Indies Are Us - a blog for independent political thought

Can't Buy Me Love

2012-02-21T07:23:00.001-06:00

Click the link on the title to this post and you'll be taken to an article reporting on the state of affairs in the GOP nomination race from a fund raising perspective. With apologies to the Beatles, Mitt is finding out that "Money can't buy me love".

Conventional wisdom has told us for some time that Willard Mitt Romney, erstwhile presidential candidate, was the inevitable nominee for the Republicans this time around. He paid his dues, got in line and had a monumental amount of money and good will when he got started on this campaign many months (seems years) ago.

Well, a few of things have changed. The first one being that people have finally gotten to know Mitt Romney and don't like what they are learning about the guy. Oh, he looks like a president. He has businessman chops and he's reminded us over and over again that he knows how business and the economy works, and buy gosh he can fix all those nasty problems that President Obama has caused. He has a lot of money, and he has a great organization.   He's next in line as well. One thing about the Republicans, they respect tradition. Usually, it is the guy who lost the last time around that gets the nod for the nomination. This goes as far back as Reagan, who lost to Ford in 1976, then became the nominee in 1980. George Herbert Walker Bush lost to Reagan in 1980, then won the nomination in 1988, and so on. So, it's not surprising that they would look to Mitt as the potential standard bearer.

The other thing that has happened is that the more Mitt talks, the more trouble he gets into with his groupies. It's like when we were in high school, and from afar the great looking girl or guy that we wanted to go out with look so terrific, until you finally get the date with them and find out they are either stupid or mean or both. The let down is pretty significant. I think this is what the GOP is learning about their crush on Mitt. He's not "All that and a bag of chips". From the story of strapping his dog on the roof of his car, to his ridiculous comments about firing people, to his revolving door of positions he takes on issues, to his wooden interaction with people at large. They are just not into him.

Mitt's spent millions of dollars attempting to get the GOP's love. He spent $18M in January while only bringing in $6M. That $18M won him two primaries: New Hampshire and Florida. He is polling behind Rick Santorum in his "home state" of Michigan. Rick Santorum. Who would have thought Mitt Romney would be in a dead tie on Primaries (4 for 4) with Rick Santorum, a man who's views on social issues make even some of the most puritanical in this country say "Hey, Rick, lighten up man"?

What's certain in this election cycle is that money will rain from the sky as we have seen the influence of the Super Pacs already bombarding the GOP primaries with cash. Santorum and Gingrich would have been gone a long time ago without the likes of Sheldon Addelson or Foster Friess, who between the two of them have pumped about $20M into Santorum's and Gingrich's campaigns through their Super Pac donations. What is also certain is that this nomination process is far from over. Both Gingrich and Santorum have enough cash to stay in the raise and Gingrich at least has not been quiet about the fact that he's in it to Tampa (meaning the convention). Ron Paul's supporters are still there and he will as well along with Mitt, Rick and Newt.

Who will be the candidates for President in the general election? The only one we know for sure is President Obama. As to the GOP, for the first time in my life, we may see a brokered convention. Wouldn't that be interesting? Who might emerge from that? Jeb Bush perhaps? Chris Christie?

Money is not everything in politics as Mitt is finding out. There has to be some substance to the candidate that the money is supporting. So far, all the candidates for the GOP nomination are in pretty good shape financially. They are also so flawed politically as candidates that it seems like if any of this crowd gets the nomination and the economy stays in recovery that President Obama would be reelected rather easily. But, as anyone knows, stranger things have happened. After all, we elected George W. Bush twice.

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

Render Unto Caesar

2012-02-17T13:33:00.001-06:00

During my morning run to Starbucks, I was listening to an interview on a news radio station between two pastors in Maryland regarding their views on pending legislation regarding same sex marriage. One of the pastors (both were protestant and both were African American as a point of disclosure) was in favor of marriage/civil unions and the other was not.

The pastor who was opposed to the legislation granting marriage equality took an ecclesiastical stance relative to his position and indicated that marriage was between a man and a woman as a dictate by God according to scripture. He felt that he as a representative of God was committed to 'teach' God's message and that while he certainly had compassion for gays who wanted to marry, it was expressly prohibited by scripture.

The other pastor took a more secular view of the discussion and framed his support of the legislation on the position of equal liberty. His view was that rights afforded to some of us should be afforded to all of us.

Each pastor was sincere, both of them claimed that the love and grace of Jesus Christ formed their opinions on the matter. So, why such diverging opinion on the topic? We're not talking about nuanced differences such as one being opposed to sectarian marriage but supporting civil unions, we are talking about polar opposite opinion.   Now, the pro-marriage equality never mentioned scripture as a basis of his position, he was just as staunch in his belief that it was his faith that got him to where he was on the topic.

The one other point that I would make from the interview is that the anti-marriage equality pastor indicated in his discussion that democracy went hand in hand with theocracy, in that our rights to be democratic were given to us by God, therefore you can't separate the two. Oh, boy.

So, as I was sipping my Grande Coffee I started thinking about the topic of separation of church and state, and scriptural commandment, ostensibly given to us from God.

I need to disclose here from what perspective I write this next segment of the post, because there will be bias in it. I am not a Christian. I was raised a Christian in a Southern Baptist Church, and when I was 13 professed my faith and was baptized.  However, it was a false conversion. I realized shortly after my profession of faith I had serious trouble with the Christian doctrine and even more problem with the idea that there was one "correct religion or faith".    So, I'm an agnostic. I don't say I'm an atheist, because atheists are devout in their disbelief. I cannot prove that God doesnt' exist, nor can I prove that God does exist, so I'm a skeptic and an non-believer.

Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about the point of this post, which is separation of church and state. Our aforementioned pastors, both admirable men who seemingly are full of compassion and care about their flock and this country very much are diametrically opposed in their positions on marriage equality. One used scripture as his basis of opposition.  The other, pro-marriage equality, while not citing scripture to support his position basically said that this is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of societal liberty.

Who is right?  Well, it obviously depends upon your perspective.   If, however you look to the Bible to find direction on the topic, sadly you will walk away confused. The most famous prohibition against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18:22, that says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is an abomination. Defile not yourselves in any of these things."  Other admonitions, essentially of the same message, can be found in Deuteronomy, Kings, Romans and Hebrews.  So, it is easy to see how the "anti-marriage equality" can make his case for biblical prohibition.

On the other hand,  the "pro-marriage equality" pastor, while not citing specific scripture, could have just as easily supported his secular separation argument by saying as Jesus allegedly did in Mark 12:17, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". To follow up, after the inevitable argument that Jesus was referring to taxes in that verse, he could have come back with Luke 6:31 where Jesus said: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Both men are genuine in their beliefs and thoughts that God is guiding them through their lives and helping them to preach his word to their flocks. Both of them have completely different points of view on what God is saying on this topic.   This is the danger of mixing religion with government. Commands issued by a god, whether a Christian one or not, should not be the primary driver of our societal rules we codify into law. The reasons for that are many, but most importantly you have to decide which God's rules will be codified. The example above shows that even Christians have stark differences in determining what is and what is not God's law.

Marriage equality laws are progressing rapidly across the country. There are now 8 states that have passed them whereas 10 years ago there were none. Society is evolving in our perspective on same sex marriage or unions and I believe eventually the issue will die as marriage equality will be the law of the land. I think this is a good thing in the main, because like the laws banning inter-racial marriage that were on many state's books just 50 years ago, these laws banning same sex unions are based on fear and some view of what "normal" is. We know, and have known for some time that same sex couples can be just as committed and loving to their partners as heterosexuals. We also know, as evidenced by the facts that same sex marriages is not a danger to traditional marriage or the country at large.    The Republic still stands long after Vermont voted in favor of Civil Unions almost 10 years ago.

I believe what is more threatening to the country is a small group of people so sure they are right in what society should look like and they base this on traditions tied to a specific deity, that they will do almost anything to keep us from progressing forward out of this folly that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or have civil unions. Need an example? I give you Westboro Baptist Church. These people, claiming to be Christian have the temerity to show up at military funerals and hold up signs like this moron is doing because they believe our tolerance of gays is causing soldiers to die.

Well, I think most people would think this is an aberration of the Christian faith. It certinaly was not what I was taught, and if I was still a believer I would have a massive problem with the idea that God is killing anyone because we are tolerant of gays. But, (there's always a but right?) remember, that it was only a 150 or so years ago that "The Christian Church", or some members of them, thought there was biblical sanction and support for owning slaves. The irony of the fact that the two pastors speaking about a civil rights issue such as marriage equality were both African American was significant.

I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe. I have severe problems if they attempt to enforce those beliefs on me, my children or my country at large. We need to be a country, devout in our various religious beliefs or lack thereof, but just as faithful to the Constitution and our secular precepts that we should be working for all of us for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Render unto Caesar, indeed.

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

The GOP Really Wants Limited Government?

2012-02-16T08:04:00.002-06:00

Meet State Representative Kim Pearson from the great state of Iowa. Kim is a Republican legislator who has recently introduced a bill into the Iowa House of Representatives that would completely outlaw abortion and mandate up to life in prison for those who purposefully terminate a pregnancy. The legislation introduced is a total ban. Yes, a total ban on abortion that prohibits anyone from terminating a pregnancy even if it is a result of rape, incest, or get this, even if the mother's life is in danger from the pregnancy. Penalties could result in life imprisonment for those performing the abortion procedure.

In Oklahoma, a bill is moving it's way through the state legislature that declares embryos and fetuses "persons" with all rights privileges and immunities associated with other citizens.

In the state of Virginia, another bill attempting to declare "personhood" for embryos and fetuses is making its way through the legislature. The Republican governor of the state, Bob McDonnell has indicated his support for the measure. This bill, which also includes a provision that should a woman desire to terminate a pregnancy, the doctor must do an ultrasound that involves an "trans-vaginal" (meaning internal examination) ultrasound because external ultrasounds in early stages of pregnancies cannot show an image of the fetus is one of the more restrictive measures being considered in the country today.

In some 12 other states in the country, some semblance of personhood bills or much tighter restrictions on abortion rights are being considered.
Rick Santorum, current front runner for the Republican presidential nomination is a well known advocate of outlawing abortion and has stated on the record that contraception "is wrong" and that states should be allowed to ban the sale of contraceptives.

The common thread coming from all of these examples is that the legislation that is being offered for consideration within the state houses and of course the views from most of the current crop of presidential candidates excluding the President himself is that they are all coming from Republicans. Republicans, the party of limited government. The GOP has since the days of Barry Goldwater has been espousing government getting off the backs of the people. President Reagan once famously said "Government is not the solution to our problem, Government is the Problem".

The hypocrisy of the GOP is astounding to me on this issue. They continually bleat on and on about government overreach yet are doing everything they possibly can to insert the government into one of the most personal decisions a citizen in this country has to make: To decide whether or not to have a child.

This isn't anything new. The movement to quell or eliminate women's rights to avoid pregnancy or to terminate a pregnancy has been in full force for decades. We've seen erosion of the right to privacy for women that was affirmed in the Roe v. Wade decision from almost the moment the Supreme Court delivered their opinion in 1973 in that landmark case. What's newsworthy in my view on this is the bold-faced stance the GOP takes over its usual mantra of "personal responsibility" ethos and again the desire to "keep government off our backs."

Republicans supporting this type of intrusion into women's reproductive matters is one of the more odious and insidious invasions of privacy that we've ever experienced. To me, the message is simply anti-woman and suggest that women aren't intelligent enough to make the right decisions on the issue. That is why I am bewildered why Ms. Pearson, presumably a woman, would suggest that the government is better suited to make decisions regarding her health. I cannot imagine why any women would support a party that decides it is OK that the government will be the arbiter of whether or not they can avoid or terminate a pregnancy.

So, beware what is happening within the GOP. The purported party of individual liberty and small, limited government is certainly not behaving as they would have you believe.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Komen Foundations' Folly

2012-02-03T09:14:00.001-06:00

Click on the title of this blog and you'll be taken to a video of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell having a discussion with the leader of the Susan G Komen foundation, Nancy Brinker.

Of course, by now everyone knows about the issue. Ms. Brinker and the Komen foundation have elected to stop providing funding to Planned Parenthood. The reason for this is that Planned Parenthood provides abortion services to its clients. Ms. Brinker's foundation, ostensibly focused on finding a cure for breast cancer has stepped on what is coming to be a "Third Rail" of political discussion around women's reproductive care. The backlash has been considerable.

Planned Parenthood has come under fire over the past few years because of the abortion issue. Conservatives in and out of the political scene have attacked Planned Parenthood for providing abortion services. Legislatures in both the federal and state governments have voted to defund Planned Parenthood because of the abortion issue. Many ultra-conservatives have also decried the fact that Planned Parenthood offers birth control at little or no cost to its clients. The blinding folly of the Komen Foundation and conservatives in general is that they are objecting to an organization that has probably prevented more abortions than it has conducted through the distribution of birth control and information to young women who might otherwise not have access to these services.

Planned Parenthood has been around for a long time. Founded by Margaret Sanger in New York in the early part of the 20th Century, it has provided health services for women that include wellness checks, cancer screenings, birth control, and yes abortion services. However, unlike Senator John Kyl's (R-AZ) false claim that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is provide abortion services, the principal reason for their being is to serve women's health. Additionally, Planned Parenthood uses no federal funding to provide abortion services. They have been very open in outlining where their taxpayer funding is used. This organization provides a vital array of services to a demographic that has often been avoided by either governmental services or private, for pay services, in that it supports low-income women who would have to either go without health care, or pay significantly more for the services which would cause a further economic burden to them.

The decision by Ms. Brinker and the foundation to end funding for Planned Parenthood is of course their right. No organization should be forced to support something they don't believe in. However, I believe they have missed the overall big-picture. Planned Parenthood provides low cost cancer screening and mammograms that are the primary tool to help identify Breast Cancer early. Data compiled over the last 40 or so years shows that early discovery of tumors with respect to Breast Cancer significantly increases the chance of survivability of the stricken. The primary reason for being for the Komne Foundation is to find a cure for and treat those who suffer from Breast Cancer. So, a stand, however principled it might be from a few people in the Komen Foundation has in fact set back their efforts to find a cure and battle this dreadful disease.

Abortion is a lightening rod issue and will always be so. That said, it is also important to keep things in perspective. Where the Komen Foundation went wrong was not realizing that Planned Parenthood prevents more unwanted pregnancies than it aborts. It also has likely helped many more women discover breast cancer early and get treatment that either saves or extends their lives. So, in my view, the Komen Foundation has made a major mistake.

The public outcry of the Komen Foundation's decision has been significant. Already, donations have come in from multiple areas that fills the void left by the Komen Foundation's decision to withdraw its support. Since the decision was announced, almost a million dollars have come into Planned Parenthood from a variety of donors (even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has donated $250 thousand dollars). My wife and I have been long term supporters of Planned Parenthood and have added our donations to the organization as part of this response. I've added a link here if you would like to provide a donation to the organization.

Women's health is as important as any political issue being discussed today. Attempting to defund an organization as useful and important as Planned Parenthood is a mistake. I hope the Komen Foundation comes to realize this and reverses its policy.

Let me know what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Mitt Steps in It

2012-02-02T08:13:00.001-06:00

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''
"Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir.''
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.'' - From "A Christmas Carol" - Charles Dickens

Yesterday, after celebrating a thorough shellacking of Newt Gingrich in the Florida GOP Primary, Mitt had another episode of "Foot in Mouth" disease. On an interview with Soledad O'Brien, Mr. Romney stepped off in something very smelly by uttering the phrase "I'm not concerned about the very poor...". Now to be fair, in the entire context of the conversation, Mr. Romney was attempting to make a point that he wasn't looking at the edges (very rich or very poor), he was looking at the middle class, who he claims quite correctly has suffered from the devastating economic situation our country has found itself in.

What boggles my mind is how a candidate, and obviously well read and very educated candidate can be so obtuse. I'd like to know meet his handlers and advisers because they are probably drinking themselves silly with all the foolish things this man says. It is highly likely that Mr. Romney will be the GOP nominee. It is highly doubtful that, if he is indeed the GOP's standard bearer that he will survive a contest with the President. Especially if he continues to utter idiotic phrases like he did yesterday.

I do not believe Mr. Romney is as hard hearted as Mr. Scrooge. I think he is a man of some compassion. I think however, statements like he makes indicate just how out of touch he is with the general population in this country. He's not worried about the very poor because they have a "safety net"? Really? The issue is not whether or not they have a safety net, the issue is why are they poor?

According to the US Census Bureau we have a significant problem with poverty in this country.

Some data for your consideration: (source, US Census Bureau)

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2010 - Highlights

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2010.

The official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent — up from 14.3 percent in 2009. This was the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points, from 12.5 percent to 15.1 percent.
In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty, up from 43.6 million in 2009—the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty.
Between 2009 and 2010, the poverty rate increased for non-Hispanic Whites (from 9.4 percent to 9.9 percent), for Blacks (from 25.8 percent to 27.4 percent), and for Hispanics (from 25.3 percent to 26.6 percent). For Asians, the 2010 poverty rate (12.1 percent) was not statistically different from the 2009 poverty rate.¹
The poverty rate in 2010 (15.1 percent) was the highest poverty rate since 1993 but was 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available.
The number of people in poverty in 2010 (46.2 million) is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.
Between 2009 and 2010, the poverty rate increased for children under age 18 (from 20.7 percent to 22.0 percent) and people aged 18 to 64 (from 12.9 percent to 13.7 percent), but was not statistically different for people aged 65 and older (9.0 percent).²

^{46 million people are at or below the poverty line in this country. As a comparison, that is about 13 million more people than the entire population of Canada and more than twice the population of Australia. Since the War on Poverty which began in the Johnson administration in 1965, we have been keeping statistics on poverty as a percentage of the population and the numbers are not encouraging. When the legislation was passed in 1965, the poverty rate was around 19%, down from 22% in 1959, but nonetheless still high. In 1965, 19% poverty meant about 28-30 million people at or below the poverty line. Today, we sit around 15% or so, with as stated before about 46 million people in poverty and it is getting worse. The "Safety Nets" as Mr. Romney refers to them are programs such as Medicaid, CHIPS, etc and typically these are funded through some federal money and some state money. As we all know, the budgets within the states and in the federal government are in terrible shape, so the safety net is not quite so safe.}

^{Mr. Romney's blindness to the impacts of his statements on the general voting population is staggering. I used to think the President would have a tough time getting reelected. After watching and listening to the presumptive nominee from the GOP, I think Mr. Obama returns to the Oval Office in 2013.}

^{I'd like to hear from you on your impressions of Mr. Romney. I know I'm biased as I don't intend to vote for the guy anyway, but would like to get some perspective on what Republicans and Independents think about this guy and his recent}^statements.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,
Dennis

Money and Trash Talk - Is it really what it takes to win?

2012-02-01T09:34:00.002-06:00

"Money money money money, money
Some people got to have it
Some people really need it
Listen to me y'all, do things, do things, do bad things with it
You wanna do things, do things, do things, good things with it
Talk about cash money, money
Talk about cash money- dollar bills, y'all......" (From "For The Love of Money", by the O'Jays )

Last night, the Florida Republican Primary came to a close with Willard Mitt Romney winning the contest with a 46% share of the vote. Mr. Gingrich, as expected was the runner up with Messrs Santorum and Paul bring up third and fourth place respectively.   This wasn't really a surprise as for some time most polling had Mr. Romney winning the primary. The questions would be "By how much and Why?"   Well, for one thing, money proved to be the grease that made the Romney machine run smoothly. Some data for your consideration below:

Mitt Romney - Total votes: 771,842
Newt Gingrich - Total votes: 531, 294
Rick Santorum - Total votes: 222,248
Ron Paul - Total votes: 116,776

Total votes cast for the four: 1,642,160

Mitt Romney spending (advertising) in Florida: $15,389,287
Newt Gingrich spending (advertising) in Florida: $3,389, 807

So, a little math tells us that Mr. Romney's victory (at least from an ad-buy spend) cost him $19.94 per vote. Mr. Gingrich was better at the economics of cost per vote with him spending $6.38 per vote, but alas, he came in second.

A couple of other data points for your consideration.   In the state of Florida, there are about 11 million registered voters in a state with a population of about 19 million. So, about 58% of the population in Florida are registered voters and this is understandable given the demographics which consider a higher median age that most other states. Lots of retirees there as we all know. In Florida, there are, according to the Florida Division of Elections, about 4 million registered Republicans. So, in last night's primary, about 41% of the registered Republicans (assuming all 1.6m who voted were Republicans) participated in the vote.

This means that the total ad buy for just Romney and Gingrich accounted for 1.6 million votes, which effectively cost the campaigns and their SuperPacs $11.43 per vote.   Okay, just a little more math. According to this article in The Daily Beast, a staggering 92% of the ads were considered "negative ads". In other words, over $17 million dollars was spent to decry another candidate and tell the good people of Florida why NOT to vote for the other guy.

Also, noted in the Daily Beast article, was a citation that the McCain campaign of 2008 spent $11 million on his entire primary campaign. Romney spent 36% more on winning just the state of Florida that McCain did in his entire 2008 primary campaign.

So, is this what it takes to win? Sadly, it seems so. Since 2008, we've seen spending on political campaigns exponentially increase thanks to the odious decision from the Supreme Court in Citizens United, which basically said money equals speech and that contributions could be made in an unlimited and undisclosed fashion. Romney is a wealthy man, and last time around put about $40 million of his own money into a failed campaign in 2008. He doesn't need to do that anymore. No candidate does. If a corporation, a union, a billionaire Saudi prince, Chinese businessman, or just about anyone else wants to, they can put as much money toward a particular candidate that they want. A billionaire casino magnate named Sheldon Adelson has pumped $15 million into Newt Gingrich's SuperPac. Really, anyone who wants to can put this money towards their candidate of choice and likely will assuming they will reap a positive return should their candidate win. So, we've come to this. Our candidates are now commodities like so much pork belly or coffee or gold, to be invested in by monied interests who are assuming that the payoff will be large.

We have of course had money and influence in politics as long as we've had politics, but this has gotten ridiculous. The average voter, whom usually doesn't have millions to contribute to a candidate, is often lost as to who support because they are inundated with political messages crafted and paid for by the influential that are slick, Madison Avenue quality ads. These ads attempt to convince the voter that the other guy is a pig and that the "safe" vote is for their guy. They attempt to wrap their candidate in a veil of super patriotism and intelligence, and contrast their opponents in a light that would make one think they aren't running against another American, they are running against some monster who will come and eat your children during the night. And these are just the candidates of the same parties who one would think might agree on most things. I shudder to see what the general election is going to look like.

There are as Mr. Gringrich says, 46 states to go in the GOP primary contest. Gingrich has said he's in it to the end. If so, look for more of the same and millions upon millions of dollars being spent calling each other names. I wish, going forward on all the remaining ballots, we could vote for a candidate named "Nobody". At least that candidate wouldn't be spending millions of dollars on negative ads and calling the others names. Unfortunately, thanks to Citizens United, I think this is only the beginning of a very, very ugly election year.

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

Mitt's Problem is Our Problem

2012-01-14T11:08:00.000-06:00

Click on the title page of this post and you'll be directed to a great article by RJ Eskow about Mr. Romney's current problems with his image and why even the most full-throated "free-enterprise" conservatives such as Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are spouting invective against Mr. Romney like an Occupy Wall Street protester. I can't do the article justice by repeating here so I highly recommend you read it, then come back and read my thoughts on the matter.

Mr. Romney's troubles are as Mr. Eskow suggests the end result of well intended government policy to foster investment and "job creation". As the article describes, Bain Capital came to life after regulations were eased to facilitate what was hoped to be a spark of investment in companies, products and services and ultimately jobs. Of course, wealth or the accumulation of wealth is like water in that it finds the path of least resistance. Why build wealth through production or through work that results in production when one can hire some very intelligent analysts and take advantage of the laws and regulation to make your money without all that pesky labor and effort beforehand?

So, here we go. People have used a system intended for one thing and manipulated it for another. Surprise, surprise! Mr. Romney and his colleagues at Bain didn't do anything illegal. No, quite the contrary, they scrupulously followed policy, law and regulations and made hundreds of millions of dollars for their investors and themselves as a result.    It seems that this is a story that repeats itself over and over again. A well intended action generates unintended consequences, and after it is done enough, no one really pays attention to it except to jump on the bandwagon and attempt to achieve similar results.

This is human nature. Having wealth provides a level of security that our base instincts want. In the early 1940's, a psychologist named Abraham Maslow published a paper titled "A Theory of Human Motivation" which describes a basic level of requirements (Hierarchy of Needs) for a human to eventually become as Maslow perceives, "self-actualized". At the base levels of the hierarchy are core requirements such as physiological needs like breathing, water, food, etc.. Just above this level is "Safety", which involves security. One of the ways to be "secure" as we have learned over history is to accumulate wealth or its cousin, power. Obtaining wealth lets one live in a safer place, eat better food, get good medical care when you are sick, influence people to do what you want them to do, and many other things.

OK, as a result, we are all kind of wired to find a way to be secure for ourselves and our families. In our society, that generally means having enough money to see those desires realized. If getting some wealth makes one secure, then having a lot of wealth makes one very secure right? Well, sometimes. Nonetheless, we'd all like a little more money. We have many ways of doing this. We work at our jobs, we go to school to get smarter so we get better jobs. We save, and back to the relevant part of this article, we invest. Some of us do this professionally and become very good at it. Some of us do it on the guidance of others who trade and invest for us or we buy into instruments like mutual funds, bonds, real estate, etc. hoping that our money invested will return more than we put in.   So, an emergence of people like Mitt Romney and all those who came before or after him have established an industry that focuses on making wealth through the manipulation of money.

Much of this activity is good. Investment does allow people to create and establish businesses that hire people and produce many useful things such as the computer I am using to write this article. This is good and proper, and as a result many people are made a little richer and a little more secure.

The problem with Mr. Romney's private sector industry of choice however is the other side of the coin. It is the side of the coin that makes money not by producing things, rather by re-organizing them. Sometimes this is needed as companies become inefficient, poorly managed and are headed for dissolution. Companies such as Bain Capital can provide help to save these businesses. Staples is an example of where this worked. Other companies, despite well intended efforts to save them, didn't make it. That's the way the world works. Some succeed, some fail. Even that is not the problem. The problem is when companies such as Bain Capital intentionally strip a company of assets or reduce its cost basis to the point of where the business cannot function solely for the purpose of making profits for Bain's investors. This is known as 'destructive capitalism', or as Mr. Perry has so loudly described 'Vulture Capitalism".   Companies are stripped bare, people are laid off, buildings, assets and other items of value are sold off and the investment company (e.g. Bain Capital) walks away with a tidy profit and return for itself and its investors.

Mr. Romney is an intelligent man. He and his partners knew full well that they could make themselves and their investors very wealthy by taking advantage of policies and regulations that would allow them to leverage destructive capitalism fully. They receive through the tax code a break on their investment returns because capital gains are only taxed at 15% where as the people's incomes who work at the companies Bain

I have no problem with a businessperson being President if he or she have a track record of actually producing something that involves the entire business cycle of investment, creation, production, consumption, etc. That way you'll know they at least are exposed to the lives of the majority of the people in the country and might have some way to relate. We don't need aristocrats and patricians who have no conception of what it is like not being able to make the rent, or to make a decision on buying food instead of medicine.   Mr. Romney is out of touch with the majority of the people in this country, and it stands to reason that someone who understands the issues of the majority of the people in this country might have a better chance of helping those who need it most. Those people are not the ones Mr. Romney worked with at Bain Capital.

At the end of the day, this circumstance Mr. Romney finds himself in can be traced back to who we elect to represent us either in Congress or the White House. The environment that Mr. Romney enriched himself in was put in place by legislators. If you like that kind of public policy fine, then Romney is your guy because he'll repeat it over and over again if he can. If you think it makes sense to promote wealth through the production of things versus the manipulation of tax codes, then someone else is probably your candidate. Remember, we made this.

Now, Mr. Perry, Mr. Gingrich and anyone else attacking Romney (you too Mr. President) need to look in the mirror because I'm sure if there were any other way to take a shot at Romney they would be using it. But, there's not (except for the Mormon thing and I think that's a non-issue personally) so this is what they have. Don't think they are purists as much as opportunists. Mr. Romney is the front-runner, so his experience and record will be called into question as it should. But, the people that are lobbing hand grenades at him over his business experience have their own problems. I'm talking to you Newt.

I say once again that this situation is why elections are important and we need to pay attention to who we send to Washington to do our work for us.   Romney's wealth is there because we put it there. Let's do a better job of selecting people we send to write our laws and lead our nation, and perhaps, we can obtain that level of security that Maslow describes by doing something that actually results in a building, a road, a computer, a car, or other item we will actually use.

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

2012 Here We Come

2012-01-01T09:09:00.001-06:00

Well, OK, maybe just to December 21st then if you are a Mayan. If you, like me are happy to see 2011 in your rear view mirror, then welcome. I am happy to see that sorry year fade into oblivion. 2012 is promising for us. There are many exciting opportunities for us to seize and experience (the aforementioned Mayan prediction excepted of course). Politically, we have an election year and all the wonderful nonsense that brings forward to us. What are your predictions? Who will the GOP finally decide upon to compete with President Obama? Will the Republicans beat the President and retake the White House? Will Congress ever get their approval above 15%? What will be the single biggest case decided by the Supreme Court this term? Let's play Predict The Outcome:

1. Presidential Politics: - We are in full swing in terms of primary season. The Iowa Caucuses are this coming Tuesday for the GOP. Of course, the President is sailing to renomination by the Democrats with no challengers in the primaries. I think that is a mistake as we need someone to challenge President Obama if for nothing more to remind him he is a Democrat. (Mr. President, I'm fairly peeved with you about signing the indefinite detention deal. Bad form!). So leaving the Democrats for a minute, let's look at the current polling for the GOP field:

Our Candidate slate is as follows:

Michelle Bachmann - Congresswoman from Minnesota and Tea Party star (Michelle, finally, after putting that harpy from Wassilla on the shelf has risen to be the single female candidate in the race this year. Suck it, Sarah!)

Newt Gingrich - Former Speaker of the House, Historian, Lobbyist, etc (finally, has learned his lesson from his serial philandering and will bring his uncanny ability to alienate everyone he speaks with to the White House, which will most certainly improve the climate in the Beltway)

Mitt Romney - former Massachusetts Governor and Business man (Saved the Olympics, can honestly save us too! Don't pay any attention to that guy who was governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s, who passed a health care plan that closely resembles "ObamaCare". Mitt has no idea who that guy was. Oh, yeah, and Corporations are People too!)

Ron Paul - Congressman from Texas, Libertarian, favorite of the anti-war, pro-pot, conservatives in the GOP (all two of them). Seriously, Paul does pull in a lot of independents.

Rick Santorum - Former Senator from Pennsylvania (spends way too much time worrying about saving traditional marriage)

John Huntsman - Former Utah Governor, scion of a wealthy industrial power (Huntsman chemicals), former Ambassador to China (speaks fluent Mandarin). (Why is this guy not winning? Oh, yeah right, he's somewhat of a moderate and used to work for that Muslim Kenyan poser in the White House when he was the Ambassador to those Reds in China).

Buddy Roemer - Former Governor of Colorado (Buddy who?)

Rick Perry - Governor of Texas (Didn't we learn anything the last time?)

Honorable mention - Herman Cain, the wonderful, massive car crash of a campaign that was Herman Cain. Oh Herman, how we miss you.

Well, the punditry community thinks this is Romney's to lose and dammit, he can lose with the best of them! Seriously though, It seems like Romney is holding enough of the base that he can weather the primaries and come out with the nomination. His organization is strong, he has a lot of money, he's not afraid of going negative (sorry Newt), and he really, really wants the gig. I'm not convinced the others in the race are really there to win. Gingrich benefits from the celebrity in that he sells more books, gets more speaking engagements, who knows, maybe a VP slot? Huntsman is I think doing a dress rehearsal for 2016, though he needs more face time (He's the guy in all the debates standing on the far, far end of the stage) and needs strong showing in New Hampshire to stay somewhat relevant. Look for him for a potential VP spot or a cabinet post if the GOP somehow wins. Who knows, maybe Obama appoints him again to a spot in the administration should he win reelection. Bachmann had her moment in the sun, winning the Ames straw poll in Iowa. She was flavor of the month for a while, but has been relegated to the back of the GOP primary bus along with Huntsman and Perry. Speaking of Governor Perry; Have you ever seen anyone fall so quickly? All it took was two debate performances for him to move from putative nominee to the bottom of the stack. Talking about someone who is so not ready for the national stage. He's messed this up so badly I don't think anyone would seriously consider him for a VP slot. As to Mr. Paul, he is shaking things up nicely in GOP land. He is competing seriously in Iowa, and has said he may not support any GOP nominee should he not win the nomination. Some folks think he might splinter off and run as an Independent in the general. He has enough support to cause some damage to the GOP in my view. I think he pulls more from the GOP leaning independents than from the Democratic leaning independents. Rick Santorum is surging well in Iowa right now thanks to a lot of elbow grease and commitment from him and his campaign. Make no mistake, this guy is a tough campaigner and smart, except he can't get off the social wedge issues. As long as he is shouting at the rooftops about "gays in the military" (you too Mr. Perry), saving traditional marriage, etc., he will not pull any independents in the general, so, I think he is a one trick, socially conservative candidate who might do well in Iowa and some of the southern primaries but that is about it.

So, here is my predictions for the GOP Nomination for 2012.

GOP Primary:

Romney is the nominee

Romney picks a southern state appealing VP candidate to counter the backlash to his Mormonism. Candidates include; Haley Barbour former Governor of Mississippi, Marco Rubio (senator from Florida), Susana Martinez (governor of New Mexico). I think the idea of picking someone to from Congress is a non-starter, given the abysmal rating Congressional leaders have right now.

General Election:

Obama wins a squeaker with just over the 270 electoral votes required to retain his job.

What are your thoughts on the 2012 Presidential sweepstakes?

regards,

Dennis

Goodbye 2011 and Looking forward to 2012

2011-12-31T09:44:00.000-06:00

Well, it's been quite a year. I've not posted as much as usual due to work this past year. I'm hopeful that 2012 brings a bit more balance to the work-life thing. I enjoy posting and plan on being quite active in the coming year. As this is generally a political blog, and 2012 is an election year, there should be much to write about and discuss.

I'll have a post in a few days on my "year in review" as there have been many things in the political arena worth remembering and reflecting upon.

Until then, I wish everyone a terrific New Year's holiday and I look forward to talking to you all very soon.

regards,
Dennis

Hiatus

2011-05-24T16:12:00.002-05:00

Due to work related issues. I'm on hiatus from blogging. I'll resume active posting in the 3rd Quarter of this year.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks

2010-11-25T10:25:00.000-06:00

With perhaps the exception of Meleagris gallopavo (Turkeys), most of us in this country have much to be grateful for. Most of us will have time with our friends and loved ones today. Most will be in an environment of friendship and affection. Most will eat well, if not too much. Most of us will go to sleep knowing we'll wake up the next day with pretty much the same blessings as we had when we went to sleep.

We should all be thankful for this remarkable set of circumstances that we often take for granted. I wonder some times at my good fortune to live as I do.  For whatever the cause, I'm grateful.

As I was thinking about writing my Thanksgiving article I realized that in the last 30 years that I have been working, I have not been required to work on Thanksgiving Day. The reason this came to me is because my son Jack is currently on duty in the Navy in Hawaii. His ship, the USS Lake Erie, just returned from a cruise in the South Pacific and when I spoke with him last night he was returning to his duty station which would having him working on Thanksgiving Day. Last year he was in Boot Camp on Thanksgiving but was able to spend it with a "host family" in Great Lakes.

Anyway, it occurs to me that while I've had the great fortune to be able to over eat, watch football, drink coffee, read the paper, talk to my family and friends, nap, and generally do absolutely nothing, that there is a large segment of our nation who do not have that luxury. The obvious ones are easy to spot. We have soldiers on duty, some in combat situations right now as I write. We have medical professionals, whether doctors, nurses and administrative personnel staffing our hospitals to care for the sick. We have police, fire-service personnel and other essential service providers working today. We also have people working at our gas stations to help us get to our Thanksgiving turkey. We have people working at the grocery store so if we forgot the cranberry sauce we can run out and grab some. We have airline pilots, flight attendants, bus drivers, train conductors, gate agents, TSA personnel who are all on duty Today.

We have thousands of people working today that will not be able to be with their families today because someone has to work. They are the ones who got the short straw this year.

They are the ones I'm thanking first for my day of leisure.

I hope you all have a wonder Thanksgiving. Be Safe all.

regards,
Dennis

I Want It NOW! And with Zero Interest and Payments for 6 Months!

2010-11-15T08:23:00.001-06:00

Remember this cartoon? Two vultures, who as carrion eaters usually wait for something to die before eating. One obviously has decided enough is enough and he's going to kill something versus waiting for it.

I think our political environment has become much like this cartoon. We have become so impatient and disgusted with the status quo that we want to have things fixed overnight. It's not an unreasonable feeling. When something is going poorly we all want to correct or change it so it moves in the proper direction. Certainly, our economy can stand to get much better more quickly can't it? We'd all love the unemployment rate to go down tomorrow and the market to shoot back up to more than 14,000 on the Dow.   That would be terrific wouldn't it? Yes it would. But, in our haste to correct what we believe to be broken, we sometimes over look that age-old maxim "Good things come to those that wait".   We make sacrifices for expediency sake. We've heard over and over, "Don't make perfect the enemy of good" which implies that get it just good enough and it will be OK. That works some times. We know it doesn't in others.

We've seen an acceleration of dissatisfaction among our electorate for some time. Since the early '90's, with the ability to put snap-polls in place, and the advent of cable news with a 24 hour cycle that must be filled, we are constantly barraged with news of this poll or that. In general, we respond to polls viscerally, that is, with emotion versus thought and reason. Usually, poll respondents do not send in written answers, which would be the "saucer that cools the coffee" in that it would allow for the respondent to reflect and think before answering. No, we do it on the Internet with a snap-poll, or over the phone with a young and eager poll taker throwing questions at us willy-nilly until we get done, hang up and wonder what in the hell we just responded to.

We are a people of speed. We like things now. I remember becoming impatient waiting in the drive through at Starbucks the other day because it was taking me too damn long to get my uber-caffineated beverage that would make me think faster. The reality was it took about 5 minutes.    Impatience is our ethos. We must be satisfied quickly. Whether it's consuming more bandwidth so we can download Halo faster, or it's a microwave pizza that only takes 3 minutes to make so you can have supper, our life has become one quickly done event after another. Compare and contrast the taste of the 3-minute pizza with a leisurely meal at an Italian restaurant where the food was cooked to order and you didn't have to jump up and immediately do something else after having the last bite. I was recently on a plane ride (too slow of course) to San Francisco last week and as usual thumbing through the Skymall catalog and came across an ad for book summaries. Now this service summarizes the best of the business books and presents them in significantly shortened formats for the "busy executive". This "Readers Digest Condensed Books" version of the business tomes got me thinking about life in general. We have somehow moved away from appreciating the totality of the book, or movie, or song, or painting, or whatever to sound-bites, portions (of course the most relevant ones), you-tube clips, and computer wallpaper that can instantly provide you with the image of the Mona Lisa. Why go to a museum when you can get a digitized version for your computer? Now don't get me wrong, providing digitized versions of the old masters to people who cannot afford to go to the museum in Paris (Louvre) or acquire the painting outright is terrific. It exposes art to people who might otherwise not know of its existence. But tell me, do you appreciate it more if you physically see it or if it is rendered via pixelated spots on a computer screen?

I'm meandering on this post purposefully. It's taking me time to get to the points I want to make, so if you will stay with me (have patience), I'll eventually get to where I want to go.

I think we have lost sight of one of the good gifts that being alive brings. The gift I refer to is anticipation. When I was a kid, I was moderately poor. We had food, clothes, shelter and parents who loved us, but my brother and I were not sated with instant gratification on those things we wanted. Certainly as I look back, the gifts I got that I appreciated the most were the ones I waited for. I got a bicycle when I was ten that I had wanted for well over a year. My Dad and I made an agreement that I would work for it and he'd help, but he would not get it for me when I wanted it and I had to wait until I had saved the requisite amount of money to get it.   For some reason, that bike meant more to me than all the other ones I had before or since. It was worth the wait. The anticipation of thinking about that bike was terrific, and when I was finally, with my Dad's help able to buy it, I was ecstatic.

Today, as a people (me included, as evidenced by the aforementioned Starbuck's incident) have become an impatient people. We have become a people who expect immediate gratification. Don't have enough money to buy the flat screen? No, problem, we'll put it on credit. Stores and dealers are most willing to allow you to buy on credit. They will even allow you to defer payments, no money down, low interest rates all so you can have it now! It is convenient, it's easy (some times too easy), it's gratifying, and like Chinese food, will leave you hungry for more in about an hour. Our thirst for getting the stuff we want now has driven our economy from a production oriented economy to a consumption oriented economy. This has all occurred in the last 60 or so years. Understandably, we want things. It makes us feel good when we get them. If we can get them faster, then that's OK too. Or is it? Debt is a tool, that can be leveraged for good things if managed properly.   If it is not managed properly, then it can quickly become a bad thing.   Mounting debt is a cancer that can demolish a life-time of good work in a short period of time.   Most of us carry as significant amount of debt in the form of a mortgage. I have one, and most people who "own" their home also carry a mortgage. It's the way we have spurred economic growth for many decades. It's also the principal reason the economy melted down in 2008. The mortgage crisis was precipitated by two primary actions: 1. The efforts by Congress to spur home-ownership by passage in 1977 of the Community Reinvestment Act, which legislated protections against discrimination in housing by requiring lending institutions who received FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) insurance that they could not discriminate on who they were lending money too., and 2. The creation of a financial instrument called a Credit Default Swap (CDS) which, while not tied directly to mortgages, were basically a method of trading risk that allowed for mortgage backed securities along with other financial instruments to essentially be insured against loss thereby driving up the ability of the instruments to be sold over and over and over again with little regard to the underlying assets that supported this scheme. It is kind of like that movie "The Producers", where the producers sell 100% interest over and over again in a film to get rich, hoping that the movie fails which would absolve them of any responsibility to pay the investors. When the movie succeeded however, they were responsible for paying back percentages of the profits to the investors which got them in trouble. When the CDS market fell, the insurance companies who insured the instruments had to pony up. They couldn't, because they too had invested in the CDS market, which, as we all know the story of AIG, was a house of cards, meaning they were overleveraged and could not pay. As a result, loans were called in, forclosures heated up, and we now have a busted housing - bubble.

O.k., so credit if allowed to run amok can do terrible things to most of us and great things for a few of us. If you are US Bancorp, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, etc. then it works well for you because all of us "hungry for having it now" people will gladly not read the fine print on our credit card applications and get the platinum card because it has a higher credit limit so we can by the LG flat screen instead of the off-brand or waiting on the purchase altogether. Then, as Claude Rains in Casablanca, we are "Shocked!" to find the minimum payment carries more than 30% interest and if we miss a payment, oh, my, we get socked with even greater fees. Now, the banks love this because credit card fees are the single most profitable revenue stream a bank has. Interest rates on Credit Cards are more than 25-30% greater than the prime lending rate that banks charge each other for loans. So, one dollar in credit extended to you or I in the form of a credit card transaction, that is not paid for within 30 days, is equal to one dollar and thirty cents on day 31. There used to be restrictions against the amount of interest paid on credit and those restrictions were called usury laws. The reason they were in place is because people could find themselves in so much hock to the creditors that they would have to go bankrupt. Usury laws were a firewall that restricted credit lenders from charging the clients so much they would never, ever pay the principal on the loan down and therefore would always be a client. In the 1980's the usury laws were effectively eliminated by Congress in order to stimulate the economy. We were after all a consumer oriented society and people should be able to manage their own money and finances. It's a personal responsibility thing you know. Well, as could be imagined, if there is an opportunity somewhere to make money someone will figure out how to do it. Here come the banks, the stores, the off bank money lenders (pay-day loans, etc) offering a service. All you have to do is sign up. We'll put the contract in 3 point type so you'll need the Hubble Telescope to read it, but don't worry, just pay your bill on time and nothing bad will happen. We've seen the fruits of this. What is more disheartening, is that it typically affects the people who can least afford it. The lower-income people, not just the poor, but middle class as well are constantly hammered with "you have to get the new stuff" if you have value, are cajoled by Madison Avenue into making a choice that they probably shouldn't make. Put it on credit. Some can manage it. Some cannot. The most insidious of these institutions are the Pay Day Lenders, some of which charge as much as 150% interest on short-term "bridge" loans that poor and lower income use to make their rent or mortgage payments while waiting on their paychecks.

Now of course, no one is holding a gun to any one's head and making them by the big screen TV when they can't afford it. Most of us who are older than 50 know what it is like to wait until we can afford to buy it. It is a lesson handed down from our parents who many of which lived through the Depression and definitely had to "wait" on those good things to come. However, this is not an issue that can be simply laid at the feet of those who purchase on credit. There are predatory institutions focused on nothing more than profit who will gladly allow their "clients" the easiest path they can take to become addicted to "getting the new stuff". They are as bad as the drug dealers. Offer a little for free or no-interest, get them hooked, then jack up the price. Caveat Emptor indeed.

Carry this ethos forward to our political environment and you find the same behavior just at a larger scale. The elections of 2010 told us nothing if not that we are impatient. We, as a nation overwhelmingly elected a young, charismatic, optimistic (Yes We Can) man as president in 2008 and have just recently repudiated him and his policies through sweeping the Republicans back into office in 2010, to take over the House of Representatives. Now, was this election because the Republicans have better ideas and methods and practices that since the election of 2008 they have shared with us that are better ways to get what we want? No, they have done absolutely nothing but obstruct for the past 2 years. It is not better ideas that carried the day. It is however that the things Obama promised he hasn't delivered in the less than 2 years he has been in office. We want good health care. We want to be secure. We want jobs. We want financial stewardship that won't drive our grand-children to the poor-house and dammit! We Want It Now!

The rise of the Tea Party is a collective example of our impatience as a country. Forget how long it took to get our financial house in the mess it is in. That socialist Obama is making it worse. He promised! Jobs would come in by the millions when we passed the stimulus package. They haven't! Throw the bums out. We Want it Now! The anger and demand for instant gratification has accelerated to the point where we are losing sight of reasonableness and rational thought. Of course, if you don't have a job and haven't been able to get one, then you definitely have a beef. It is understandable to be impatient in this context. I certainly understand the desire to try something new. I think the desire, while correct in thought, is an error in practice. Our country has been severely wounded. We have to treat this like someone going through re-hab. If one has major surgery such as a knee or hip replacement, then there is a long time of rehabilitation and therapy before the patient can run or dance again. Same with our economic situation. We will be in for a long haul, and we must prepare for it and part of that preparation must be learning to be patient. Pay down your debt where you can. Save for the things you want and pay cash. Give up something you want but do not need. Demand the same from your politicians. Demand they give up their pet projects or earmarks but focus on what must be done now. Beware the politician who doesn't give a damn about the deficit when his party is spending the money, only to decry the deficit when the other party is in power. They are wolves in sheep's clothing.    It is vitally important that we set a course for remediation of our collective habits. Remember, it is easy to blame someone else for our own problems. Blaming Washington is easy but we must remember our government is a product of our behavior and desire. We get what we pay for and what we want, especially when we want it now.

Tell me what you think,

Dennis

Here We Go Again

2010-11-04T11:25:00.000-05:00

So, one of the by-products of the Republican gains in the Senate and House (and Governships which will affect re-districting), is the increased level of acrimony that will occur and the associated name calling that goes with it between the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats will accuse the Republicans of being the lackey's for the rich and being mean and spiteful to the poor. The Republicans will accuse the Democrats of being lackey's for the labor unions and trying start class warfare by going after the wealth. We'll throw terms like Liberal and Conservative around with impunity. It will get ugly before it gets better.

So to provide some perspective on the name calling that will come down, I've stepped into the Way-back machine and traveled all the way back to 2005 to get this article I wrote then to try and describe the terms Liberal and Conservative in a context greater than the typical political definition. Like most terms in the English Language, there are multiple meanings to many different words and indeed, there are multiple definitions of Liberal and Conservative that actually add color to the terms and the definitions and can help us realize that we are all Liberal and Conservative in some respect. So, the point of this post is to point out that we are closer together than we think and if we just talk about this in a broader context, perhaps we can avoid some of the mud wrestling that seems to be coming given the results of the election. So, here's the rerun, please review and tell me what you think.

Liberal and Conservative - Let's Define the Terms

Political hegemony aside, let's talk about the definitions of the terms Conservative and Liberal. We (the populace at large, meaning you and me) are assaulted daily by relative use of these terms. Are you a Conservative or a Liberal? Politically, these terms are loaded with presumption and mis-direction. From each side of the political spectrum the terms mean different things. I think it is a appropriate to talk about the words from an objective point of view and then we can discuss the relativism on the meanings that pervades our political process.

First, a recitation from the dictionary. For this, I'm citing my antiquated volume from 1975, The Random House College Dictionary, revised edition, unabridged version published by Random House, Inc. ISBN- 0-394-43600-8 thumb-indexed edition.

Conservative: adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. and to resist change. 2. cautious; moderate: a conservative estimate. 3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding showiness: a suit of conservative cut. 4. (cap.) of or pertaining to the Conservative party. 5. of or pertaining to political conservatism. 6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. 7. of or pertaining to Conservative Judaism or Conservative Jews. - n 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc. 9. a member of a conservative political party. 10. a preservative.

Now, let's see what Random house says about the term Liberal:

Liberal: adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in religious political affairs. 2 (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. of or pertaining to representational forms of government that aristocracy and monarchies 4. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 5. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 6. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression. 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts. 10. given freely or abundantly. 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal. 12. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. - n. 13. a person of liberal principles or views. 14. (often cap.) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Ok, now we've got the academic definitions out of the way, which definition would you apply to yourself? Interestingly enough, if you are a member of the National Rifle Association, you would have to assume the "Liberal" label for your beliefs regarding the individual freedom as defined in the Liberal definition above. But we know from our current circumstances that most people who are advocates for unrestricted gun ownership align with the Conservatives which in most people's eyes are represented within the Republican party. I'm an avowed and confirmed Liberal, but the clothes I wear are extremely conservative in cut and description. The point of this is that we make the words fit the definitions we want. Relativism abounds with these words, as we all have a tendency of defining the terms in varying their meaning to meet our requirements or circumstances.

Why then, do we have these strong, visceral responses to the terms? Politicians today will run as fast as they can away from the term Liberal. The meaning of the word has become synonymous with anti-god, gay loving, tree-hugging pussies that hate America and all she stands for. During the recent presidential election, Senator John Kerry refused to be "labeled" a Liberal because he knew that if he aligned himself with the term it would cost him votes. Since the Reagan Revolution in the early 1980's, Conservative has become closely associated with the iconic "John Wayne" type of American. This person is god-fearing, fair, individualistic, self-made, and all around righteous. Compound this with the influence of fundamentalist Christianity, and Conservative basically means that you are part of the community of the blessed. You believe in God and that He has chosen America as his beacon for the rest of the world. Conservative as a term used to be scorned not so long ago, as it was associated with those out of touch, out of step, older generations of people who hated that "hippie music", and all that "free love" that was pervasive in the 1960's.

Attributed (although probably falsely) to Winston Churchill, this phrase has another view of portraying the differences in the terms: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." The point of this is that when we are young, we are idealistic, open-minded and tolerant of other people, but when we get wiser and older, we become more convinced of our views and less tolerant of others.
I believe we all have liberal and conservative traits that we carry. I'm very conservative when it comes to what my 14 year old daughter watches on TV or listens to on the radio. This music today. Jeez! I'm pretty liberal though when she asks me to explain matters of religion. Most of us probably have similar characteristics.
Politically, the terms are very relative when applied to the entire world. Would you consider the former Soviet Union "Liberal" or "Conservative"? Characteristics of the U.S.S.R. included an atheistic credo disavowing religion. Afghanistan, under the Taliban, by contrast was a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy whose legal system was a particularly conservative interpretation of the Koran. The former U.S.S.R. was a communist country, led by a few well-heeled dictators whose enforced autocracy was incredibly restrictive. Both examples in my view are an example of an extreme form of conservatism. Liberal countries are generally more closely associated with democracies. England, France, the United States, Australia, Canada, Spain, Italy, Japan, etc. etc. could be classified as Liberal because of their general tolerance for other points of view and for their relatively progressive political approaches. We, as a society hold dear the term Liberty and indeed, have fought wars to attempt to bring it to those that are held hostage by a dictator (see recent adventure in Iraq).

Bring the terms back to America and we have to ask ourselves a few questions. What does it mean to be conservative or liberal? If you go by the strict definition supplied above (I, by the way have absolutely no idea whether or not the publishers are liberal or conservative) then the term conservative means resistant to change. If one agrees with that, then you conservatives by all means should believe we should still have segregated schools, women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property, and we should still be burning witches in the public square. I would contend that we have no true conservatives. I think instead, we have different degrees of liberalism. No one wants to go back to the days of Dred Scott or Jim Crow. We like our scientific progress. Anyone want to give up their cell-phone or their microwave?

Conservatism and Liberalism alike have been polluted by special interests. The Liberals are co-opted by PETA and the Sierra Club, the Conservatives by the Moral Majority and John Birch society. I think very few people would align themselves with these groups. So, why do we get so worked up when someone calls someone else a Liberal, or Conservative? I think these terms have been Madison Avenued by a small group of people to really confuse and irritate the rest of us. Let's stop this. If you want to be conservative on some things fine, just recognize the word means that you don't want things to change. If you want to be liberal on some things fine, just recognize that the word means you are open and tolerant of other ideas and opinions (including conservatives, so stop whining).

Tell me what you think,

Best Regards,

Dennis

America Sees Red

2010-11-03T08:59:00.000-05:00

Well, it's all over except a few races so tight we'll need to see the final returns. But, the message is clear. America has decided it needs a change of direction and has cast its collective lot with the Republicans. The Republicans scored a huge victory in the House of Representatives, closed the gap considerably in the Senate and had big wins in the Statehouse races winning almost all the contested governorships. So, we have had enough of Obama and his side? Evidently. It seems as I watch these elections over the years we as a people get more and more impatient. In less than two years, the majority that swept Obama and his party into complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government have decided to go the other way. There are of course many reasons for this and many of them are legitimate. This post won't go into a detailed loss analysis as I'm too busy, tired and hung-over to do it right now. Hung-over not from a celebratory stand-point but from one of those depression induced hangovers. I'm literally a sore loser this morning.

Anyway, it is interesting to see how fast the Americans have decided to go toward the new Bright Shiny Object. The Tea Party energy was real, it was angry and it was effective in accomplishing the task of taking legislative power away from the Democrats. It's not like they did anything with it to begin with, but it has been wrenched from their hands nonetheless. Mr. Boehner is the likely Speaker of the House now, unless he receives a challenge from someone in the Tea Party faction (Michelle Bachmann perhaps?) who wants to wield the big hammer. We'll see what they propose. So far, at least since 2006, the Republican House leadership under Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor have been woefully short on substance and incredibly prolific on rhetoric. It's now time for them to do something useful.

My concern is this. They will focus their efforts on repeal and moving backward. We've spent two years getting a health care bill that actually helps people. The Republicans have vowed repeal. We've spent significant political capital and time on attempting to reform Wall Street and support small business through a Jobs Aid bill and Financial Reform. The Republicans blocked the small business bill and have vowed to repeal the Financial Reform bill. Okay, let's say for some reason they accomplish this. What happens? Let's revert back to exactly where we were on January 19, 2009 by eliminating all the legislation that has been passed. Let's extend the tax cuts before they expire at the end of this year.

Now, what has been done? Nothing helpful I can assure you. The market will still be at 7-8k on the Dow. Unemployment would be significantly worse than it is (analysis from various sources say 15% or higher) and we'd have a health care system still denying coverage, rescinding coverage and raising rates 3 times the rate of inflation.

Let's do all that the Republicans have suggested and I still don't know what they are for. They have offered up nothing as an alternative to legislation that has been passed. Nothing. So, Mr. Boehner, governing is much more than saying no. Your party now must deal with issues that still face this country: depressed economic growth, high unemployment, continued foreclosures, lack of capital in the markets. How are you going to fix this?

It's time for you (Republicans) to celebrate. You've won your victory and I must say congratulations. However, when the new Congress begins, the celebration has to stop and the work must begin. You need to explain what you will do, when it will occur and what the benefit of your efforts will be to the country and those who voted you in. To do otherwise would be at your peril. The American people are nothing if not impatient. You have by my calculations less than 2 years to get it right or face the fate of your opponents from your recent victory.

Tell me what you think, (but not too loudly as I have a headache)

Regards,
Dennis

Go Vote!

2010-10-29T08:22:00.000-05:00

OK citizens, time to do your civic duty and go vote. Don't tell me you don't have time. I just got back from early voting and the lines are short, the process fast and you can get it done and know you've done what you should have to keep our grand experiment moving forward.

I don't care who you vote for (well, I do, but this post is non-partisan). Vote for your own self interest. Vote for an issue that is important to you. Vote because you believe in the notion that governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Just vote.

The title of this post contains a link to the League of Women Voter's site. This is one of the best sources of information on candidates that is objective and doesn't have political agendas associated with their information gathering on the candidates. They do an outstanding job of gathering available information on candidates' stances on issues and do so in a clear and objective manner that will inform versus incite.

It is extremely important to be informed on the issues as you prepare to go an vote. The issues that are important to you may not be as important to me, but that doesn't matter. It's important you understand where the candidate's point of view on your issues are versus what party they may be affiliated with. Get multiple sources of information on your prospective candidates. If you are conservative and generally listen to Fox News, get some opposing view points and consider them, then look for a neutral commentary on the issue from someone who is fairly non-partisan. If you are liberal and generally listen to MSNBC, do the same.

I've found for me, foreign press generally has fairly objective points of view when it comes to major issues (economy, health care, war, etc.) that provide some alternatives to the usual sources of information in this country. The Economist, The Financial Times, The Guardian, Agence' France, Al Jazeera, and other sources of information provide multiple perspectives to consider in order to shape an opinion.

So, that's my Public Service Announcement for sourcing information regarding issues. If that works for you great. If not, try some other method, but for goodness sake be informed and vote. It's your government and your democracy, and it's your responsibility.

I voted, so can you.

Tell me What You Think
regards,
Dennis

Sabotaging Democracy

2010-10-24T09:30:00.000-05:00

It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the general electorate has given up on the political process. The reason I feel this way is watching the crop of "Tea Party" candidates that have caught hold of the anger of the general populace on the economy. Now in most cases, this wouldn't be a bad thing. Sometimes it takes new blood and thinking to shake the general populace out of its complacency and send people they truly believe will do something good for the country to Washington to represent them.

However, the current crowd of Tea Party candidates are shockingly ridiculous in what they are saying and doing. From Sarah Palin, the Tea Party Beauty Queen to Carl Palodino, the candidate running for governor in New York, they are woefully too under qualified, under informed or just plain crazy to effectively handle the myriad of problems facing our country today. People like Karl Rove and Dick Armey, both whom front "grass roots" initiatives say they are speaking for the country. Well, they aren't They are speaking for special interests such as the Koch Brothers, Wall Street, and other corporate groups who we don't know because their donations do not have to be disclosed.

Consequently big money is sabotaging democracy. The general working person, regardless of conservative or liberal perspective is getting the shaft whether they know it or not. Sadly, most do not know it. In fact, most are so flagrantly oblivious to what is happening and who is running that they have by their ignorance endorsed the most inept group of people to be their representatives that we will likely ever see running for office.

What has our election process become if not a giant charade? 2008 was a period of incredible optimism and hope. We (the folks that supported Obama) felt that change was truly going to come to Washington. The people's work would be done. Our collective dream would be advanced and that we'd see the end of torture, illegal war, back-room deals, cynicism driving legislation and a general level of "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss". Alas, the inverse was true. Guantanamo is still opened. Don't Ask Don't Tell is still the Law of the Land. Afghanistan and Iraq are still shipping corpses home to be grieved over by their parents, siblings, loved ones and friends. Yes, I know, you'll tell me we've done some good work, and indeed we have. Health Care reform is a "Big F'ng Deal" like the Vice President said it was. However, it has come with a "Big F'ng Cost", and I don't mean the financial aspect of the legislation. The deal, to be struck was so elongated in process and full of sacrifices that it still lines the pockets of the insurance companies, introduces millions of new customers to the bloodsuckers through the mandate and finds a way to leave 10 million people uninsured. It's a start. I'd prefer the legislation exist than not, but what should have become a siren song of victory for this administration against an obstinate, obstructionist, bunch of Republicans hell bent on denying Obama even a tiny victory was a shadow of what it could have been. This has been the pattern for the last year and change. Obama and the Democrats will attempt to pass some legislation based on what people actually want (Jobs, Health Care, Financial Reform, Repeal of DADT), and the Republicans will filibuster, stall, prevaricate, scare, each of these initiatives so long and so loud that some people begin to actually believe the drivel they spout. "Obama is a Muslim!" "Obama is a Communist!" "Obama is Hitler!" "Obama is a Anti-Colonial Kenyan!" On and on, this utter bullshit gets thrown out over the well funded airways by people like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and the rest of that odious pack of jackals at Fox News.

So we see the response of the lemmings (the people) to this call to action. Beck says we have to "fight for our survival". "Buy Gold!, It's the only thing that will save you from the Marxists Socialists Fascist Muslims!"

As a result, the crowd that responds to this nonsense is joined by people actually concerned about taxes and spending and where the debt is going. I do not hold these people in contempt. They are seriously concerned about a major issue and if they have a problem with Obama and the Democrats approach to cleaning up the raw sewage left by the Bush Administration then fine, keep it coming. However, what I decry is they are lining up with the lunatics that would actually put people like Sarah Palin, Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, Carl Palodino, and the rest of these half-wits in office.

Look, some of the views that they spout make some sense. A fairer tax code is necessary. We need immigration reform that does secure our borders more effectively. However, even a broken clock (if it's analog) is right twice a day, and that doesn't excuse the utter crap coming out of their mouths that wants to repeal the 14th amendment, or doesn't know the 1st amendment has an establishment clause precluding the government from establishing a religion, or believes the civil rights act signed into law in 1965 "went too far". We don't need homophobes, self-professed ex-witches, mama-grizzlies, or any of this ilk. We don't need puppet masters like Dick Armey and Karl Rove getting millions of dollars in unknown sourced money that is funding alleged "grass roots people initiatives. We don't need Newt Gingrich trying to yet again bring more bullshit about Obama being some mysterious and sinister figure hiding under our beds just waiting to jump out and scare the hell out of us.

What we need are solutions. The Democrats are offering them up, badly, but offering them up none the less. The Republicans are doing nothing. The Tea-Party are shouting at they sky expecting the color to turn green or something. I really don't know what the hell they are for. I know what they are against, but please, someone get a bit more specific on "liberty and freedom" will ya?

Our Democracy has become a retail item on Meg Whitman's e-bay machine. Auctioned off to the highest bidder who will then sell little pieces of it back to the people who have nothing better to do than bid on what they should already have as a result of being born an American citizen.

Sigh,

Tell me what you think.

Dennis

A Couple of Items to Rant About

2010-08-13T08:42:00.001-05:00

On August 4, 2010 US Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Judge Walker a Republican appointee to the bench was systematic and methodical in his taking apart the "defense" of Proposition 8. The net-net of this decision is that couples are couples, whether gay or straight and denying one set of couples the right to marry is discriminatory. As Judge Walker says below in his conclusion summary:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.?

This is excellent news. Although the judge granted a stay of resuming same sex marriages for the time being, the decision is now one of the best arguments for challenges of same sex marriage bans across the other states in the United States. There are over 30 states with laws on the books banning same sex marriage. This decision, while it will most certainly be appealed, looks likely to withstand such an appeal and may be the final nail in the "anti-gay" marriage coffin. Let's hope so. It's shameful that the United States of America can't get united on this issue. We had a chance to lead the world on resolving and healing one more area of inequality and discrimination. Instead, we've pussy-footed around the issue and bleated about the "sanctity" of marriage. The lunatic fringe on the right has gone so far to say it will be the end of civilization if John and Steve can get married.

It's embarrassing that right now 10 nations across the world have legalized same sex marriage. For a listing of those countries, click here. Additionally over 20 have legalized "civil unions and domestic partnerships" that carry some level of recognition for same sex couples. The United States has legalized civil unions or same sex marriage in 6 states at this point in time. A poor showing of course. We have no national policy on this other than the odious Defense of Marriage Act that recognizes marriage as an act between a man and a woman.

Why are we so afraid to deal with this issue in a timely manner? It's evident, that state after state is eventually coming into the light and realizing this continued discrimination against gays and lesbians is just wrong. But, we are woefully slow. How can South Africa, whose recent history includes legalized apartheid be ahead of us on this issue?

We are an intelligent country by and large. We are also a compassionate country by and large. We also seem to be one of the most frightened countries out there. When heavily Roman Catholic countries such as Spain, Portugal, Argentina, etc can have the courage to discard the old cloth of bigotry on this matter what is stopping us? I simply don't get it.

Read Judge Walker's decision. It was brilliantly written and deserves to be read and discussed more.

TOPIC 2

The lunatic fringe on the Right has spun up a fake issue around whether or not a mosque/Islamic community center should be built close to "Ground Zero", or the site of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11. Newt Gingrich has gone so far to say that mosques are training grounds for terrorists and they shouldn't be built in the United States. That bastion of conservative intelligence Sarah Palin says "just build it somewhere else".

Jon Stewart's Daily show did a classic bit on this issue. For the link, click here. If you watch this you will see the absurdity of the whole problem. First of all, some news networks like Fox lead into the story by saying there is a desire to build a mosque a the site of Ground Zero. This is incorrect. The building to be used is at 45 Park place, where the Burlington Coat Factory once operated. Not "hallowed ground" unless you are in the garment business and your name is Burlington. The site is two blocks away from Ground Zero.   But, as usual, the loonies are bleating that this is an affront to the people who died and it should not be built. By the way, it's not technically a mosque. It's an Islamic cultural center that will have among other things, an art museum, a swimming pool, and yes a mosque.

The righties (Gingrich, O'Reilly, Buchannan, et al) have decided this is the new lever to pull in order to spin up some more anger. Why is this an issue? I get some of the families of those who died in the attacks may have an issue. Let's not forget several people working in those buildings were Muslims as well. How do you think they feel about the issue. Quite honestly, the people who lost family in the attacks are really the only voices worth listening to. At any rate, I don't see a problem with building an Islamic cultural center nearby, especially since there has been a mosque in lower Manhattan since 1970.

Look, we were attacked by a fundamentalist, insane group of radical terrorists that happened to be Muslim. Somehow we keep forgetting this. We weren't attacked by Islam, we were attacked by terrorists.

When the IRA was blowing up members of the British Parliament in the late 1970's, Britain didn't declare war on Catholicism, they went after the terrorists that performed the killings. We need to keep this in mind.

I'm not a religious person, and believe we'd all be much better off without Islam, Judaism, Christianity and all the other religious dogma that has been developed over the centuries. However, it is foolish and shameful that a country as advanced as ours, that has codified the right to freedom of religion, that has been welcoming of other cultures into the fabric of our story will now cower behind the bogeyman that is Al Qaeda.

The mosque may have a valuable purpose and provide an opportunity for cultural exchange and understanding. It's only by understanding each other that we reduce our fear. And that is a good thing.

regards,
Dennis

2010-07-20T11:48:00.000-05:00

The letter in red below is a "satire" written by a Mr. Mark Williams, who until he published this on his blog was the head of the "Tea Party Express" and part of the Tea Party Federation. He has since been disavowed by the Tea Party Federation who want nothing more to do with him. The reasons for his shunning seem fairly obvious after reading the letter he wrote.

The satire was written in response to a call from the NAACP to the Tea Party factions across the country to disavow racism. In many rallies, particularly in Washington D.C., black lawmakers such as Rep James Clyburn and a gay congressmen, Rep Barney Frank had racial and derrogatory epithets hurled at them as they went into work. The NAACP has not claimed any Team Party movement or organization is racist, rather they have asked the organizations to formally denounce racism.

Mr. Williams was evidently offended by the NAACP's outrageous claims, and penned the following letter as a response. Personally, I find this unfunny and disgusting.

Williams, and evidently many others in his posse must feel threatened by the NAACP. Otherwise, why would he do something this stupid? I had hoped as I grew older we would see an end to this nonsense and be more mature as a people. Some of us have, but unfortunately, some of us havent'. Mr. Willliams, you need to get some help. Seriously.

Please read the following and comment and tell me what you think.

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!
In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!
The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.
Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?
Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew

NAACP Head Colored Person

I hope no one else things the way that this sad little man, Mark Williams thinks.
regards,
Dennis

Independence Day

2010-07-06T08:00:00.000-05:00

Independence Day. Our national day of recognition of the public affirmation that the 13 colonies of Great Britain in America were free and independent states. Some lesser known trivia for you: In a remarkable coincidence, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the only signers of the Declaration of Independence later to serve as President of the United States, died on the same day: July 4, 1826, which was the 50th anniversary of the Declaration.

I highly recommend David McCullough's biography on the 2nd president of the United States, John Adams or if you would rather, the HBO produced mini-series of the same name. In each, you will see the risk, the determination, the forethought the original members of the 2nd Continental Congress gave to the birth of our country so many years ago.
Like many, I think about what it must have been like to be so frustrated by the government that one would actually resort to rebellion to seek remedy. It must have been both exhilarating and terrifying at the same time.

Of course, the revolution happened, we were born as a country and for the last 200 plus years we have made of our country what we would. Some remarkable things, some terrible things.

I find what is happening in our country today to be in more of the terrible category than remarkable. The sheer cynicism, hypocrisy, nationalistic stupidity and fealty to the corporatist structure in our country makes me sick. Politicians from both parties smile while they lie incessantly. They say "trust me, I have the answer". Almost regardless of party affiliation, it is as Pete Townsend said: "Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss".

What is even more sickening is the vile clap-trap being spewed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other right-wing politicians in this country. They have seized upon the poor economic conditions we face to find fault with the most unlikely of the perpetrators: The poor. They blame the housing crash on poor people trying to buy more than they should on credit. They blame the poor for being unemployed and lazy. They blame the poor and unemployed for allowing the illegal immigration problem because they won't take jobs that the illegals will.

People like Glenn Beck even go so far to say that anyone who fights for social justice (attempting to alleviate the pain and suffering of the least fortunate of us) is "un-christian" and urges people who go to a church that preaches social justice to leave that church. Mr. Beck. The Christ you so like to profess your love toward would throw you out of the temple as he did the money changers. Do you not event Read your own Bible? Try Matthew 25:40. "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' So, Glenn, if you deny the poor comfort, you deny it from your Christ.

The problem I have with the nationalistic noise emanating from the "Tea-Party" phenomenon, as well as from the Republicans and Democrats is they will deny that we are often on the wrong side of history. "America, right or wrong!" "America, Love it or Leave it!", these are phrases that one often hears at gatherings such as political rallies or 4th of July celebrations. Indeed, there is much to be proud of and grateful. Our country has done some wonderful things for the world. We must also recognize that we've done some awful things to the world as well. Some are unintended consequence of actions we thought would be beneficial, such as converting a people to be dependent upon industry instead of agriculture, establishing a low-income group dependent up on a foreign company or power for their livelihood. Others include deliberately sabotaging governments or even overthrowing them because we fear their politics or we want a more "business friendly" government in place.

I say these things not to deride our country but to offer that if one only sees half the picture they do not understand the story. Ours is a story of achievement and failure, of positive and negative, of goals achieved and promises betrayed, and one that is continuously evolving. Who will we be in the next 100 years? What will we have done? I hope that the legacy our descendants learn about is positive, and not positive because someone edited out the bad, but that we overcame our baser instincts and as Lincoln said "be touched by the better angels of our nature"

I hope you all had an enjoyable 4th.

regards,
Dennis

Musings on a Sunday morning

2010-05-16T10:33:00.000-05:00

Well,   finally getting a chance to post again. It's been a while since my last post and lots and lots of stuff has happened since.

Two major stories in the last few days, One, about a horrible natural disaster spewing pollution by the tons into the environment, as Sarah Palin is on the stump again. The other, the big oil spill by BP in the gulf.

We also had the failed terror attack by Faisal Shahzad, evidently a terrorist so inept that he locked his keys in the car holding the explosives that didn't work. Oh, before all you red-blooded 'Mericans get your blood boiling and starting in on all them AYRABS... the guy that found the bomb and pointed it out to the police was a muslim street vendor. Irony is so yummy.

We had Tiger Woods return to the Masters where, in usual Tiger shape he played well enough to finish 4th. Then, a missed cut at Quail Hollow and a withrawal from the Players Championshp. The earth must have tilted off its axis because this just doesn't happen. The world will not be right until Tiger is back to being Tiger on the PGA tour.

With regard to Ms Palin (use whatever nickname you like, mine is "The Moose Killa from Wassilla") and the BP disaster, it's really hard to know which is more toxic. Anyway, they both seem focused on the blame game. Ms. Palin has decided to blame President Obama for everything, and is evidently pretty smart about it, because it's making her a shitload of money. Your kid has the flu? Obama's fault. Your husband can't get it up without Viagra? Obama's fault. An asteroid is on course to collide with the earth? Obama's fault. Anything that can go wrong will be Obama's fault. That's fine. It's the American way to blame someone else. Well, I guess it's also BP's way, because they have also decided to blame someone else (e.g. Halliburton or TransOcean Ltd) who in turn blame BP. We also get to blame MMS, Materials Management Service, the government agency that failed to require permits that allowed the drilling to occur after a report indicated it was very risky.

Blame, it's a wonderful thing. It makes us innocent. "It wasn't me, it was those guys!" As long as we have someone else to blame, then we don't have to change behavior. It's not our fault the oil is despoiling the freakin Gulf of Mexico!   It's those stupid BP or other guys. Wait a minute Tonto. Do you drive a car? if you do, you use gasoline unless you run your car on bio-diesel in which case you make the road smell like french fries.    No, we all have a dog in the hunt here. You, me, everyone else who consume these products are in part responsible for the mess. BP is not going to invest millions of dollars unless they can make billions of dollars. They won't make billions unless we all buy their product, so on it goes. We want to drive, so they drill. They drill cheaply and risky because their investors want high profits and their execs want high salaries. Governments want the royalties they offer and the jobs they provide so they drill.

We will not stop this. We won't stop until someone else fixes this problem. We won't stop until someone else figures out a way to make a bazillion dollars with an alternative energy source that doesn't use petroleum and is cheaper than refining oil into petrol.   We'll just continue to blame those that are f'ng up the environment, beat our chests, go clean a few birds and then get in our SUVs and drive to listen to Sarah Palin blame the president for the Sun Spots that are occurnig right now and feel really good that it's not our fault...

Have a great Sunday.

Tragedy in West Virginia, and in America

2010-04-07T08:12:00.000-05:00

Most of us are aware of the terrible event in West Virginia that killed over 25 people working at a Coal Mine owned by Massey Energy. The loss of human life is of course a tragedy to the families and the community where these people lived. It's also a tragedy for America. The tragedy for America is that while most of us will shake our heads and perhaps say a prayer for the fallen and their families, most of us will go about our business without really thinking about this in the context of our collective accountability for this. Oh, I know, "I didn't kill those people!" "It wasn't my fault!" "Those people knew the risks of the job"... Of course, all of this is true to a point. These were adults who made a decision to take on a profession that is fraught with risk and danger. However, it's not that simple in my view.

It can't be surprising to anyone that mining is extremely dangerous. Oh, it's not dangerous to the owners, the investors, the upper management that work in Finance, Human Resources, IT, etc.

It's dangerous for the line workers and supervisors and rescue teams. The people going down into those holes to bring up pieces of earth that power our computers, our electric grid, our microwaves, our TV's. That's who is at risk. Seriously, a profession that as a matter of course has trained "rescue workers" as part of it's normal complement of employees should give a signal to us all about how dangerous a profession this is. It should make us think twice about our never ending thirst for energy. It should remind us that because of our appetite for power, people put themselves at serious risk to their lives. It should do all of these things but it doesn't. That's a tragedy as well. The abiity for us to collectively become detached from things like this and not take some level of responsibilty, however small is the norm and not the exception. Every day, much of our lives and how we live them are made possible by people like coal miners. People who put themselves at serious risk to their health, their lives and their sanity all so we can live like we do. It's not considered heroic, but should be. Statistics quoted from the Foundation of the American Thoracic Society
show that between 1979 and 1996, over 14 thousand people died from Black Lung disease, a condition that afflicts coal miners more than any other group. That's roughly 2 people per day dying from this disease. While it sounds small in comparison with the people who die each day from the flu or an automobile accident, it's still someone perishing as a direct result of mining for the purposes of providing power to the rest of us.

We owe a serious debt of gratitude and reflection on our use of energy to these people who every day, year after year, put themselves thousands of feet into the ground and put their lives at risk so we can watch "Fox News" or "Jerry Springer."

Think about that, and turn the lights off when you leave the room.

regards,
Dennis

Sausage Making

2010-03-22T09:17:00.001-05:00

Last night around 10pm central time, The US House of Represenatives passed the Health Care Reform legislation by a vote of 219-212. The vote was for the Senate version of Health Care reform and was followed quickly by another vote on the reconciliation package that portends to "fix" the egregious parts of the Senate legislation.

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of columns, blog posts, tv shows, etc. that have been devoted to health care reform since President Obama launched his initiative shortly after taking the oath of office in January of 2009. It is now March of 2010, and sometime within the next week the health care reform will be come law with the president's signature. It will be the most comprehensive health care reform legislation passed since Medicare was signed into law by President Johnson over 40 years ago.

It was not an easy journey to complete, and in quite frankly, the journey is not yet over as there is much left to do.

It is however a historic accomplishment and one that will certainly be discussed and analyzed for years to come.

The process by which this legislation has made its way through the system is an amazingly byzantine and sometimes overwhelmingly frustrating series of steps that is often referred to as "Sausage Making", which is from the quote from the former German Prime Minister, Otto Von Bismarck, who said "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made". Indeed.

This package has been derided by liberals who wanted a single-payer system or at least a system that included a comprehensive public option such as "medicare for all". It has been derided by the conservatives as a "government take-over" of one sixth of the economy and if done, would lead to socialism. Obama has been compared to Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and others. He has been castigated by the progressive community as being weak-kneed and catering to the corporations like big pharma and the insurance companies.

John Boehner, the minority leader in the House of Representatives said in one of his many emotional outbursts on this said "if this passes it will ruin America!". Bart Stupak, the conservative, pro-life democrat from Michigan who threatened to derail the whole thing unless he could be convinced that there would be no federal funding of abortions in the language was called a "baby killer" from presumably a republican member of the house after speaking in favor of the legislation.

So, as you can see from these responses from the involved with the legislation that it is not too popular. So, why did it pass? Why do we care?

Here's why we care. Now, for the first time ever in the history of this country, we are very close to Universal Health Care for every American. This legislation protects and provides coverage for approximately 31 milllion of the 47 million without insurance. It obviates the ability of an insurance company to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It ends recission, which is the most heinous of the practices of the insurance companies in that they can essentially cancel insurance "mid-chemo", or exactly when the person needs it most. We care because it will save lives. Let me say that again. IT WILL SAVE LIVES.

Is the legislation expensive? You bet your arse it is. Will it add to the deficit? Probably, although the Congressional Budget Office says it is essentially revenue neutral over the next 20 years. But who cares if it adds to the deficit? Isn't this the argument made by everyone who wanted to bomb the shit out of Iraq? Didn't Cheney say "deficits don't matter"? Wasn't complainnig about the cost of the war considered to be unpatriotic? Of course it was.

The Iraq War, since its inception has cost over 1 Trillion dollars. How many lives has it saved? It is hard to say. Has it saved Americans and Iraqis from death by Saddam? probably. Has it killed hundreds of thousands of people (about 5 thousand Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis) and displaced over 5 million people from their homes? Definitely.

Will the Health Care legislation as it has been passed kill hundreds of thousand of people and make refugees out of 5 million people? Unlikely.

Where would you rather spend the money?

It was a nasty, vile process to watch, this sausage being made. However, if it keeps someone alive because they can now receive insurance where before they couldn't, then it has been well worth it.

Tell me what you think.

Dennis

State of the Union

2010-01-27T11:35:00.002-06:00

So, the president gets to tell us about the State of the Union, one year after he assumed office and began to sail the "ship of state". What will he tell us? Well, dollars to donuts he will say what every president has said since they started doing this stuff: The State of Our Union is Strong!

What else would he say? "We suck right now. We really are blowing it" No, not in your wildest dreams. Although in reality the country doesn't suck, our political leaders do. They really, really do.

Democrats have moaned for the last 8 years that because of Republican obstructionism, the country has fallen further behind and if only the Democrats could gain power, boy would they make a change for the better.

Well, for a solid year, the Democrats have owned all branches of government except the judiciary, where there is still a bewildering and frustrating 5/4 split on the court. However, that being said, the Democrats have only succeeded in setting up a circular firing squad and blowing their own heads off.

It is a comedy of errors and would be funny if not so serious. While the dorks in Washington bemoan the lack of ability to overcome a filibuster, the Republicans are rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of the democrats inability to get something done.

All the while, we have millions unemployed. Tens of millions without health insurance and two wars going on.

Of course the Republicans don't want you to remember that during the 8 years they were in power they got a lot of stuff done, but about 99.9% of it was terrible.

So, Mr. President give us your opinion on the state of the union. Tell us what you plan on doing.

Then, explain to us why you haven't gotten done what you said you would do during the campaign.

You are a C- president at this point in your term, and I'm being generous. You need to step up and show some gravitas. I hate to say this, but you need some swagger and a little of W in you. You're a good man, and I believe wants to do best for the country, but you're being naive if you think Congress will come to the conclusions that are right for the country. Go LBJ on their ass Mr. President. Remind them who is President.

The State of the Union is: Dysfunction.

Ok, so Pat Robertson is certifiable

2010-01-16T09:24:00.002-06:00

Everyone is acutely aware of the devastating tragedy that is Haiti right now. Over Fifty-thousand dead and over three hundred thousand homeless, this is a catastrophe of monumental proportions. The cause? Well a 7.0 Richter scale earthquake and multiple +5.0 aftershocks right in the area of the most populated city of the small island nation, Port Au Prince. I do not need to recount the terrible event. For that see any news blog or web-site and get a full recounting of the earthquake and how you can help.

One of my favorite charities, "Doctors Without Borders", is actively working on the island now and in desperate need of funds to help. To donate: go to their web-site by clicking HERE.

But this post is not about Haiti or responding to the misery with our help. It is about "Bat-Shit-Crazy" Pat Robertson. Click on the title link to carry you to a video where the good reverend describes the problems of Haiti as the result of a pact with the devil.

According to Mr. Robertson, the Haitians made a pact with Mr. Scratch in order to win their independence from the French in 1804. As a series of cascading events by the way, Napoleon next sold the Louisiana territory to the United States for a sum of some $15M in order to finance continuing military activities in Europe. So, in a sense, the United States is what it is today as a result of the Haitians rebelling and gaining their independence from France. For a detailed recounting of this history, which is very interesting, see this link: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=gah/haitian-revolution-1791-1804.

Anyway, back to Pat. This isn't the first time that Pat Robertson has gone off the edge of reality or reason. If you recall, he viewed the tragedies of 9-11 as some "wrath of God" action as result of America's deteriorating morality, blaming all of this horror on pagans, homos, abortionists, the ACLU (the horror!), and of course feminists. Right out of the Old Testament is old Pat. He takes every opportunity to tell us that God is just waiting to put the cosmic fly-swatter on our ass if we step out of line.

Now, he steps out and makes a statement that if it wasn't tied to such a tragedy would be funny. He's actually assigning responsibility to this tragedy to a heroic event in our hemisphere's history. One of slaves throwing off the yoke of tyranny and overcoming a massive military power in order to be free. Sounds a bit familiar doesn't it? Why would Pat Robertson say something like this and insult not only those who have been hurt by this current tragedy, but those who died to give this country its birth? Well, because he is a fucking moron. That's why.

Pat, may you get to heaven and find out it's run entirely by pagans, homos, abortionists, feminists and of course blacks.

Tell me what you think. (sigh, religious leaders like this make me want to vomit)

regards,
Dennis

Happy Thanksgiving for 2009

2009-11-25T04:39:00.003-06:00

Here is wishing everyone a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday for 2009. There are many things for us to be thankful for this year. I hope everyone has a chance to relax and enjoy time with friends and family.

Best wishes from Indies Are Us

Dennis

Remember the day

2009-11-22T09:26:00.004-06:00

Being from Dallas, November 22nd is always a somber day for me. I must confess, I've been on the JFK bandwagon since I was a child. Of course, there is more history around the man, the myth and the era than time permits to discuss. Suffice to say, that 46 years ago, something terrible happened in this country that I never, never want to see happen again.

Regardless of political stripe or affiliation, we are all terribly wounded when one of our leaders is assassinated. Being in a country as free as ours allows for all sorts of risks to our elected officials to exist. Those who choose public service know that and should be respected and admired for assuming the risk in order to serve something greater than themselves. We've had near-misses since the series of assassinations in the 1960's. Ford, Reagan, Clinton all had direct attempts focused at them by severely deranged people.

Remember the day, and hope it is the last one we'll have to remember in this way.

regards,

Dennis

Oh My God, again. (sigh)

2009-11-22T09:25:00.002-06:00

Enough said.

Oh Sarah

2009-11-22T08:30:00.003-06:00

I have been very reluctant to put up a post about the former Governor of Alaska. It's somewhat off-putting to me all the attention this woman has captured for actually doing very, very little. Consequently I feel like I'm feeding the machine saying anything about her. So, I'll do my bit as a blogger and comment. But rather than direct all my points specifically at Ms. Palin the person, I would take issue with Sarah Palin the phenomenon and this country's fascination with her.

First of all, let's get past some of the basic criticisms I have of her.

She was (is) absolutely not qualified to be vice-president of the United States. To be VP (seriously folks) you have to be qualified to be the president of the United States. Ms. Palin, for all of her "Mavericky" statements aside can't really be thought of as having the bonafides to become president. I want to make a distinction here. She is eligible. She fulfills the requirements relative to naturalization and age to be eligible for the office. My issue is qualification. This woman has extremely limited knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs and the office of the presidency spends a significant amount of its time focused on world affairs. This is a person who confuses Iraq and Iran, calls Africa a Nation instead of a continent. Please people. If you can't pass 7th grade geography, you can't be president.
She knows she isn't qualified but took the gig (VP Candidate) when offered to her. That is either: Ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of one's capabilities and skills or; a monumental ego thinking she can sail into the job because she actually got elected governor. I would have had so much admiration for her if she had told the McCain campaign: "No thank you. I'm seriously flattered you considered me but I am not ready. I do want the job but in the future, after I've done more work for Alaska. Perhaps a Senate run soon, but I need to focus on my state and understanding the issues better on a national issue before I throw my hat in the ring." Now, think for a minute about that. Even you Sara Palin acolytes. What a fresh and genuine statement that would have been. She could have become a serious student of world affairs over the next 4-8 years and been a formidable candidate for Senate, VP, or yes, even president by then. So, she caved to her base instincts of self promotion and ambition. So did the people around her. But. you know who the biggest evil in this weird play is? The McCain camp. Who ever thought it was a smart idea to do this was an idiot. If it's McCain himself, that's even worse and thank God someone who thinks like that wasn't elected president.
Her actions during the campaign. Essentially conflating and lying, she called then candidate Obama a terrorist sympathizer, one who doesn't represent the "real America". Not only was this the crassest form of politics, it was completely wrong. When she said Obama "pal's around" with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground movement in the 60's, she didn't supply the facts of any association, she just threw it out there and allowed all sorts of bullshit to float up around this. This type of innuendo politics is a sign of small mindedness, no ideas and a basic goal of winning at all costs versus being true to a specific issue. Her winks, smirks, shout-out's to Joe Six pack, Her "Hockey Mom" persona, all of this was her essential toolkit. Nothing else. She is attractive, has a reasonably interesting back-story, got herself elected mayor and Governor and that's about it. No position papers on taxes, no position papers on health-care, no foreign policy speeches. Nothing of substance.
Her resignation as Governor. Nonsensical in her resignation speech, she indicated she was stepping down in order to help Alaska. I don't think she meant it in the self-awareness sense of "I'm not doing a very good job and for the sake of my state, I'm gonna resign". No, this was, I'm going to grab the brass ring and make some cash, keep my name out there and who knows? I might just be seriously considered as a presidential contender in 2012. You know what? She's right about that one at least.

Now, enough about Ms. Palin the person. I could keep going on this but what's the point? The people who don't like her won't like her any less, and the people who love her wont' pay attention anyway. So, let's move one to the phenomenon that is Ms. Palin with one basic question:

Why?

Why has she caught the attention of the American people in such a fashion? What is the deal here? Is it because she is considered a "real person"? Is it because she's good-looking? Is it because she thinks nothing of grandiose self-promotion and the Palin "brand" is out there 24x7?

I don't really know but have a few theories. I think that in some cases people are looking for simple answers to difficult problems. It's not surprising, we have serious problems in this country, and to think about it hard and long becomes depressing. We have, essentially in a few hundred years squandered the promise that America portended when she became a nation. We've become at one time an arrogant and ignorant country. So, instead of getting into the muck with the shovel and working through the problems methodically, slowly, thoughtfully, and painfully, we look for the short and fast answer. It must be their fault! (substitute whomever you want to blame. French, Muslims, Chinese, Mexicans, Martians, Bears, etc.) We look for the bogeyman to blame our troubles on. It's those right wingers! It's those left wingers!

So, along comes a cute, spunky, all American (she was a beauty pageant contestant by the way) girl who says we just have to "drill, baby drill". We just have to listen to Joe-Six pack. We just have to get the awful government out of the way and let all of us move this great country forward! Simple answers to complex problems. That's the image that Ms. Palin and unquestionably the Republican party brings forward.

Secondly, our country is becoming more and more stupid. Education is tracking well behind other developed countries. Our time is spent more watching "Dances with the Stars" instead of actually looking at the stars (Astronomy). We spend more time playing "Rock Band" the fake music game than actually learning how to play instruments. We spend more time on Facebook filling out ridiculous quizzes like (what character from Harry Potter are you?) (confession, I've done this and am Professor Lupin). The point here is we as a collective nation are too busy to learn, debate, consider, postulate, develop, and become "smarter". It's not surprising, given the demands on us for work, raising our kids, "Keeping Up With the Jones". The thirst and quest for additional "stuff" has us avoiding philosophy, art, engineering, science and looking to Batman and Superman to solve our problems. There seems to be a direct correlation to the erosion of intelligence and the rise of suspicion of others, the embracing of simple answers (just vote against them, or let God handle it, or ignore it and it will go away). The Palin phenomenon has come along just at the right time for a large segment of our nation. She's safe, she's homey (makes moose chili), she's a mom, she's an "Up With People" type of brand that we can all just adore.

So, Ms. Palin is on her book tour for "Going Rogue". Her memoir of the candidacy and her world-view (such as it is). She's going to make a lot of money and her fans are going to love her all the more for it. After all the tours are done, all the books signed, all the talk shows visited, all the news shows reporting her every word, gaffe, wink, clothes she wears, fights she has with a 19 year old kid who is the father of her grand-child, what have we got? A couple of years older and a couple of years dumber.

Is this really what you want?

Oh Sarah, make all the coin you can. I hope you have the smarts to save it and really, for the sake of my country, pass 7th grade geography.

regards,
Dennis

Take Your Time Mr. President

2009-11-18T06:28:00.003-06:00

I've been very busy with work and home and have not had time to post, but I have to take a moment and discuss a blog entry I read on the The Huffington Post. It is by Tony Blankley, a columnist for the Washington Times. Tony is one of the four regulars on Public Radio International's "Left Right and Center", a political talk show. I believe he is intelligent, thoughtful and generally one of the spokespersons for the Republicans/Conservatives that I can tolerate.

However, after reading this, "To Die for an Exit Strategy", I have to comment. Click on the title link to read the article for yourself or click here.

Essentially, Mr. Blankley's criticizing Mr. Obama for his recent decision to require an "exist strategy" from the military commanders in concert with the discussions around additional troop deployments. For several weeks now, the discussion in the media has been "How many?" Some said if he doesn't send 40,000 additional troops, he's not taking this seriously. Some said we don't need any. Some said something in-between.

Additionally, the usual Republican mouth breathers like Dick Cheney castigated the president for "dithering". Of course, Mr. Cheney and his ilk would think nothing of sending another 40 thousand or 100,000 thousand to fight. That's part of their collective consciousness. I would be incredibly surprised if a rational thought came out of that crowd.

These people haven't read history. If they had, they'd have realized that many people have attempted to subjugate the Afghan countryside and its people and have failed to hold it. From Alexander the Great, to the Mongols, to the British to the Russians, and now us. We have been there for 8 years, and still have not seen the original objectives attained: Democracy (real), Mullah Omar (remember him?), Osama Bin Laden captured (remember "dead or alive"?, heckuva job there Georgie), the Taliban wiped out. All efforts have failed.

Now this president, 10 months into his presidency wants to take some time and think through the problem. Think through the problem. Wow, there is an interesting thought. Now, this president wants a viable exit strategy to get out of this morass before committing additional troops. Remember, we've been there over 8 years now. We are past the halfway point of our engagement in Viet Nam. It's starting to look more and more like that fiasco of 30 years ago.

Mr. Blankley thinks that in the words of George M. Cohan, "we won't come home til it's over, over there". The lyrics are from that old patriotic song "Over There" that Cohan wrote for World War I. He thinks soldiers will fight on and on if we just tell them it's what we believe in and what we need to do. Fair enough. Some soldiers are engineered to obey orders, however ridiculous and short sighted they may be. That is their job. However, it's not our job. These kids need us to cut through the Bull Shit that people like Mr. Blankley spews and say "Enough!". I hope he's not trying to use this as a political tool and simply has a straight policy argument with the administration. I fear otherwise, as these Republican sharks sense some blood in the water. Oh, and to Mr. Blankley and Mr. Cohan: It's really never "Over, Over there" is it?

Mr. President, take your time and think this through. No US Soldier should be ordered into combat without clear objectives, and yes a clear exit strategy. To do otherwise is dangerous and costs lives. You owe this to your forces and you owe it to the country.

Mr. Blankley, for all your erudition, your article sounds like the clap-trap coming from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. I thought you were better than that. Evidently not.

regards,

Dennis

Hunger in America

2009-09-01T07:15:00.002-05:00

Please click on the highlighted link to go to FeedingAmerica.org's information about Hunger Action Month. The site will provide information on how you can help 1 in 8 Americans who will face hunger issues today.

People going hungry in this country seems almost impossible. Our country is one of the wealthiest on the earth, with signficant assets both monetary and agricultural. We shouldn't have a hunger problem in this country.

But, as John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things", and the fact is we do have a hunger problem in this country. It is a serious one at that. Below are some statistics from the USDA that you will find, as I did, disconcerting.

Hunger and Poverty Statistics (source: US Census Bureau, Carmen DeNavas-Walt, B. Proctor, C.Lee Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007; USDA Mark Nord, M.Andrews, S.Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States, 2007; Rhoda Cohen, M.Kim, J.Ohis. Hunger in America 2006. Feeding America)

Poverty - defined as a family of four with a median income of $21,800 or less.

in 2007, 37.3 million people (12.5%) were in poverty
in 2007, 7.6 (9.8%) million families were in poverty
in 2007, 20.3 million (10.9%) of people aged 18-64 were in poverty
in 2007, 13.3 million (18%) children under the age of 18 were in poverty
in 2007, 3.6 million (9.7%) seniors 65 and older were in poverty

Food Insecurity - defined as: where people lack the basic food intake to provide them the energy and nutrition for fully productive lives

In 2007, 36.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 23.8 million adults and 12.4 million children.
In 2007, 11.1 percent of households (13 million households) were food insecure.
In 2007, 4.1 percent of households (4.7 million households) experienced very low food security.
In 2007 Households with children reported food insecurity at almost double the rate for those without children, 15.8 percent compared to 8.7 percent.
In 2007 Households that were more liekly to experience food insecurity were households with children (15.8%), households with children headed by single women (30.2 percent) or single men (18 percent), household with income below the poverty line (37.7 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (22.2 percent) and Hispanic households (20.1 percent).
In 2007, 6.5 percent of households with seniors (1.7 million households) were food insecure (low food security and very low food security).

There is a strong correlation between nutrition and health. Eating the correct foods helps boost immune systems and reduce the amount of infection and illness we experience. Think of not eating. Not only is there malnutrition occurring, where in children, it is extremely harmful to their development, the ability to ward off even the most basic viruses and bacterial infections is reduced.

Food is a basic requirement for all of us. Some of us (like me) eat too much. Some can't get enough to survive. All in this country. We have to rethink our approach to our basic responsibilties to each other. Why is it more appropriate for us to spend $1 Trillion dollars fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we aren't spending the same amount of money on health care and hunger prevention? Think about that for a minute. Do some research and realize that basic diseases like influenza kill upwards of 30 thousand Americans every year. How many people did the terrorist kill last year? Looking at it from a cold (and morbid) perspective, the cost-benefit of fighting disease versus fighting Osama Bin Laden is fairly clear.

We need to pay attention to those around us we often ignore due to our busy lives. Children, Old people, families are sinking into levels of abject poverty I can't even imagine. I've not paid attention to this and I'm ashamed of myself for it. No more. This blog site will be paying particular attention to hunger issues in this country going forward. I believe we all can make the lives of our fellow Americans much better if we just make a small effort to understand and help with the hunger issue today. Go to www.feedingamerica.org. Contact your local food bank. Donate during food drives at your work or church or school. It's surprising how much good you can do with little effort and money.

No one in this country should be hungry. Let's fix that problem.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Thank You Senator Kennedy

2009-08-30T10:32:00.003-05:00

Much has been said and written about the late Senator Edward Kennedy in recent days. Since his death on Tuesday, an outpouring of primarily fond remembrances and tributes have come forward from presidents, colleagues in the congress, members of the Kennedy family, and finally the American people.

It's impossible to say something that hasn't already been said about the Senator in terms of tribute. So, I won't attempt to glorify the man nor point out his faults. I like to think of him at work, where regardless of victory or defeat, he was in the arena making his case for whatever cause was being discussed. The picture on this post is the way I want to remember him; as the people's advocate.

One of the reasons I am a Liberal is Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy pushed for programs that would invariably cost himself and people in his wealth level money. The reason he did this was not because he necessarily wanted wealth distribution, he certainly enjoyed the privilege of wealth. I think he did it because he was thunderstruck by the plight of the people in this country who are wanting. Whether he was arguing for civil rights, women's rights (thanks to his efforts and many others, because of Title IX, my daughters can compete in athletics in school and university), and his self proclaimed "Cause Of My Life", national healthcare, Mr. Kennedy seemed to always be on the side of those who were in need. I think Mr. Kennedy had an innate sense of fairness and this showed up time and again as exemplified in 2007 when he was on the floor of the senate roaring his displeasure at the time it was taking to consider an increase in the minimum wage.

A good but flawed man, he worked very hard for his principles, his constituents and honestly, for people he never even knew. I'll close this post with an excerpt of the eulogy he did for his brother Robert. I think it is just as fitting for Teddy.

"My brother need to be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

Thank you Senator Kennedy.

Cut The Crap Already

2009-08-11T11:45:00.004-05:00

I've had it with you "protesters" who are disrupting all the town meetings where health care reform is being discussed. Look at the picture to the left. This moron is holding a picture of our president with a fucking Adolph Hitler mustache. Implication made: Obama = Hitler. Okay, first of all, these dumb asses have been claiming Obama is a socialist. Now you say Obama = Hitler. Idiots. Hitler was not a socialist. He was a fascist who utilized the corporations to fund his maniacal plans. Pure and simply, the analogy doesn't work. You want to use Stalin if you are attempting to paint Obama a socialist, which he clearly isn't. You dumb and moronic people you. Comparing our president with Adolph Hitler is more than insulting. It shows an enormous amount of ignorance on the part of the person who makes the comparison. No president in the history of this country compares to Adolph Hitler. None. For an American to actually make this comparison is reprehensible.

Your bloviating gas bags such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of corrupted gene pool who have a voice on TV or radio fan the flames of fear by using lies to get the rest of our idiotic population terrified of "death panels" and "Government interference in Medicare".

God, how stupid you people are. If you genuinely believe this drivel, you need to get a remedial education in history and governance in this country. You also need to do the background research on Obama and understand this is a man of deep conviction for helping people. How in the world does this translate to Obama being Hitler? The irony here is that Hitler was a devout believer in the "master race". Obama would be an abomination to Hitler in that he is mixed race. Obama likely would have been sent to one of Hitler's camps because of his genealogy.

The Republican members of Congress who are supporting these slack-jawed morons who show up at these events for the sole purpose of disrupting civil discourse and debate are pussies. They hide behind "don't deprive these people of their first amendment rights" as a reason not to criticize a group of stupid, vacuous, ill-mannered, ill-informed, fools who unknowingly are a front to the corporate lobby who is desperately trying to kill health care reform because it would reduce their profits.

It is absurd to think that Obama or anyone would support "death panels" that would deny coverage because of age. Wait. Maybe it's not so absurd. Insurance companies have been doing this for years. However, no where in any of the written legislation does it say anything about "death panels". No where. Not one sentence. Even Newt Gingrich, the saint of the right wing had to walk this back when challenged by George Stephanopolous recently on television. Newt tried to insert his view of what might happen in the legislation. In other words, he made it up! He lied. Not surprising since it seems all the Republican leadership does anymore is lie.

Health care reform has been sorely needed in this country for decades and is consistently killed not by people who have a better way of providing health care but by people who stand to lose profits if health care is reformed. As "Deep Throat" told Woodward and Bernstien in the WaterGate mess.. "Follow The Money". Follow the fact the Health Insurance lobby is spending over $1.4M per DAY to fight reform. Ask yourself why? Why would Health Insurance companies spend so much to fight reform that would provide coverage to everyone? Well, dip-shit, the answer is: They don't want to cover everyone! They want to be able to deny coverage, revoke coverage, raise rates and lower coverage caps. Why, you might ask? You morons. Because it eats into profits.

If any of you mouth breathers who actually support not reforming health care were denied coverage for yourself or a loved one for a pre-existing condition or denied coverage because your insurance company didn't want to pay for the treatment and still believe that health care reform is a bad thing, then fine, say what you want, when you want. But. If you are currently covered with good health care insurance and want to deny it for others because you might think it could impact yours, then Fuck You, you selfish bastards.

You idiotic, horses asses.

And In The End, The Love You Take is Equal To The Love You Make

2009-08-08T09:43:00.004-05:00

With apologies to Sir Paul, It was Forty Years Ago Today....

August 8, 1969, the cover photograph for "Abbey Road", which is my 2nd favorite Beatles album (the first being Revolver) was taken. While this isn't a political post, I think it's important to note the last album of the most important rock and roll group ever assembled. "Let It Be" was released later, in 1970, but it was recorded prior to the Abbey Road sessions which found the four musicians back with their favorite producer, George Martin. According to Martin, he initially refused to work with them again because of all the enmity that had surfaced. Paul cajoled him and the others back to the studio and the result was a terrific album full of variety and new sounds.

The Beatles were probably the most variable of the power-house bands of the 60's and 70's. Their ability to change and set new paths regarding popular music was unrivaled. Yes, Brian Jones messed with the sitar prior to the Beatles, but Harrison took it to places unheard of. Listen to "Love You To" off of the Revolver track or "Within You Without You" on their masterpiece, Sgt. Pepper. This was like nothing that had come out of a rock and roll record ever. That's just one example. The experimentation with reverb, back-tracking, incorporation of orchestral music into classic guitar band songs set the stage for the Pink Floyd's, Led Zeppelin's and U2's yet to come.

Abbey Road is one of my favorite albums because of the unique variety of the tracks on the record. "Something", arguably George Harrison's best song and the first non Lennon-McCartney Beatles song to make number 1, is on the album as is "Here Comes The Sun", another terrific Harrison composition.

The songs on the album range from bluesy "Oh Darling!", to funky "Come Together", to zany "Octopus's Garden", which was Ringo's song on the album. The B-Side of the album starts with the aforementioned Here Comes the Sun and Because, then a 16 minute medley of fast and hard rock, excellent harmony and very bizarre word pictures describing "Mean Mr. Mustard", "Polythene Pam", and some chick who came in through the bathroom window.

The final-full song on the album is fittingly called the "The End". It is at the tail-end of the medley on the B-Side and features some scorching guitar licks from George, Paul and John with a pounding drum solo by Ringo. It seems as if they were telling all of us, "This is It, and we're going out with a bang!".

There are other Rock and Roll albums that are better. Dark Side of the Moon comes to mind as does the Joshua Tree or Led Zeppelin IV, but I think Abbey Road is one for the ages.

regards,

Dennis

An Example To Consider

2009-08-01T07:06:00.003-05:00

Everyone knows the story. Harvard professor, breaks into his own house. Concerned neighbor calls 911 indicating something is going on. 911 dispatches Cambridge police officers to the seen. Cambridge Police officers arrive at scene, question occupants of house where alleged break-in was taking place, controversy ensues and Harvard professor is arrested by Cambridge police Sergeant for disorderly conduct. President of the US is asked at his Health Care press conference about it. President says Cambridge Police acted stupidly. Shit hits the fan. MSM (main stream media) ratchets up the controversy. President backs away from remarks and says he should have calibrated his words better. President invites Police Sergeant and Harvard Professor to the White House for a beer. Harvard Professor and Police Sergeant meet and talk prior to the beer event. President, Vice President, Police Sergeant and Harvard Professor come away with projected attitudes that seem positive and focused on a desire to move forward.
President thanks both men for coming to the White House and having a "thoughtful conversation'.
Conflict resolution in play here folks. Anybody recognize this? Is it not ironic that while Bush was the guy people would "want to have a beer with", Obama is actually the guy who people do have a beer with?
No one is going to solve racial issues over a beer. It is a fairly safe bet no one is going to solve racial issues period over a million beers. This fact of racism is embedded in our collective DNA. Like a corrupted gene or chromosome, it is a condition we have to learn how to manage and live with. We will not eradicate it as long as we have stupid people who believe because someone of another skin color is either superior or deficient (pick your poison). As that great philosopher Forrest Gump said: "Stupid is as Stupid does". So true.
So it falls to people who do not tolerate racism in any form to do the hard work of reasoning, explaining, teaching, and finally if that doesn't work, shouting down the morons who believe because you look different than them you must be inferior.
The President is a fine man and a fine example of someone who will not allow the sins of the past to permeate his world-view. This is not a man who, as Rush or Glenn Beck say, is a racist. He doesn't "hate white people". This is a man (by the way, who is half white), who seems to put that in the past and focus on the path forward. I don't be any means believe he ignores what has happened in our past and neither should we. For over 200 years, we bought and sold human beings like they were cattle or horses. Fact. Terrible, Terrible, Fact.
This fact, like the genocide of the Native American peoples in this country is part of our sad legacy. As Germany has to deal with the rise of National Socialism in the 1930's and 1940's and will always carry Hitler and his ilk along their biographical journey, so must we too carry the scourge of slavery and then a long thread of racism as part of our collective character.
We can't get past this, but can learn from it. What better example of being able to build on the mistakes of the past and focus on building an environment where people are judged as Dr. King said, "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", than a half black, half white president sitting down in the middle of a potentially racial firestorm, and talking about it with a focus on finding common ground and resolution.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is not the ending of racism, this is not the beginning of the end of racism, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning of racism.
I'm proud of my President. I'm proud of Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates for getting together and talking through this problem. It exemplifies what's good about our country. We move on, we get past things, we heal, we survive...
regards, Dennis

Ok, So Do You Really Want To Fix Healthcare?

2009-07-27T07:47:00.005-05:00

The OECD, is a cooperative organization of 30 countries (including the United States), that are focused on economic growth. Their mission statement reads as follows:

Our mission
OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:
- Support sustainable economic growth
- Boost employment
- Raise living standards
- Maintain financial stability
- Assist other countries' economic development
- Contribute to growth in world trade

The Organisation provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies.

Okay, so why a reference to OECD on a blog post regarding Health Care? Well, the reason I point you toward the OECD (check out their site by clicking the link above), is that it is an organization focused on economic development and growth. They have excellent statistics on a wide array of subjects, including Health Care Spending.

Let us look at some reference points.

1. The United States has the most expensive Health Care "system" in the world.

2. The United States has almost 50 million of its citizens without health insurance. These people have to exercise "last resort" options when they are ill. Examples include people taking their children to Hospital Emergency Rooms for basic infections. Another 17 - 20 million people are estimated to be "under-insured" (as of 2003), which means their coverage is not adequate for their needs and typically they will have to make up the cost for the gap in their coverage.

3. The United States does have a public health care option, it is just not "universal" in that not just anyone can join. Medicare and Medicaid, have been providing service to the elderly and the impoverished since the late 1960's, and it has been working very well. Our country is one of the few industrialized countries that lacks an overall public option.

4. Our Health Care system has not improved infant mortality rates, the average life-span of its citizens, nor provided better preventative care regarding chronic illness such as diabetes, asthma, etc. than countries who have a Public Option.

Why do we have the most expensive system in the world and one that is not as effective as other countries like Canada and the UK? Well, there are many opinions and possible answers to that question and this post is not going to attempt to answer the "Why" question. However, there is likely only one way to gain control over the costs and improve the overall quality of service of our Health Care system. We must provide a public option system that sets the stage for a "single-payer" system on the model of the Canadian and British system. I do not believe we need to eliminate private, for-fee insurance and health care. If you have the money and elect to exercise that option, it should be your choice. However, no one should have to make a decision on whether or not to pay rent or get their medications. We have a crisis in the country with more people uninsured than make up the entire population of Canada.

Those of us with jobs who have decent health care (me included), often unintentionally ignore the plight of others who don't have good coverage. While sympathetic, we are also apathetic and complacent. It is a complex problem that most of us get overwhelmed with and look to the government to solve the problem. Then, opponents of government intervention will castigate the efforts to resolve the problem as attempting to bring evil "socialism" to our shores, which will "destroy our American Way of Life". If you think there aren't crazies out there (in congress as well (See Michelle Bachmann)) who think if we provide health insurance to everyone, we will all fall from God's good grace, you are fooling yourself.

More insidious are the Industry lobby. They are spending over $1.5M per day in efforts to lobby against health care reform. That's half a billion dollars in a year! Think of how many people that could treat who don't have coverage! Why are they fighting this so strenuously? Well, why do they keep building hotels in Las Vegas? 'Cause there is money in this business; Big, Big money. Insurance companies are fighting this with everything they have, and don't want reform. Too much money is at stake.

So, it falls to us, the well insured, to step up and say enough. I've had it with the system. We must see massive change in order to treat everyone equally. I'm not a religious man, but I do recognize the wisdom in the following statement: From Matthew 25:40 - "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Simply put, let's treat the least among us the way we'd like to be treated. It is an obligation those of us fortunate enough to be able to afford good health insurance must take on.

The way change comes is when those who are well served by the system recognize it has faults and elect to make a change for the greater good.

I'm a "dyed in the wool" capitalist who checks his stock portfolio every morning. I do not subscribe to the notion that making money is necessarily bad. However, when profit takes precedent over treatment, I must re-think our approach to a system that is focused on making money over treating illness.

Here is some more data for you. If you have to consider the reason why the compensation for CEOs of the Top Health Insurance companies is so robust, you might think that it is because of the excellent care and products they offer. You would however be wrong. The reason their compensation is so high, is that the companies' boards of directors and compensation committees set the salaries by and large based on the financial performance of the company versus any positive result of care given. See the list below for compensation levels from 2007 and 2008:

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212

Now, I don't have a quarrel with people making a lot of money. I really don't. If the money earned is based on a reasonable metric focused on the improved health care of it's customers versus one that is unfortunately engineered to do harm to the community it serves that it intends.

The current method of making money by the insurance companies requires decisions that run into direct conflict with care giving. Denying coverage is not done because the companies are mean and want the patient to stay sick or die. It's because providing the coverage is expensive and will reduce their profits. That's it. That's the entire reason the Health Care system is as fucked up as it is. Profits before treatment.

Check out Michael Moore's brilliant "Sicko" for an example of what happens with the big Insurance companies like Humana, Aetna, etc. etc. His documentary discusses people with insurance coverage who wind up bankrupt simply because they had the temerity to get sick.

If you really want to fix health care, you have to remove Profit as the overriding reason a health insurance company is in business. Find another way to reward your shareholders or executives. Earnings Per Share = Denial Of Coverage, and it's about time this equation changed. Wouldn't it be cool if a company made half a billion dollars because it was able to reduce the rate of cancer or obesity or diabetes in the country and it was rewarded not by profits of drugs or denial of service, but because of the results of a service provided that improved the lives of its customers?

Tell me what you think,

Regards

Dennis

How Idiotic We Must Look

2009-07-26T08:36:00.004-05:00

While this nonsense started prior to the election, the so-called "Birther Movement" has garnered quite a lot of attention recently. Most recent, is Lou Dobbs, the venerable CNN newsman who regularly bemoans all the illegal aliens coming into the country giving this ridiculous matter his attention. Come on Lou, please don't get on the express train to Crazy Town along with the other nut jobs out there who think the President is not a natural born citizen.

The picture of his birth certificate included here was provided by the campaign well before the election took place and even his chief rival for the top-job, Mr. John Sidney McCain, has said this is utter bullshit.

A wide array of lunatics that include Jerome Corsi, the author of the John Kerry hit-job for the Swift Boaters, and Alan Keyes an absolute whacked out guy whom I can't understand why he continues to get press. Others assisting in the nonsense are the aforementioned Dobbs, Liz Cheney and Sean Hannity, who in the wake of reporting that a US Soldier refused orders on the basis that the President is not a citizen had this to say:

We told you Tuesday about an Army reserve soldier who challenged his
deployment orders on the grounds that President Obama has not proven he is a
U.S. citizen. Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who was supposed to deploy to
Afghanistan in the coming days, has had his orders revoked. According to his
lawyer, "They just said 'order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons. Just
revoked." Major Cook and his lawyer expressed joy at this outcome and took it as
an admission on the part of the military that the president is not in fact a
legitimate citizen by birth.
—Sean Hannity [116][117]
Why is this even discussed? Well, for one thing, there are a lot of nut-jobs out there with too much time on their hands. Conspiracy theorists abound, whether it's the 9/11 Truthers, or the ones who think Castro killed JFK, we've always had them and always will. Those who think that Obama is some sort of "Manchurian Candidate", need to see Jon Stewart's response to their prattle.
OK, so the title of this post is "How Idiotic We Must Look". The point of the post is that if you are from pretty much anywhere else in the world, looking at all the problems out there, then turn on essentially any US based news outlet, whether CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or the main networks, you will see time wasted on this. We have a wrecked economy, soldiers still being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 50 million people without health care, and this is what they see.
This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue. It's not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's a sane or insane issue. Those who legitimately believe that Obama is not a US citizen in spite of all the "facts", and as John Adams said: "Facts are Stubborn Things", are indeed insane on the issue. Those who know it is bullshit but are flogging this to gain political advantage are just opportunistic bastards playing on the imagination of a few sick people and they should be ashamed of themselves.
I've seen the best of America. I watched the moon landing, (oh and for you moon landing conspiracy theorists: Piss Off). I've seen communities band together to find missing children, to help after disasters like Katrina or the tsunami in Indonesia. I've seen people come together regardless of skin color to demand equal rights and protection under the law. The Birther movement, along with the crazies who think the President is actually a stealth Muslim is the worst in America. A childish group of people, who are over fed a diet of idiotic innuendo and rumor and don't have the intelligence to know they are believing utter nonsense.
Tell me what you think (Birthers, don't bother, I already know what you think)

Regards,
Dennis

Justice Delayed, Justice Betrayed?

2009-07-21T07:35:00.002-05:00

In a recent Newsweek article, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff describes how the task force set up by the Obama administration to develop a plan for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be delayed "a few months". Orginally scheduled to be published today, the task force will not publish it's recommendation because members can not agree on the legal, and political footprint required to come up with a recommendation.

The issue is fairly complex. Countries of origin do not want the detainees back. Congress is having a collective cow at the notion of "them terrrerrists" being housed in prisons in their states. (Of course, no one has ever escaped from a SuperMax prison, and it houses some fairly scary inmated)

Ok, all of this is fairly predictable. That's the delay part. What troubles, me, no, what really pisses me off is the Obama administration starting to sound like the Bush administration. This excerpt from the article is the most disconcerting to me:

"Three administration officials familiar with the process said the detention task force, which is jointly run by aides to Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, did agree that the Obama administration should continue to claim the right to hold some Guantánamo inmates indefinitely as "combatants" under the "laws of war," without charging them either in criminal courts or in military commissions."

I mean, What The Fuck?

tell me what you think.

regards,
Dennis

What A Glorious Day

2009-07-20T17:25:00.002-05:00

"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." Nine words. Just nine words culminate the most impressive undertaking by humanity. Neil Armstrong's terse confirmation that the Lunar Module known as the "Eagle" touched down on the lifeless, colorless, completely desolate satellite of the Earth known to all of us simply as "The Moon". Tranquility Base (geez the space program is good at naming stuff), was the location. The day was July 20, 1969. I was ten years old, and thought that "boy, after this, we can do anything".

The importance of the Apollo program and its predecessors, Mercury and Gemini, is lost on many people born after we quietly backed away from deeper human exploration and focused on more utilitarian space missions. Oh, the Hubble is terrific, the pictures beautiful, and we have learned so much with it's launch. The International Space Station is cool, as are the various unmanned missions to Mars.

Apollo was different though. Human beings, like Magellan ventured off into territory unknown and unfriendly. Not only did they achieve the goal of reaching the moon, they came back safely. A youthful president exhorted this nation to achieve this goal only 8 years earlier and we did it!

Think of what we can do when we try. You don't have to think hard, just think two words. Apollo 11.

regards,

Dennis

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

Circus Maximus

2008-04-25T06:34:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Dennis

April 4th, and Heroes

2008-04-13T08:24:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same Old Song

2008-04-09T05:06:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Rampant Hypocrisy

2008-03-23T18:50:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Hubris

2008-03-13T06:20:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Now What?

2008-03-08T09:04:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

God help us all,

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Why I Support Barack Obama

2008-02-29T07:00:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's hoping he stays true to his words.

Tell me what you think

Regards,

Dennis

It's Time

2008-02-20T08:05:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

Tell Me What You Think,

Regards,
Dennis

Legacy

2008-02-16T14:08:00.005-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

regards

Dennis

340 Days

2008-02-14T07:51:00.004-06:00

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

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

Won't it be a terrific day?

Regards,

Dennis

More Evidence John McCain is George Bush in a Hero Suit

2008-02-14T06:27:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

What a noble thought.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

How Hillary Can Make History and Save the Democratic Party

2008-02-12T12:52:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what could happen if she does.

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

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

We'll have to wait and see.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

You Decide

2008-02-12T07:24:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

Barack Cleans Up

2008-02-11T07:39:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think.

regards,
Dennis

Predictable? - No Way!

2008-02-08T08:43:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

McCain & Romney Go Over The Line

2008-02-07T19:21:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Dennis Sherrard

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