembly, one of the most right wing groups around. He hasn’t voted for a Dem for President since 1960. And now he even lives in Red State Idaho. I guess it’s pretty bad when the Grand Ole Party goes from the heyday of the Reagan Administration to destitute in roughly 20 years. Damn, that’s quite a fall. If it wasn’t for their utter hubris, I’d probably feel sorry for them.

Another lovely nugget the GOP should be worried about. If the surge doesn’t work, and they leave Iraq for the next administration and congress to deal with, and if that administration and congress happen to be 2/3rds Democratic: what if the Dems utilize the fairly sound advice of the Iraq Study Group along with a few of their own nuances and Iraq gets noticeably better? As well as possibly seeing an improvement in relations with the Middle East? Where will the Republicans be without being able to say, “I told you so?” I think that might put a final nail in the coffin for the Republican uber-power first strike war machine. I might worry about this a bit if I was GOP since the Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan group who suggested some pretty fair options for dealing with the mess over there that have yet to really truly be considered by this White House.

And Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) gets in the last word on safe strolls in Iraq. At a press conference in Baghdad, when asked his view on the security situation in the city, he simply smiled and said, “We did no shopping while we were here.” Oh Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!

About Dick Cheney’s recent brushes with, well, I’ll say...danger. A bird to the plane this time, on the heels of a blood clot and a suicide bombing seemingly meant for him; maybe the Almighty is trying to send Dick a subtle message… Just a thought…

Regarding Governor Jon Corzine’s (D-NJ) accident: I hope he comes out of this ok, and I hope he’s learned his valuable lesson about seatbelts. I know; I would not be here but for a seatbelt…

And finally, a little baseball: Happy (belated) Jackie Robinson Day – 60 years from his Major League debut, a fantastic ceiling broken – the breaking of the color barrier… (Did I mention that he went to UCLA?) And though I begrudgingly give a few kudos to Ford Fricke for threatening to suspend any players who dared strike in response to Jackie’s debut, I am still angry with Fricke for that damn asterisk in 1961.

And don’t even talk to me about my Angels right now. My 2 favorite teams are the Angels 1st and the Red Sox 2nd so you can imagine my dueling emotions; thank God Sunday’s game was postponed so it didn’t have to be 3 whippings in a row…

Until next time folks! Arrivederci!

What I Want: Back To The Beacon Of Light

2007-04-14T03:38:00.000-07:00

I love my country very deeply. I was raised to stand and take your hat off for the flag; I know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner – the latter chokes me up every time I hear it. I love our military; I grew up around two bases and I came close to enlisting myself in 1991 (Air Force). It has been very hard for me to watch my country go from having almost the entire world’s support immediately post September 11th to now being persona non grata in the global community. To me, there are many areas, both foreign and domestic, where we not only could do a LOT better, but where we should be leading. Which brings me to what I want – for us, for our country, and for the generations to follow.

We recently had an election that changed the balance of power in Washington, and that was a good start. The previous congresses seemed to have gotten used to trusting that the executive branch would primarily do the right thing – not mislead, not obfuscate, not abscond – and the majority in congress, being of the same party as the executive branch, had full right to trust them, just as the other party would’ve trusted a leader of their own political persuasion.

Unfortunately, what everyone ended up realizing was that this particular executive branch and many of its departments were not worthy of any such level of trust. Due to the change in congressional majority, we are realizing only now just how untrustworthy our leaders have been (and I use the term “leaders” very loosely.) Oversight has returned and taken a prominent place in congress once again, as it should be, as our founding fathers designed it to be.

Now, we need to begin to address the many tough and perhaps not politically friendly issues that this country is confronted with right now; oversight is just not enough. And we need as many ideas as possible, from both sides of the aisle, to be put forth and considered regarding all of the problems we are facing. We need to be pragmatic in our decisions; we need to afford all factions consideration. That said, all factions (including the “idiot liberals”, the "modern day Pharisees", the "neo-fascist wingnuts", et al) must realize that there will need to be serious compromise on most issues; once we get over that (huge) hump, we can begin to get serious about the people’s business.

First, we need to find a decent way to leave Iraq; one that doesn’t compromise their security nor ours, and one that preserves some semblance of structure in that part of the Middle East. As the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan group with a tremendous amount of foreign relations experience - made clear, we need to not only deal in hard power, we need to bring in the soft power as well. We’ve had this capacity the entire time we’ve been there, yet the folks in charge of policy chose to strictly use the testosterone approach; and oh, that’s worked so well. There is virtue in knowing when something isn’t going as planned and therefore changing course; that’s sort of what we’ve done with the surge, albeit with a LOT less troops than General Petraeus (God bless the Screaming Eagles) should have (or would’ve liked if I’m reading FM 3-24 correctly.) And if we are going to see any success in Iraq, it will be under his command. That said, the General is a soldier’s soldier, a class act, a scholar, a diplomat, and an optimist – this is exactly who we want in charge over there – but we over here must have his back; we would not and should not appeal to his sense of duty IF things do take a turn for the worse and become unmanageable. I trust that Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both being big surge supporters with their own military backgrounds, that they, regardless of their will and wish to “win,” will be cognizant of and pay heed to any knowledge or “gut” feelings of this kind of thing IF it does happen; literally, our national and international self respect may lie in their ability to ascertain the difference between reality and blind hope. To put it in the words of President John F. Kennedy (and quoted from FM 3-24):

“You [military professionals] must know something about strategy and tactics and…logistics, but also economics and politics and diplomacy and history. You must know everything you can know about military power, and you must also understand the limits of military power. You must understand that few of the important problems of our time have…been finally solved by military power alone.”

We are also in desperate need of true diplomats, men and women trained in the art of soft power and diplomacy; we need to recruit a boatload of these people and send them out into the regions with which they are specifically familiar. We need to not turn our nose up at simply talking to people that we have deemed our “enemy.” Wars end when “enemies” sit down together and forge workable agreements; they don’t end when both sides are so narrow-minded that they forget the art of negotiation. Major wars have ended with such compromise; we cannot, and should not, EVER forget this fact, as our current leaders have done.

In addition to getting Iraq right, internationally, we need to start re-cultivating our relationships with those abroad. Boy, we have come a LONG way from hearing the Star Spangled Banner instead of God Save the Queen being played outside of Buckingham Palace, like we did on September 12th 2001. Here we are now, several years and a few foreign policy blunders later, faced with the fact that we have to win even our traditional allies back. And newer allies, ones that we had been working on relations with (Russia comes to mind) have fallen back into old behavior; I do believe that (arguably) a certain portion of these relapses are in reaction to our own behavior. As Senator John Edwards (D-NC) says, we need to return to being that beacon of light – that shining example - for the rest of the world that we always had been; and right now we are probably the furthest from that than I had ever imagined we could be.

On the home front, one thing we are not doing is taking care of our own: from our poverty level, which is way too high for the wealthiest country in the world, to our healthcare system, which seems only business driven at this point, to our middle class, which is disappearing rapidly, to our veterans, who have not only been subjected to scandalous treatment (Walter Reed), but are also dealing with inadequate care for other health issues they face as they return home. How this kind of stuff is acceptable to citizens in this country is beyond me. And how everyone, from the executive branch, to Congress, to the media, to the public, managed to neglect these issues for so long is astounding to me… And I am guilty of this neglect too; we all are…

Sadly, championing most of these issues gets you branded a “liberal” nowadays, which for the past 10 years has been wielded as a dirty word by many, especially those firmly ensconced on the right. But what many people doing the name-calling haven’t realized yet is that, while they weren’t looking, issues like these have moved to the center. In an era where corporate fraud is rampant and the rich just keep getting richer (just look at the stock market and CEO pay), mainstream Americans have become poorer and lack benefits most enjoyed even as recently as a decade ago. And a word to those calling the names; take a look at the folks that are putting their own names (and dollars) behind the addressing of these issues; many of them are in the top percentile income wise, yet still, they are willing to part with their own hard-earned dollars to ensure a better country for all of us and those that follow. One could describe those folks as at the very least having their heart in the right place, which is NOT their own financial bottom line; one might even call their stance an ethical one; downright Rawlsian if you will. So perhaps those “liberals” are a bit more moralistic than they get credit for being.

For the sake of our country, we need to ditch the win or lose attitude, the political name calling, and (re) learn how to conduct ourselves in a manner that would make our forefathers proud. Enough with the bravado; enough with the partisanship; enough! Let this summer and fall be it for gaging our last real military effort in Iraq. Let’s send qualified people to work diplomatically, not people based on political affiliation. Let’s look to the well being of our own citizens. Let us once again start providing a clear example to the world of how great countries behave. We need to stop being just the “States of America” and return to being the United States of America, that beacon of light for the rest of the world.

My Random Thoughts: 04 April 2007: Shall We Take A Stroll?

2007-04-04T04:26:00.000-07:00

Well, let me start with what I have to say is probably one of the most bone-headed political moves I have witnessed in a long time, and judging from the past 10 years or so, that’s saying something. John John John John John… Senator McCain (R-AZ), what on earth were you thinking with the “stroll” you took in Iraq this past weekend? Whoever is in charge of your PR should have at least 1000 lashes with a wet noodle. At LEAST 1000…

Now, Senator, I know that there is a certain amount of personal pride involved, and getting publicly dissed by CNN’s Michael Ware last week may have hurt that pride a bit, but oh my God in heaven - you schooled yourself on this one. In case you don’t know it yet (and you probably are painfully aware,) in addition to the detail that the area had to be swept before you guys were taken there, needlessly putting our guys at risk for a PR exercise, that “stroll” you took wearing flak jackets, with several (and that’s being very conservative on my part) military escorts, and the snipers, and the air support/deterrent is not exactly being seen as a sign of any kind of progress in Iraq. Taking off your helmets? That was your “it’s safer now” moment? Senator Graham (R-SC) shown buying more rugs? Lindsey, how many rugs do you have from Iraq now? Wall to wall?

You guys can’t prove your point yourselves in the first place; you are U.S. Congressmen (can’t let Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) off the hook on this one); you get extra protection regardless, just like General Petraeus; this is why we don’t have a rash of killings and kidnappings of our high ranking military or government officials in Iraq: good protection. But for a westerner like myself, or even reporters, who get a LOT less protection, it’s not a very safe place to take a walk. Certainly, now we know it’s safer for you, but surely that’s not why we are still fighting over there.

This whole idea of the “stroll” was a PR disaster waiting to happen. Politics is perception, and I can tell you, they were running pictures of Governor Mike Dukakis (D-MA) in the tank with the helmet in 1988 woven in between the pictures of you guys just “taking a safe stroll” through Baghdad. The most common singular word used in the plethora of news stories I read today as well as the ones that I watched was “propaganda.” And I have to tell you, whether you meant it or not, that is exactly what it smacks of. Good old-fashioned propaganda, the kind that fools next to no one nowadays. If I had been in charge of your PR, you would’ve had to fire me before I would’ve let you take that “stroll.” 1000 lashes, I’m telling you…

Ok. Next. Ahhhh, the campaign first quarter totals are in, and the media pundits are using them to bolster their previous projections; well, at least on the Democratic side of things. I get the distinct feeling that Romney’s rather unexpectedly large windfall took some by surprise, and the talk has now shifted from Giuliani and McCain to Giuliani and Romney. Of course, it’s still all Hillary and Obama on the Dem side; although Edwards (14 mil) has earned some credibility with the pundits, they still tend to push him aside. And McCain (12.5 mil) is getting disrespect for his not so disrespectable pull, which was only 2.5 mil less than Giuliani.

So here’s my take. It’s not shared by many; it’s certainly not conventional wisdom, but then again, I have never been a conventional girl, so I say pshaw to any such “wisdom,” at least when it comes to politics. This is not the political world of my younger days, this is a new era, and the changes are happening faster than we can take them into account. Money isn’t everything. There, I said it; and I know that I am not alone in that sentiment; lonely maybe, but not by myself. Sure, money means a lot in terms of a campaign, but it does not necessarily signal a winner and its utmost value is slowly taking a back seat to other things. If anyone needs a primer, read Howard Kurtz’s WaPo column of 03 April 2007 – The Money Primary. Here’s the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/03/BL2007040300520.html

While I don’t agree with the whole column, I do agree with the general gist: we’ve been here before, many times; money isn’t everything.

And today, times are different than ever before. Free media with John Q. Public at the helm is fast becoming a political reality. Even this column – mine – costs me nothing to put out there in the public realm (though it will soon.) And as much as I hate to say it, there are many people out here on the web who will not play with any sense of fairness or ethics, so damage control is going to become of prime importance. The smartest thing Hillary did when confronted with the redone Apple “1984” ad was immediately laugh it off; candidates are going to have to learn to straddle that line of not too light but not too much umbrage in response.

That said, free media, word of mouth, grassroots organization, that’s where the internet is going to make a huge difference this time around. You can have as much money as you want, but to borrow from Kurtz: “All the money in the world doesn’t help a candidate who can’t close the sale.” Money gets you staff, travel, and a soapbox through advertising, but it doesn’t buy votes. For every $2300.00 (primary) raised by mega-raisers – that’s only one vote – ONE. There are far more people in this country who can’t afford to give that much to a political campaign yet who do vote none-the-less. I happen to know a lot of them; hell – I AM one of them.

Nowadays, the political ads can get very old, as many in California experienced this past fall. But if you have good ideas, and you are willing to take the time to connect with regular people and communicate those ideas to them, the people are going to listen – there is a hunger for humanness in this campaign that an ad buy is just not going to satisfy. So you go John Edwards, you go John McCain – money isn’t everything and you’ve both raised enough to be very viable candidates; anyone who says otherwise is just blinded by the green.

By the way, my apologies for picking on Sens. McCain and Graham so much, but guys, you’ve got to stop making it so easy…

And I don’t want to hear about UCLA basketball right now; too depressing. And for someone with Ohio State in her family, it’s been a particularly brutal collegiate sports year. Not sure if I would miss Florida that much if they seceded; I think I’d rather keep Texas. Speaking of Texas, how ‘bout those Angels? 2 up on the Rangers they are… Ahhhh, I’m feeling better already…

Til next time! À bientôt!

My Random Thoughts: 30 March 2007: A National Disgrace?

2007-03-30T03:37:00.000-07:00

(Can’t wait to see the flack I get for the ambiguity of my column title; it should, if anything, be creative knowing you people…)

Well, the congressional dividing lines are crystallizing on the Iraq War issue. First, let me say, I do agree with the view of shame on all the non-germane additions to the war-funding bill; for crying out loud, I know the Democrats want – need - a victory here, but the public relations fallout regarding all the additional non-war funds attached to it may very well temper any real victory; it’s a hand delivered gift to the Republicans, and one that is going to cost the Democrats some of the high ground. And the excesses defeat the nature of what is meant to be a war-spending bill; the War in Iraq is the very last place we need to have muddied legislation. We should have just done a separate bill for any non-war spending that was not addressed last fall. In the end, it may leave the Dems worse off than before, because as much as I hate admitting it, my party is not known for effective damage control.

That said, it is clear to me that most Republicans, as was seen by the nice turnout for the photo op with President Bush yesterday, that they are still willing to accept no oversight of the Iraq War except for blind trust, and that they are also willing to spend hundreds if not thousands of more American lives and millions of more American dollars as well as a lot more time to chase the pie-in-the-sky objective of leaving a stable democracy in Iraq. This victory is their only objective and dammit, we just have to keep soldiering on until whenever that democracy actually comes to fruition, if in fact it ever does. They seem to view our spread of democracy in the Middle East through some sort of Western idealist cookie-cutter imagery that is antiquated at its most benign. Even though there are a few Republicans who don’t think a stable Iraq democracy is much of a possibility, the predominant party view is still that if we set a date to withdraw, the enemy will be able to sit back and wait it out and all will be lost; as if the enemy doesn’t already know that we cannot possibly keep up this level of involvement for all that much longer. Our presence there is simply a matter of months or maybe a few years, and you can bet they already know that and no matter whether it’s deadline driven or not, they will be ready as soon as the bulk of our guys leave.

I heard the war-funding legislation described by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as a “national disgrace” largely because of the excesses in the bill. While I do agree with the Senator, as I stated above, that this bill is not the place for those spending additions, I would hardly label the entire bill a “national disgrace.” Perhaps an example of “bad spending judgment”, or maybe an “attempt to please too many at the same time?” I could even understand a “blatant attempt to get votes”, but “national disgrace?” A bit on the harsh side of rhetoric methinks. And in terms of national disgrace, I would have to argue that the true national disgrace is that the Iraq War has been mismanaged to such a degree that legislation like this needs to be even considered. I would also assert that the greater national disgrace was the complete lack of oversight that the Republican majority in charge granted the Bush Administration from January 2003 through January 2007, a span of 4 years, while the rest of us in this country – the general public – watched the situation over there slowly disintegrate; surely the majority saw it too. This is the foremost reason that the Republican majority is now the Republican minority. Yet there the rubber-stampers are, standing behind President Bush who is, in essence, advocating for more of the same. No lesson learned by anyone there.

I also watched Senator John McCain (R-AZ) get schooled in absentia on CNN this week. He had made an earlier statement to radio talk show host Bill Bennett that there were neighborhoods in Baghdad where they could safely walk around and when told by Wolf Blitzer that this ran contrary to reports that leaving the safety of the Green Zone was dangerous for Americans, McCain’s reply was that Wolf was working off of 3-month-old talking points and gently chided Blitzer that he “should catch up.” A little later in the broadcast, CNN reporter Michael Ware, who has been living in and reporting from the Green Zone for 4 years now, begged to differ with McCain’s rosy view. In what can only be described as with incredulity, Ware insinuated that the Senator must have been referring to neighborhoods in Neverland, not Baghdad, and that he would very much like to know where those neighborhoods were so that he and the Senator could take one of those safe strolls. I have to say that I have a high level of respect for Senator McCain, but this was almost a rookie-like mistake, and one that could haunt him; he should probably check, double check, and triple check his sources from now on so his assertions are not so easy to pick apart. Good journalists do this; good campaigns should do this also.

I felt terrible about Tony Snow’s news this week; he is someone who has earned my respect, as begrudgingly as I was to give it. And he was such a gentleman with his kind and heartfelt statement about Elizabeth Edwards and her battle with recurring cancer that it seems cruel for him to have received the same bad news just a few days later. I just want to send him and his family my best wishes for full recovery or at least longer-term good health; my thoughts and prayers are with them.

And lastly, my March Madness brackets have somewhat recovered; at least I have 3 competitive brackets left. In my best one I went 100 percent in the sweet sixteen and 75 percent in the elite eight (damn Tar Heels – what happened – it was a wrap…) and being a student at the University of California, Los Angeles, I say to the Gators – bring it – we’re going all the way this time.

Until next time, adios! Go Bruins!

Life, Love, and Legacy

2007-03-25T20:47:00.000-07:00

“And in the end, it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years.” –Abraham Lincoln

I want to talk a little bit about John and Elizabeth Edwards. As most of you know, I am an Edwards supporter, and I also work with his grassroots organization, so it will come as no surprise that it has been an emotional week for those of us involved with the campaign. Among the many things that we admire about John are his down to earth nature and his devotion to his family; John, Elizabeth, and their family are sort of extended family members to all of us.

Elizabeth Edwards is one of the most incredible spouses in the political realm. She is so normal, so human, so hands-on in an era where we as humans tend to be more distant and almost suspicious of each other. She makes it personal for so many people; it is not odd for her to handwrite a response to letters she receives. She is constantly on the internet, reading and responding to various comments. She is quick with a hug and comfort to anyone who seems to need it. In short, she is real. And she is John’s now not-so-secret weapon.

John and Elizabeth have an extraordinary relationship, one of those that are rarely seen today. It was on display during the press conference Thursday; they play off each other so well and their love for each other was so evident in the way they looked at each other; they are partners in every sense of the word. And those of us who are familiar with that partnership know that the decision to continue on with his campaign for president was very much a joint decision; neither of them would make that kind of decision singly. She is very much his closest advisor, his best friend.

Again, being familiar with Elizabeth, I can understand the drive to go on; she is a fighter, a survivor, an altruist, selfless; as she has said, she could never deprive the country of having a man like John as president. Her legacy is not only her children, but also the world that we leave to them, and John’s candidacy is about making the changes necessary to bring this country back to being the beacon of light it used to be. She is as much a part of their cause as he is, and why should she give that up? It would be giving in to the cancer as she pointed out on 60 Minutes tonight. She and John get to decide how to proceed, and as it is in her nature, she could do nothing but proceed.

In the process of going ahead with the campaign and being an active part of it, she will serve as a living example of how cancer does not have to kill the spirit; that living life is a much better option than just sitting around waiting to die, even if that living must be curtailed at times. She is setting an example of living life to the fullest, the embodiment of carpe diem, and I for one admire her courage.

I also think of the extraordinary strength and courage it must have taken for John and Elizabeth to stand there Thursday in front of the country and share with everyone some of the worst personal news a person can share. And they did it with grace and dignity, calmness and smiles; they were resolute and genuinely human. They are the real deal; they represent the best we can be as human beings. If there were more people like John and Elizabeth Edwards in the world today, the world would be better for it.

“Now, back to work.” –Elizabeth Edwards

My Random Thoughts: 16 March 2007: Votes, Respect, Lies, & Basketball

2007-03-16T05:01:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks like that Senate non-binding resolution on not cutting off funds for troops in the field that the Republicans were pushing so hard for in order to try and embarrass the Democrats was, ummmm, a pretty scary vote for the Dems, not. Talk about anticlimactic; I count only 14 out of 48 full-fledged Democrats available for the vote casting a “Nay”, not even a third of them. Not only that, but out of the 4 Democratic presidential candidates, 2 went up, 2 down. We’ll see if the radical left “eat” the 2 “Yea” presidential hopefuls alive, or so mused a somewhat hopeful Lindsey Graham (R-SC) a few weeks ago. If this is the kind of thing the Repubs hope will stunt Dem support, they perhaps should go back to the drawing board.

I am glad to see John McCain (R-AZ) has gotten back on his bus; let’s hope it will inspire him to be the guy who took us all by storm the last time he ran for president. I always had a high level of respect for him, and I hope he will start to earn back the portion of respect his being the complete “party” guy lost in my eyes (not to mention in my Republican folk’s eyes as well – and their votes are very much up for grabs.) And I don’t mean regarding the “surge” or whatever it’s termed this week – that’s something that he really believes in; I’m talking about the “Straight Talk Express.” Please John, you remember, shoot from the hip, tell it to us straight, like Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Edwards are doing now; call it as you see it. After this past administration, believe me, people are thirsting for some blunt honesty. Can the Senator get his groove back?

Speaking of the current executive branch and honesty – good Lordy – what happened to the, what was it they were aiming to do when they took office? Oh yes, bring integrity back to the White House; hang on a second while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes. I guess that was the country’s first real world introduction to Orwellian Doublethink. Actually, that sobering and frightening idea just completely snuffed out any laughter I had left.

Seriously, how much lying can come out of one executive branch? And this latest example is them getting caught in a blatant lie - no spinnable excuse available. It’s like they never learn their lesson; they need to start having half hour a day devoted to looking in the mirror and repeating “the cover up is worse than the crime; the cover up is worse than the crime…” Did no one learn from Nixon? In a few cases, the original incident being fumbled over and lied about is something that wasn’t a crime in the first place. It’s getting to the point that all of these accumulated incidences are looking like either deliberate public deception or gross incompetence, neither of which is a good thing in a White House. Can 2009 get here soon enough?

In defense of President Bill Clinton: yes, he did lie; he lied to us, the public; and he lied under oath and was impeached for it. It is a terribly tough thing to have your guy let you down like that, so as a Democrat, I do have much sympathy for the Republicans in this respect. But I do have to say, that after a year of lying to us, he had the conscience to go on national television and address the nation and own up to not only misleading us, but also own up to his improper relationship. I remember sitting in McCarran Airport with my mother watching that extraordinary admission and I have to say, though I had been so personally disappointed in his lying (and his cheating), watching him make that stunning and very public mea culpa, I could not help but be proud of him for the courage it took to make that statement. It helped restore some of the respect his lying had cost him in my eyes. And my point in this is, my guy lied, but in the end, he had the good grace to make that public mea culpa. I daren’t say I expect anything of the sort from the current administration; to use a word in the vernacular of Orwellian Newspeak, this administration seems to live in an “unreality.” I will continue to hope for an apology of some sort, but I’m not going to be holding my breath.

On an altogether different note, I’m very happy to be in the great State of California, where our primary votes will now finally count for something after so many years of just being the cash cow. Some of the candidates seem to have noticed this, and some Californians have been eager to come out and see what they’re about. Some candidates, John Edwards in particular, have spent quite a bit of time just meeting with us without it having to be a fundraiser. It may not quite be the living room atmosphere that exists in Iowa and New Hampshire, but believe me, we are slowly beginning to feel a bit more special. So all of you candidates, from both parties, come on out and spend a little time getting to know us. You don’t need to shake all of our hands, but there is a certain something special in retail politicking; there’s nothing quite like listening to a candidate’s ideas in person; and there are certain “tells” that observing a candidate in person give us – call it the “gut” factor – television can mask some things – but watching a candidate’s delivery in person, you can see, really see, their true degree (or lack thereof) of sincerity and genuineness.

Last up for today is my March Madness lament. I have 6 brackets – yep, that’s 6 – and Duke and the Zags took a wrecking ball to them; Duke let me down in all 6 of them. Since when do Krzyzewski and his Blue Devils go out in the first round? For crying out loud! And my folks and sister are mighty disappointed in the Zags; I am too, but at least they’re not my home team. But if you really want to hear me gripe, tune in if my beloved Bruins bite it; we’re hoping to take it all this year…

Til next time! Do widzenia!

John Edwards the Candidate, Then and Now

2007-03-11T05:52:00.000-07:00

This is a response I wrote to the Washington Post regarding their article on 11 March 2007 about the Edwards campaign differences between 2004 and now. Here’s the link to the WaPo article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001374.html

The first thing I would point out with the Edwards article is that issues that used to be viewed as “traditional” liberal issues are moving a bit more toward being mainstream issues nowadays. Health care is a big one; the war in Iraq is another. The environment is yet another really good example of issues moving towards the middle as opposed to the candidates moving towards the issues.

Also, John Edwards has the luxury of not having to campaign solely on his biography; many remember him from the 2004 election. So yes, he can stay with an issue heavy campaign and still be a successful candidate; the country already has an idea of the content of his character.

He sees the world from a decidedly unique view – as a man who was born into the working class and managed to successfully, through hard work and application, reach the upper class of society; what better example of the American Dream? From his unique vantage point, he knows and understands life on both sides of the proverbial coin.

And yes, John Edwards is more serious in his demeanor these days; the times are a bit more serious than they were even 3 years ago. He has had a full 2 years outside the beltway, outside the daily political grind; I would think that one could gain greatly from that difference in view. Simply getting away from always shifting political winds could be a personal stabilizer for anyone who has served in office. He has had a chance to let everything going on in the country and world to sink in, as we all have, regarding many issues. He has also had the chance to be shaped a bit more by personal adversity, what with Elizabeth’s battle with breast cancer.

As a candidate, I find him a deeper man this time around. He is not the glitz and glamour of his fellow candidates; he is a more serious thinker and he thinks in larger terms. He does not seem to want to wait around for the latest polls to make decisions; he is much more unfettered by expectations. He has realized that you cannot possibly please all of the people all of the time, so he’s based his campaign on his personal beliefs – what he wants for the rest of us; what he sees as possible. He has also stated that he wants to lead, not follow; and in a day and age where most politics is about following and status quo, I think his approach is refreshing to say the least. We could use more leaders in this country like John Edwards; this is one of the reasons I support him for President in 2008. To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, I believe that John Edwards is the right man, for the right job, at precisely the right time.

My Random Thoughts: 10 March 2007: Waaay Off Topic at the End

2007-03-10T04:33:00.000-08:00

Just a few thoughts tonight…

First, my inaugural “Brilliance in Rhetoric” awards. I hope to do this more often, but as it is, right now it’ll be monthly. And I will be operating under “Madden” rules – If I don’t hear or read about it, I can’t award it. And it has to be verifiable. But other than that, anything goes, tongue-in-cheek, seriousness, serious tongue-in-cheek, if I notice it and it tickles my fancy, it may get mentioned.

So without further ado, here are this month’s winners:

Honorable Mention:

To Margaret Carlson, talking about Hillary Clinton: (and my apologies to Margaret for having to paraphrase, as I can’t seem to locate my notes.) The gist was that the people already know HRC’s calculating, now they need to see that she’s human.

To Barack Obama, talking about Vice President Dick Cheney: “When Dick Cheney says it’s a good thing, you know you’ve probably got some big problems.”

Runner Up:

To a ‘Registered Democrat from CT’ in a blog post, discussing his/her soft spot for Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT): “Which is why his recent behavior is so sad. It’s like watching your favorite uncle slowly succumb to Alzheimer’s.”

And this month’s Best In Show:

To Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), in reference to how the Bush Administration tends to treat Congress: “We are not a potted plant watching the administration function.”

A great line; I would have to point out though that for the 4 years predating this past January, Congress pretty much did function as a potted plant when it came to the Bush Administration – and a wax one at that…

Next item up on my agenda: Fox News and the Nevada Democratic debate.

I gotta tell ya, for all of the pontificating coming from the Fox News folks about the Edwards back out and now the Nevada Democrats canceling next August’s Democratic debates, you sure would think that maybe there were some voters that watch Fox News who actually would vote for a Democrat. However, after putting my own poll in the field, it has become very VERY clear that any losses for the Democrats would be negligible at best. Perhaps if Fox News had actually really tried to be “fair and balanced,” backing out might’ve been a more difficult decision for the Dems to make.

And of course, how could I not comment on the tale of Scooter Libby and the Giant Pardon.

Seriously folks - yes, sure, he was the fall guy for the Veep and Bush’s Brain; and yeah, he looks like such a nice guy dammit! But, he carried the water given to him, even breaking the law while doing it, and a guy as smart as Scooter knows he’s fudging it big time when he was doing what he was doing. Also, he and Cheney have been thick as thieves since the good ole PNAC days – they’re fellow signatories for that now-supposedly-defunct outfit. Scooter knows how the Veep operates, and still he took the job and did it dutifully, regardless of ethics. Think about the people that have done that throughout world history and you’ll notice it’s not exactly the finest bunch. And like Jonathan Turley of George Washington University pointed out, Scooter doesn’t meet the criteria for any kind of near-future presidential pardon. It would give the air of certain people in this country as being “above the law” and that is not an American ideal.

For those who are espousing the “apples and oranges” perjury and obstruction theory in regards to Bill Clinton – ummmm – The President lying under oath and obstructing justice and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff lying under oath and obstructing justice? I would have to say it sounds more like “apples and apples” to me; maybe these folks just mean “Republican and Democrat” instead of “apples and oranges.” Ok, sure, yes, one of them lied in answers to questions about a consensual sexual affair with regards to a civil lawsuit (Peyton Place anyone?), and the other lied about his and his boss’s roles in helping tarnish a critic of their administration’s war intelligence (much more LeCarre novel). Ok, I definitely do see a difference here, but I’m not sure the “apples and oranges” folks want to be on that side of the difference…

And finally today, waaaay off topic; my heart was broken when I heard of the untimely death of Brad Delp, lead singer of the band Boston. I know that many of you probably have no earthly idea what I am talking about, but for me, as it is for many, there is a soundtrack to our lives. Boston was very prominent in mine, from my preteen years all the way through today – roughly 3 decades. They not only had great riffs, but they also had great (and understandable) words – somewhat a rarity in the world of rock. They are my favorite band; I actually had to answer that question on several university applications that I filled out last year. To this girl, they always got the sentiment right; I was even fortunate enough to see them live 4 years ago at Pacific Amphitheatre (3rd row – yay!) As the band’s website now says “We’ve just lost the nicest guy in rock and roll.” So, though it’s not a topic I normally talk about, I wanted to give kudos to Boston and Brad Delp for giving me the soundtrack for many of my life’s moments, both the joyful ones as well as the painful ones. “In my mind, I can see reminders of the past decade…” “I still hear guitars in the air as we sat in the sand…” Thanks Brad, I’ll miss you…

Adios for now!

I Am A New Dog

2007-03-04T01:18:00.000-08:00

Call me a new breed of Democrat. I am not partisan enough to be a Yellow Dog; nor am I a traditional liberal in the late 20th century sense; and I am not ideologically conservative enough to be a true Blue Dog; I guess I fall somewhere in between a Blue Dog and a New Democrat. Hence, here is my new designation (and hey – if Senator Lieberman (ID-CT) can self-designate, well, so can I…) I am a New Dog Democrat, a moderate political breed, and pragmatic compromise is my middle name. They do say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, so it's about time for the "New Dog" approach.

My political beliefs tend to be less ideologically rigid than today’s standard. Most people label themselves with the terms liberal and conservative depending on how they view their stances under the umbrella categories of fiscally and socially. Even most moderates consider themselves to be conservative in one category and liberal in the other, or some other form of master split. In this way, I consider myself different; but I do believe there are many people in both parties who share my approach.

If you insist that I label myself, then I would have to call myself fiscally responsible and socially responsible – not truly conservative or liberal in either category. I believe in approaching political issues nuance by nuance; sometimes I come down ideologically on one side, sometimes on the other. For instance, I cannot say that I am pro gun control or pro NRA; I cannot say definitively whether I am pro tax cut or pro tax increase; nor a hawk or dove, nor completely pro life or pro choice. To me, all issues can be broken down piece by piece as opposed to the blanket way most people (especially people in politics) prefer to frame them; this is not a world that is black and white in most cases; this is a world full of shades of gray.

I believe that my approach – the New Dog approach - could lead to less partisan gridlock on many issues. I believe that people with common sense can come to some kind of compromise regarding most issues today. I believe that there is a lot of room to play with in terms of specific areas of each major issue. But for it to truly work, there would have to be a real understanding – not just lip service and hyperbole – but an honest seeking of middle ground between folks of both ideologies. It will take some give from each side, but it can be done. A good pragmatic government is possible; we just all need to come down off our high-horsed ideological rigidity and be willing to compromise. And I don’t truly subscribe to the slippery slope argument that most partisans need you to believe; I believe that if something is done, and then something else is done further, that smart people wary of the path ahead can always nip it in the bud before it gets out of control.

Is my New Dog approach possible? I would say that it is infinitely more possible today than it was even a year or two ago; but it will take statesmen in both parties to seize the day and put this pragmatism into action. The art of real negotiation seems to have gotten lost during the past couple of decades of dig-in-your-heels partisanship. This my-way-or-the-highway brand of governing has not gotten us very far. Even when the old school negotiators give it a try, our current government seems to not really listen to them, as witnessed recently with the Iraq Study Group – a panel full of true negotiators from both parties.

So why do I still even consider myself a Democrat? That answer is easy. In general terms, I believe in a Rawlsian style economic ethic: that the most ethical form of capitalism is when there is true equality of opportunity and when the economic situation for the whole society is improved, including for its poorest and least advantaged members. I believe that diplomacy, even when we do not like the other country/parties involved, should be thoroughly pursued and completely exhausted before we march off to war (with very few exceptions.) I believe that the best way to approach government is to pay as you go; it’s what responsible people do in private life and what we need to practice as a country. If there are things that we want that we cannot afford, we either go without them or we pay for them with taxes. Period. I do not believe in paying exorbitant interest rates to other countries nor do I believe in leaving debt to the next generations. I believe in a party with a true big tent; one where people can make their beliefs known yet not be shunned, ostracized, or insulted; a party where different opinions are not only listened to, but appreciated, and where policy is a collaborative effort between members of all party factions. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, my party may not be as disciplined as the other party, but its different factions are definitely more forgiving and understanding of each other; we respect our dissent.

But even though I am a Democrat, I do see room for improvement; and so I have presented it here – my brand new Democratic Party faction of one – a New Dog Democrat. Apparently, it seems that so far, I will be caucusing with myself, but if I can compose a well-written, not-so-rigid platform, maybe eventually I will see my caucus of one increase in membership. And perhaps eventually there will be a like-minded faction in the Republican Party. Wouldn’t that be interesting if there was a congressional caucus that had cross party membership with true legislative compromise in mind? I think it would benefit our country greatly in the long run if there were New Dogs on both sides. What can I say but I dare to dream…

The Lieberman Issue: Will It Change Majority? Maybe Not…

2007-02-24T03:42:00.000-08:00

I have spent the better part of my evening reading the Rules of the Senate, various portions of Congressional record, quite a few Senate resolutions, and a bit of history. I am far from an expert in the matter, but here is what I think I understand the situation to be if Lieberman bolts the Democratic caucus.

The Senate organizes itself the first week of a new Congress according to majority rules. When there is a special situation, say a tie, the leadership on both sides negotiates the structure the Senate. This Congress, the 110^th, on 12 January 2007 agreed to the Committee assignments for the current Congress in S.Res.27 and S.Res.28. It is clear that the organization of the Senate this time designated (as expected) the Democrats as being the majority party in spite of it truly being a tie – 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, with 2 Independents. Whether this is because both Independents had decided to caucus with the Democrats, or because it was fairly clear in the November 2006 elections that the citizenry wanted a change in leadership, it’s moot.

Here’s what does matter. The last time there was a party tie in the Senate was in the 107th Congress that took office in January 2001. At the time, Democrat Al Gore was the outgoing Vice President and Dick Cheney, a Republican, was the incoming Vice President, giving the Democrats the majority for roughly two weeks. In deference to the 50-50 party tie – no Independents – and to the fact that Cheney would be the President of the Senate, breaking any tie votes with a vote for the Republicans, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) struck a deal doling out Committee membership evenly, to represent the evenly divided Senate, but gave the Republicans the Chairmanship of each Committee. The Senate, via S.Res.8 of the 107th Congress, agreed to this organization.

However, there was a provision included in this organizing resolution that if either party were to attain a majority of “whole number of Senators” during the duration of the 107th Congress, that the Committee Chairmanships and membership ratio would change to reflect the majority party and the provisions of S.Res.8 would have “no further effect.” Though not foreseen at the time, it ended up being a pretty brilliant move for Democrats in hindsight, when Senator Jim Jeffords (VT) bolted from the Republican Party to become an Independent, effectively making the Senate party ratio 50 Democrat, 49 Republican, and 1 Independent. Regardless of where Jeffords chose to caucus, a majority of Democrats was still created.

In the current Congress, the 110^th, the Senate, in their organizational resolutions, made no such provision; therefore leaving the assignments and designations in the Democratic majority through the end of the 110^th Congress. This is where it gets a bit confusing, but I have heard some argue that because there was no such provision included in their resolutions, the initial organizing would hold regardless of party membership changes. Sure enough, according to Senate Rule XXV, Section 1, it does seem as though the organizational resolutions decided at the beginning of a Congress stand for the entirety of that Congress, unless, according to Section 4.(c), an agreement is entered into by both the Majority and Minority leaders “temporarily from time to time…as may be required to accord the majority party a majority of the membership” in committees.

Now, this is ambiguous enough for I’m sure a major power brawl to take place, but it does stipulate that both leaders need to agree, which will be interesting to observe at the very least for those of us who enjoy watching the Senate. Also, I don’t think any of this will necessarily apply in the case of wayward Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT for now). If Lieberman chooses to simply change caucus, that still does not make a true Republican majority; the Senate is still tied 49-49-2. It would however possibly become that huge brawl if he were to actually change parties and not just merely change caucus. That would surely put the Senate Rules to the test; so we’ll have to wait and see.

For those wondering about the Cheney “tie effect” of affording the majority to the Republicans because he is President of the Senate, the effect would not apply for two reasons. First, there is not a solid tie; 49-49-2 is not an even party split of the Senate as there was in 2001 - there are three affiliations represented. The second reason is that the Vice President does not serve to be counted as a party member in the Senate; while he is the President of the Senate, in Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, it clearly specifies that he has “no vote unless they be equally divided.” This has always been defined as having the tie-breaking vote if a vote in the Senate is deadlocked 50-50; it does not presume to count the Vice President as an extra party member in the count for control of the Senate when the Senate is not equally divided.

In sum, I do not think any majority party change is even questionable if Senator Lieberman were simply to change caucus, but only if he were to change parties. And I would like to leave you with some Senate history, circa 1953. The election of 1952 handed the majority of the Senate to the Republican Party, 48-47, with 1 Independent, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, who had just left the Republican Party and intended to vote as an Independent. However, in the summer of 1953, Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft (R-OH) died and the Governor of Ohio appointed a Democrat to take his place in the Senate, effectively handing the majority to the Democrats, 48-47-1. With the gentlemanly spirit of the Senate that is so often missing these days, Senator Morse, though having left the Party, stated his intention that to preserve the majority that had previously been established, he would vote with the Republican Party on organizational matters, making those resolutions an even-vote tie, with Republican Vice President Nixon casting the tie-breaking vote. I hope Senator Lieberman can keep this story in mind when he makes his decision.

One last aside; being a Democrat myself, may I state that we’ll trade you Lieberman for Hagel; we’re ok with a certain amount of conservatism, as evidenced by many of our elected Senate members…

Here's the link to Senate Rule XXV:

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule25.php

If you would like to read the resolutions, you can retrieve them from http://thomas.loc.gov; they are 107^th Congress, S.Res.8, and 110^th Congress, S.Res.27 and S.Res.28.

Iraq: Is Victory Worth the Costs or Are We The Black Knight?

2007-02-21T02:40:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about the war in Iraq, and how it has evolved over the past four years, and the nagging question I seem to return to is at what point do we call it a day? I am left to wonder whether this Administration and its supporters will ever be able to abandon their pursuit of “victory” in Iraq or if we are in a never-ending battle? And at what cost comes that victory?

It seems as though every time things worsen, our leaders come up with a different military plan to implement in the hopes that the new plan will work this time. No real talk about trying a different tack, such as talking with Iran and Syria; no serious consideration of the Iraq Study Group’s ideas; nothing but military options. We seem to have a war run exclusively by testosterone, brute force being the only option; continuing to fight is the only solution they can see.

But when do we call it a day? Will there come a point where our leaders finally decide that the cost is just not worth the so-called “victory?” The way we have been approaching the war reminds me of the Black Knight scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. In a duel to gain passage, King Arthur first lops off the Knight’s arm, to which the Knight replies that it’s just a scratch even as he bleeds all over. He refuses to concede though and continues fighting and proceeds to lose his other arm in the process but terms it simply a minor flesh wound as more blood is gushing from him. Yet, the Knight still refuses to concede defeat; defeat is not an option. Pretty soon, he has lost both legs, leaving him just a torso yelling at Arthur. As Arthur passes by him, the Knight, still unwilling to concede defeat yet unable to defend his territory, taunts Arthur, calling him chicken, daring him to come back, threatening to “bite his ankles.” The Black Knight just never knows when to give up, in spite of all the damage he takes.

Now, the above scene is actually a very funny one from a very funny movie, highlighting absurdity; but I can’t help but think of the parallels between this scene and our leaders’ attitudes when it comes to Iraq. They don’t want to stop, at least not until we’ve achieved “victory.” But what constitutes a victory in Iraq is hard to ascertain; the bar has moved so far from its original position and keeps moving every few months or so it seems; from disarming a belligerent dictator who had WMD to now, where just stemming some of the violence in Baghdad so the latest new government can get a democracy up and running is considered victory, at least at this moment in time. But because the bar does keep changing I guess I am wondering at what point the proponents of the war are willing to concede that perhaps victory in certain terms is unachievable or at the very least, not worth the cost. Or are they all suffering from the “Black Knight” syndrome?

To be sure, our leaders do give reasons (or excuses depending on your ideology) to justify soldiering on. But when I really examine those reasons with respect to our history, both recent and past, Middle East history, and the western way of life, I just don’t think they hold much water. To me, they don’t have enough foundation to justify the propping up of this war for much longer.

The first is that the terrorists will follow us here if we leave Iraq. Well, judging by the Bush Administration’s bragging about how many plots they’ve stopped here, combined with the Spain train bombing, the London bombing, the London flight plot, et al, I would say that the terrorists are already around here and our being out of Iraq isn’t going to affect that fact much if at all. Not to mention that if we did implement the suggestions made by the 9/11 Commission and truly beefed up our homeland security, that would be a huge step toward preventing the terrorists from striking us on our home turf again. We do need to remember however, that our way of life, the things we hold dear, our freedom and liberty, render that there will always be some amount of risk; to be completely secure we would need to give much of that up and thus, cease to be a truly free country. If we did that, one could say that the terrorists truly did win.

Another bit of reasoning is that democracy takes time. Ok, that is a no-brainer for most of us, but I think we are looking at it through the eyes of our own history, so this reasoning tends to be a tad bit on the very optimistic side. First, it did take us a long time to fully realize a working democracy. It took 15 years to go from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the ratification of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Going even further, blacks did not gain the right to have their voice heard by vote until 1870, and women did not gain that right until 1920; so as far as being a true fully participatory democracy, that took us 144 years - a very long time. Also keep in mind that our democracy was not forced onto us; we fought for liberty because we wanted to be free; that was our idea. And our Founding Fathers designed our democracy as they went along, as opposed to being given a blueprint and told that this is how it’s done.

We also need to remember that the people in the Middle East have a very different way of life than we do; we seem to want to think that because we like our way of life and feel that it’s superior to others that we must show them the way – who wouldn’t love it? The problem with this is that we have a serious superiority complex; not only do we come off as arrogant in many non-western nations, but we can’t seem to comprehend any rejection of our ideas.

Also widely mentioned is that Iraq is the central front on the War on Terror. Well, it didn’t used to even be a front, but thanks to us it is part of that front now. But I would hesitate to call it the central front; as a matter of fact, the Sunni-Shia clash is so bad right now, I can’t see Al Qaeda getting much accomplished in Iraq anytime in the near future. I would have to say that since September 11^th 2001, Afghanistan was and has remained the central front. And thanks to our dalliances in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has become much better for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not to mention the poppy growers. With our neglect of Afghanistan, we are enabling the re-emergence of the Taliban as well as the strengthening of Al Qaeda. When I’m reading serious articles where there are interviews talking about the “Pakistan Pipeline” and the “English Brothers” whose interpreter is no other than our own Adam Gadahn, and plans of some kind of action against the west are being made, not to mention the fact that Osama Bin Laden remains “at large,” I wonder what the mindset was of our leaders to completely turn away from that front; actually, I have very good idea, but that’s a whole other column…

Are these somewhat flimsy reasons enough to truly justify continuing this war despite the high costs to our country or are we becoming the Black Knight, never being smart enough to know when to stop? At what cost comes victory?

Well, let’s take a look at defeat; how bad would defeat be? I hear all this talk of how if we pull out that means we lost the war. How awful, how shameful, how absolutely terrible any idea of such a loss is to Iraq War supporters. There are proponents of the Administration’s Iraq War plans that believe that our leaving Vietnam was defeat; and in a way, they are right, technically. But when you look at the bigger picture, I think there are many that would say it was the smart and even brave thing to do; some would even say that our withdrawal should’ve happened earlier.

Now, what did that defeat cost us here in the United States? Well, Vietnam is Communist, but one would hesitate to call it much of a threat to us, or even to the countries in its proximity; there was no domino effect. We stopped losing soldiers by the truckload. We didn’t lose our allies and we still are the superpower that we have been for decades. No one looked down upon us for pulling out. History doesn’t treat us unkindly because of it; it actually is now considered a good thing that we did pull out. Some might even call this snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. It really just boils down to a matter of semantics.

So I propose that, if – IF – the surge does not work, that it not necessarily be considered a defeat for the U.S. If taking our troops out of the middle of a civil war with historical roots going back 1500 years signifies defeat, then I guess I just lack the testosterone of our leaders. If stopping the loss of our soldiers lives to Iraq’s bloody sectarian violence signifies defeat, well, I guess I am just one of those damn gutless Democrats. If forcing the Iraqis to stand on their own and fight their own civil war without us being in the crossfire, then I guess I am a defeatist. If wanting to bring Syria and Iran to the table for a round of diplomacy means I am espousing defeat and encouraging the enemy, then so be it. But if these things are defeat and victory is still forging on even when we get to the “ankle-biting” stage, then I think that defeat is preferable to victory. There is no wisdom in continuing to be the Black Knight. At what cost comes victory?

It’s My Party and I’ll Cry If I Want To: The Non-Binding Version

2007-02-18T02:50:00.000-08:00

Well, I had another topic planned but am putting it on hold temporarily, because I want to comment on all the commotion this weekend. Again, the debate on the non-binding Iraq resolution in the Senate was quashed by some Senate Republicans Saturday. Not a surprise, but I am amused by some of the rhetoric coming out of the Senate after the vote.

First we have Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, talking about how nonsensical the proposition is, and calling it “chicanery at a time of war,” and further saying that funding for the war is what they should be voting on. He even said that the Senate was created to block this kind of dealing. Really? This is certainly a surprise, seeing that I believe McConnell and his party cronies spent many moments calling the Democrats obstructionist over the past 4 years for the same type of tactics; my what a difference a minority makes, eh Senator?

And we have a comment from afar, from John McCain (R-AZ), saying that symbolic measures are insulting to the public and the soldiers. As far as insulting to the public, I’m not sure insulting is the right word to use; it may be a bit frustrating to some, but insulting methinks is going a bit far, especially in light of the current polls regarding the passage of a non-binding resolution. And as far as our troops go, I wish politicians, even decorated veteran politicians, would stop speaking for all of our troops. Our troops are not robots; not all of our soldiers think in lock step with the Republican Party or the Bush Administration. Perhaps you’d like to check out the results of the Military Times poll, done in November and December of last year. I would take a real close look at the numbers; these are active duty service men and women answering. If anything else, the poll shows that our military does not think with one mind, so stop using them as a party rallying line in your rhetoric. And I’d pay a lot of attention to the answers in the poll to questions 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24 in the Morale section, 6, 10, and 12 in the Iraq, Afghanistan, and President Bush section, and 3 in the Politics, Civilians, and Policy portion. Those are some pretty high disapproval numbers from active duty military; here’s the link if you don’t have it handy:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

And if that wasn’t enough, in response to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) talking about how Republicans are stuck between a rock and a hard place, here comes Lindsey Graham (R-SC), topping off a stellar rhetorical week with Saturday’s best-in-show, commenting that it’s the Democrats that are between the rock and hard place, because if the Senate did have this vote – one including a vote on the Gregg non-binding resolution that says they would not cut off funding for troops over in the field – that “the radical left” would eat, and yes he said “eat”, every Democratic presidential hopeful alive.

Now, I know that the hard right has controlled the Republican Party for some 15 years now, but the last time the hard left controlled the Democratic Party was in the 1960s, with the exception of a couple of small hiccups in the 1980s where the party lost miserably with hard left candidates. In addition, the “radical left” saw what breaking the party in two can do during the 2000 election, what with the Nader voters; we now have George W. Bush as President, and believe me, I think the absolute last thing the “radical left” wants is another 4 years of like-minded government. Also, not all of the Democratic candidates, including one of the front-runners, are members of Congress, and therefore will not have to vote on any resolution, non-binding or otherwise; so I’d think twice about throwing any kind of “look at the cannibals” victory party just yet.

The wonderful thing about the Democratic Party is that it truly is a big tent party; and the hard left is loud, yes, as they should be; they get their point across very clearly. But most of the time, it is realized that everyone cannot get everything they want exactly the way they want it, and I, and I could be wrong, but I do have faith that the hard left will understand what Congress does and why they have to do it that way. The end result is still the same; troops home a lot quicker than they would be without compromise or with another party change in leadership. My party may not be as disciplined as the Republican Party, but our hard left is a lot more understanding than the Republican Party’s hard right, and a lot more forgiving too. We don’t eat our fellow partisans alive, thank you very much, and after being in the minority for so long, I don’t think any Democrat wants to jeopardize our majority.

Of course, today we also heard from Harry Reid (D-NV), who was flexing the newly found majority rhetoric and calling the Republicans obstructionist in at least ten different ways. Seems as the only real change in the Senate so far is in the party spouting the rhetoric; the more things change, the more they stay the same I guess. But Harry’s got it right this time; this is something that sorely needs to be debated, whether it be on a non-binding resolution or not. It is, whether we like it or not, to quote Chuck Hagel (R-NE), “the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam”; to not debate it would be un-American.

And if I was Senator McConnell, I would be careful what I wish for. You will get a debate on the funding – you can be sure of that, and if the Senate Democrats are smart, they will take a good hard look at Representative Jack Murtha’s (D-PA) House proposal that will most likely pass there. Anyone who thinks that Murtha is going to leave troops in Iraq out there hanging without financial support is off their rocker. And if Murtha’s proposal is worded anything like expected, it is going to be pretty supportive of our troops; the Senate may present something very similar, and a vote against it could very well be folly to a Republican just as much as a Democrat. Of course there will be a major PR battle in the press over what “supporting the troops” means, but even so, if I were a Republican in Congress, I would tread very carefully with my rhetoric right now.

Yes, there may be Constitutional issues possibly; there may be Constitutional issues in any number of the proposals that will be drawn up; but if a Constitutional confrontation is what’s necessary, then so be it. George W. Bush is not the king, Dick Cheney is not the vice-king, and the Senate is not the House of Lords; this is America, not a monarchy, and this is how we deal with divisive issues and a leader who doesn’t have the will to listen to any serious counsel from anyone other than a yes-man. This is the system of checks and balances our Founding Fathers set up; it’s why our democracy is the best in the world, bar none. Congress is finally showing itself to be able to have open debate; let’s not stifle it so soon. And yes, let’s ratchet the debate up to some serious binding resolutions; according to the Republicans, anything other than that is nonsensical and insulting.

The Valentine’s Day Edition

2007-02-14T05:37:00.000-08:00

Ahhhh, Valentine’s Day – that perennial reminder to those of us without sweethearts that yes, we are in fact, solo. Usually I’m a bah humbug gal today, but this time, I’ve decided to go schmaltzy on you all and give my love out to some people who’ve helped make my year this year; so here’s my list:

A Valentine from me:

First, to our troops, God bless you all, you make us proud every day, and you are doing the most important and noble thing a person can do for their country. I don’t know if it’s possible to ever thank you enough…

To MSNBC, for providing some of the best political broadcasting of the past year, from their excellent coverage of both Election Night 2006 and the State of the Union 2007, to their regular political shows. For a moderate like me, you guys are right up my alley – something for everyone and no true whack jobs…

To Keith Olbermann and his Special Comments - not only are they worthy of Murrow, but they were the final kick I needed to start writing, and hence the reason I began this blog in the first place. Also, to Keith for setting the commentary quality bar very high, it’s a level I will always aspire to reach…

To Bob Benenson and the CQ Politics folks, for putting out one of the most informative and quality political websites around…

To Dana Milbank of The Washington Post for writing one of the most entertaining columns out there; you’ve no idea how many times you’ve saved my political sanity, lol…

To Nancy Pelosi, for giving us that special moment of watching a woman take the Speaker’s gavel for the very first time; thinking about it still chokes me up…

To the Republican Party, for starting to look human again instead of like the lockstep Bush lackeys you had become…

To the Democratic Party, for finally getting it right in November; don’t lose that – make us proud! Also, for really giving us moderates a place at the table, thank you for that…

To presidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama, for basing their campaigns on the positive cornerstones of hope for the future and working together as an community to make America better for all of us. Senator Edwards, it’s a pleasure to be working with your campaign, and Senator Obama (D-IL), I’m watching yours with interest as well…

To Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for having the guts to stand up and shout, in opposition to many in your party, and call all 100 Senators out on Iraq - you already had my respect, but you seem to reinforce that respect all the time. I can even get past that partisan vote on not debating; just don’t go backwards anymore. Also, Chuck, for uttering the most memorable line to come out of Congress that I can recall: “Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job go sell shoes.” I am a big admirer of Truman plain-speak, and that was a shining example of it, thank you for that…

To Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), for sticking your necks out for something you believe in, as unpopular as it may be; courage of conviction is a sign of a statesman. I really respect you guys for that and because of that, I will always listen to your viewpoints, even if I don’t end up agreeing with them in the end… (And also, to you guys for providing me with endless material to write about, lol…)

Individually, to Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), for tenacity during a tough campaign season, for sticking with yourself and your gut in the face of almost outright contempt from your party, bravo to you! If I had been a Connecticut resident, I would have voted for you; also, you have said you would like to be known as an Independent Democrat, so regardless of how the media brands you, I will always put the ID by your name…

Individually, to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), for managing to be a true conservative, yet still a moderate, at seemingly the same time. You’re a very independent thinker and I admire that; it’s a gift to be able to be respected by your base as well as the middle. And there are times when you really just bewilder me, but I admit that I do have fun trying to figure you out, though I’m not sure I ever will be able to, lol…

And individually, to John McCain (R-AZ), for helping restore some of my faith in the Republican Party back in 2000 (after the rough 1990s), for almost always being a straight talking guy, for paying your party “dues” like a gentleman, and for serving as an elder statesman in your party at a time when statesmen are a rarity anywhere in Congress - thank you for that…

To the New England Republicans, for being an endangered species, yet still remaining unwilling to compromise your beliefs…

To Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), for always having something entertaining to say. I know that may seem like a bad thing, but everyone, including the media and his peers, know that his intentions are always honorable and he’s just being the “best Biden” he can be. And to him for being an all-around good guy; Joe, you were the subject of a 30 second campaign commercial I had to do for a class project last quarter; I went positive and you got me an A…

To George W. Bush, for finally pushing Lyndon Johnson out of first place on my “Worst Presidents Ever” list.

To The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, for illuminating some of the ever-present idiocy in politics and government, for fostering an interest in both U.S. and World affairs in young people today, and for giving all of us many moments of levity (and Zen) at a time when we needed it; and we still do, so keep it up…

And finally, to my Poppa, for, among many many other things, handing down 73 years worth of wisdom, both worldly and politically, to me and my siblings, for passing the political gene on to me (and my sister), for instilling a strong sense of patriotism and duty in me (and again, in my sister), but most of all, for just being my Dad and loving my Ma for the past 38 years… I love you Poppa – without your influence, I wouldn’t be half the person I am today…

Happy Valentine's Day everyone!

My Random Thoughts: 10 February 2007: Pretty Random This Time

2007-02-10T16:17:00.000-08:00

I watched Barack Obama’s official announcement this morning in Springfield; damned if that guy’s not one of the finest speakers to ever grace the political realm. Even though I’m an Edwards girl, Obama still manages to really get me excited about the coming election when I hear him speak. He gives me the “audacity to hope…”

Thank God Chris Matthews didn’t say one word about Anna Nicole Smith’s death on Hardball this past Thursday, though the show was probably taped before the news broke. Regardless of reason, it was a welcome respite among the seemingly UNENDING coverage (even on the political shows) of her death. I guess it really still is a man’s world…

One more note on Chris Matthews: is it just me or does he seem a bit obsessed with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy? I can’t decide whether he’s a major cheerleader for her or just fascinated…

And Hillary, she just doesn’t do it for me. I couldn’t help but notice the lack of support she had at the recent anti-war rallies. In spite of the fact that most polls puts her in front, I have only been able to find one Democrat who intends to vote for her in the primary; I also have found that there is no shortage of Democrats who will take a serious look at the Republican candidate if she’s the Dem candidate… (and that includes me…)

For me, she just seems staid and standard, more of the same, a continuation of the dynastical politics we’ve seem to have gotten ourselves into in this country…

When I put my own poll in the field, these are some of the descriptions some of my female friends (age range mid 20s to mid 70s) gave me: cold, conniving yet congenial, which face is talking? Too much baggage, no charisma but smart, needs to prove herself, slick, not likeable, the party will go off a cliff with her, why go backwards when you can go forwards, concern that she is not the right woman, power-loving, old news, and of course, the most often heard description was unelectable. And this is just from a cross-section of left leaning ladies, all of whom do consistently exercise their right to vote…

On a lighter note, I have this lovely game I play when I watch Scarborough Country. Pat Buchanan is always one of the first featured pundits and he’s very entertaining; I even agree with him quite a bit (didn’t used to…) Anyway, he has 3 speaking voices; the first is his regular voice, the second is about one octave higher, usually used when he is making a point important to him; then there’s the voice he has when he’s getting in a fightin’ mood – it’s about 3 octaves higher than his normal voice and it never fails to amuse the heck outta me. So lately I’ve been trying to guess how many minutes it will be before we hear Pat’s “fightin’” voice; he generally manages to last between 8 and 11 minutes into the show, but usually it’s closer to 8. Keep it up Pat; you make me smile at least once a day. And if I had more people than just me we could run odds and take bets…

I heard a fantastic quote the other day; I think it might have been on the Colbert Report. It was from St. Augustine and it was about hope:

“Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.”

What a beautiful quote; I will keep it in mind as I watch the unfolding race for the presidency…

Auf Wiedersehen for now!

When Is It Ok to Finally Dissent?

2007-02-08T12:27:00.000-08:00

I’m frustrated right now. I keep hearing that any dissent spoken regarding Iraq causes harm to our troops in the field. The problem is, because of the powers given the President in the Constitution, he can literally keep troops in the field as long as he wants; even long enough to stifle any last semblance of dissent. So my question is, how long will this authoritarian stifling of dissent last?

This would seem to me to be a huge problem in a democracy. We can dissent, but heaven forbid we do so when we are at war. But we have been at war since September 11^th 2001; and it looks like the War on Terror will never end, so we will never NOT be “at war”. And Iraq can keep going as long as Bush wills it to; certainly there isn’t anything that can be done about that, especially considering his support from his party in Congress.

So I guess a better question would be directed at the folks who are calling any such dissent bad: Sens. McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (ID-CT). Is there ever going to be a point where you cannot see a possible victory in Iraq? Two, five, ten, twenty years down the road, or is this dissent going to be dangerous from here on out? Or will you just hold out long enough for the next election to take place, in order to give yourselves cover? What say you three? You can hem and haw for the next two years if you want to on this one if you feel like it, and then decide to continue based on whom the president is. But that’s kind of a weak premise, especially for guys such as you who are known as mavericks in the first place.

From the beginning I have given you three the benefit of the doubt. Senator McCain, you were a Vietnam POW; you served your country nobly and honorably, and I was a supporter of you in 2000. Senator Graham, you’ve been in the Air Force for more than 20 years now, serving your country. And Senator Lieberman, well, you’ve been simply dignified as yourself to me for the past seven years I’ve known of you, and that has been enough for me. But now, guys, you are starting to make me doubt my opinions of you. I want to know at what point you draw the line…

Now I hear that debate was “held up” by Democrats as well as because the resolution offered was in actuality, oversimplifying things according to you guys (though it still was those pesky Democrats who held it up). That you guys (or was it those dang Democrats again?) wanted both sides to be politically uncomfortable; well, I can understand that – that’s regular old run-of-the-mill opposition politics, and I think possibly, your most honest answer in the interview I am currently reading. (Nice Food Channel comment by the way, at least I smiled once during my reading.)

But that you all didn’t want to “let a politically motivated resolution embarrass an opponent.” What opponent was it that you were trying to prevent the embarrassment of exactly? Bush from the embarrassment of a bipartisan rebuke? The Democrats, who possibly could be embarrassed by the Gregg resolution (though I seriously doubt it, considering the language from Gregg was also in Warner-Levin)? Yourselves – but you knew you weren’t going to have a majority in the first place? Who are you protecting from embarrassment and why on earth would that person, I’m guessing someone in the political world, not be able to speak out for his or herself? Am I just not reading this right?

I’ve even agreed that, fine, this one last effort can even be stomached, as long as it’s the last. My biggest question is though, at what point, if the unfortunate and unthinkable happens, at what point is it ok to throw off the chains of this verbal bondage and not get branded as troop maligners if we dissent? At what point?

On one other similar note, we’ve all heard the surge plan, most of us more than once. We’ve also heard ideas differing from the plan. One thing I have not heard from you is what the contingency plan is? What is the plan if the surge does not work, in your opinion? I have not heard hide nor hair of anything dealing with this from any of you. Surely there is a contingency plan right? You aren’t foolish enough to support another Bush Iraq plan that does not take into account afterwards, regardless of whether the plan is successful or not, right? Because that is how we went into Iraq in the first place and is one of the major reasons we are in this mess to begin with – shamefully poor planning.

So I guess my questions today are two: first, what is the surge contingency plan (dear God I hope there is one)? And second, at what point would you say it is ok for dissent to retake its healthy place in our beloved democracy?

I leave you with a quote from yesterday from General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.”

My Random Thoughts: 07 February 2007: The “For Crying Out Loud” Edition

2007-02-07T05:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, maybe not quite so random…

Oh for crying out loud… Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) won’t support the Warner resolution because it states that we will not cut off funds for those service members over in harm’s way; and for some reason, they want to leave that option open? As a Democrat who doesn’t agree with the escalation, nor with how we went into Iraq in the first place, I cannot fathom that there are members of my own party who would seriously vote to cut OFF funding for those folks who are simply doing their duty for their country over in Iraq. What do you tell them and their families? “Sorry we couldn’t afford to protect you anymore?” or “Not providing for your safety is the only way we can get George W. Bush to bring you home?” If I was on the front lines and that happened, I would lose complete respect for those who did that to me (or my family). For shame guys! What on earth are you thinking?

Can’t we have more narrowly worded legislation that cuts off spending except for the sole purpose of providing the security and protection needed necessary to get the guys and gals over there home? Isn’t that perhaps a better option than just leaving our service members out there in Iraq without support? Seriously guys…My God in heaven!

And also – to the Senate in general - I know that parliamentary games are easy to play and par for the course and that the Republicans are just flexing some muscle in the face of the demanding Democrats in charge, as well as trying to gain time and maybe some political cover. But to everyone paying attention, you all look pretty petty. Senator Reid (D-NV), just get the Republicans on record saying that Senator Gregg’s (R-NH) resolution needs to be heard and then they’ll allow the votes, and then vote on the 3; if they balk and try to add another resolution, call ‘em on it, publicly. Also, make sure everyone knows that there is no sole Democratic resolution – that the Republicans have their hands in all 3 and solely on the Gregg contribution to the slate. From what I understand anyway, the language in Gregg’s resolution is identical to language already in the Warner-Levin resolution, so just yote “yea” on both, no harm no foul, and you come out smelling like roses. What’s wrong with this idea?

And for you Republican Senators who have been out there on camera complaining, and this includes both Sens. Warner (R-VA) and Hagel (R-NE), man if you don’t look pretty partisan, especially in light of how many of your fellow party members have their imprints on the 2 resolutions that were supposed to be voted upon. Don’t make me lose that much respect for you at this point. Statesmen look to the success of their country, not of their party. If you really believe your own resolutions, put up, it’s time, especially considering how many of you were Senators for the entire time your party has been in charge, ample time to do something about it; now that something is being done, you all vote to shut up? For crying out loud!

The Senate was finally looking responsible and now this? I expect it from Senator McConnell (R-KY); he’s the minority leader – he’s supposed to be the party guy; but the rest of you? And I mean all of you, the Dems too… Get it done guys; we are all watching you now. C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E. Are you all that jaded and partisan? Most regular folks understand the need to compromise in life; but while we have guys and gals overseas fighting and dying for us, you all are doing some pretty petty squabbling… For crying out loud! My God in heaven!

That’s all I can stomach to say for today before you people have my head spinning out of control with your petty idiocy and partisanship. I want to have respect for all you; please, please, for my sake and our country’s, stop the nonsense! For crying out loud!

What Congress Should Do About Iraq & The Bush Monarchy

2007-01-31T02:16:00.000-08:00

I’m just watching news and reading transcripts of the hearings going on regarding the war in Iraq and all the arguing and discord in Congress right now, and some ideas occurred to me. Granted, I am definitely not even close to an expert on any of this, but I am going to take a stab by putting forth my proposal ideas.

First thing, yes, find a compromise on the non-binding resolutions that register Congress’s strong disapproval of the Administration’s handling of the war; then have the vote and go put your beliefs on the record, even if just symbolically. If anything, it will show to the nation that you hear them loud and clear and it sends a strong message to the president that you are now all paying attention to his and his Administration’s actions.

Next, draft some legislation with bite, but with a small, short deference to this ONE last effort (the surge.) It may be the closest thing to compromise that can happen and should at the very least be seen as an olive branch to those wary of voting against the Administration, regardless of their reasoning. You want to word it to clearly state that this is the absolute last major military effort that we will take regarding Iraq. Then carefully, in words that cannot be easily misconstrued, explain what is going to happen if there are not real signs of this last effort working say, 6 months down the road. I know that several of you are lawyers, so you know exactly what language is necessary.

Among the things that ought to be included in the legislation about what happens at that ‘down the road’ point and should be able to garner some backing from most members of Congress and would probably be at least seen as an acceptable step to most of the general public are:

A beginning to redeploy our military, including addressing the protection of the Iraqi borders while we redeploy as well as possibly addressing the situation in Afghanistan, which has kind of deteriorated lately to say the least.

A clear statement about exactly what aspects of governing we expect the Iraqi government to be taking charge of and at exactly what point they will be expected to take charge of them - calendar, benchmark, or whatever, just something that can be clearly enforceable by us and not seen as outright abandonment.

A cutting off of any new funding for Iraq that is not absolutely necessary for the safety of our service members as well as carefully vetted by Congress, and I mean carefully.

Some kind of very precise statement saying that the authorization of October 2002 was limited to Iraq and by no means may be taken by the Administration to include any other countries – if they want to go anywhere else, they must go through Congress as per the Constitution, period.

A statement that Congress would highly advise that the Administration heed the suggestions from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group; and that Congress will be looking into implementing the recommendations as well.

I see no reason, or at least no good one, for any member of Congress to not at least consider and debate this kind of legislation. What is going on right now is wonderful, and we, the public, are finally seeing Congress hold the type of open debates that have been sorely missing during the past 4 years. This oversight has always been the job of the Congress; doesn’t anyone read the Constitution anymore? It seems as though the changes that the November election made have at least kicked some sense into our elected representatives, especially the ones who have been in Congress and in power for the past 4 years.

I have heard the word monarchy floated around quite a bit lately about our current executive branch, and it is a pretty apt description; the Bush Administration is trying to exactly run the country as a monarchy with pretty much the sole power concentrated in the king and his cohorts, which have been appointed to posts all the way down the hierarchy of government. This kind of government is absolutely NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted for us; it was something they were seeking to avoid; hence the fairly clear and straightforward Separation of Powers.

This time, now that Congress seems to be waking from their 4-year coma, maybe, just maybe, something can be done to rein in this run amok executive branch once and for all; at least I, a lover of our Constitution, hope and pray that they will do something to try and stunt the extra-constitutional power seeking of this Administration.

As for the possibility that the Supreme Court would side with the Administration automatically if the issue of powers goes before the Court? Well, the more power the Executive Branch accumulates can also reduce the Court to mere puppets as well, and who’s to say that the next powers usurped won’t be the Court’s? I hope the Court truly tries to separate themselves from their personal politics when questions with such serious implications for our country come before them; and I have faith that they will be able to (for the most part.)

And seriously folks, doesn’t anyone take civics anymore? What are they teaching in our schools[i]?

[i] To paraphrase one of my favorite philosophers, the great C. S. Lewis, who used it throughout the Chronicles of Narnia.

Republican Statesmen and Cowards

2007-01-25T03:10:00.000-08:00

I wrote in early November about statesmen and our government’s lack of them and our need for them, especially now. I started the column with a quote that bears repeating. James P. Clarke, Senator from Arkansas, said it during the early part of last century:

“A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman, for that of his country.”

It is important that I include it here now, because it is of utmost importance and the basis of this column tonight. In addition, I want to note that I also wrote in that column that not all the ideas of a statesman will be the best ones for the situation, but at least they are thinking in terms of the bigger picture and are trying to do something about it. I am a huge believer in the courage of convictions, whether I agree with those convictions or not.

I wasn’t planning on writing this column until after the Warner resolution vote, but I cannot stay quiet after listening to the Foreign Relations Committee members today. And maybe, just maybe, if I shout from the rooftops, somebody in the so-called Grand Ole Party will listen. So first, I will deal with the cowards - the hypocrites.

Shame on you Senators. Shame on you. You have been carping for the cameras for a couple weeks now about your disagreement with Bush on the troop increase, or whatever it’s termed by you, and yet, when it’s time to put up or shut up, even in a non-binding and largely symbolic vote, all I hear is deafening silence.

I’m talking about you Senator Lugar (R-IN), and you, Senator Voinovich (R-OH). You are precisely the folks in Congress that I was talking about when I’ve used the term “rubber-stamp Republicans.” You don’t agree with the policy at all, and are all over voicing this on the airwaves, but you are just too, what is it… afraid of your party? Afraid of the President and his men? How absolutely spineless you are to not even be able to stomach a symbolic “no” vote for the record.

I heard the excuse that you thought it might be used in a political attack in the future. I think this is probably one of the lamest excuses I’ve heard so far. What country do you live in, Senator Voinovich? I live in one where the absolute majority of the public does not support the troop surge. If anything, you’re hypocrisy is going to make a perfect political attack ad for any opposition from either party next time you are up for re-election; you don’t agree with the surge, but you’ll certainly never officially say “no” to George W. Bush. And yeah, I know, you live in a red state, but guess what? The red states aren’t really fond of it either. And you sir, are from Ohio, a state that is pretty damn purple; I mean, perhaps I could stomach that excuse if you were from say, Idaho.

And you Senator Lugar, what was your reasoning? I believe it was that “it will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray.” Surely you don’t seriously think that there are still people in the modern world with access to any news that don’t already know this? Seriously? You think that a symbolic vote will confirm this? I do think you and your brethren’s statements in the press and then the opposite vote will definitely confirm that there are some really confused Republicans out there. How can a Senator, and someone that I’ve written in the past that I respect, how can you subscribe to a belief that is so absurd? I said it last night and I’ll repeat it again: our friends and enemies are not stupid. My God in heaven, remarks like yours are going to make them think WE are even more stupid than we already appear. Dissent does not show weakness, it shows democracy.

And you other Senators who sat in silence or who voiced their timid opposition yet then voted “no” on the Biden-Hagel resolution today; you are perfect examples of Bush Republicans; and I’m pretty sure I don’t need to remind you of where his numbers are. You all seem pretty incapable of saying no, even if purely ceremonially, to Bush; with you in Congress, Bush can have carte blanche, as he did when you were in the majority, and that is one of the reasons you are in the minority now. But I guess the party didn’t learn their lesson yet.

One reason I write tonight is that the jury is still out on the other Republicans who voiced, many times very strongly, opposition, who have not voted on one of the resolutions yet. I expect that Sens. Warner (R-VA), Collins (R-ME), and Coleman (R-MN) will vote “yes” on the resolution they have been publicly backing. Also, I believe that Senator Snowe (R-ME) will be voting “yes” on the Biden-Hagel resolution on the floor, since she is one of the writers of that resolution. I will be curious to see what Senator Smith (R-OR) does, when he gets his chance to vote.

Now, I go back to my statesman quote. It has become quite clear to me that party and not convictions drive the above noted “yes-no” milquetoasts. They are precisely the kind of people we do not need in Congress; they are not statesmen; they are partisans who will bend over backward for appearances sake when party is concerned. They are looking to the next election and the success of their party, period; they do not have the courage to stand up for their own convictions. I am hopeful that perhaps, perhaps, some of those who have voiced quiet opposition will work up the courage to vote their conscience in the upcoming votes; either way, we will soon be able to see exactly who the rubber-stampers are and who the brave ones are.

Now, on to the statesmen. The most obvious one from today is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). He has been a leading voice of opposition to the surge and not only had the guts to vote “yes” in accordance with his convictions, but also had the backbone to call his fellow Republicans, those same ones who have been agreeing with him in the media, out on their hypocrisy. Bravo to this man, he is a hero to me; I don’t think I can find enough words to praise him with right now. With the spirit of Harry Truman, he did not mince his words today, and rightfully so. I heard one pundit describe Hagel’s stand today as a profile in courage; that is exactly what it was. For those on the right looking for a true moderate Republican in 2008, this is your guy (if he runs.)

Now to some Republican Senators who are statesmen, even though their views are not popular, and I certainly, for one, don’t agree with them. These guys fall under the portion of my previous statesmen column that noted that not all of a statesman’s ideas may be the best ones.

The first one I want to mention comes from today. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has been on the side of the surge because that is what he believes to be right. And he went out of his way to voice that in the Committee meeting today. His stance, however unpopular, is something he stands by, and he had the great courage to voice it in a room of people who thought otherwise; and he likewise voted his convictions.

The other 3 Senators are guys I write about frequently; as I have said before, I truly admire people who have the courage to stand up for their beliefs, even if I really, really disagree with them. I believe that Sens. McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (ID-CT) truly believe that the surge is the best thing for our country and have been looking at it in terms of the future, and not in terms of the party. Matter of fact, I don’t think that any of them are terribly fond of Bush, so I don’t think this is a case where they are voting “for” Bush; they are simply voting their conscience; I admire that. And with the vast unpopularity of their position, each of these guys is putting their political neck on the line because they have courage of conviction.

The reason I singled out Republicans in this column is not that I mean to truly pick on them, though I am not a Republican. I ended my previous statesmen column with a quote from Charles Beard, the noted American historian:

“When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.”

And right now, in this particular moment in time - with the overwhelming majority (I think actually all) of the Democrats in agreement - this is precisely a point where true statesmen will be fairly readily visible in the Republican Party, and so will the cowards; and I believe that a country run by statesmen is better for it. That is why I wrote this column tonight.

For you righties who are going to be knee-jerkingly critical of me and this column; I have said before and I’ll say it again: I am very moderate, a ticket-splitter; my vote, when all is said and done, needs to be earned too. And here’s something else: if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and Hagel is the Republican nominee in 2008, I’m voting for Chuck…

My State of the State of the Union, Notes on the War, and The Middle East

2007-01-24T00:27:00.000-08:00

Just watching the post game on MSNBC, and of course, I have some thoughts on tonight’s State of the Union and the response, among other things (and boy am I on fire tonight…lol) I apologize for being a bit wordy this evening, and so for easier reading (and organization), I split this column into 3 parts…

Part I: The State of the State of the Union

Tonight was the first time that I think I’ve ever seen Bush look chastened. His eyes almost had a defeated look for much of the speech. I could clearly see the difference in his face when he got true applause – not the kind that’s merely perfunctory. Those few times he got real applause, his face seemed to really light up, and as much as I don’t agree with much he has ever done or said, and I much as I believe him to be an arrogant man, I couldn’t help but feel bad for him with that defeated look and happy for him that he had a few moments of levity.

I thought it was a decent speech in terms of tone, when compared to his past SOTUs, but I think that was largely because he and his writers knew it had to be. For the most part, it was fairly absent of hubris, which was a nice change from his previous speeches.

And bravo to the President for his tribute to Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House; it was very classy of him; I was very proud of him at that moment (and of course tremendously proud of Pelosi.) Also, bravo to the President for the personal stories he chose to highlight towards the end of the speech. That was another great moment in this State of the Union.

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) was excellent in the brief response. Using the time to address 2 major issues, the inequality of the economy, and the ineffective (at least in a positive way) foreign policy so far, was a fantastic Democratic response. It was short, efficient, and hits at places dear to the regular folks in this nation. And the Democrats could not have picked a better person to give that response; his personal story made it perfect; it couldn’t have been done better by anybody else. If I was from Virginia, I would be proud to have him as my Senator.

Part II: Notes on the War in Iraq and Rhetoric

Regarding the escalation, augmentation, or whatever else you want to call it, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) just have not made a convincing enough argument to change the tide of support for it. I do agree with 2 things McCain said this week: Bush listened way too much to Cheney and was poorly served by that counsel and that the amount of troops being sent for the surge is barely minimal for what they need to accomplish (even Lt. Gen. Petraeus seemed to agree with this sentiment). It’s a last chance effort that, though I know most people everywhere don’t agree with it, we all hope to God works. And I wholly agree with what McCain and Graham (and Shinseki) have been saying all along: if we were going to go into Iraq at all, we needed way more troops in the beginning. But Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their PNAC buddies had this great “streamlining the military” into “smarter and leaner” idea that was not executed properly, and that’s the nicest thing I can manage to say about the PNAC and their ideas. Our men and women in the field are dying for their tragic miscalculations.

One thing I want to say about our troops; they are my heroes; no one does a tougher job than they do in a time of war: not the media, not the Congress, and not the regular citizens. The country calls and nobly and honorably, our troops answer that call. A couple of arguments I have heard recently about the non-binding bipartisan votes that may be coming in the next few days is that they will A) demoralize the troops, B) encourage the enemy, and C) effectively be calling the new effort a failure before it’s even began.

Ok. First, with A, our troops are not stupid; I’m pretty sure they can differentiate between support for them and support for a policy. Not only that but they are probably all aware already of the discord that exists over Iraq policy, they saw the election too; and many of them probably exercised their right to vote in it. These men and women are smart people; they are online, a lot of them even have blogs; this is not Vietnam or wars previous; information does not move slowly; it’s lightning fast. They also are probably aware that the majority of the people in this country and the Congress support them and the job their doing on a task we probably shouldn’t have asked them to do in the first place; it’s not like they asked to go, we asked them to go. Like I said, our troops are not stupid; many of them may not like the discord and may even agree with the policy, but for crying out loud – a congressional non-binding vote truly trampling their morale? I think perhaps members of Congress perceive their every action as paramount in the world - talk about the Washington bubble…

With B. Again, the enemy is not stupid either. We have underestimated them every step of the way and it looks like we are going to continue that pattern. The enemy is already laughing at us; the mismanagement of this war by our government has had them celebrating since we decided to go in. Not only that, but the enemy is online as well, and as we’ve seen, they are very up to date considering they’re already taunting this new troop increase via videotape. I will give you this: either way, they are good to go right now; if we leave, they have the vacuum to fill; if we stay, and especially if things don’t start to change soon, we are the best recruiting video for terrorists in the world; all they have to do is show any newspaper or newscast from just about any outlet from anywhere in the world; we are the big bad imperial power. Seriously, is it even possible to give any more encouragement to the enemy than we’ve already done, other than pulling out tomorrow?

Now C. Disagreement on the direction of policy is not the same as writing the policy off as a failure before it’s been undertaken; a non-binding vote is simply is a way to register, rather clearly, dissent, and dissent is something that’s crucial to a democracy and a pillar of freedom and something that’s sorely been missing for the past few years in our government. I don’t for a moment believe that guys like Sens. John Warner (R-VA), a World War II and Korean War vet, and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam vet, mean their non-binding dissents as being seen as predetermining the outcome; I believe that they are worried, like most of us, that it may be a futile venture. But like I said before, I believe that we all hope and pray that it succeeds, now that it looks like it’s going to happen, non-binding votes or not.

To condemn dissent and disagreement in government and equate it to demoralizing the troops, encouraging the enemy, and declaring the next plan as already a failure is in my opinion, un-American. To quote the great Edward R. Murrow:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”

There is even a group of active servicemen and women who have signed an Appeal for Redress to their Congressional Representatives. Are the critics saying that these men and women are demoralizing themselves and their fellow soldiers? Or encouraging the enemy? Or calling the future plan a failure beforehand? I know supporting the troop increase is a lonely place to be right now, but that’s the stand you’ve chosen; the rest of us just happen to have a different, not a lesser, just a different, point of view and the beauty of this country is that we can make it known freely, whether by a vote in Congress or letters to the editor, blogging it, or an Appeal for Redress.

Part III: Thoughts on the Middle East

A couple final points on the Middle East: it is not that terribly tough a region to understand if one takes the time to find out a little about its history, religion, and the empires gone before. Islam, as a religion, is not that difficult to understand either (I’m speaking as a Christian), and there are extremists in every religion, even violent extremists; those Christians bombing abortion clinics come to mind; to me, that’s a bit on the extreme side, no? Not only that, but it would’ve done some good had the folks in charge boned up on some of the wisdom found in the many excellent books about the region; From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman comes to mind. I read it shortly after September 11th, in the hopes of gaining some insight into the region and their differences. It’s a fantastic read; anyone who read the first half knows that Saddam was never, ever, gonna share space in his country with Osama Bin Laden. This is a man (Saddam) who’s killed friends and relatives he suspected of wanting to usurp his power; Saddam would’ve never let a man who demonstrated the power Bin Laden did have sanctuary in his Iraq; if anything, he was probably more of a deterrent for Al Qaeda than a conduit. That said, Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserved what he received; wish we could say the same about Bin Laden.

And the problem we’re going to have with Hezbollah is not PR in this country, it’s PR in the Middle East; not only are we seen as the bad guys, but in addition to their political activities (a very generous description), Hezbollah operates as sort of a Red Cross-style group to many in the region, getting aid to those who need it; not quite the Red Crescent operation, but a source of aid none-the-less. Tonight the President was preaching to the choir about Hezbollah, but it’s a hornet’s nest and biting off way more than we can chew to seriously take them on right now. And Iran is a thorny problem too; the Ahmadinejad issue may resolve itself in the next Iranian elections; many of his opposition won this time around and many don’t like his rhetoric; using force against him right now can only give him power in Iran, not serve to deplete it, and I believe that’s exactly what he wants. With so much on our plate, we really do need to truly listen to those who have gone before, like George the Elder, the Iraq Study Group, and others who truly understand the region.

Well, that does it for me tonight; I’m exhausted, and if you’ve actually made it this far into this column, you probably are too. Goodnight and God bless to all my fellow citizens, and Godspeed to all our noble servicemen and women.

24: Propaganda? I Think Not...

2007-01-20T02:27:00.000-08:00

Ok. Just when I thought sanity was partially returning to this country, I hear an uproar about the Fox series “24”. Seems as though some folks think the series is being used as fear-mongering propaganda by the Murdoch owned Fox Broadcasting Company in order to bolster support for Republicans. Oh - on soooo many levels this is mountaining what may be, at the very most, a molehill, and probably doesn’t even qualify as that; and I’m a Democrat.

First, I think it’s pretty much established that the country backs the war on terror; we just have problems with the (pretty much only) location it’s actively being fought in presently, the lack of attention paid to places known to harbor terrorists, and the poor (so far) execution of it by our leaders. Understand I do not mean the military execution of the war; the folks on the ground are do their best in a bad situation.

Second, “24” is a show based around a U.S. “counter-terrorism unit,” which would seem (to me) to be implying that this show is going to deal expressly with terrorism, no? So, I would think that scenes of terrorism in America would be a key to the show’s backdrop and a necessary part of the plotline; not something developed by FOX with the intention of being used as propaganda. I mean, c’mon folks – now Hollywood’s too right? Gimme a break…

Could it be used as propaganda? Sure, just like CSI can be seen as a training tool for up-and-coming murderers, but I don’t hear anyone complaining about that. I mean, are we now going to have a bandwagon to fear the fear mongering? So my plea to those who are helping to propagate this phantom issue, please stop. I hate to say that one of my favorites – Keith Olbermann – did a piece on it. Keith – you have been a mighty voice in calling everyone on fear mongering, don’t cave into it for a story.

And I know that there are some Muslims who are out there and have spoken out against the fact that the terrorists this season are Islamic extremists. I know that this a tough time for Muslims in this country and the rest of the world, and that is a shame; but I guess all I can say (meagerly and humbly) to my Muslim friends is that I think most of the people in this country are already pre-conditioned to believe one way or the other. It is sad, but the only way I know to truly fight the misconceptions is to be beacons for the truth, not only you but all of us that understand, Muslim or otherwise. I don’t think at this point that a show is going to really change minds on this issue – the Middle Eastern terrorist has been done over and over on film. One thing I can say about the show and its portrayal of Muslims is that it can be a catalyst for understanding, as not all the Muslims shown are extremists; some are the good guys. If anything, the show can be used to illustrate that not all factions of a religion are good; that extremism in any form – religious, political, or otherwise – is not something to be inspired by, it is something that is detrimental.

All of the above said, I hope everyone keeps in mind that the show “24” is a work of fiction, and I think that most of its viewers, me included, realize this fact. Also, please keep in mind that in the six seasons of the show, not all the terrorists have been of Islamic extremists – the terrorists of past seasons have been Europeans, Russians, even Anglo-Americans, as well as Islamic extremists. And the show has yet to be used as a scapegoat for violent behavior, unlike video games, rap music, and heavy metal. I think most of the viewers of the show are fairly smart – it has a fairly complex and fast-moving storyline to grasp. And every show has to have good guys and bad guys, whether they be white serial killers, skinheads, or cults, black street gangs, Italian, Russian, or Asian Mafioso, Hispanic drug dealers, or Islamic extremists.

And so I look forward to the next episode that will have me on the edge of my seat for another hour, watching Jack Bauer work to stop to the bad guys. This time, Jack is allied with Hamri Al-Assad, a Middle Eastern Muslim – who please, I hope, they will not kill off, as so many characters have had done to them on the show. And I for one, a Democrat (and not a Fox News fan), give kudos to a show that’s well done at a time when most of the shows on TV are mediocre at best…

My Random Thoughts: 01/11/07

2007-01-11T23:47:00.000-08:00

Ok. This is my second edition of Random Thoughts for this week, but I am riled up and cannot NOT comment.

Is it just me, or does Bush seem to know he is impeachment proof? To impeach and remove him would put Cheney in charge, which is more frightening to most people, so maybe W knows that he can do anything he decides, damn the rest of us…

Even McCain said just prior to Bush’s speech that 20-thousand more troops in Iraq was not enough; unfortunately, now he seems to be backing Bush’s new plan. As are Romney and Giuliani, the other major Republican presidential hopefuls right now…

I wish Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was a Democrat… As it is though, he might be a bright shining light in 2008 for those moderate Republicans who disagree with Bush and his supporters…

W’s suggestion that we may escalate this war to include Iran and Syria is… Actually, I’m not sure whether it’s more frightening or absurd, but it has both elements in it for me… This could be the beginning of World War III…

Not only does militarily engaging Syria and Iran bother me for the above reason, but we seem to be ignoring North Korea for the most part, which appears to have recently become a member of the nuclear club. As someone who currently lives on the West Coast, in Los Angeles, which would probably be a really attractive target for Kim Jong Il, this lack of attention by our country somewhat alarms me…

Also, I just read a very disturbing and scary (to me) article about Al Qaeda in the January 1st issue of Newsweek. Seems as though while we have been busy concentrating most of our efforts on Bush’s folly in Iraq, Al Qaeda has, in Pakistan, been secretly training a dozen new operatives referred to as the “English brothers” – foreign recruits - citizens of western nations who are being trained to operate for Al Qaeda in their own western countries. They are reported to include a couple of Norwegians, an Australian, several Brits, and our own homegrown Adam Gadahn as translator for them. This training has gone on reportedly for about a year now and has almost concluded. There is also now established a sort of underground railroad – the “Pakistan pipeline” – a way for these and other operatives to travel between Pakistan and western countries such as Great Britain. And there are, of course, the obligatory rumors that there is an attack in the planning, but somehow, after reading this article, I get the feeling that this rumor is a bit more serious than the past ones. So, while we are spending the bulk of our money and manpower in Iraq, the main reason that September 11th happened is gaining strength in the areas we should be concentrating on, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here’s the link to the article if you want to read it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240565/site/newsweek/

I will check periodically to make sure it still links and will update if it does not…

And finally, The Daily Show and Jon Stewart make me giggle… Thank God for the welcome relief that comes with laughter… Can’t wait to see what Colbert’s “WORD” is today…

Until next time… Ciao!

My Random Thoughts: 01/08/07

2007-01-08T22:40:00.000-08:00

First thing I need to do is apologize to you for not posting for so long; I was out of state for the holidays and got somewhat sidetracked…

Also, I have been invited to contribute to a new textbook on American Government and as such, most of my major writing during January will be for the book; however, I will try my best to write at least a couple of columns for you…

I will still continue to post My Random Thoughts weekly…

And now for this week’s random observations:

It’s frustrating to be a political optimist in a cynic’s world…

I’m looking forward to seeing how the “first 100 hours” of the new Congress takes shape…

A thank you to George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rubber-stamp Republicans for reminding us of how bad government can get when the citizenry does not pay attention…

As a woman, it was pretty special watching Nancy Pelosi take the gavel last week…

Being an Edwards girl, it was nice to see Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – one of McCain’s guys – single John Edwards out for criticism on Meet the Press yesterday; I know it was responding to a comment Edwards made, but none-the-less, being singled out by the opposition in a national forum helps establish Edwards as a front-runner for 2008…

My center-right family members are having a hard time getting enthused about any of the expected Republican candidates, including McCain; perhaps if he got back on his Straight Talk Express it could change things; if not, they may vote Dem for the first time since Kennedy…

Watching the Saddam footage reminded me of the South of 100 years ago…

Iraq is so FUBAR right now; how on earth did we let it get this bad? Why was no one screaming from the rafters? Where was the congressional oversight? Where was the media – the Fourth Estate? Where was the major public outcry? Where were we?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really seems to enjoy verbally getting our dander up, and he’s very successful at it…

Bravo to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA) for having the chutzpah to present a plan for universal health care coverage; let my home state of California lead the way and be an example for the rest…

Keith Olbermann should wear earth tones more often… (Hey, I notice this stuff – I am a girl…)

Man, all my teams blew their bowl games; tonight is the finishing touch on my miserable bowl season… (Ok, maybe I’m a bit of a tomboy…)

Glad the news has gotten moving again…

Until next week – au revoir!

How Black Is Black Enough To Be Acceptable To Blacks In America?

2006-12-22T05:00:00.000-08:00

Ok. I am officially abandoning the column I was writing for this week because I just read something that really got my goat. And, oh boy, this column is gonna really get many other peoples’ nerves up too - I can already see the hate mail; but it’s gotta be said. While I may not even be close to the person who SHOULD be writing this, someone’s gotta do it, and I’m not that optimistic that someone else will have enough chutzpah to write it.

I just read an article questioning whether Barack Obama has the “black” credentials to be a true White House contender; the reason being that he does not share a “common culture or history” with the other blacks in America. This is grade A horsepucky and is exactly the kind of crap that fosters racial prejudice.

The author in question is the much esteemed Stanley Crouch, the syndicated New York Daily News columnist. Crouch had the audacity to suggest that Obama has not lived the life of a “black American.” Um, Mr. Crouch, was not Barack Obama born in the United States? And did he not spend all but 4 years of his life in the United States? And did he not go to school in the United States? As what can only be described physically as being a “black American?” Yet, because of his uncontrollable parentage, he does not meet your narrow definition of “black American,” which would be the descendant of an African that came over to America during the 1700s and 1800s and was a slave; Obama’s just not good enough to represent you because of that, eh?

Mr. Crouch, were you a slave? No. Your ancestors were; you‘ve only heard the stories of the unbelievable hardships and the travesty that slavery was in this country; you were a fortunate enough man to have been born after that stain on our history. Were you subject to the Jim Crow laws of the South? Possibly, but not probably, since you were born in Los Angeles and moved to New York City from there; if you did in fact find yourself subject to these laws during their last official gasp, it would’ve only been upon travel to the South and only as a young man. As for the civil rights struggles, anyone born post 1960 was a tad on the young side to be able to have participated in that collective movement. So your accusations of Obama’s “black American” inferiority don’t hold much water.

And yes, I am probably the last person who should be critiquing you about something that I obviously have not experienced, nor hopefully ever will in my life; I’ll be the first to admit it. I am lily-white; I pretty much reflect the sun (to my personal disappointment); my heritage is mostly north-western European, those idiots that brought us slavery in the first place. And I was born and raised in California, in an area where, yeah, I had a “leg up” because I came from a middle class white family. So I won’t ever profess to have any inkling of the suffering and prejudice that the people of color in this country have undergone.

But I am a student of history, and while I can understand the scars, (I have a sliver of Irish in my blood,) there is really not much of a comparison between our own personal suffering and that of the suffering of our ancestors. We, as a country, blacks and whites, have been through hell and back, my ancestors not letting your ancestors have even the slightest chance to become something; but, we have passed the dominant part of those eras, and we need to have the discourse move forward with us accordingly. I did not suffer the Irish Potato Famine nor were you a slave or the son of a slave. So this is a fight that is, while psychologically brutal, not truly relevant. Granted, there are still obstacles, but to lump them in with the incredible level of racism that existed in the past is not entirely fair; fair, perhaps somewhat, but not entirely, and you, sir, know that.

And yet, here you are, a syndicated columnist for a major New York City newspaper, calling Barack Obama out on not being “black” enough for you. You are not the son of plantation slaves; you were born in Southern California, just like me. So instead of stoking the fires of separation like you are, we need to find a way to move forward. Of course, if you do not want to move forward at all, then yes you should keep bringing this issue to the forefront and making it a wedge issue; it riles enough people to keep your movement behind you, and a prophet without a movement is just another man talking to himself.

But remembered this, there are those folks, like me, who want to see a racially unified America, and want to get past the inflammatory rhetoric and empty prejudices. I use the word empty, because many of the folks in my generation did not experience firsthand those prejudices in the intensity nor on the scale of past generations; we may know it on a smaller scale, but things have gotten a little bit better since the heyday of the Civil Rights movement. Granted, things are not perfect by any means, but many times change is slow to come, and we are slowly getting there.

Being a facilitator for the indoctrination of yet another generation to carry massive persecution chips on their shoulders does nothing to further unification; it simply breeds prejudice and hate. So one question I would like for you to ponder is how to make it better as opposed to worse; instead of living in the past like this country has lived for some many years, let’s want and make a better nation for those generations that follow us. It’s up to folks like you to meet folks like me, both carrying an olive branch, because there are plenty of people in my lily-white world who want to help make it right. Don’t look for someone to prolong; look for someone to make peace with; it starts with trust, and I think we as a country have come a long way baby…

I guess the main gist of this column is that there are simply some things in history that should be just that - history. It is not the “here and now”; this now is the future history, all of our current collective foibles - black, white, etc… You shouldn’t pool certain groups of people who were born after the history and put them in a collective political “prison” simply because most of your contemporaries have judged them as not having similar heritages to theirs.

I think if anyone is well equipped to see things in this country as they are now for black folks, it would be a black person who grew up in this country during the more recent past; they would not, could not, have fully escaped the prejudices that exist still, but they wouldn’t be colored by the very divisive and brutal forms of prejudice that occurred in generations previous to mine. So let up on Barack Obama; just because he was born too late to march with Dr. King and does not have the distant ancestry of American slavery in his heritage does not make him any less of a “black American” than you.

I will leave you with a quote from the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that embodies my hopes that I much less eloquently attempted to express in this column. The quote comes from his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”:

“Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”

This is what we should be striving for. We could all take a lesson from Dr. King…