commentary on the passing parade

Agree? Disagree? Tell me

My Other Blog

 
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA 2010

This is the time of year when serious bloggers no doubt are busy creating their 2010 retroespectives of their blog postings. I’d thought about doing something like that myself - but as with my comments about George Ryan the other day, a couple of interconnected news stories have dictated otherwise - news stories that beg the question of what kind of a nation we are. If you had to describe the United States in a few words - say in five words or less - a pretty good description of how we think of ourselves would be " a nation of laws." That’s four words - one under the limit. Other nations may describe themselves that way, but we wouldn’t think of them as being comparable to our understanding of laws. In Pakistan for example there’s a law against blasphemy - saying anything that could be considered disrespectful of Islam or the prophet Mohammed - punishable by death. And we all know that adultery can bring a sentence of death by stoning in Iran.

But while we’re busy turning up our noses and laughing up our sleeves at how some nations consider themselves nations of laws - it might be a good idea, as 2010 draws to a close, to take a look at what kind of a "nation of laws" we take so much pride in. I touched on this briefly on November 20, 2010, when I was writing about the nutty differences between the states. I made the point that the penalty for murder could depend on where the murderer was standing when the crime was committed. In one place it could be years in prison - but a few feet away, across a state line - it could be death.

Now we have two end of the year stories that bring that kind of nuttiness into sharp focus. In one story, one Charles Clements, a 69 year old who has been described in just about all of the news coverage as "a great grandfather and former marine," confronted Joshua Funchea, a 23 year old neighbor, whose dog had urinated on the older man’s well manicured lawn in which he took exceptional pride. An argument ensued and Clements shot and killed Funches.

At trial, the killer was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to - it’s like a gag with an unexpected punch line - wait for it - Four Years Probation!! The story has been widely covered and you’ve probably read about it. Clements testified that the younger man had cussed him out and punched him in the face and so he shot him in self defense. Whether or not there were witnesses to the confrontation isn’t clear - but in any event, the judge in the case - Daniel Rozak - bought the "explanation" and decided that probation was sufficient punishment. The prosecutors aren’t appealing the decision because they say they respect this judge. Apparently, Judge Roazak though it was perfectly normal for Mr Clements to chase his neighbor and erring dog down the street brandishing a gun! O.K. I exaggerate. The gun was in his pocket. But nonetheless, he went after the younger man with a gun in his possession and when he subsequently, according to his version of events - got pushed and punched - why, he simply "defended" himself. By pulling out the gun and killing his attacker. Perfectly natural reaction. Absolutely justified. The law according to Judge Rozak of Will County, Illinois.


A few states away, Haley Barbour, the merciful Governor of Mississippi, has decided to "indefinitely suspend" the sentence of Gladys and Jamie Scott, two sisters who had been serving a life sentence for an armed robbery in which no one was hurt and the haul was a big $11 - or maybe it was twelve. After all, it was a long time ago. The sisters have been in jail for sixteen years and memories of the specifics of old cases tend to fade. I doubt if the victims themselves would remember exactly how much was taken from them that many years ago. I don’t know what kind of law can put you away for life for armed robbery in Mississippi. According to what I’ve read about the case, the sisters lured the victims into an ambush where a bunch of teens beat and robbed them. The actual robbers got lesser sentences and for all I know may be long gone from the pokey. But the sisters were there until the release of death until Barbour intervened. Not as an act of mercy. Not to right an injustice. But to save money. And with conditions yet.

One of the sisters is on dialysis, costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars - so Barbour decided to rid the state of that cost by offering to release the two on condition that the healthy sister donate a kidney to the other. The arrangement raises all kinds of issues - ethical, legal and monetary, which we’ll no doubt be reading about in the weeks and months ahead. But that isn’t the issue here. What concerns me is the life sentence the two women received for an eleven or twelve dollar robbery. I will admit to not doing a great deal of research about the Scott sisters, but as far as I have been able to determine, they weren’t career criminals with multiple past convictions, so the robbery and subsequent life sentence wasn’t the culmination of a life of crime. Mississippians didn’t exhale a collective sigh of relief that those dangerous ladies had finally been apprehended and locked away so they could no longer be a menace to their peaceful southern society. So their punishment, though not as extreme, could be compared to the punishment for dissing Mohammed in Pakistan. In both cases, the punishment didn’t fit the crime - but is more egregious here because we are the original "nation of laws." The Constitution and all that stuff.

So what we have here as the year comes to a close is - on one hand a sentence of life imprisonment in the state of Mississippi for taking part in an eleven or twelve dollar robbery - while on the other hand, as Tevye would say - four years of probation in Illinois for killing someone who didn’t stop his dog from urinating on the killer's lawn and who reacted belligerently when he was chased by a gun toting lawn care fanatic. Both happening in our nation of laws. In the same country. Not in two third world countries with laws that provide fodder for late night comedians on American television. Right here, at home.

Both cases will consume a small portion of our attention for a while - there’ll be some outrage expressed by some people over aspects of both of them - but in a while, in a very short while, we’ll give a collective shrug and get on with our lives. The outrage that sent two young women for life for a two bit robbery in one state while a murder in another was "punished" with probation will result in no examination or changes to the disparate laws of various states or even counties within those states - nor to those who administer them. And we’ll continue to be disgusted by, feel superior to and laugh about the laws of some other countries and why and how those who break them are punished. Even though in some ways, we’re as bad as they are. A conclusion with which I am sure the Scott sisters and the surviving members of Joshua Finches’ family would agree.

A strange story on which to end the New Year. Let’s hope for brighter times and subjects in 2011. Even though I’m thinking that my first commentary in the new year might be about Republicans…….
posted by Jeff Smith at 12/31/2010 08:42:00 PM

 
THE TRIBUNE AND GEORGE RYAN - NOT A XMAS STORY

I had several things in mind to write about before the year ran out and maybe I’ll get to one of them between Xmas and New Years. But for today - a topic that I find difficult to ignore - the Inspector Javert complex of the Chicago Tribune when it comes to former Illinois Governor George Ryan. Ryan was convicted of various shades of corruption in April, 2006 and sentenced to 6 ½ years in a Federal Penitentiary. Back then I wrote about what I considered to be a vendetta against Ryan by the Tribune and the influence I thought they had on the trial’s jurors. Now they’re at it again. Ryan’s wife has been diagnosed as having perhaps six months to live and his lawyers appealed to the sentencing judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer for early release - an appeal swiftly and not unexpectedly denied. Before the decision was handed down, the Tribune published a lead editorial urging denial. The editorial pointed out that many prisoners face similar circumstances of sickness and death of spouses and other loved ones and are not granted early release from their sentences and Ryan shouldn’t be granted special consideration - a not unreasonable argument. But the Tribune couldn’t leave it there. It had to add arguments that were both vindictive and specious.

The editorial speaks of Ryan "lining his pockets." Whatever crimes Ryan may have committed, none involved "lining his pockets." Yes, he gave out state contracts to friends who gave him perks but they didn’t make him rich. He put family members on his election payroll who allegedly didn’t do much for their pay, (Family members hired by politicians? Whoever would think such a thing possible?) But whatever he did or was accused of in the way of corrupt practices, the man is broke. He was virtually broke when he went to trial. There is no money stashed away in foreign banks. No shoe boxes full of hundred dollar bills have been found. The few illegal perks that he received were petty. And now he has lost his pension. It is not just disingenuous to allege that he enriched himself while he was in elective office - it is unnecessarily vindictive and far removed from the journalistic integrity which the Chicago Tribune claims to have.

But worse than this is the Tribune’s insistence, editorially, in the columns of John Kass and now in an editorial cartoon, that Ryan should remain in jail because he was somehow personally responsible for the death of the six Willis children, killed when part of a truck’s rear assembly fell off and crashed into the car in which they were passengers. The driver of the truck, who spoke little English, had paid a bribe to get his commercial driver’s license while Ryan was Secretary of State and somehow the ex-Governor has been labeled as being indirectly responsible for their deaths and even though he has never been charged with anything concerning the accident and while it was never an issue at his trial - it was nonetheless an "issue" that the Tribune brought up again and again during its trial coverage - coverage that was available to members of the jury that ultimately found him guilty.

Whatever Ryan is or was, he is not a killer and I do not believe it is fair to pin the deaths of the Willis children on him as though he was personally responsible and to cite this "responsibility" as one of the reasons he should not be granted an early release from jail. . Though never charged with anything involving his tenure as Illinois Secretary of State, he was accused of overseeing a corrupt agency where bribery of license examiners was common and that some of the bribe money found its way back to his political fund. Some or maybe all of this may be true, but the accident wasn’t caused because the truck driver had paid someone a bribe to help get his license application approved. It could just as easily have happened with a driver with decades of truck driving experience whose truck suddenly had the same kind of failure that resulted in the deaths of those children.

One news story that I read on line alleged that "absent the corruption under Ryan's watch, the trucker in question would not have been on the road, and six kids would still be alive and on their way to adulthood today." That’s very little different than saying absent the granting of a drivers license to anyone involved in an accident resulting in death, the deceased would still be living and enjoying life. Yes, the driver in this case paid a bribe to get his license. Yes, according to news reports, Ryan or his staff may have quashed any investigation of the tragedy, though of course Ryan denied it. But at the end of the day it was still a tragic accident that could have happened the same way if that same truck driver had obtained his license without any bribes being involved. And when you look at some of the people driving on Illinois roads who somehow were O.K.’d to drive by a State examiner, you have to wonder why anyone would need to pay a bribe.

I guess I’m in the minority on this issue if readers letters to the Tribune can be considered any kind of yardstick - but perhaps the Tribune is being selective in the letters they decide to publish, which of course is their right. Ryan may indeed have been as corrupt a politician as that portrayed by the prosecution at his trial, but nothing that he personally did caused the accident that killed six children. Punish him for the offenses for which he was convicted. Make him serve the full 6 ½ years if that is the final determination of the courts. But don’t insist that he be kept there because he is as some kind of murderer by proxy. And don’t keep implying that he has escaped but deserves greater punishment because of the death of the Willis children. He didn’t kill those kids. Corruption didn’t kill those kids. A horrible accident did - an accident that could have happened anywhere to anyone. I don’t expect the Tribune’s editorial writers or columnist John Kass or cartoonist Scott Stantis to back away from the position they have adopted on the case, but they are wrong and they will continue to be wrong as they continue to attach the name of Willis to every story they write about George Ryan, however removed it may be from the elective office he held at the time the tragedy occurred.
posted by Jeff Smith at 12/22/2010 12:00:00 PM

 
DID SOMEONE SAY CHAPTER ELEVEN?

I’ve been listening to supporters and what sounds like former supporters of President Obama express their views of his tax "compromise" and I can imagine how much all of the disagreement must be music to Republican ears. They’ve not only won control of the House and made cloture virtually impossible in the Senate - but have been handed the bonus of watching members of Obama’s own party rebel against him. And Obama has only himself to blame. He made a bad deal and now he’s making it worse by trying to sell it as a "stimulus" package. Shades of Bush senior trying to sell us on the first Iraq war being about jobs!!

And if you wanted absolute proof that he’s made a bad deal, Charles Krauthammer wants us all to believe that what Obama really did was pull a fast one over the Republicans and the deal that he hammered out with them is a bigger "stimulus" package that the stimulus money already pumped into the economy!! Charles Krauthammer for Pete’s sake! As ancient philosophers were want to say in situation like this - Oy!!

I’m no economist but I see nothing in the arrangement with the Republicans that will stimulate anything other than the heightened expectations of children of the rich who’ll be getting a free pass on the first five million of their inheritance and a reduced tax on the rest. Leaving those earning a quarter million a year and up with the same tax rates they’ve enjoyed for the last ten years isn’t going to create any jobs - it hasn’t for the past ten years - nor will a 2% reduction in payroll tax. The idea being floated that employers will suddenly be persuaded to hire more workers because it will cost them fractionally less is ludicrous - as was a previous idea to offer a tax break for each new hire. The only thing that will induce small businesses to increase their payrolls is need - the need for more workers because business has picked up and they’re needed to handle it. All the so called incentives are little more than political gimmickry. The only thing that Obama can crow about is that there’ll be an extension of benefits for some of the unemployed - though not the ninety niners - and that taxes on the middle class won’t go up. But what a price he paid to wring those two concessions from the Republicans. Increasing the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The "compromise" looks like it will sail through with virtually no changes, despite initial signs of revolt from the House and the marathon effort of Bernie Sanders in the Senate. Now there’s a poll showing that close to 70% of those polled favor the deal. I don’t know what questions were asked or of whom, but I doubt that a majority were people who voted for Obama. I think he has lost the support of a great many of those people and I don’t think the President understands that or why they have lost faith in him. I could cite the things they expected of him that haven’t happened - closing Gitmo, stopping the Bush doctrine of rendition, getting rid of Don’t Ask -Don’t tell and more - but instead I’ll cite just one thing that he said while defending the deal - criticizing those who were criticizing it. "It’s the Public Option all over again", he said. Yes Mr. President, you’re right - but you don’t know in what way you’re right.
.
For most of us who supported healthcare reform, the key ingredient was a "Public Option" - something to compete with the insurance industry’s stranglehold on healthcare. We expected the President to fight tooth and nail to make sure that it was the major instrument of healthcare reform. Instead, he hardly gave it lip service. He gave in to the forces that he knew would fight tooth and nail to keep it out of any healthcare bill and what we ended up with was a bonus to the insurance companies - a guarantee of millions more premium paying customers - many subsidized by taxpayers. We should have known then that Obama was not the man we thought we had elected. For sure we know it now as he admits that the tax deal is the "Public Option" all over gain. As in once again he didn’t fight - showed no passion for what he said was the kind of deal he wanted. Instead, he surrendered to the Republican insistence that ALL of the Bush tax cuts be extended while claiming some kind of victory that it is only for two years and not the permanent extension that the Republicans wanted. He said the right kind of things about them - that they were hostage takers and terrorists. The problem is he said these things after he’d struck the deal which, according to Moody’s, could put the U.S. credit rating at risk.

Right now, Obama has kicked the can down the road for two years, at which time the battle by Republicans who have this crazed idea that the road to prosperity is paved with tax reductions for those who need it least, will resume - as in trying to make the temporary tax cuts permanent . He’s gambling that he’ll be the one in opposition and with the power of the veto pen. If he isn’t, the United States will need more than a president. It will need a high priced bankruptcy attorney.
posted by Jeff Smith at 12/15/2010 08:19:00 PM

 
SURRENDER AS COMPROMISE- THE OBAMA DOCTRINE?

And the madness continues. Republicans in the House and Senate are thumbing their collective noses at the American people and at the President and what is incredibly sad is that the people who voted for them don’t get it - and neither it seems does Mr. Obama. Republican Senators and Representatives , who have expressed such great concern about our growing deficit, are acting as they always act when it comes to. taxes. They act as though the nation can function without the need for any tax revenues. They frequently run for office and for re-election on such a theme and low information voters will nod approvingly when one of their heroes proclaims that he or she has NEVER voted for a tax increase and never will!! Yeah. Hooray for the tooth fairy.

That is the charade being acted out in the Senate this weekend as Republicans - and a few so called Democrats - block the extension of the Bush 2001 tax cuts for middle class tax payers - unless its also extended for millionaires and billionaires. Give us what we want or we’ll pick up our filibusters and go home. And if we don’t get what we want, that lazy unemployed riffraff can just forget about more unemployment insurance. Let ‘em put some string and different shaped stones in the Christmas stockings and tell the kids to use their imagination - like we had to do when we were kids. And they’re going to win of course. The two sides are negotiating a "compromise" - which means that there’ll be a "temporary’ extension of the current tax rates for everyone and a few more weeks of benefits for the long term unemployed - even though Republicans know that as long as they’re getting those few weekly dollars, they won’t bother to look for work. But what the hell. It’s a compromise. And the President will have lost any chance of being reelected in 2012.

He ran on a number of absolute promises - among them a guarantee that there’d be no tax increase for the middle class and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would expire at the end of its ten year wealth enhancement spree. Now he’s talking "compromise" - a self invented euphemism for surrender. He’s given in without a fight - and I think Tom Harkin was being optimistic when he said that Obama better hope and pray that Sarah Palin runs. I’m not sure he could even beat the half governor self promoter if he chooses to run for a second term. The base of his supporters have given up on him. He’s not the man they put their faith in and voted for - as witness their absence from the voting booth at the mid term. I was a big supporter but I’m not sure if I could vote for him again. If a Republican is elected in 2012, at least it would be likely that we’d know what we were getting. We thought we knew with Obama and we were wrong.

There’s still hope. All his supporters want him to do in order to continue to be supporters is to fight for the principles they thought he stood for. The Presidency is not the office of community organizing. It is the world’s largest bully pulpit. The people who voted for Obama want him to say what Mitch McConnell and his gang of 41 have said - that there will be no compromise when it comes to taxes - that he will veto any extension of the Bush tax cuts that includes those making in excess of a quarter million dollars a year. And he should hammer at the hypocrisy of Republicans agreeing to extend unemployment benefits for those in dire need only if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those who are far from in need. They have thrown down the gauntlet. Obama’s supporters want to see him pick it up and throw it right back at them - preferably across Senator McConnell’s protruding jowl.

The Republicans insist that it would be catastrophic to raise taxes on the wealthy during a time of recession. The lack of logic in that statement boggles the mind. What do they think will happen? That there’ll be catastrophic drop in caviar sales? A slow down in yacht production? A delay in mansion construction? Yes the rich have more money to spend - but it’s the millions of the rest of us who do the day to day spending that keeps the economy rolling - even when it slows to a crawl.

There has never been a clearer distinction drawn between what the blinkered Republicans and the rest of us stand for. It’s an opportunity for the President to go before the American people and point it out - not in professorial and conciliatory terms but in the kind of language we’ve been waiting for him to use for the past two years. He should have started after he met with Republicans at the White House and announced that they seemed to want to stop the partisan deadlock and work for the good of the nation - only to have them announce their "screw you" response the next morning. He needed to say that it’s obvious the Republicans have no interest in working with his administration and that from this moment on - unless and until they change - he will respond to them accordingly.

He needs to learn from Ronald Reagan. The Russians didn’t tear down the Berlin wall because he said - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - but he knew the effect of style over substance. Win or lose on any issue, Obama’s supporters are waiting for him to draw a line in the sand - any line on any issue. It’s only from behind such a line will his supporters join him and fight for another four years of hope and change. A lot of people are trying to tell him just that. We can only hope that he will hear through the noise of Presidential paraphernalia and listen to what they’re saying.
posted by Jeff Smith at 12/05/2010 12:45:00 PM

 
HOW FREE SHOULD FREE SPEECH BE?

So much nonsense and stupidity abounds , it becomes increasingly difficult to decide on which aspect of the "passing parade" to comment on any given day. The idiocy of the TSA’s "scans and feels" is one that needs endless comment - until it stops- is just one example - but for today I want to make a few observations - long overdue and that should be made by any serious thinker in the United States - about freedom of speech and what its limitations should be - if any.

I’m a fairly regular viewer of MSNBC and I’ve been observing their ridiculous "rules" about on air personalities making political donations with increasing disbelief. Apparently, this network has a work rule entitled "Citizenship by Permission Only." O.K. They have no such rule. But that’s what it amounts to when they can suspend without pay - first Keith Olbermann and now Joe Scarborough - for making political donations without permission!! Not that they would actually prevent anyone from making such contributions under threat of dismissal - that I am sure would be illegal and grounds for a law suit - but they insist that they be informed in advance of any on air personality making a contribution - which, the way I interpret it, amounts to an infringement of their constitutional right to free speech.

At the other end of the spectrum are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and an assortment of far right radio and television motor mouths who, operating under the protection of the first amendment to the constitution, say anything they like about anybody - lie about people with impunity and not only make political contributions without the kind of restrictions imposed on employees of MSNBC - but use their bully pulpits to promote fund raisers for their preferred political candidates. And nobody stops them

Then there are politicians and candidates for political office who lie about their opponents and about government programs and about economic conditions and security threats and scientific research - and a general assortment of yahoos who, while not having the advantage of a national bully pulpit, nonetheless manage to spout lies and hatred in the public arena - and for the most part, nothing happens to them either. That good old first amendment has a wide umbrella under which this assorted array of irresponsible nitwits have blithely been sheltering for decades. And I say it’s time to fold up that convenient canopy and expose this ancient protection to the elements of truth and responsibility.

I am sure that when the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in December, 1791, no one could have predicted how its few words would be used and abused a couple of centuries in the future. If they had, they might have been a little more specific than

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They might have added something about the application of common sense. Yes, there have been some limitations placed on that freedom since the time of the First Amendment - but for the most part, "speech" has not only run amok in the United States, but has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as a right for corporations and secret financial entities to BUY United States elections!

In Germany, people have the right to express themselves freely. They can be as critical of their government as we are permitted to be. But if they publicly deny that the Holocaust ever took place, they can go to jail. In the United States, Holocaust deniers could flood the airways with opinion and advertising and while the good folk would raise their hands in horror and condemn the lies - nothing would happen to the hate mongering bigots. No U.S. law against being a bigot. Over in England, speech is as free as it is here - but the Brtits do what they have to do to curb "speech" that is dangerous or harmful. For example, at one time during "The Troubles" - the BBC was banned from putting the Sinn Fein’s Gary Adams voice on the air. It couldn’t have happened here. That First Amendment thing would have stopped it The Brits also have laws that make it tough on politicians who lie. Phil Woolas was a Labour Party MP who has just been kicked out of Parliament after an "Election Court" - we have no such thing - ruled that he had lied about an opponent in his campaign literature. He’s appealing, but his chances of prevailing are slim. Can you imagine the chaos if we had something of that system here? Would anyone ever get elected or be allowed to hold his or her seat?

Of course we could never have an "Election Court" here, with the power to depose an election winner who was found to have lied. Nor could we ever enact an ad hoc speech restricting law to deal with a particular problem that was deemed to be harmful to the good of the nation. The good old First Amendment would prevent it. But does that mean that we should do nothing about how the noble ideas of the framers have been distorted beyond recognition? We Americans seem to have no confidence in our ability to use common sense when it comes to what should and shouldn’t be protected as free speech. We all agree that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a free speech no no, but surely the daily outpouring of hatred, bigotry, slander, false accusation and totally imagined "facts" that are spewed out from dawn to dusk on hundreds of radio stations and on cable television - in addition to assorted hate groups - such as the nuts that show up at the funeral of fallen service men and women with their disgusting signs - are just as dangerous - if not more dangerous than shouting fire. We have this idea that if we restrict any kind of free speech, we will have started a journey down a slippery slope to unrestricted prohibition of all kinds of speech. It doesn’t happen in free nations around the world. Why should it happen here?

Here are a handful of exceptions to free speech that some of the world's democracies have imposed on their citizens.

In India, propaganda for war , incitement to violence or advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion is not protected free speech. Also, Indian citizens, while they can appeal supreme court decisions, can’t criticize those decisions or they can go to the poky for three months. In France, you can’t write or say anything that incites racial or religious hatred - and as in Germany, Holocaust denial is not protected free speech. The French also can’t promote the idea of drug use. It’s a criminal offense. Not for using drugs - just for saying that you should be free to use them. In Sweden, you’re in trouble if you sound off against someone because of their race or religion or sexual orientation. Maybe you could get one the air here and say that you consider a nappy haired queer to be the lowest form of animal life and maybe get a raft of complaints or lose a sponsor. Just don’t try it in Oslo. You’d be breaking a law. A sensible law.

The last time I looked, these countries were still free democracies where free speech could be read and heard loud and clear. You might have noticed recently that the French didn’t feel any free speech restriction when they were mad about the idea of having to work beyond the age of 60. O.K. We’re not India or France or Germany or Sweden or the United Kingdom - but you have to ask if these countries have more confidence in the strength of their democracies than we do. We say that virtually all speech should be free and out in the open so that all can see and hear and speech that a majority finds unacceptable can be balanced out by other voices. Unfortunately, this is not the case - particularly when a large segment of the population only listens to one set of voices and is influenced by and acts upon their suggestions - directly stated or implied. I’m not suggesting that the sort of speech that I would classify as "hate" or "harmful" be banned by law. You can’t control what goes on behind closed doors - of a person’s home or a church or any other private gathering place. But we have ample evidence from around the world that keeping that kind of speech out of the print and electronic media is not harmful to a democracy and in fact makes the air less toxic and easier to breathe.
posted by Jeff Smith at 11/26/2010 12:34:00 PM

 
OUR CRAZY QUILT "UNITED" STATES OF AMERICA

As Barrack Obama prepares to begin the second half of his first - and perhaps his only term, many people who voted for him, including a core group of Democrats who consider themselves "progressives," are urging him to accept a situation that he has repeatedly denied by his actions - that it is impossible to work with Republicans whose major and often stated goal is to work to prevent him from winning a second term - and to act accordingly. I hope he does and I hope he starts by looking back to the 2004 speech at the Democratic National convention that launched him onto the national stage and admit to himself that while it may have been stirring rhetoric to declare that we were not a collection of red states and blue states and that there wasn’t a liberal America and a conservative America - just the United States of America - it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. We’re not only a collection of blue and red states but a collection of blue, red and in recent times, purple people eating people. There are mad men and women among us and they have infiltrated and to some measure are in partial control of the asylum front office.

I know that it’s the patriotic thing to say - that we are one, undivided nation, but in reality, we’re more like50 different countries sharing the same land mass. I mean, how "united" can we be when, for example, we have 50 different sets of laws - where a crime committed in one spot can land you in jail for 20 years but do the same dirty deed a few hundred yards away - maybe even a few feet away -and the penalty can be death. More likely if that place a few feet away is Texas. Of course Texas is a state that may secede any day now and you might get blown away just trying to cross the border. I’ll tell you this much. There are states - I won’t name them - but you can probably guess their names - that I wouldn’t traverse on rural roads in my car with Illinois license plates.

In some states, losing a party primary election for a national office means you’re out of the race - but not in others. Witness Joe Lieberman of the Joe Lieberman party and Lisa Murkowski of the Lisa Murkowski party of Alaska. Rand Paul just got himself elected to the United States Senate from Kentucky. Could you imagine this nut case being elected from - say, Oregon? Chuck Grassley ran around all year telling the people of Iowa that the Healthcare Reform legislation included "Death Panels" - a ridiculous lie aimed at the feeble minded. Iowans just re-elected him for a sixth term. Do you think the people of California would have elected someone like that to represent their interests in the U.S. Senate? You don’t have to answer. The answer is no. The people who elect the Grassleys and the Pauls are like aliens from a distant planet to the people of Oregon and California. Not that all Oregonians and Californians s are endowed with superior intellectual powers, but enough of them are at least sane enough to prevent a Paul or a Grassley or a DeMint from being elected from their states.

But as I’ve said, beyond the disunited condition of our fifty states, we have, spread throughout them, albeit more in the Red than the Blue states - the purple people eater people. These are the people who believe that President Obama raised their taxes - which actually were lowered for most of us. These are people who believe the President is a Muslim and/or wasn’t born in the USA. These are people who don’t believe in evolution but do believe in the Biblical description of creation. And these are people who believe that Saddam Huseein had something to do with the 9/11 attack. These are the kind of people who want a merger between church and state and who believe there is such a thing as "The Rapture." They are the enemies of rational discourse and reasoned governance and most of them are the voters who have handed power in the House of Representatives to Republicans and have increased their presence in the Senate.

I don’t know if it’s reasonable to assert that we are as divided as a people as we were at the time of the Civil War, but Jimmy Carter asserted just that a while ago, and while I have differences with the former president, particularly with his one sided views of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the fact that conservatives were quick to condemn and ridicule his comments, leads me to think that he is close to being right. The divisions in this country seem to be just fine with the ultra right wing. They thrive on it - and their "spokespeople" - Limbaugh, Beck and the rest, keep piling on the fuel that keeps the furnace of hate and distrust and ultimately division - burning.

As I said at the beginning of these few comments on the state of the nation, which I‘m sure the President will say is in fine shape or at least resilient enough to return to being in fine shape when he gives the State of the Nation address in January, I hope that by that time, he will finally have resigned himself to the truth of what he has to face in the second half of his term - a disparate collection of blue and red states and purple people eating voters - the latter two thirds of that trio being determined to destroy him, no matter what the cost to the nation they purport to "love" - and to act accordingly. As in saying NO to the party of "No." No,I will not cooperate with you in my own destruction.

One final thought about Jimmy Carter’s assertion that we are more divided than we were at the time of the Civil War. As I’ve indicated, those comments were widely condemned by right wing media - though I don’t recall seeing much from the "conventional" or even the "liberal" media. At Jon Stewart’s "Rally to Restore Sanity" however, he disagreed with the idea that we’re that divided, saying that the images reflected back at us by our political and media process are false. We’re basically people who cooperate with each other, he said, despite our differences. We make compromises and we get along. I think he just doesn’t get out enough. It’s hard to view the world through thick studio walls. The truth I believe is somewhere in between his view and President Carter’s. But we need to be watchful and make damn sure that we don’t make the mistake that the Germans did and let madness become a substitute for governance. And don’t say it couldn’t happen here. If you listen to some of our governors and other elected officials, it’s already happening.
posted by Jeff Smith at 11/20/2010 04:16:00 PM

 
ARE ‘INDEPENDENT" VOTERS REALLY INDEPENDENT?

I don’t want to dwell on the mid term election and what it means for too long. There are too many other things going on in the world that are intriguing or tragic or hopeful. I’ll leave post election analysis to the pundits who get paid to look and sound wise - unless of course they’re on Fox or right wing radio - in which case they’re paid to look and sound crazy. But I do want to pen a few words about voters that got a lot of attention by those pundits before and after the election - the so called independents.

I like to think of myself as being an "independent" voter. That is to say, I’m not a registered member of any political party and I can’t be counted on as an automatic vote for candidates with either a "D" or an "R" after their names. I do however have some general political beliefs that are best reflected by one of the parties at the national level - and that is the Democratic party. That doesn’t necessarily apply at the local - that is, the city, county and state levels. I have voted for Republican and independent candidates for a variety of elective offices over the years, including the election of a few days ago. But when it comes to national elections - for president, for senator and for representative in congress, I vote in concert with my basic philosophy - as I imagine any thoughtful and serious person does. But I have no idea what it is that motivates a so called "independent" to vote one way or another. "Independents moved away from Obama this time around" said the pundits in their post election analyses , though he wasn’t on the ballot anywhere. I beg to differ. Dilettantes may have switched their support away from House and Senate candidates who have been supporters of the President and his agenda. That doesn’t, in my mind, make them political "independents."

The basic principles of the two major parties have remained fairly constant for the past few decades The Democratic Party brought us such things as Social Security, Medicare and the minimum wage. Republicans for the most part were in opposition. Democrats have been in favor of tax and social program policies aimed at improving the lot of the lower and middle classes. Republicans, for the most part, favor policies that benefit the rich, believing in a "trickle down" theory that will benefit all economic levels of society. "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" would eventually be repealed by a Democratic majority. It will be blocked by a Republican majority. The make up of the Supreme Court is of supreme importance - as demonstrated by the Citizens United decision - and it is likely that one or two justices will retire, either during the current or the next presidential term. Without a veto proof Democratic majority in the Senate, the chances of Obama - or any Democratic president being able to appoint a justice who would put people above corporate "people" are slim and none. Democrats believe that government has a positive role to play in the lives of American citizens. Republicans believe that the private sector is better equipped to solve most of the nation’s problems. I could go on and on, but I’m sure all of this is familiar to you. After all, your reading my opinions and that automatically identifies you as a sophisticate.

These basic principles and platforms of the two parties change little from one two year cycle to the next - but we are asked to believe that so called "independent" voters can switch their support from one set of principles to the other from one two year period to the next - just as easily as they might change hair styles or their color preferences in shirts or pajamas. Some of course may believe the oft cited myth that there is no real difference between the parties and so when, in their mind, things aren’t going well, the way to change things for the better is to vote against the candidate they voted for two years ago and switch their support to someone new. They apparently are comfortable voting for a pro choice representative who supports the graduated tax system on one election day - and switch their support two years later to someone who would make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and is for a flat tax. The pundits don’t seem to see anything wrong with this, but to me it’s illogical.

It’s one thing to change your basic political beliefs over a period of time. We’ve had presidents who have started adult life as members of one party, only to be elected to the presidency as the standard bearer of another party. And there are periods in history when voters who could usually be counted on to support the candidate or candidates of a particular party will do a 180and support the other party’s candidate or candidates. The phrase "Reagan Democrats" comes to mind as does the one term election of a Republican in the late Dan Rostenkowski’s district after he was indicted. But voters who switch between parties from one election to the next - and then maybe back again - are, in my opinion, less independent than they are without core political beliefs. Or as I said above "Dilettantes" - who did themesleves and the country no great favor expressing their "independence" on November 2.
posted by Jeff Smith at 11/10/2010 02:20:00 PM

 
A POST ELECTION HALLOWEEN…..
And Guy Fawkes Day is Just Around the Corner…

More years ago than I care to record here, I was doing a midday radio talk show out of what used to be the famed Kungsholm restaurant in Chicago, home of the world renowned puppet opera. Old timers I’m sure will remember the place with fondness. What brings it to mind today is my memory of another election, similar to the one that took place yesterday - and the rant that I unfolded on the air about American citizens who had neglected to vote. "Shame on you who call yourself Americans" I said those many years ago. And I repeat the same words today. Shame on you for allowing what could become the most disastrous two years in modern U.S. history.

The numbers are frightening. Illinois is a prime example. Two years ago, Obama won the state over John McCain with 3,319,277 votes to McCain’s 1, 981,158 - with about 70,000 going to other candidates. Yesterday, Obama’s old senate seat was won by Republican Mark Kirk with 1,750,993 votes to 1,668,690 for Democrat Alex Giannoulias with about 200,000 votes going to two other candidates. Voting traditionally drops off in non-presidential years - but look at the numbers. Kirk’s total was within striking distance of McCain’s presidential bid. Ginnoulias had about HALF the 2008 vote for Obama. Some former Obama voters may have voted for the Green Party candidate , some even for Kirk - but the rest obviously stayed home - obviously more than a million of them!!

Who didn’t stay home - in Illinois - and in just about every other state, were dyed in the wool Republicans and brain dead Tea Party voters. We can be thankful that they didn’t manage to burden us with Sharon Angel in Nevada or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or Ken Buck in Colorado. But Wisconsin voters who must have eaten too aged and too much cheese rejected one of the finest members of the Senate in Russ Feingold - a straight talker who could work with Republicans - as he did in co-authoring the McCain-Feingold law - now virtually destroyed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

So I can’t blame just voters who didn’t vote. I also have to blame the low information and unthinking voters who voted against their own interests. How many of them who were so willing to cast out Democratic Representatives and Senators would be happy seeing Social Security and Medicare privatized? How many are happy with the idea of billions of dollars being spent on campaign advertising from unknown sources? How many think it’s a good idea to let millions of unemployed fend for themselves after a few months of benefits? I could go on and on but I’ll cite just one example of the kind of people who voted and who I think deserve blame, not congratulations, for yesterday’s outcome. On my ballot were lists of judges up for retention. I don’t know how judges are elected and/or retained in other states, but I’m talking about Cook County, Illinois, where elected judges need a 60% approval from voters to retain their positions. It’s a long list of judges and most voters I am sure have never heard of most of them. Local newspapers publish their endorsements, which some people look to for help. But several bar associations provide assessments of the judges which are readily available if you look for them on line. The bar associations in the area all agreed on a number of judges who should not be retrained. Sure enough, these were judges who received less "yes" votes than the rest - but all were retained with a few points above 60%. Their low retention votes were a reflection of those of us who took the time to think and investigate before we voted. The fact that it wasn’t low enough is a reflection of another low. Too many low information voters whose thoughtless votes can result in harm to the democracy that guarantees their right to vote. And shame on them too.

But I have to assign a portion of blame to President Obama. Even with Republicans voting no, no and no on everything for these first 22 months, he was able to pass some significant legislation - but the problem with most of it, including the vaunted healthcare bill, was that it was complicated and poorly explained and that lack of understanding probably made a major contribution to yesterday’s losses. Years ago, radio personality and motivator Earl Nightingale recorded a famous motivational program for salesmen, originally distributed on vinyl records, called Keep it Simple Salesman - KISS for short - but also referred to by many as Keep it Simple Stupid. Obama may or may not have heard of Nightingale - he was at his height of fame and success around the time the President was born - but if he’d been able to use a dose of the philosophy Nightingale was selling, he might have been able to make many more Americans understand that the country is on the right track after avoiding a depression that could have rivaled that of the great depression, and not have so many voters confused and vaguely angry.

One thing that Obama shouldn’t be blamed for is not being the Messiah that so many people who voted for him thought he was. He promised much and they expected him to be able to wave a magic wand and, among other things, have Gitmo closed and shuttered, "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" repealed, healthcare with a public option and without any mandates and lobbyists banned from within the Beltway. None of this happened and when his supporters came to realize that he was no more than a mere mortal - they declined to be persuaded to vote for people that he asked them to vote for - and right now they probably wouldn’t vote for him either.

But Obama should be blamed for leaving his base supporters with the impression that he just didn’t understand the nature of the opposition and for wasting way too much time during this past two years on fruitless efforts to get cooperation from one or two Republicans on various issues. He never seemed able to make it clear what he wanted and where he stood and from what point he would not retreat. It was never really clear what he was truly passionate about other than trying to bring everyone together. Some of us never forgave him for welcoming Joe Lieberman back to the Democratic party or for supporting the likes of Arlen Spector and Blanche Lincoln in their primary campaigns against the wishes of a majority of his base. Even today at his press conference, he was playing Mr. Kumbaya - reaching out to those who would destroy him. In some of his recent campaign speeches for various candidates , he called attention to "Speaker Elect" Boehner’s assertion that "now was not the time for compromise" and to Mitch McConnell’s stated priority of defeating him in 2012. It would have given some of his core supporters heart had he mentioned that today and while saying that he was willing to compromise, that it would be difficult to reach any kind of compromise with people who start out with that kind of attitude.

Mr. Obama is either getting horrible political advice from people who are paid to give him that kind of advice - or it just isn’t in his nature to say to the Republicans what they are saying to him - that there are issues on which he will not compromise and to draw a line in the sand. To take if not a page - a chapter, a line, a word from the spirit of FDR or Harry Truman. Without that kind of change in his management style for the next two years, he may well be what he once said he was willing to be to accomplish what he thought needed accomplishing - a one term president. The trouble is that the Republicans may be successful in destroying what he has already accomplished and prevent much else from being accomplished between now and the end of his first - and perhaps only term.
posted by Jeff Smith at 11/03/2010 09:12:00 PM

 
A HALLOWEEN VIEW OF THE MID TERM ELECTIONS

I have to admit to being concerned about the upcoming mid-term election. I’m not so concerned about Republicans taking the House or gaining in the Senate. With what I consider to be - in this modern age - the ridiculous constitutional requirement calling for congressional elections every two years, it’s almost to be expected that a fickle, almost childlike electorate, unhappy with the state of the nation, will decide either not to vote or to "throw the rascals out" - only to repeat the same nonsense two years later. Of course it’s virtually impossible to throw some of the rascals out. Their districts are carefully constructed to avoid that possibility. Senate gains will make little difference. At 41 or 49 members, the Republicans there will continue to throw roadblocks in the way of any of the President’s proposals and under that body’s crazy rules, the way its been exercised almost from the moment Obama took the oath of office, the minority party has as much power as the majority. And if by chance Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, any unacceptable proposals they put forth will be blocked by the new minority. That kind of madness will continue unabated.

But what concerns me beyond the sorry state of affairs described above is the kind of Republicans who might be elected to the 112th Congress. I still have a vivid memory of a McCain rally during the presidential election of an elderly attendee expressing her fears of Obama because -among other things "he’s an Arab." And I think about the millions of low information voters like her who have presented us with Republican candidates for Congress like Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angel and Rand Paul and Ken Buck and the possibility that some - maybe all could get elected and assume positions of power in the upper chamber where a single senator can hold up legislation or a presidential appointment. We have some nuts in the Senate already - and some would claim they can be found on both sides of the aisle, though I challenge those claimants to find any positions taken by Democrats to match those of Jim DeMint of Jim Bunning or James Inhofe. But if some of the Tea Party favorites get elected, it will truly look like the inmates have taken over the asylum.

Among the bright ideas of the Tea Party candidates are such innovations as doing away with social security Medicare and unemployment compensation, making abortion illegal under any and all circumstance, removing the barrier between church and state, keeping gays out of the military and maybe revising some of our civil rights laws. And those may be just the tip of a radical iceberg. And you have to ask what is it that persuades anyone to vote for such people? Could it be that millions of us - and that’s what the total Tea Party candidates will garner in the general election - actually agree with the positions put forth by these nut cases? Do so many of us want to take the country back to another, darker time in our history - or to a fantasy land that only exists in the minds of madmen and bigots? Can they believe the garbage that their icons spout about government taking over our lives and comparing the Obama administration to fascists or nazis?

It’s one thing for us to have strong political differences. We’re no different in that way from other democracies. Our cousins across the pond are fairly equally divided between the Conservative and the Labour (English spelling) parties - supporters of each being absolutely convinced that their way is the right way and their opponents are totally wrong. And we’re very much the same. Staunch Democrats are going to vote for just about any candidate with a D after his or her name, even if they occasionally have to hold their noses while doing it. And staunch Republicans are the same. Witness the more than a million votes that Alan Keyes got in 2004 running against Barrack Obama for the Senate from Illinois. It was only 27% of the vote and Keyes was a drafted carpetbagger from another state, a perpetual and losing candidate for U.S. Senator and for President. There was no way he was going to win and everyone in the State knew it, but he had an "R" after his name and got the knee jerk support based solely on that identification.

There will be people voting for the Tea Party candidates this year based solely on that "R" after their names, perhaps some doing so while holding their noses. But unlike the foregone conclusion and outcome in Illinois in 2004, there will be enough people who actually believe and agree with the nonsense that they have been spouting to elect some and perhaps most of them to the House and to the Senate and I shudder at the thought of the damage they can do if they come to power. The Republicans already sitting in the House have given us some idea of what the next two years will be like if they gain control and it sounds like they’re ready to shut the government down to harm Obama. If they should hesitate in a moment of sanity, the Tea Party winners will be there to urge them on.

At Jon Stewart’s "Rally to Restore Sanity" in the nation’s capital yesterday, the comedian ended the event on a more hopeful note than that which I have described here and you can read his closing comments in full here. People who were at the rally were impressed with what they heard. Some said they were moved to tears. Others cited the irony of having to turn to a comedian to hear reason and truth. I hope that Stewart is right and that we are better people than the choices the pundits tell us we’re about to make would seem to portray. But I have watched our history as a nation unfold for more years than I care to admit to and while the people that he describes are indeed to be found among our friends and neighbors - the ones who elected Barrack Obama - there are still too many of us who considered the result of that election tantamount to a mortal sin and who would take us back to a darker time in that history if given a chance.

As I was flipping through the talking head programs this morning - someone - I didn’t catch the name - was saying that historically, stressful times bring forth strange candidates for political office and at the moment I tuned in, he was citing "Every Man a King" Huey Long. But Long’s ideas of "sharing the wealth" was looking forward, not backward and his president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt - not the first black president in American history. There is a difference between those days and what we are facing today.

The pundits are expecting to be crowing after their predictions come true Tuesday night. One can only hope that instead they’ll be eating crow all day Wednesday.
posted by Jeff Smith at 10/31/2010 02:05:00 PM

 
THE "PEACE PROCESS" IN DANGER BUT WHO’S TO BLAME?

It seems that the never ending "peace process" is in danger again because, after a ten month freeze, building has resumed in some settlements in the area Israelis, particularly religious Israelis, call Judea and Samaria - commonly referred to as the "West Bank" - as in the west bank of the Jordan river. Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen - I’m never quite sure which of his names it’s appropriate to use in any given circumstance - is saying that peace discussions can’t proceed unless the construction freeze is reinstated - despite the fact that no face to face discussions with Israeli leaders took place during the time when the freeze was in place. Of course that doesn’t seem to matter to the "International Community" - ready as usual to put the blame on any talks breakdown on the fact that the freeze has ended. But then, when did logic ever enter into the decades long conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs?

The aforementioned international community, including the United States, condemns the "settlements" as being illegal. It’s possible that they are, but there are also arguments to the contrary. To many Israelis and to many sympathizers around the world, the areas where settlements have been built are disputed areas - a dispute that can only be resolved by negotiations between the two parties claiming to have territorial rights. While it is easy to blame Israel for the lack of progress in reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, you have to remember that it was the Arab nations that, at the end of the 1967 war, refused to consider the idea of peace, as they did in 1948. At their 1967 meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, they declared "no peace, no recognition, no negotiations with Israel." Their attitude was war forever - until Israel was no more. Sort of the attitude of Hamas today as they continue to fire rockets from Gaza into southern Israel.

Perhaps in wasn’t a good idea to build settlements on the land occupied by Israel as a result of the 1967 war - but obviously the Israeli forces couldn’t just withdraw without some sort of agreement to end hostilities - and with continued occupation of land that many Israelis considered a part of Israel anyway, perhaps the ides of people moving and building there was inevitable. But again, one has to ask the question - what was the "barrier to peace" or to peace negotiations before there were any settlements? If you’re a rational person, you would have to conclude that all the hullabaloo about an end to the building freeze being a reason not to continue to have face to face meetings, is more propaganda than reason - to what end, only Abbas and his cohorts know.

Israel has not been without fault since it was recreated in 1948 on a fraction of the British mandated Palestine and on far less than the land originally promised for a "Jewish homeland" - 80% having been carved out to create "Transjordan." But it has not been intransigent when it comes to ceding land for a chance at peace. It did so successfully with Egypt and the Sinai. It at least tried with a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. And it can happen again. It is likely that if a peace agreement could be reached with the Palestinians , it would call for many of the settlements to be dismantled and territorial quid pro quo for the ones that remain. Israeli settlements have been dismantled by Israeli authorities in the past - some forcefully. But no peace agreement can ever be reached if the two side do not continue to meet and hammer out their differences. Both sides know the demands of the other going in to the talks, but if either side demands that the other accept one of its demands as a condition to talk at all - obviously no agreement can be reached. It is more than "unhelpful" - to use the language of diplomacy - to blame Israel’s refusal to extend the building freeze as the reason talks have broken off while Abbas considers "other possibilities." It is downright ridiculous. If the Palestinians truly want peace and a sovereign nation of their own - as they could have had in 1948 if they hadn’t chosen war instead - they will come to the table and negotiate. The Israelis are willing with no pre conditions. The next move is up to Abbas and the world should quit complaining about settlements and join Netanyahu in urging the Palestinian leader to return to the table.
posted by Jeff Smith at 10/26/2010 02:20:00 PM

 
THE SHAME OF NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING

I would imagine that Colonol McCormick is no longer turning in his grave. Those rotting bones must have been doing a whole mess of rattling since his beloved Chicago Tribune endorsed - gasp - Barrack Obama - gasp - for - double gasp - President!! But in the past couple of weeks, the renegades running the bankrupt newspaper have come to see the light or whatever you might call their return to blinkered tradition. They have informed their readers - of which I am one - of their choices for Senator and Governor – along with an assorted number of endorsements of candidates for a plethora of government offices.

You would think that having endorsed Obama for president, they would think very carefully about who to endorse to fill his former senate seat. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, a friend and supporter of Obama would undoubtedly be a supporter of the White House agenda - but the big thinkers at the Tribune have endorsed Republican Mark Kirk, who they call "independent" but who is guaranteed to oppose any and all of Obama’s proposals as he has done as a member of the Party of No in the House. I don’t put much stock in newspaper endorsements and there is no way in the world that a newspaper endorsement could persuade me to vote for one candidate over another, but this endorsement is close to being insulting - almost as insulting as the campaign being waged by the two candidates for Obama’s Senate seat - and by the Gubernatorial candidates - current governor courtesy of Rob Blagojevich’s fall from grace, Pat Quinn - and the Tribune’s choice, State Senator and virtual unknown Republican Bill Brady.

In terms of radio, television, e-mail and snail mail campaign advertising, if this isn’t the dirtiest election season in the last few decades, I must have missed a whole bunch of them - and I’m someone who listens, watches and votes on a regular basis. Of these two races, the only non-negative advertising has been on behalf of someone running for governor who doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance of winning that office. That would be one Scott Lee Cohen, who ran for and won the Democratic primary race for Lieutenant Governor and then dropped out after some not so pleasant things were revealed about his private life. Now in the race for Governor as an independent, he’s running the same radio and television ads as he did in the Lieutenant Governor’s race - claiming that he’s been organizing job fairs around the state. The ads aren’t dirty. They don’t attack anyone. But they’re as stupid as the attack ads that try to steer voters away from a candidate’s opponent. Mr. Cohen wants voters to believe that organizing some job fairs qualifies him to be Governor of the State of Illinois - an assertion that, in my mind, automatically disqualifies him from consideration as a serious candidate. But he obviously has money that he’s willing to spend on running for political office, so he may be around for a while as a well heeled modern version of Lar (America First) Daly.

What are we to make of the kind of campaigns being run by the rest of the candidates - for Governor and Senator in Illinois - or for that matter by candidates for state and federal offices around the country? Virtually without exception, the major thrust of all the campaigns is negative - radio, television and print ads vilifying opponents. The ads are full of lies and distortions. There’s a local ad tying a candidate for Congress to Nancy Pelosi. It’s someone who is not a Congressman. He’s trying to become one. But that doesn’t matter to his opponent. He’s a Democrat running for office so he must be in lock step with Pelosi and if you don’t like her you don’t like him. And the attack ads of Democratic candidates are just as bad and just as stupid. I can no longer watch or listen to any of them. They sicken me. If I am watching television, I do so with the remote close by so that I can block the sound or change the channel when one of these insults to my intelligence fills the screen.

Politicians use these negative ads because - so we are told - they work. I find that hard to swallow but if it’s true - if it’s the attack ads that sway voters more than anything else, the answer to the question I pose above - what are we to make of these kinds of campaigns - is indeed a sad one. It tells us two things. That candidates think voters are stupid and the way to win their vote is to make their attack ads more vicious that that of their opponents and to steer clear of anything that smacks of substance. And it tells us that they are right. We are, in great part, an uninformed and unsophisticated electorate. Our reaction to the current state of the economy typifies our political naiveté. It isn’t doing too well, so many people can be made to believe that it can easily be turned around by voting against the current majority - and that’s what’s the pollsters are telling us is likely to happen

I suppose a campaign devoted to actual issues, with candidates presenting their positions on issues and how they differ from and are superior to their opponents’ would be boring and likely to leave some voters thoroughly confused. After all, if there are no ads to tell them who the bad guys are - how are they to know which ones to vote against? But our tradition of the vilifying campaign, coupled with the usual basket of non issues that are presented as issues - abortion, gay marriage, religion and the rest - has become so ingrained in our election process, that it would take something of a miracle to change it - and there is nothing miraculous on the horizon - indeed more of the opposite. Just the other day, John McCain, the Republican candidate for president in 2008, was out campaigning for a Republican senatorial candidate running against one of his current colleagues of whom he said

Barbara Boxer is the most bitterly partisan, most anti-defense Senator in the United States Senate today. I know that because I've had the unpleasant experience of having to serve with her.(emphasis added)

That from the man who wanted to be President of the United States.

How sad that we pride ourselves on being such a great country with such great traditions and such great freedom and this is how we elect our representatives - with lies, distortion and hatred.

Incidentally, the generic "we" as it refers to voters, does not apply to this or millions of other voters. I voted early for all the good guys. I hope the other sane millions did or will do the same.
posted by Jeff Smith at 10/19/2010 07:30:00 PM

 
TWO UNFORTUNATE APPEARANCES

The first reaction that I had to President Obama’s September 20th town hall meeting - or whatever else you might want to call it - was that his advisors - or whoever it was that persuaded him to expose himself to what turned out to be an ammunition trove for his next opponent - assuming he runs for reelection in 2012 - and for Republicans trying to regain control of Congress - should be fired or at least moved to a job where he can’t influence presidential decisions. Can you imagine Bush doing something like this - appearing before an audience that hadn’t signed a loyalty oath and without sworn assurances that no tough questions would be asked and for sure that no hint of disappointment or criticism will be voiced?

Yes, you can compliment Mr. Obama for having the balls to take on a crowd without knowing in advance who was there or what they might ask - but I think more harm than good may have come out of it. We’ve already seen how the meeting is being reported by the electronic media. They’re featuring what could best be described as "awkward moments" - like the African American woman who said she was exhausted from "defending" him and why hadn’t he made things better for the middle class!!! He tried to answer her with a list of all the things he has been able to do that should help middle class Americans - but none of what he said was what she and others who apparently were expecting miracles and rewards for having voted this man into office wanted to hear. Then there was the recent law school graduate who said he had been inspired to vote for Obama but who found that inspiration dying away because he couldn’t pay the interest on his student loans, couldn’t find a job and wanted to know if the American Dream was dead for him. Obama should have told him that self pity wasn’t going to help him achieve any kind of dream.

If Rush Limbaugh watched any of this, I’m sure he did it with an attitude of self satisfaction - and with a few belly laughs. After all, it was the Rush Mouth who dreamed up the mocking reference to Obama as "The Messiah" - an appellation quickly picked up by his information deprived acolytes and spread derisively around the Internet. But it wasn’t a joke to millions of Obama supporters - particularly young people who became involved in politics for the first time because they indeed came to regard him as some kind of Messiah.

Let me be clear. I too am disappointed in what has and hasn’t happened in the first 21 months of the Obama presidency. I wanted to see him fight for a public health insurance option and not resign virtually total control of healthcare to a handful of for profit companies. I wanted him to do something about "don’t ask don’t tell" by executive order. I wanted to see Gitmo shut down. I wanted an early major effort to remove existing tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. And I didn’t want to see an increased involvement in Afghanistan - though it shouldn’t have been a surprise considering his emphasis on that misbegotten nation during the campaign. And that’s just a handful of things I had hoped for in his first 21 months. But I didn’t think he was any kind of Messiah and I knew he was a politician - and that politicians make a lot of promises when they’re campaigning that may not be that easy to keep once they’re elected and learn first hand the limitations of the office they’ve achieved.

If the President continues to have these kinds of town hall meetings between now and the November election, I hope he’ll stay away from trying to explain all the things he’s accomplished that should be making things better for the middle class. People aren’t buying it. Things aren’t better for far too many people. He needs to tell them that he’s trying as hard as he can to bring the kind of change that they’re looking for - that Republicans in Congress are doing everything in their power to stop his efforts and it will make it even harder to accomplish anything if people who voted for him in 2008 sit on their hands this November and let the Republicans take over. And he should quit telling people to "buck up" and tell Joe Biden to quit talking about "whining." Both of you are well versed in the English language. Choose some other words to inspire people to vote. If you need an example, don’t look to Carter’s "malaise" speech. Look to anything FDR ever said. Anything!!

****************************

I can’t think of any other circumstance where I would be lumping Stephen Colbert and the President together on the same page - other than them both making "unfortunate" appearances within days of each other. And again, as on occasions in the not too distant past, I find myself agreeing with people with whom I rarely agree - conservative pundits and conservative members of Congress. Colbert had no business testifying on a topic on which he has no expertise and about which he has expressed little or no interest in the past. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren who extended the invitation for Colbert to make a mockery of Congressional hearings should be ashamed of herself. There’s nothing wrong with celebrities testifying on serious matters before Congressional committees if they have been long term advocates of some cause and have some genuine expertise. Colbert doesn’t fit that description. His non-comedic "expertise" - if you can call it that - is self promotion - at which he seems to be embarrassingly proficient.

I’m not going to waste time criticizing Colbert for some of his antics that I find questionable - among then accepting Congresswoman Lofgren’s invitation to make a fool of himself. I am questioning the dedication of members of Congress to the serious business of governance at a time when it is perhaps more needed than at any other time in recent history. I don’t know how "safe" the Congresswoman’s seat is in California’s 16th district, but if it’s in any way a swing district, she needs to hope that there’s a large contingent of "The Colbert Report" fans among her constituents.
posted by Jeff Smith at 10/02/2010 02:05:00 PM

 
IT’S THE SILLY SEASON AGAIN - BUT - COURTESY OF "TEA PARTY" NUT JOBS - SILLIER THAN EVER

This is my one thousandth commentary since I began this blog in April, 2003 - and it’s a little hard to know how to treat it - as something special - or as just another day in the life of the blogosphere. It’s tempting to pick the former - but there are too many things going that need to be written about to spend time trying to compose the "commentary for the ages." That doesn’t necessarily mean that such commentaries - plural - haven't already appeared on these pages - but there will be no attempt to create one today. Not on purpose anyway.

I have commented from time to time about the "silly season" - which is almost a permanent state of affairs with Congressional elections every two years. When are they not campaigning? And it’s bad enough when we are hammered night and day with the idiocy of television campaign ads which, if we would care to take them at face value , proves that all opposing candidates are liars and damned near criminals! But this year is not just sillier than most, but scarier than any that I can remember. I speak of course at the emergence of "Tea Party" candidates. The candidates of course are enough to scare little children into eating the most disgusting of vegetables - but what should scare any rational thinking adult is the number of people calling themselves Republicans who are voting for these people. I know a number of Republicans. I have family members who are staunch Republicans and might be persuaded to vote for a candidate by the name of Mickey Mouse if there was an "R" after the name. But I can’t imagine any of them voting for some of the Tea Party candidates who have won primaries against establishment - read "reasonably sane" candidates.

Do Republican voters really want to do away with Social Security and Medicare? Do they want to re-write the civil rights act? Do they want Congress to pass a law banning masturbation and making it punishable by a severe pee pee whacking - for males anyway? We’ve had some Democratic candidates who have had ideas that a majority of voters might have found radical - but nothing like the proposals being suggested by the current crop of Tea Party candidates. I know that Harry Reid isn’t too popular in Nevada right now - but how could fluoride hating Sharon Angle be even within twenty points of him in the polls? They’re virtually in a dead heat!! You have to wonder who or what it is that’s slipping a mind numbing drug into Nevada’s drinking water. Can you imagine that the sane population of the United States is currently on the same page as Karl Rove? If that isn’t a sign that we have finally arrived at Robert Heinlein’s Year of the Jackpot - I don’t know what is!!

******************************

Speaking of crazy - not necessarily Tea Party ideas - I can’t tell you how sick I am at hearing the nonsense about tax cuts creating jobs. We keep hearing it from Republicans in Congress and from Republican candidates - maybe even some Democrats. It’s utter nonsense of course. If tax cuts created jobs - then it logically follows that ZERO taxes would create a lot of jobs. In which case, Exxon Mobil and General Electric - to name just two companies - should be hiring by the thousands because they not only didn’t pay any taxes last year - they got tax breaks. And they are among thousands of Corporations that pay no U.S. tax.

You hear nonsensical statements - like "no poor person ever hired anyone" - as though all it takes to get someone a job is to have someone relieved of the burden of taxation to hire him. It’s beyond nonsense. It’s criminal nonsense. There’s only one thing that creates jobs. Demand. For a product or a service. I’ve run a couple of small businesses in my time and I’ve had employees. The number of people I had working for me at any give time depended on one thing and one thing only. How many people did I need to do the work. My tax obligations never entered into employment decisions. Which is why I am skeptical about the proposals coming out of the White House to help small business with write offs for equipment and tax breaks for new hires. None of it will work. Only increased demand otherwise known as new business or increased business will result in new employment or people being rehired. And even then, there may never be enough jobs available for people looking for work. Take a look at my comments on this topic on July 28, 2010.

**************************

And I just can’t resist the following even though it takes a lot of typing which isn’t one of my skills. I started today’s comments speaking of the "silly season" - and if there’s anything sillier than the following, I don’t know what it could be. It’s a campaign solicitation letter addressed to me from SHARON ANGLE that , after my name, address and salutation, reads as follows;

If you’re the Republican I’ve been told you are, then I need you to find your checkbook right now.

Because I am the official Republican nominee to defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid…

… And I need your immediate financial support!

I need and emergency donation from you, Jeffrey Smith, for $25, $35, $50, $75, $100, $250, $500, $1000 or $2,400.

As the Republican Party’s choice to defeat Reid, I’m counting on party activists from across the country to win this vital race.

Reid has nearly $10 million in the bank. He’s been waiting until I secured the nomination to go on the attack.

And now that I have the nomination, Reid is unloading everything he has on me in an effort to smear my good name.

We can’t let him succeed!

Jeffrey Smith, the importance of this race cannot be overstated.

Not only is this the #1 race in America this year, it is nothing less than a referendum on the far left policies of Barack Obama and Harry Reid….

..the $78 billion "stimulus," the TARP bailout of the big banks. The government takeover of healthcare, trillion dollar deficits, the growing national debt…

….As Majority Leader Reid singlehandedly shoved each of these government-growing policies through the Senate.

Obama and Reid are joined at the hip in forcing this radical expansion of government.

Defeating Reid would be a knockdown blow to Obama. It’s a blow I can – and will – deliver!

But I need your help immediately..

Please take out your checkbook and write a check to "Friends of Sharon Angle" for at least $25 right now.

I’m really hoping you can give more -- $35, $50, $75, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or $2,400.

Harry Reid has said he needs $25 million from liberal special interest donors to keep his seat.

What I need are 1 million patriotic Americans who love this great country enough to give $25 to give Harry Reid the boot.

I hope you agree that stopping Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is Republicans’ #1 priority right now.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, would be a bigger blow to Obama’s agenda than for me to defeat Harry Reid.

Write your check for $2,400, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $75, 50, $35 or even $25 right now and rush it back to "Friends of Sharon Angle." Thank you.

Sincerely,

Sharon Angle
Republican for U.S. Senate

P.S. Harry Reid is responsible for getting Obama’s agenda through the Senate. Defeating Harry Reid will spell doom for Obama’s agenda!

Rush me your crucial donation of $25, $35, $50, $75, $100, $250, $500, $1000 or even $2,400.

There was also a donation coupon that could be removed from the bottom of the letter to send - excuse me - to rush along with my check. And there were some wiggly lines and one paragraph was circled and some with lines under each individual word with spaces in between. I took a short cut and just underlined the whole paragraph - and I didn't try to reproduce wiggly lines and circles. My apologies to any Republican who got this letter and came upon this blog by accident.

I don’t think I need to add anything except to say that I am not a Republican activist nor any other kind of Republican - though I occasionally vote for Republican candidates. Sharon must have a ton of money to send out these kinds of letters to anybody she finds on a voter list. But I guess it’s important to announce the new strategy. Republicans are no longer looking for Obama’s "Waterloo." The new strategy is to deal him a "Knockout Blow."

But note one line in the letter - "And now that I have the nomination, Reid is unloading everything he has on me in an effort to smear my good name." I'm not sure what she meant by that phrase but it certainly has more than one meaning and maybe my interpretation of "what he has on her" will be her "Knockout Blow" or maybe just enough to introduce her to her "Waterloo."
posted by Jeff Smith at 9/22/2010 07:24:00 PM

 
THE PASSING PARADE IN SEPTEMBER 2010

I learned yesterday of the death of Ed Newman. He died in Oxford in the U.K, more than a month ago. It seems that he moved to England several years ago. I make mention of his death because Ed was one of the icons I met and briefly worked with many years ago - and as each of them have died and as they continue to die, I find my world getting smaller and smaller. In 1969, I had made a proposal to the AMA to produce a news and information program on audio cassette for monthly distribution to all AMA members. Somehow, RCA became involved as "co-presenters" of the program, presumably because of their interest in being the supplier and duplicator of the cassettes. Between the AMA and RCA, a decision was made to have some well known personality host the programs and they came up with Ed Newman. I put together a sample script and got together with Newman in New York to record his end of a pilot program. I had never met him before but we got along famously, particularly because he said my script was as lucid a piece as he’d ever had to read - despite the fact that it was dog eared with words scratched out and re-written. No computers in those days - nor did I have a word processor. Knowing Newman’s concern about the proper use of the English language, I was flattered at his compliment. He didn’t become the regular host of the program. After he’d recorded the pilot narration, it occurred to RCA and NBC that Newman might be placed in a position of conflict of interest, working for and at times perhaps having to report on the AMA, so they dropped him. They still wanted a star and finally came up with Raymond Burr, who hosted the first year after which we switched to regular professional narrators. The "star" idea was ridiculous, but the AMA was paying me big money, so I didn’t fight it. But if I’d had my choice of a "star" - it would have been Ed Newman - a class act.
*******************************
Because I read newspapers and watch television programs, I am aware that Oprah Winfrey had begun the final season of her television talk show - or whatever kind of show she calls it. I have never watched the show or had any desire to do so, so it matters not at all if this is her last season or if she changes her mind and sticks around for another ten years. Nonetheless, I have had occasion to write about MsWinfrey in the past when she has made news that was reported in sections of media that I do watch or read. On a couple of occasions I have expressed my dismay at the influence she appears to have over book sales. She is able to recommend a book to her adoring audience and likely as not, it becomes an instant best seller. I have also expressed dismay in the past on the occasion of her assuming the role of a Lady Bountiful and garnering world wide publicity by showering gifts on her studio audience - as she did at this time of the year in 2004 when she gave each member of her audience a brand new General Motors Car - donated by GM. She wasn’t actually being Lady Bountiful with her own money.

Now she has kicked off her final season with the same kind of gimmick - giving her audience an eight day trip to Australia - at least partially financed by Australian taxpayers - and once again garnering world wide publicity. I see nothing wrong with a television personality who earns millions of dollars engaging in acts of charity and perhaps even getting some public acknowledgment of her acts - though anonymity would be preferred as it is for acts of charity that are motivated by a desire to help and not to get publicity. And I see nothing wrong with a television host passing out modest gifts to members of a studio audience. But as I said in my comments in September, 2004, the kind of ostentatious display that took place in her studio the other day - and the apparent compulsion for news people for whom I have some respect to report the event as though it was news, reminds me why I don’t watch Oprah or similar programs and why I’m glad I don’t.
*************************
I remember reading The Fountainhead when I was in my early twenties and being captivated by the story. I wanted to be like the book’s main character - Howard Roark - a man with integrity beyond belief for whom there was no reward rich enough to persuade him to abandon his principles. Then I grew up and saw only the nonsense of Ayn. Rand’s philosophy and how ridiculous her story line was. The other night, the movie made from the book, starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, was on a cable channel - and just out of curiosity, I switched it on. I remember seeing the movie when it first came out and I remember that it was a badly made movie with bad casting. But I didn’t remember it as the comedy that unfolded before my eyes the other night. My wife was upstairs and I was in the den - and she had to wonder what it was that was inspiring the peals of laughter that she heard coming from down below for over an hour.

I couldn’t contain myself as Cooper, Neal and other cast members mouthed the ridiculous dialog taken right out of the book. I probably laughed the loudest at the big trial speech - where Cooper is on trial for blowing up what I gather was a public housing project because it wasn’t built exactly as he had designed it. In stilted tones, Cooper explains to the jury that all of mankind’s progress has come from the inventive mind and that it cannot be sacrificed to the needs or desires of the many - and that his price for designing this massive building project was that it was to be built exactly as he designed it - and that because he "wasn’t paid" - he had the right - and maybe the obligation to destroy it. And within minutes, the male only jury is back in the courtroom with its NOT GUILTY verdict. I almost fell on the floor, convulsed with laughter.

Of course it isn’t a laughing matter that Rand’s ridiculous philosophy is still with us in the form of followers and practitioners of Objectivism and membership in the Atlas Society - as in "Atlas Shrugged - or that we have a candidate for the Senate, coincidentally with a first name of RAND who wants to take a version of Objectivism to Washington - along with other Tea Party nuts who express the same kind of paranoia found in all of Rand’s books. The thought that some of these people might be elected to the House or the Senate might start out being laughable - but as November draws closer, it’s becoming downright scary.
********************************

It’s good news that Iran has released one of the three young Americans they grabbed and threw in jail more than a year ago because they had wandered off course while hiking near the Iraq/Iran border. They were spies like I’m descended from royalty - but facts don’t matter to the crazed rulers of Iran when they’re trying to make a point. And I suppose it’s good news that a woman condemned to be stoned to death for he crime of adultery may not be put to death in this manner. Maybe she’ll just be flogged and hanged. Many world leaders are exerting pressure on Iran to spare the woman and apparently it is because of their efforts that stoning has been taken off the table for this one condemned Irani. But what does the world do about a nation that has such laws on the books while pursuing the production of nuclear weapons? I hope the leaders of the free world are asking themselves that question and that they are able to arrive at the right answer before the question answers itself.
posted by Jeff Smith at 9/16/2010 04:33:00 PM

 
THOUGHTS ON THE NINTH ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11

I started this blog in 2003 and it was in that year that I commented on the horror that took place nine years ago today. I made an odd reference or two on this date in some of the years that followed - but mostly to comment that nothing much had changed in the views that I expressed in 2003. Read the comments. I’m not going to repeat them here other than to re-acknowledge the role that religion surely played in that horrific event and to add a few words on what I think about religion in general and how it affects the conduct of most of the earth’s human population.

Unlike members of the non human animal kingdom, humans are both blessed and cursed with their unique status of having self awareness and knowledge of their mortality. From our earliest history as creatures somewhat resembling what we are today, humans have been unable to accept the reality of mortality. We simply don’t want to accept death as the end of all existence so we find a way to convince ourselves that it doesn’t really happen. We create a God. And then we tell ourselves that while we may appear to die - that’s only an illusion. It’s only our bodies that die. The real us - our souls - live on in some other plane of existence. Paradise. Heaven. It has many names, but its origins of course are religious belief. We are all creations of a deity. And therein lies a pack of troubles that have plagued mankind for centuries and continue unabated to this day.

You have to wonder if there was not the belief among Muslims that death was little more than a passageway to everlasting life in what they think of as paradise - whether the 9/11 terrorists would have been willing to give their lives for some cause in the hope or belief that it would benefit their fellow Muslims who they would leave behind to live their full assigned years on earth. I doubt it. You hear stories of men in battle giving their lives to save comrades - but those are instinctive acts - not carefully thought out and certainly not based in religious belief. Whether we want to think of the 9/11 terrorists as "hijacking" Islam or not, there’s no question that their religious beliefs were a large component of their motivation - and here we are nine years later , embroiled in controversy because of religious beliefs - theirs and others.

The spectacle of this publicity seeking idiot in Florida creating what could be an international crisis boggles the mind. If you needed an example of the downside of religion that is perhaps more understandable than the religion based mass killings of history, this nutty pastor’s antics are it. Think about it. Who is this nitwit who besmirches the name of a Monty Python icon? Is he someone who has distinguished himself in some way and so perhaps should be listened to? Of course not. So why are we listening to him? Because like many like nitwits, he has donned the mantle of religion and seized upon an ongoing controversy over the building of an Islamic center near Ground Zero to make his ridiculous pronouncements and thus has been able to set off an argument that has raged around the world and may not be over yet. Some of those other "like nitwits" have also threatened to hold a Koran burning and may yet set off murderous protests around the world. And not just in Muslim countries. There have already been protests in London by members of that city’s large Muslim population.

I have made mention here before that I have somewhat of a problem with Islam - not the religion - I am equally disdainful of all religions - but Islam as a way of life that imposes itself on its surroundings wherever they happen to be in non Muslim majority countries. It hasn’t happened that much as yet in the United States - at least not enough to be noticeable and annoying - but it’s highly noticeable in places like London - and as you can see from this story - in Paris as well as other European cities. I don’t think it’s bigoted or intolerant to be aware of this as a phenomenon and to say that it is something to monitor carefully. We have seen how home grown terrorists have emerged from their Islamic surroundings in England and it is not that much of a stretch to imagine it happening elsewhere including the United States.

But others have a problem with Islam the religion - just as many followers of Islam have a problem with competing religions. Believers in a deity are convinced that their belief is the true belief. That wouldn’t be a problem if those beliefs were just kept at a personal level and didn’t rise to the level of affecting the actions of humans in general - as in conducting "holy wars" or holocausts or suicide bombings to destroy infidels. Perhaps religion and belief in a God is necessary for mankind to hold on to some measure of sanity - though I doubt that any extraterrestrial visitors from an advanced civilization would look upon us as being sane - but it is more than counterbalanced by the horrors we inflict upon each other in the name of our concepts of that God and of our preferred religions.

There may come a day where the acquisition of scientific knowledge and what we might learn from those elusive extraterrestrial visitors will finally convince us to accept the finality of out mortality and that there is no need for belief in a God and no need to involve ourselves in the mumbo jumbo of religious beliefs and practices - but it will be a day too far off in the future to be even imagined. Meantime, we will have to live in a world where acts of madness in the name of religious belief - fatal and otherwise - will continue to occur and the news media of the world will continue to be consumed with the crazed antics of people like the idiot in Florida. The most we can hope for is that he will be condemned to oblivion before the ten year anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy is upon us.
posted by Jeff Smith at 9/11/2010 07:11:00 PM