Indies Are Us

Bad Form

2009-06-25T08:53:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

sigh,

tell me what you think of this nonsense,

regards,
Dennis

Torture

2009-05-04T11:30:00.012-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Dennis

Progress Report? C+

2009-04-22T05:36:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

A Brand New Day

2009-01-20T06:15:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

2008 - Good Riddance

2008-12-31T08:05:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

Happy New Year to all.

Dennis

Peace On Earth

2008-12-30T09:59:00.002-06:00

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

Peace on Earth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace on earth
Peace on earth
Peace on earth

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

Tell me what you think

Regards
Dennis

Without a Doubt

2008-12-22T08:21:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pace,

Dennis

What Will George's Legacy Be?

2008-12-08T06:54:00.003-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

Transition

2008-12-05T08:45:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be a transition speech for the history books.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Well Done

2008-11-10T06:21:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well done Mr. President-elect.

What's Going to Happen?

2008-10-18T09:12:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Dennis

The Palin Effect

2008-09-29T14:42:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the John McCain of 2000?

2008-09-05T07:39:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

Youth and Experience vs Experience and Youth?

2008-09-03T13:11:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

regards,

Dennis

Why Are We Suprised With This Stuff?

2008-08-10T10:49:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards

Dennis

Freddie and Fannie

2008-07-14T05:51:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stormy Present indeed.

Tell me what you think.
regards,
Dennis

Iraq to US: Yankee Go Home!

2008-07-09T06:16:00.002-05:00

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

Huh?

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Stare Decisis

2008-06-27T07:11:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

The "Media"

2008-06-16T06:58:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

RIP Mr. Russert

regards,

Dennis

Thank You Justice Kennedy

2008-06-13T08:23:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Best President Since Dennis Was Born Poll Results

2008-06-13T08:20:00.001-05:00

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

Bush's Legacy

2008-06-09T06:52:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Dennis

Bravo, Mr. Obama

2008-06-04T06:17:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

regards,

Dennis

Never Forget What Not Paying Attention Costs

2008-05-16T09:14:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

28% Approval

2008-05-02T06:13:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis