The Obama campaign plane is silly. O Force One it is being called. It is clearly over the top. What the campaign should do is charter a plain vanilla piece of shit run out plane from one of the numerous bankrupt airlines in the US. Instead, some smart staffer decided to pimp out the campaign plane and unnecessarily spend campaign dollars on what will certainly become a symbol of Obama's hubris.
I makes me nuts. We must win this election. Obama needs to stay close to his core beliefs and remain grounded. I think this is not unlike Elvis. The posse surrounding the star want to take care of their man. Elvis didn't demand all the trappings. He was a simple small town boy. Obama didn't demand the pimped out plane. Some staffer thought it would be cool. Well, sonny, it is not cool. It is over the top, unnecessary and sends the wrong message.
Wise up. Stop being silly.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The War Criminals in the White House
Lately, I have had lots of random thoughts regarding the campaign, but nothing compelling enough to sit down at the computer and compose a post. The weather has been good in the Northwest and there are many more productive outlets available out of doors. In fact, I am about to head out for a midday bike ride, but wanted to take a moment to rant before I hit the road and allow the endorphins to wash away the negative energy.
Yesterday's New York Times Book Review had a long piece on The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer. The book, from the review, captures the tale of how Cheney and his side-kick Addington, hijacked the American Constitution and authorized, with the naive and willing complicity of Bush and Gonzales, the use of torture.
If one great reason exists to elect a Democrat to the White House, it may be the opportunity to charge several Bush administration officials with criminal conduct. Several of them have been put on notice that they should be cautious about traveling abroad. They are easily subject to being charged with War Crimes in other jurisdictions. Domestically, they have violated the law. The Justice Department, under a Democratic President, must investigate their transgressions and bring charges, if the evidence so warrants. I believe it will.
Unfortunately, I believe that Bush, before he leaves the White House, will pardon several members of his administration for these alleged crimes. Wanna bet?
Yesterday's New York Times Book Review had a long piece on The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer. The book, from the review, captures the tale of how Cheney and his side-kick Addington, hijacked the American Constitution and authorized, with the naive and willing complicity of Bush and Gonzales, the use of torture.
If one great reason exists to elect a Democrat to the White House, it may be the opportunity to charge several Bush administration officials with criminal conduct. Several of them have been put on notice that they should be cautious about traveling abroad. They are easily subject to being charged with War Crimes in other jurisdictions. Domestically, they have violated the law. The Justice Department, under a Democratic President, must investigate their transgressions and bring charges, if the evidence so warrants. I believe it will.
Unfortunately, I believe that Bush, before he leaves the White House, will pardon several members of his administration for these alleged crimes. Wanna bet?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Shriveled Up Old Nuts Syndrome
Jesse Jackson's recent comments regarding his opinion that Barack Obama had been talking down to the black community are similar in tone to the remarks made by the Reverend Wright at the National Press Club a few months ago.
It is clear to me that some in the old generation of black leadership in America have their shorts in a bunch about Barack Obama. Those shriveled up old nuts want to cut Barack's nuts off. Of course they do.
They struggled through the civil rights era of the 1950's and 1960's. They were in the trenches and earned their stripes the hard way. They ascended to leadership in the black community out of the street and the churches of those black neighborhoods. Their leadership was grounded in the black community. On occasion, they would make a move into the broader community. Jesse Jackson is an example, with his two runs for the Presidency.
Now that the next generation, untested in the trench warfare of the civil rights movement, is coming to the fore, the old guard is upset. Moreover, this next generation of young black politicians have a broad base of support. Their support is not grounded in the black community but in the broader base of enlightened voters.
"Who do they think they are? We have been running the show for the last forty years. We aren't dead yet. They need to pay us more respect. Who are they to tell us what to do? We may be shriveled up old nuts Barack, but we want to cut your nuts off."
There is nothing quite like the angst of the aging individual who history has passed by.
It is clear to me that some in the old generation of black leadership in America have their shorts in a bunch about Barack Obama. Those shriveled up old nuts want to cut Barack's nuts off. Of course they do.
They struggled through the civil rights era of the 1950's and 1960's. They were in the trenches and earned their stripes the hard way. They ascended to leadership in the black community out of the street and the churches of those black neighborhoods. Their leadership was grounded in the black community. On occasion, they would make a move into the broader community. Jesse Jackson is an example, with his two runs for the Presidency.
Now that the next generation, untested in the trench warfare of the civil rights movement, is coming to the fore, the old guard is upset. Moreover, this next generation of young black politicians have a broad base of support. Their support is not grounded in the black community but in the broader base of enlightened voters.
"Who do they think they are? We have been running the show for the last forty years. We aren't dead yet. They need to pay us more respect. Who are they to tell us what to do? We may be shriveled up old nuts Barack, but we want to cut your nuts off."
There is nothing quite like the angst of the aging individual who history has passed by.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
War Hero
Wesley Clark's comments about John McCain are insightful. No doubt they have been mangled and misrepresented by the press. His comments cause me to think about a variation off an issue I posted about several months ago.
Clark said that McCain's military experience was not a qualifier for leading the country. He explained that McCain did not have command experience while in the military. Everything that Clark said was absolutely true. McCain never commanded a large group of men in the military. He was a pilot. Clark, ultimately head of the NATO command, knows about the role of the military executive. Clark, with 38 years of service in the military, knows what leadership looks like when he sees it.
I suspect there is another underlying issue at play in Clark's comments. Clark experienced the Vietnam War on the ground and came home on a stretcher. McCain's Vietnam War experience was very different. He flew in the sky's and then spent five years in a Hanoi prison. Indeed, his experience was a brutal one, but it was not a Vietnam War experience that included bullets, chaos, and buddies being shot on the ground. McCain did not experience the political tug and pull of the Vietnam War as it was lived by people like Clark who saw the prevarication of the likes of McNamera, Kissinger, Nixon and others. I have read recently of the divide in the US Senate between those Senators, Vietnam veterans who served on the ground, and McCain. They had very different experiences and as a consequence, have very different views.
Most all descriptions of McCain begin with the phrase, "John McCain, War Hero." Clark's comments cause me to think about that and wonder. What constitutes a war hero? Historically, how do you become a war hero? Does McCain qualify, when juxtaposed to those who have previously been called war heroes, for the title?
As a young man in the 1950's I was fascinated by a war hero from World War II. Audie Murphy was a true war hero. Of course, he became a movie star and even played himself in that 1950's movie of his autobiography, To Hell and Back. Murphy was undeniably a war hero. He won every medal for valor the military could grant.
McCain's heroism derives from his endurance while incarcerated. He was not a hero on the battlefield. He is honored for standing up to his captors. I see his behavior as nothing more than his lifelong rejection of authority figures, all of which is well portrayed in the great book The Nightingale's Song, Timberg's book on five Annapolis grads: McFarland, Poindexter, McCain, Ollie North and Jim Webb. I commend it to you for its insight on the historic McCain.
At the same time, I suggest that to question McCain's service and its relevance to be commander in chief is akin to questioning any of the actions of the Bush administration after 9/11. It is a sacred cow and to raise questions about a war hero is to cross some sacred line.
Clark had the courage to cross that line. Doesn't everything that has to do with leadership and governance become fair game in selecting a President?
Clark said that McCain's military experience was not a qualifier for leading the country. He explained that McCain did not have command experience while in the military. Everything that Clark said was absolutely true. McCain never commanded a large group of men in the military. He was a pilot. Clark, ultimately head of the NATO command, knows about the role of the military executive. Clark, with 38 years of service in the military, knows what leadership looks like when he sees it.
I suspect there is another underlying issue at play in Clark's comments. Clark experienced the Vietnam War on the ground and came home on a stretcher. McCain's Vietnam War experience was very different. He flew in the sky's and then spent five years in a Hanoi prison. Indeed, his experience was a brutal one, but it was not a Vietnam War experience that included bullets, chaos, and buddies being shot on the ground. McCain did not experience the political tug and pull of the Vietnam War as it was lived by people like Clark who saw the prevarication of the likes of McNamera, Kissinger, Nixon and others. I have read recently of the divide in the US Senate between those Senators, Vietnam veterans who served on the ground, and McCain. They had very different experiences and as a consequence, have very different views.
Most all descriptions of McCain begin with the phrase, "John McCain, War Hero." Clark's comments cause me to think about that and wonder. What constitutes a war hero? Historically, how do you become a war hero? Does McCain qualify, when juxtaposed to those who have previously been called war heroes, for the title?
As a young man in the 1950's I was fascinated by a war hero from World War II. Audie Murphy was a true war hero. Of course, he became a movie star and even played himself in that 1950's movie of his autobiography, To Hell and Back. Murphy was undeniably a war hero. He won every medal for valor the military could grant.
McCain's heroism derives from his endurance while incarcerated. He was not a hero on the battlefield. He is honored for standing up to his captors. I see his behavior as nothing more than his lifelong rejection of authority figures, all of which is well portrayed in the great book The Nightingale's Song, Timberg's book on five Annapolis grads: McFarland, Poindexter, McCain, Ollie North and Jim Webb. I commend it to you for its insight on the historic McCain.
At the same time, I suggest that to question McCain's service and its relevance to be commander in chief is akin to questioning any of the actions of the Bush administration after 9/11. It is a sacred cow and to raise questions about a war hero is to cross some sacred line.
Clark had the courage to cross that line. Doesn't everything that has to do with leadership and governance become fair game in selecting a President?
Friday, June 20, 2008
Collective Grief
Many commentators have written about the large outpouring of emotion surrounding the recent sudden death of Tim Russert. Some have wondered about the scope of those expressions of grief.
While all of us, political cognoscenti, were personally touched by Russert's unfortunate early demise, I believe there was another force behind the emotion. More than a year ago I posted a poem on my poetry blog: www.poetrysmackdown.blogspot.com on the subject of what I call
Collective Grief
Small slights
Each imperceptible
Occur day by day
While all of us, political cognoscenti, were personally touched by Russert's unfortunate early demise, I believe there was another force behind the emotion. More than a year ago I posted a poem on my poetry blog: www.poetrysmackdown.blogspot.com on the subject of what I call
Collective Grief
Small slights
Each imperceptible
Occur day by day
At home, at work
And in the world
At large
Upset but not
So much as to
Rise to the level
Of conscious reaction
Grief or the little grief
Over time in some
Reservoir of emotion
About which we
Have no awareness
Event occurs and a flood
Flows from that
Reservoir out of
Proportion to the event
Itself
As with the death of
A revered icon
The flood includes
Not only our accumulated
Grief but also
That collective grief we
All share which has
Accumulated silently
Beside our own.
So, on several occasions, Tim Russert's death and the memorial remarks associated with his passing brought me to tears. They were an expression of grief for him, but perhaps more an expression of my own portion of the collective grief and my own mortality as well.
The Rule of Law
Perhaps I am burdened by being a lawyer and a believer in the constitution and the now "quaint" notion that we are a nation and a people bound by and committed to the rule of law. Perhaps it is difficult for me to come to grips with the this contemporary notion that the rule of law is situational and applies only when it serves our purposes.
Most of the mouth breathing citizens of this republic don't have the vaguest idea of the issues at stake in the telecom immunity bill which passed the US Senate yesterday. The Congress has done the bidding of the Bush White House, or rather the Bush White House has finessed the Congress in an action that goes to the very heart of why the administration is the most duplicitous and mendacious in our history.
So, some background: the telecom bill, FISA Amendments Act of 2007, provides to the administration and all involved, including domestic telecom carriers, immunity from prosecution for spying upon and eavesdropping upon the communications of US citizens. The eavesdropping was done without warrants. They were absolutely clear violations of the law and the constitution. The administration knew they were illegal. The administration knew that their actions could subject themselves to criminal prosecution and subject the telecom carriers to prosecution as well.
So, what did the administration do? They cunningly included the Democratic leadership in the house and the Senate in their plans. In the hysteria the prevailed post 9/11 the Democratic leadership bought off on the warrant less eavesdropping. To oppose those moves, either privately or publicly would have made them unpatriotic in the blustering eyes of the administration. So, they had no balls (or ovaries as the case may be) and supported the administrations private indiscretions and rape of the constitution.
Now, when the heat is on and the issue sees the clear light of day, the Senate (the House is voting today so lean on your Congressman/woman) supports the White House and passes this immunity bill. It seems counterintuitive that the Democrats would do that, but not when you understand that they were protecting not only the telecom carries and the White House; they were protecting themselves and their own as well.
As an analogy for the more dense among you, this is like the person who robs a bank, gets caught, and then has the law changed so that bank robbing is no longer a crime. Oh, you say, this is different. Think again please about the foundation of this nation and the sanctity of the rule of law.
Senator Dodd proposed an amendment that would have removed the immunity. It failed to pass with a filibuster proof vote of 67 Nay and 31 Yea with the ever tough Hillary Clinton not voting. Obama voted Yea. For the list of Senate voters so you will know who to never support again, see: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015
Most of the mouth breathing citizens of this republic don't have the vaguest idea of the issues at stake in the telecom immunity bill which passed the US Senate yesterday. The Congress has done the bidding of the Bush White House, or rather the Bush White House has finessed the Congress in an action that goes to the very heart of why the administration is the most duplicitous and mendacious in our history.
So, some background: the telecom bill, FISA Amendments Act of 2007, provides to the administration and all involved, including domestic telecom carriers, immunity from prosecution for spying upon and eavesdropping upon the communications of US citizens. The eavesdropping was done without warrants. They were absolutely clear violations of the law and the constitution. The administration knew they were illegal. The administration knew that their actions could subject themselves to criminal prosecution and subject the telecom carriers to prosecution as well.
So, what did the administration do? They cunningly included the Democratic leadership in the house and the Senate in their plans. In the hysteria the prevailed post 9/11 the Democratic leadership bought off on the warrant less eavesdropping. To oppose those moves, either privately or publicly would have made them unpatriotic in the blustering eyes of the administration. So, they had no balls (or ovaries as the case may be) and supported the administrations private indiscretions and rape of the constitution.
Now, when the heat is on and the issue sees the clear light of day, the Senate (the House is voting today so lean on your Congressman/woman) supports the White House and passes this immunity bill. It seems counterintuitive that the Democrats would do that, but not when you understand that they were protecting not only the telecom carries and the White House; they were protecting themselves and their own as well.
As an analogy for the more dense among you, this is like the person who robs a bank, gets caught, and then has the law changed so that bank robbing is no longer a crime. Oh, you say, this is different. Think again please about the foundation of this nation and the sanctity of the rule of law.
Senator Dodd proposed an amendment that would have removed the immunity. It failed to pass with a filibuster proof vote of 67 Nay and 31 Yea with the ever tough Hillary Clinton not voting. Obama voted Yea. For the list of Senate voters so you will know who to never support again, see: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
