Pouncer-in-Chief

Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the water, along comes Hillary Clinton doing her instant remake of “Jaws.” Is this how she plans to close the now 6 point gap with Obama, in Pennsylvania, by pouncing on statements he made at a private gathering, last week, in Northern California ?

Or, better still, is this high octane hardball how she intends to gain leverage, and widen the three point lead a recent poll gives her over McCain if the election were to be held today?It’s hugely absurd to watch an unholy alliance between the senators from Arizona and New York, both of whom smell blood in the water, neither of whom thinks principles are anything more than something one finds in one’s bank account.

But, what was it exactly that Barack said that has Hillary agitated, and showing off her newly cleaned fangs? Clinton assailed Obama for observing that working class voters, out of bitterness, “cling to guns or religion.” Obama later elaborated that his focus was on how guns and religion are often security blankets for those who have no other way to deal with their frustration, a frustration that is virtually guaranteed to continue if either Clinton or McCain occupy the Oval Office come January, 2009.

What fascinates most is how conveniently, and readily, both Clinton and McCain channel another senator, Joe McCarthy, when challenging whether or not Obama is “American” enough. It’s not so much her insistence that the Illinois senator is “demeaning,” but that he is arrogant and, more importantly, that his remarks “are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.” But, the question is, which American’s values does Hillary reflect?

How convenient now for her to invoke what she calls her “Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies.” Are we to infer from this attack, as was the case with Reverend Wright,, that she thinks Obama’s faith in America is shakable? And, if so, how can we sit idly by and allow yet another politician to challenge the “patriotism” af another in order to accrue political advantage? It’s terrifying to think that anyone running for office, in 2008, can be allowed to swoop down, and play the Joe McCarthy card against their opponent, without being called on it.

Again, specifically, which American values are the former First Lady endorsing, those, as she says, of “Americans who believe in the Second Amendment because it’s a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God because it’s a matter of personal faith” and, if so, what about the First and Fifth Amendment separation of church and state? Does Mrs. Clinton support those, too, or just the amendment most likely to push her lead, in both Pennsylvania and Indiana, back to the double-digit range?

Her nascent love affair with the Second Amendment, and big thumbs-up to those folks who think they have a divine right to bear arms, is her way to reassure the gun guys that, if elected, she won’t take their toys away at a time when the Supreme Court is, for the first time in 70 years, deciding whether or not to let the Washington, D.C. ban on handguns stand. Her support of the gun lobby puts her squarely in McCain’s lap, and in his camp.

This latest Second Amendment posturing of hers is egregiously ironic in light of the fact that her husband, while president, attempted to get serious gun legislation through Congress a decade ago in response to the school shooting in Flint, Michigan of Kayla Rolland by her six year old classmate.

Yes, indeed, it was Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, who appeared on primetime TV, nine years ago, to say that “every single day there are 13 children who die from guns.” Imagine how many more children die today. Notably, Clinton ’s gun control legislation stalled because he faced a Republican Congress. Now, nearly a decade later, were she to be elected president, gun control legislation would stall not because of a Republican Congress, but because of a Democratic president. What next? A campaign ad showing Hillary Clinton lighting up a Virginia Slim, and pledging her support of the tobacco lobby?

Just to be clear, Hillary is taking up what she calls “unshakable faith” in America, she’s taking up the Almighty, defense of constitutional entitlement to possess weapons, and there are even some who contend that she might go so far as to neutralize her position on a woman’s right to choose if that’s what it takes to widen her margin of victory in Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the Clinton camp’s argument that Obama is “elitist and out of touch,” and that they are the ones whose values best reflect those of the working-class in this country, is especially ludicrous in light of recent revelations that Obama’s net worth is a fraction of the Clintons. But, one’s net worth shouldn’t be used as a yardstick for one’s values, one way or another, any more than the fact that one is a Harvard-trained attorney should be used to impugn him as one who has a superiority complex.

How can one fail to notice that Obama is a gentleman. He is a gentleman to concede that his remarks were poorly chosen. Indeed, it’s not his remarks, but his running mate that is poorly chosen. Is it now a prerequisite for one campaigning to know how to fend off a shark attack? Do we want jaws, and wars? Presidents who deprecate the notion of diplomacy as naivete? Ones who visualize military urgency , in the form of 3 A.M. phone calls, instead of foreign policy strategies?

After today’s unwarranted, and unsound, attack on Barack Obama, there can be little doubt that Hillary Clinton is every ounce a political opportunist whose posturing on so-called “Midwestern values” instantly morphed when she ran for senator of New York, and who will morph again should she run against John McCain when she may try to prove that she’s a better Christian, bigger defender of the right to bear arms, has higher testosterone levels, hence would be a stronger commander-in-chief, and may even push alternatives to legal abortion by increasing funding to programs like Aid to Dependent Families.

As for health care reform, the only major change we may expect from a Hillary White House, in that arena, will be more Americans required to carry medical insurance at the expense of stocking their shelves, and refrigerators with much needed groceries.

When all is said and done,, Clinton and McCain are not only united in challenging Barack Obama’s American values, but they both ensure that George W. Bush’s agenda will remain intact for at least another four years. And, if Hillary were to win back the White House, we’d be exchanging one bully for another.

Not that voting for Obama guarantees things will change radically, but it does assure one thing, that the iron hand can thrive in the velvet glove, and the possibility for dialogue and statesmanship still exists, as well as leadership that doesn’t resort to the tired old practice of impugning patriotism in order to prosper.

If, as we suspect, Senator Clinton is setting herself up to run against Senator Obama as McCain lite, in Pennsylvania and Indiana. so she can gain more working-class votes, then we should be hearing concession speeches from Hillary not from Obama.

Swiftboating John McCain?

On Monday, Senator John McCain, the Republican's lady in waiting for the presidential nomination, spoke vigorously of what he considered to be a "failure of leadership," on the part of his Democratic opponents, with respect not only to how the war in Iraq will flourish, but how it will be characterized to the public at large. The senator from Arizona even went so far as to suggest that Democratic candidates are being less than truthful when they call for troop withdrawal.

These remarks were made before an organization calling itself the Veterans of Foreign Wars, but another group, Vietnam Veterans against John McCain, has a thing or two to say about the wannabe commander-in-chief, and his prisoner of war record.

It now appears that John Kerry and John McCain have more in common than the fact that both their first names are John, and their years of service in Vietnam War. The Arizona senator is about to be swift boated by the same group that attempted to blow away John Kerry’s candidacy by launching a kamikaze attack against his miltary record.

The masterminds of the swiftboat blitzkrieg against Kerry, in 2004, formed Vietnam Vets against McCain last March. As Raw Story revealed, Jerry Kiley, one of the group’s founders, says that the Arizona senator “pretends to be a conservative Republican, but he’s not the man that people have projected onto him.," and this may be the best thing they have to say about McCain.

In a series of television ads Vietnam Vets plans to air soon, they aim to “expose” his support of the Communist regime in Vietnam, as well as allege that, as president, the presumptive Republican nominee would grant drivers licenses to “illegal immigrants.”

There are others who have gone so far as to allege that, while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain fabricated his war hero persona, collaborated with the Communists in order to avoid being tortured, recorded dozens of propaganda tapes for the North Vietnamese, as well as provided classified information thereby jeopardizing the lives of other American pilots. These wildeyed allegations, like those leveled against Senator Kerry, have been largely unsubstantiated, and may, in fact, derive from the same sources as the accusations that not only took Kerry down, but brought us another four years of George W. Bush.

As we later learned, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a Republican-funded group that went after John Kerry with claims that he lied about acts of bravery in order to bolster his reputation as a Vietnam War hero, and to get two of his three purple hearts. Navy records repudiate those claims.

What is known is that initial financing for the 2004 Swift Boat venture came from a prosperous Houston contractor, Bob J. Perry, who gave millions to the Republicans, in support of the election of President Bush, and more than $25,000, in 2004, to the campaign of Tom DeLay.

But, who’s putting up the bucks this time around? Odds are, it isn’t anyone in either the Obama or Clinton camp. Maybe some folks in the Republican Party, fearful now that the neo-cons are on the endangered species list, folks who want to push through a more conservative agenda, and/or a more conservative presidential nominee. Like, for instance, former Republican congressman from Georgia, and newfangled Libertarian, Bob Barr who is now said to be “exploring” the possibility of a White House run.

Yes, the same Bob Barr who has been an outspoken proponent of the First Amendment, but also served as U.S. attorney under Ronald Reagan, and on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association.And, let’s not forget that Bob Barr has the dubious distinction of being among those who led the call for the impeachment of another president—Bill Clinton.

Perhaps, this time around, the swift boaters have an agenda to crash the Republican party, and infuse it with one whose values more closely resemble their own rich, white, Anglo-Saxon, male, conservative one?

But, regardless of their motivations, if allowed into the livingrooms of Mr. and Mrs. Undecided, the upcoming effort by the folks from Swift Boat may inadvertently turn the spotlight on what John McCain really stands for, and help end the love affair the mainstream media has had with the Arizona senator. If nothing else, maybe this time around, their hyperbolic, and inflammable ads will call attention to the absence of substantive investigative reporting, in this country, and we may yet come to know a bit more not just about McCain's service to his country, but to the disservice he pays to to returning veterans by not backing programs that will enable them to improve their lives once they return from what can only be seen as a futile, and failed war.

Indeed, maybe a primetime advertising campaign that questions not the honor, but the honesty of his war hero status will bring John McCain back to earth with regard to what are rightfully this country's priorities after seven plus years of ravaging the environment and the economy. If it takes swift-boating to show the Arizona senator is more concerned with what he calls the “calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people” that will result from an American withdrawal than he is for the casualties of this war, which now number more than 4,000 dead, and nearly ten times as many injured, then so be it.

And, if this group manages to take a seismic shift of attention away from Reverend Wright, and make us focus instead on the more than half a million folks who come under the heading of “collateral damage,” as well as other issues, posted on Senator McCain’s Web site, that deserve our immediate, and undivided attention like his position on appointing judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, his support of what he considers the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and his position that “gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime,” so much the better.

Whatever it takes to ignite a wild fire of righteous indignation on the part of the American public is surely worth the sound byte as righteous indignation is justified when John McCain attempts to pass himself off as Obama lite, and blur the lines between red and blue. Righteous indignation is also a reasonable response to anyone who tries to extend his personal appeal beyond the upper one percent of the population who will benefit from his presidency, and on to our youngsters, especially our youngsters of color.

We already know how much John McCain supports the war in Iraq, the troop escalation, General Petraeus, and the continuation of George W. Bush's legacy as demander-in-chief with respect to the military, but does he support the vets? As a veteran of another less than distinguished battle himself , and a prisoner of war, to boot, he will have to prove his support, as well as stop posturing on where he stands on giving the green light to the CIA to waterboard. It is no longer okay to say we don't support torture, but legislatively allow techniques that can only be called torture.

If another Swift Boat campaign picks up momentum, like it did in 2004, maybe John McCain will be embarrassed into sponsoring a new G.I. bill, the Post 9-11 Veterans Assistance Act, which will help Iraq war veterans out with tuition, room, and board, and provide them with opportunity, a bill he currently has declined to sponsor. Maybe he will also work with Congress to come up with some solution to the agonizing problem of homelessness among returning veterans.

A little air time won’t hurt with respect to demanding answers on other issues like whether or not it's okay for the next president to have to consult an advisor before getting back to us on the economy, as well as whether or not to extend an abstinence-only requirement for HIV/AIDS funding. Which part of the word Africa is not worth saving?

While it may, after all, be child’s play to discredit any veterans group that makes such explosive claims about a presidential candidate, the love affair between the media and John McCain must end, and there must be a closer examination of his stand on everything from how he plans to solve the health care crisis, deal with carpetbagger oil conglomerates to his plans for government assistance to corporate America.

It's too bad if it takes something like swiftboating to set the record straight. That just means those who bring us the news aren't doing their job, or maybe their efforts are being obstructed. Either way, where John McCain is concerned, the hard questions are not being asked, and they’re long overdue.

but the truth matters more...

Bill Moyers has just been awarded the prestigious Ridenhour Courage Prize. The following excerpt from his extraordinary acceptance speech comes courtesy of The Nation Institute and the Fertel Foundation:

"So for all the blunders for which we are culpable; for all the disillusionment that has set in among journalists with every fresh report of job cuts and disappearing news space; for all the barons and buccaneers turning the press into a karaoke of power; for all the desecration visited on broadcast journalism by the corporate networks; for all the nonsense to which so many aspiring young journalists are consigned; and for all the fears about the eroding quality of the craft, I still answer emphatically when young people ask me, "Should I go into journalism today?" Sometimes it is difficult to urge them on, especially when serious questions are being asked about how loyal our society is to the reality as well as to the idea of an independent and free press. But I almost always answer, "Yes, if you have a fire in your belly, you can still make a difference."

I remind them of how often investigative reporting has played a crucial role in making the crooked straight. I remind them how news bureaus abroad are a form of national security that can tell us what our government won't. I remind them that as America grows more diverse, it's essential to have reporters, editors, producers and writers who reflect these new rising voices and concerns. And I remind them that facts can still drive the argument and tug us in the direction of greater equality and a more democratic society. Journalism still matters.

But I also tell them there is something more important than journalism, and that is the truth. "

Phi Beta Interrogator

While their numbers may be alarmingly small, there are more interrogators who witnessed investigation techniques that they found reprehensible, indeed, and some who even refused to participate, than we know about. In some cases, their statement of resistance to what they considered egregious, immoral acts came in the suicide notes they left behind.

We may never know the exact number of those whose euphemistic "non-hostile weapons discharge," death by their own hand, had to do with what they witnessed, or what they were forced to engage in, while in combat in Iraq, but we do know that suicides, as a result of service in Iraq, have reached their highest level since the military started keeping records twenty years ago. And, the number of those soldiers who attempt suicide, but don't succeed, is now almost as great as the number of U.S. war casualties.

We question, too, why those who acquiesce, remain neutral, and go along with these practices can flick lit cigarettes at prisoners, then look themselves in the mirror the next day.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who was murdered 40 years ago yesterday, once said: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." But, what part of Hell is reserved for those who force us into times of great moral conflict? If nothing else, this administration's decision to bomb Baghdad, invade and occupy Iraq, has put us into one of those times.

What a horrific statement that some have opted to take their own lives rather than participate in practices that go against their principles and that, as an ineluctable consequence of an illegal war, there is now an honor society of interrogators, and career officers, whose disgust with the way their government has chosen to run this war has come to be known posthumously.

While there are only a handful of cases where we know that the decision to end one's life can be directly correlated with what was witnessed on the battlefield during this so-called war on terror, there are doubtless many more we will never hear about. One wasted, gifted life that is documented is that of Alyssa Peterson, trained Army interrogator, who, in 2003, found the interrogation techniques being used at her prison, in northeastern Iraq, so disturbing that "She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit." (E & P)

So, in mid-September, 2003, this 27 year old devout Mormon, psychology major, career intelligence officer, put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger.

Coincidentally, that same year, 2003, the Justice Department was busy drafting a memo, classified until last week. John Yoo, a deputy in the department who wrote the memo, argued that military interrogators should be granted immunity from federal prosecution when using "aggressive" techniques. His reasoni: whatever happens to the detainee, interrogators must be protected by "a national and international version of self-defense." But, it really boils down to the Nuremberg defense--namely, that they were just following orders, and that, in times of war, the president's ubiquitous powers allows him to even defy Geneva, and international law.

According to Yoo's memo, the only time acts by an interrogator can be considered criminal is when they "shock the conscience," and/or are inspired by "malice or sadism." A few prominent senators, Carl Levin and Patrick Leahy among them, pointed out that Abu Ghraib is a shining example of interrogation techniques that fall into that category. Right they are, but there are many more Abu Ghraibs, and worse, that we never hear about, cases like that of Gitmo inmate, Binyam Mohamed, a British citizen, and one of the only British detainees left at the naval base in Cuba, who states that interrogators where he was held in Morocco "sliced his chest with a razor and then made cuts in his genitals."

Mohamed was initially held in Pakistan for a few months, where he was routinely tortured, then transferred to Morocco for more of the same, and then on to the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. One wonders if slicing one's chest with a razor, and then one's genitals would "shock the conscience" of someone in the Justice Department today, or if we have become so desensitized by reports of brutality, of Web decapitation, of primetime hangings of former world leaders, that like so much water, it would roll off their back? . Moreover, one also wonders how the definition of what "shocks" has changed, over the past half dozen years or so, and what that says about our society. Indeed, if we were "waiting for the barbarians," they are here and, for the most part, waving American flags.

Even more scary, we may not know, in our lifetimes, if more horrible punishment was inflicted by our military interrogators as a method of coercing confessions if the Pentagon gets its way. Now that the war crimes tribunals are in session, at Gitmo, our first military tribunals since World War II, journalists are under orders, from the Pentagon, not to divulge any comments, names, or proceedings that the Pentagon assigns a "protected," or classified status.

Perhaps as a way to preclude future war crimes charges for interrogators, the Department of Defense has put a silencer on 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed's testimony about whether or not he was waterboarded, a practice which is prohibited by the Army Fields Manual. Members of the jury, at these kangaroo courts, are military officers, and they are the only ones who have access to evidence withheld from the press, and American taxpayers.

What's more, transcripts from military hearings in which Mohammed and others may provide evidence they were tortured remain sealed, something the American Civil Liberties Union is currently fighting in federal court. After all, if we have to wait another five years for the contents of these transcripts to be revealed, as we did with the Yoo memo, those at the top who were responsible for giving the command to execute torture will no longer be in power.

Even the proceedings, in court, of the military commissions are being withheld from the public. Press members must agree not to repeat anything said in court, or they will be in violation of Pentagon rules. Think about this, for a moment, it is the Pentagon, not the Judge, who is issuing a gag order here. As staff attorney for the ACLU, Ben Wizen, points out "governments don't censor information to conceal lies. They censor information to conceal the truth."

We're waiting for members of Congress, and candidates for the presidency to ask-- why all the secrecy if what the government is doing is aboveboard, honorable, and legal?

When he vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Act, last month, a measure which would require that the Central Intelligence Agency adhere to the principles laid out in the Army Field Manual which bans waterboarding, and other so-called enhanced alternative interrogation methods, President Bush claimed that the CIA may need to use harsh tactics, calling these methods "one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." The president even contends that these techniques have "a proven track record of keeping America safe." Congress failed to override his veto.

By the way, when you hear, in the coming months, that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, bear in mind that all but 5 Republicans voted to allow the CIA to use waterboarding, and other interrogation techniques that are tantamount to torture. It's time to give a dishonorable discharge to those whose flagrant contempt of human rights hide behind four letter words like "safe."

How can we not ask what Alyssa Peterson, who witnessed these methods being used firsthand, and then turned her gun on herself when forced to participate, response might be to the president's claim that techniques like waterboarding are "valuable tools?" Peterson was a career intelligence officer.

Likewise, how can we not help but ask what Army colonel Ted Westhusing's response to the president's claims that torture keeps America safe would be.

Westhusing, a full professor at West Point whose specialty had been military ethics, was "the highest ranking officer to die in Iraq," and he died by his own hand leaving a suicide note, redacted by his superiors, which implicates his commanders, General Petraeus and Major General Joseph Fil. The note says simply "I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuses and liars. I am sullied--no more...I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored." His widow suggests that her husband chose to end his life so that others could see "what was going on" in Iraq. (E & P)

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is now considering a new measure, HR 1352, the Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act, which will not only require the Secretary of State to give Congress an annual rundown of those countries known to practice torture (including our own, according to Canada), but prohibit the U.S. from extraordinary rendition---transferring detainees, whether directly or otherwise, from countries where torture is officially prohibited to those that allow for torture.

Should this legislation pass, British citizen Mohamed, who was rendered from Pakistan to Morocco to Guantanamo Bay, won't be the only one to benefit. We will no longer associate military suicide with an honor society for interrogators, and career officers, who have themselves become casualties of a war without ethics, and without end.

Often, there is more courage in refusal, and defection than in resignation, and compliance. And, to those military interrogators who persist in going along for the ride, remember, in the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, "A man can't ride your back unless it's bent."

Martin...

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."

Martin Luther King

And another...

from Aunt Sylvia, my father's big sister, who fast approaches 95. Sylvia, you'll recall, was precluded from submitting stories to her local newspaper because the arthritis in her hands is so severe she can barely move her fingers. Notably, arthritis hasn't dampened her spirits nor her sense of humor.

Thrilled by the idea of blogging, Sylvia asks me to post the below, on her behalf, something else she recalls from her girlhood:

"During the Depression, there was a song called '10 cents a dance. That's all they pay me.' Today, with inflation, it is $4,300 a night. Pity the poor who were not able to accompany Spitzer."

Alibis

Man created God cause he needed an alibi.

Indecency

While the Supreme Court gets to ponder whether or not to allow the D.C. handgun ban to stand, think about this: you're not legally required to register your rifle, shotgun, or handgun in the state of Indiana, but if you own a bookstore in that state, you're now required to register books that contain "sexually explicit materials," according to a new law.

A measure passed Indiana's legislature, on March 13th, which makes it a misdemeanor for a bookseller to fail to register with the state when he, or she carries titles which are considered offensive, or deleterious to juveniles.

Under this law, a bookseller must not only pay a usurious $250 registration fee, but also provide a detailed description of his inventory which may include not only novels, but school texts dealing with health, and sexuality issues. And, if allowed to remain on the books, one may even expect history , and science, books, too, to eventually come under state scrutiny.

Indiana's new law seems like the logical extension of a wider national trend, since 9/11, which came about as a result of the so-called USA Patriot Act, in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation now has the capacity to present National Security Letters to bookstores, a demand that they hand over personal data, and records of their customers. This, in no way, means that your friendly neighborhood Barnes & Noble is handing over your personal information to the government. It only means that, thanks to the Patriot Act, the state now has the power to request that information.

This insidious proposed practice, of requiring a bookseller to register with the government, can only lead to self-censorship, i.e. to avoid the registration fee and hassle by simply not carrying any "suggestive" works. Given that selling books is not among the most lucrative professions, in America, how many booksellers will want to pay a $250 registration fee just so they can have a specific title on the shelf, and that's the point behind HB 1042.

Notably, this is first law of its kind on the books anywhere in America, thus setting a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression, and one that should be of concern not merely to fans of the First Amendment, civil liberties groups, or constitutional lawyers, but to anyone who wants the government to stay out of our bedrooms, and our classrooms, too. This kind of prohibilition, and legal restriction, can only carry over to the media, to films, DVDs, and recordings.

This news is fully consistent with escalating Federal Communications Commission trend of slapping "public indecency" penalties on major networks like ABC which faces a $1.43 million penalty for having rapidly exposed a woman's bare back as she got into a shower in an episode of NYPD aired five years ago. Where are federal indecency laws when it comes to sanitizing the images, and/or not showing troops, and Iraqi civilians, injured or killed in Iraq? Is it not war, in and of itself, an obscenity?

But, while Congress acted to regulate the maximum amount the FCC can charge a station for violation with their dubious decency standards to $325,000, where is the oversight of those who declare what is indecent? Indeed, where is the oversight of those who are providing oversight?

More importantly, which presidential candidate, if any, will dare to address this administration's overreaching when it comes to blocking out whole sections of military reports, destroying millions of White House e-mails, censoring newspaper accounts of the war in Iraq, both with respect to the number of casualties and with the coverage of caskets coming home and, now, with this precedent-setting state requirement that a bookseller register a "sexually explicit" book with the state or face criminal charges? We are hopeful that, given his expertise in constitutional law, Senator Obama will recognize this explicit threat to free speech. As for Senator McCain, well...

You may recall that, back in 1998, media mogul Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for John McCain who was then chairman of the committee that oversees the FCC. At that time, Murdoch called McCain "an outspoken leader for the telecommunications industry." We may infer from this comment that now, a decade later, if elected, the Arizona senator will not only support immunity from prosecution for telecoms, but pursue the neo-conservative agenda, as exemplified by the FCC, to impose gargantuan "indecency" fines for little more than exposing a naked back.

HB 1042, which was signed, two weeks ago, by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, does not go into effect until July, and groups like the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression are organizing to compel the governor to veto it. As Chris Finan, ABFFE president, says "It is un-American to force booksellers to register with the government based on the kinds of books they carry," and it is yet another symptom of just how demented it is to mandate registering books, and not firearms. When was the last time we heard about anyone dying from reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover?"

This measure must be stopped, dead in its tracks, before it spreads like a computer virus to the rest of the country. .

Kingfish

It doesn't happen often, but every now and then dreams haunt me like the one I had last night in which a kingfish somehow managed to escape from his tank, and started to dance around my bedroom. All he was wearing were some silver scales, and an expensive Italian bowtie. He was the shiniest fish I've ever seen.

As he tried to regale me with his dance moves I sat, on the edge of my bed, frozen in awe. He just kept winking at me while all his comrade fish, the Cosa Nostra of mackerel, stuck in the tank, glared at him with envy.

Minutes later, someone walks into the room, and tells me he's a doctor. He finds me lost in wonder. "Watch out for those kingfish," he says, "if you get too close, they''ll bite you. If they bite, you won't survive."

Where?

On a 30 second clip, on CNN, last night, John McCain managed to fit in an endorsement from another first lady, Nancy Reagan, and hint at his economic plan which he promises to disclose early next month.

Any question about how he plans to win over the Independent, Conservative, and Libertarian vote should have been quickly dispelled by merely listening to him insist that it is not the role of the government to "bail out" banks, lending institutions, or homeowners who got in over their heads, a position which must be music to the ears of anyone, like Grover Norquist, who wants to shrink government to the size where it will fit in the average toilet.

McCain delivered these remarks in Orange County, not far from the Reagan Library, of course, a staunch Republican stronghold for generations and, in many respects, one might say he was channeling the former president's economic theories. Oh, and lest we forget, Orange County is another Republican president's stomping grounds---Richard Nixon.

But, without a doubt, the Kodak moment came when the senator from Arizona, asked about what he thinks of Hillary Clinton's proposal to create a $30 billion housing crisis fund to help local governments save homeowners from foreclosure, looked squarely at the camera, and inquired "where" the $30 billion is going to come from. Where, indeed, surely not from the huge corporate tax cuts with which he plans to "turn around" the economy; surely not from the egregious, and inevitable, reductions to social programs which will result from what may come to be known simply as McCainomics--roughly translated, as reported by the Center for American Progress, the transference of "tax burden from investment income onto earned income."

His underlying hypothesis, also strongly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, that tax relief to big corporations will trickle down to the lower, and middle classes, exposes John McCain for what he really is when it comes to economic theory---Senator Flip Flop. And, what's more, why would trickle down work any more now than it did twenty years ago?

As you recall, it was McCain, right around 9/11, who criticized Bush's tax cuts by acknowledging that they help the most affluent Americans at the expense of the poorest. Well, watch Johnny shift gears. Clearly, the senator now realizes that, in order to get that much-needed conservative vote, he'd better promise to keep the capital squarely where it belongs in the hands of the oil companies, military contractors, and chief executives of America's fortune 500 companies; yes, squarely in the hands of the upper one percentile of the population. For, as he rightly suggests, wealth is a relative concept---especially for those with money. Oh, but hunger isn't, just ask anyone whose ever had to choose between filling their refrigerator or filling their gas tank.

Ironic, isn't it, how a guy whose entire claim to fame is his expertise with respect to national security could ask where the money to bolster the financial infrastructure of this country would come from. How could he not know that the estimated monetary cost of the war in Iraq is now said to be $3 trillion, or approximately $12 billion a month. Or, is he in denial about the cost of the war, too, like the Pentagon?

What is it called when a survival of the fittest ethos is used as a justification for an economic program that dates back to the days when the lords openly ruled the manors? While he's at it, maybe the good senator can also explain why he thinks that the government bail out Bear Stearns, and not the consumer? And, may we expect to always see the senator read from his teleprompter cliff notes whenever the subject of the economy comes up at press conferences?

The larger question, of course, is, should John McCain become our 44th president, and commander-in-chief of the military, how will he be able to sleep nights knowing he signed off on trillions more for defense spending while, at the same time, allowing for indigent veterans, who suffer from nearly as many suicides as war fatalites, substandard medical care, and many others who are homeless altogether.

Save us from so-called compassionate conservatives, and others whose sink or swim mentality have gotten us where we are today to the brink of environmental, socioeconomic, and nuclear disaster.

Renewal

Renewal is a
loaded word in
some
parts of
town where
children sleep under
highways
a man crawls off
his cross and
into the crowd
he swears he sees us in
his dream off in
the distance a dog barks.
only danger
keeps us
awake
some days and
the feeling
we will
encounter
him
yet again
where wonder
and deliverance
meet.


by: Jayne Lyn Stahl

courtesy of Socrates...

"Wisdom begins in wonder."

Our Man in Baghdad -- John McCain

Now that we got rid of our first man in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, for good, why not make room for another? John McCain made an unannounced appearance in the Iraqi capital last Sunday with no word of when troops will be making their disappearance.

Instead, the likely Republican presidential nominee continues to make noises about the umbilical link between his own political ambitions, and what he sees as military victory in Iraq. Yes, folks, John McCain's default position is, and will continue to be, commander-in-chief.

The Arizona senator insists that the purpose of his visit was to counter media depictions of violence, throughout the country, with what he sees as the "full picture" of the progress he thinks has been made in Iraq since the addition of more than 30,000 troops about a year ago. McCain is so certain of the success, and direction, of the war which has now lasted half a decade, he says he's willing to stake his political life on it, and lives of thousands more over the next century which is how long, theoretically, he's prepared to make it last

Details of his trip were classified "for security reasons," and phone calls to McCain aides went largely unanswered, but what we do know is that there is concern that the so-called militants, who oppose the occupation, will try to sabotage the November election because, as the Arizona senator says, "of the intercepts we have of their communications." (AP) Yes, he knows the "militants" pay attention to what's going on in the U.S., because we're tapping their phones. So, we have a Kodak moment---the guy who may well be our next president now publicly admits that he has information obtained from wiretapping. Yes, and the same guy who's taking humbrage at breach of his privacy when someone in the State Department got hold of his passport application.

Curiously, for an administration so intent on collecting data by any means necessary, police in Baghdad are not authorized to speak to the media. Can it be that the Republican nominee wants to keep the "full picture" of what's going on in Baghdad from coming out? The same police who have been prevented from speaking up disclose, anonymously, that there is ongoing violence, but there appears to be a news blackout of the news blackout on the part of the mainstream media.

Obviously, if McCain prevails in November, the Iraq war, as well as his hyper-militarism, won't be the only thing to survive the Bush administration, a campaign of secrecy will continue, too.If Barack Obama gets the Democratic presidential nomination, we will have a stark contrast between a senator who opposed the invasion, and occupation, of Iraq, in the first place, and one who has been a fierce proponent of the five year old war from the outset.

While this polarity has yet to escape the attention of pundits, and journalists, alike, the trio is not being grilled about the perils of pursuing military expansionism in the face of economic disaster. Arguably, the lowest common denominator among all three candidates, McCain, Obama, and Clinton is foreign policy and, so far, none has connected a weakened economy with threats to our national security.

Instead, we've been treated to a contest as to who would answer the red phone first were it to ring at 3 A.M. with each of the candidates boasting of being the one first in line protect this country from those who threaten us. Not one suggests that the biggest dangers, and what we should be losing sleep over, come from what's happening in our own backyard. Senator Clinton suggests she will take aggressive and decisive action as commander-in-chief; McCain implies that he will be first and foremost at the helm of the military, and Obama says he will use "judgment" as his first line of defense.

But, apart from the obvious question, don't any of these candidates have voicemail, one must ask: how is it that answering the phone in the middle of the night will help Mr. and Mrs. Middle America when the bank comes to foreclose on their home?

Leadership that refuses to acknowledge that financial turbulence compromises our national security is leadership that has failed America.

What's more, despite any illusions to the contrary, when it comes to Iraq, and deploying the military option, Clinton and McCain are largely on the same page, and so much so that there could even be a McClinton ticket.But, what happens, or doesn't happen, in Iraq, over the several months won't make or break our democracy.

Moreover, what happens, or doesn't happen, in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Palestine, and North Korea won't make or break our democracy either. The gravest threat to our national security we currently face comes from misplaced priorities, misdirected anger, economic inequity, and national debt which compromises global security, as well as the continued diversion of funds away from programs, and infrastructure, that will strengthen this country, and into the coffers of those who have most profited from munitions sales in every war dating back to World War I.

While Obama has alluded to this, it is time for the Democrats to start driving this issue home instead of their foolish attempts to compete with McCain on his military home turf. The battle lines that count now, in this country, and that will continue to count for our lifetimes are the ones between rich and poor, and the only candidate who deserves our vote is the one who promises to show leadership on the front lines of economic reparation.

Regrettably, none of the Democratic candidates for president, who remain in the race, has turned McCain's monologue about national security, and fitness to serve as commander-in-chief, into a dialogue about which Party, historically, has best served the needs of the working man and woman of this country. And, as we know, that is the Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

While George H.W. Bush had the good sense to know when to walk away from the table, the last major foreign policy president we had was Ronald Reagan, and we're still suffering from the aftershocks of Reaganomics. Yet, when McCain handed his Democratic rivals their strongest opening yet by admitting that the economy isn't his strong suit, neither adversary stepped up to the plate by saying that what this country needs most now is a president who thinks that by sinking $3 trillion dollars of our resources into war, we are destroying our economy, and squandering our strongest asset, the American people.

Senator McCain insists that his trip to Baghdad, earlier this week, was not a photo-op. No doubt, he is right. We've had our Hillary moment, in this campaign year, so why not a John McCain moment, too? Why not superimpose a picture of John McCain onto the photo of Michael Dukakis perched on top of a tank.

After all, it was 20 years ago that Dukakis ran against papa Bush who cooked up the first crisis in the Persian Gulf, and McCain's visit coincides with the twentieth anniversary of a chemical weapons attack in northern Iraq, so juxtaposing the two images is not out of the question. Indeed, any difference between the platform Dukakis tried to ride on, and failed, and the one the senator from Arizona is running on now is only marginal, and we can only hope McCain's efforts meet with the same fate.

Since he feels so strongly about the efficacy of the surge, maybe it's time for the senator from Arizona to suit up, and spend the next hundred years in Baghdad himself. Oh, and he can take George Bush, both of them, with him, too.

"Why We Must"

(Based on a photograph taken at the selection camp at Auschwitz)

How terribly modern
her dress
that cashmere
coat half-open
boarding school smile
a casual scarf
around her neck
eyes averting
pin striped guard
whose back is toPoland.
It is 1944
her husband may find
himself among the rows of
men who form a line
four deep and are prodded like
cattle in Mengele's Auschwitz.
She is wearing pumps
perhaps her toes itch as
she tries to step calmly
forward defying urgency.
she is valiant in
her stiletto boots
maybe on her way home from
work when they grab her
and to think hours later
she is stripped of
everything, like the others,
and made to crawl to
her end. standing naked,
we are all alike
still there is no convincing
she is anything but vital.
Only a sea gull
can find her now where
she is just another wave in
a terrible sea
maybe she sees me staring at
her photo in a magazine sixty years later
seeing myself saved only by
the cruel hand of destiny.
What foul order in
that procession
which leads to Birkenau as if to
a bearded cemetery where
a shrinking Jew saves himself from
smiling Sturmbannfuhrers by
playing his accordion
their uniforms neatly pressed
they are amused
these monsters who gorge
themselves on irony and
the girl wrenched from
her mother'sgrip to be taken to
the chamber. How dreadful for naked feet to
witness, and recall,
those who must kneel on demand
make meals of
vomit while others point with
their canes as if gesturing at
a pack ofangry lice or
spiders crawling unctuously
down spines of
cloudless days.
What agony this sky
a lover's kiss
outside the gate
but it is not for the sister who
holds her spleen while
her brother bleeds beside her that
we ask why we must
nor for baby faced butchers
it is not so we may see the hangman's face or
the face of those we hang nor for those who deny,
we must not forget, but
those whose middle name is horror
who in the hollow assault of
shade scratch outrage on
the walls of Auschwitz.
It is for the children
who know now what they knew then
why we must never
allow this to
happen again.



By: Jayne Lyn Stahl


--

for Sylvia

On Palm Sunday, my thoughts turn to those who, for some inexplicable reason, have decided to resign from life--some young, some older, as well as others for whom destiny is a new deck of cards there for the shuffling. I think about those who find a way to keep their heads above the water, help others to make it through and, most importantly, manage to dance through it all. My father's only sister, my Aunt Sylvia, is such a person.

Born more than ninety years ago, Sylvia survived the flu outbreak of 1918, the stock market crash, the great depression, and more than seventy years of marriage to a wonderful man named Ellie. She survived the loss of two children, and there can be nothing worse, but she has not only taken refuge in laughter, but can play a mean hand of poker.

A few months ago, when her local newspaper, in Florida, ran a column called "I Remember," in which people over 80 shared their recollections of what life was like back when, Sylvia was unable to submit her own memories because her hands are ravaged with arthritis, so it's an honor to post them here:

"I remember going on the subway to meet Ellie when we were going out. It was 1 A.M., and I was alone, and had no fear of being attacked.

I remember before refrigerators, my mother calling out 'The Ice Man is here!'

I remember my father giving me 35 cents to go to New York. I took the train (5 cents each way), and for 25 cents, I bought 3 pairs of panties, and had lunch in Horn and Hardie in Macy's.

I remember pushcarts in New York selling sweet potatoes hot, and chestnuts."


Whoa, things sure have changed. For openers, when someone yells "The Ice Man is here," chances are they're referring to Immigration and Customs guys, and afraid of deportation. The average lunch costs about what a carton of cigarettes did ten years ago, and anybody on the subway at 1 A.M. is probably packing.

But, one thing hasn't changed, there are those who have the gumption to stare adversity right in the eye, and not blink; those who value laughter more than gold, truth more than diplomacy, who don't wave the white flag of defeat every time something seemingly insurmountable is placed in their path. Sylvia is surely one of these and, she promises, there will be more to follow.

Large, Sunny Crucifix for Rent

There's a large sunny crucifix to rent in Albany, formerly occupied by a Democratic governor who has been forced to make a quick exit, and less than a month after he published a scathing indictment, in The Washington Post, of the Bush administration's collaboration in predatory lending practices.

The wolves of Wall Street won't be among the only ones to celebrate the public humiliation, and the high price he's had to pay in the name of sin which has surpassed any endurance test in this country of the Puritans, by the Puritans, and for the Puritans. No, this is not about high priced hookers, this is squarely about power.

It's not often that I get to agree with Alan Dershowitz, but he called it right Tuesday when he spoke to CNN about the Spitzer matter. The governor of New York is clearly being targeted, as Dershowitz suggests, and the 5,000 wiretaps placed on his telephone line weren't about catching him with a call girl. What's worse, this may only be target practice of a Party unaccustomed to defeat, and one that is predisposed to winning by any cost necessary. Indeed, they may just be warming up for Election 2008.

For answers as to by whom, and why, the Spitzer crucifixion went down, we may also need to look to the fall of another Democratic governor, Don Siegelman, of Alabama, who now sits in a federal prison camp in Louisiana,where he will remain for seven years,after having been convicted of accepting a bribe.

Some former attorney generals have spoken out about the egregiousness of the Siegelman matter, and many, both Democrats and Republicans alike, are calling for an investigation into what Grant Woods, former attorney general of Arizona, contends was an overt effort to bring down the former popular Democratic governor "because they couldn't beat him fair and square." Of course, Spitzer not being as popular, it hasn't taken nearly as long to accomplish his downfall.
And. then, there's always the inexplicable magic of tabloid journalism which, more and more, seems to have devolved into tabloid politics. Oh, and by the way, if this were about politicians and prostitution, we would have seen Heidi Fleiss' little black book by now.

Forget about Fleiss, what about the "Washington Madam" who, less than a year ago, threatened to divulge the phone records of her long list of capitol clients? Why isn't anybody going after those guys? Maybe because they're not trying to expose who's been bumping up the bottom line of banks, and credit card companies, which have been draining consumers, and making out like bandits, and second only to oil companies and war contractors.

Make no mistake, any similarities between Elliot Spitzer's current circumstances and those of Don Siegelman are more than coincidental. A prominent Republican attorney, from Alabama, has already acknowledged to having participated in a five year campaign by the Republican Party to ruin Siegelman. She calls this campaign "opposition research."

This kind of dirt digging is surely not exceptional, but it's not too often that we get to see this much transparency with respect to the federal government's implicit intervention in Republican Party politics and politicking.

The country that invented instant coffee has now invented instant pariahs.

Ah, well, it wouldn't be too far off the mark to suggest that some research is more tantalizing than others. Imagining a governor taking his pants off for a four thousand dollar an hour call girl --well, that may even deflect attention away from the idea that "opposition research" dates back to the Mayflower, not just the Mayflower Hotel. But, what we've yet to figure out is why Republicans are so much better at it than Democrats.

A wise man once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Clearly, we won't find the object of his defense showing off her goods on My Space, yet too many are using his name as a shield, and a battle cry. The words honor and dignity are, like the dollar, increasingly losing value thanks to the efforts not just of those who fall from grace, but of those who push them.

Playing Footsie

While President Bush has been busy staking out his legacy, and distinguishing himself as “the torture president,” a phrase coined by counsel for Human Rights Watch, both Democratic presidential candidates were playing footsie under the table instead of putting extraordinary rendition, and prisoner abuse squarely on the table where it belongs. Recent hints from the Clinton camp suggest more than idle flirtation, but a faux covert effort at coalition.

The question isn’t so much whether a pairing of the two would pose a threat to the Republican ticket, but whether or not it could lead to a McCain mutiny. So far, Senator McCain has all but bent over backwards to show his support of the president, even going so far as to reverse his former positions on waterboarding, and tax cuts.

But, yesterday, with his veto of legislation that would have precluded the Central Intelligence Agency from engaging in “enhanced alternative interrogation” methods, the president flexed his revisionist muscles suggesting that even the bionic man would be hard-pressed to emulate his ardor for payback. Bush’s veto flies in the face not merely of the Geneva Conventions, but of the new Army Field Manual which, in 2006, specifically prohibited waterboarding, but why should our intelligence agents be barred from practices that are denied to our military?

True to his 2000 election “compassionate conservative” stance, Mr. Bush has decided that sensory deprivation, and strapping someone down to simulate drowning, should be retained as “specialized interrogation” options for the CIA. which the president considers among the many “tools” needed “to stop the terrorists.” (AP) But what tools are needed to stop the likes of Bush, Cheney, Mukasay, and McCain?

Had enough yet? Or, are you ready for a second helping? How much more of this insanity can you stand? Can it be that apathy is nondenominational?

Like the president, both Hillary and Barack are busy, both are auditioning for instant remakes of “Jaws,” and “Jaws lite,” vying for first place with the proverbial photo op, showing teeth, and raising blood pressure, doing everything but talk about the core issues like what their position is on nuclear proliferation, what they intend to do about Iran, what specific economic policies they have to bring relief to the vast majority of us who are hurting as a result of the Republican regime’s self-inflicted recession, whether or not withdrawing troops means pulling contractors from Baghdad, too, and what noises they are prepared to make with respect to Afghanistan, North Korea, the Middle East.

Moreover, while the Obama camp has been actively combating rumors of his Muslim roots, which the Clinton camp has been just as busy disowning, neither candidate affirms the First Amendment separation between church and state.

We need to hear, too, now more than ever, how they feel about the insidious, and morally bankrupt, practice of using American aircraft to transport detainees, in our custody, to secret holding cells overseas where there is no oversight with respect to what the president memorably terms “specialized” interrogation techniques.

What’s more, when Colombia invaded Ecuador, last week, why is it that they did so with both Hillary and Barack’s endorsement? How is it that both candidates who claim to abjure the invasion of Iraq gave unceremonious blessings in support of Colombia’s acts of pre-emption in the name of self-defense, as well as Bush’s stigmatizing of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez? Can we expect the Bush doctrine to carry on regardless of which party occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come January, 2009?

Why is it, too, that we hear no more about genocide, or the nightmare that is Darfur or Kenya than we do about state-sanctioned torture, from either Democratic candidate?
And, why so little attention being paid to the fact that fully one third of global AIDS funding, by this president, comes with an abstinence-only requirement? The president’s “emergency plan,” which expires this year, allows for another $30 billion. Notably, of the $18 billion already spent on this program, $6 billion delivers a virtual death sentence in its efforts to preserve Bush’s absurd, and unrealistic, abstinence-only mandate. Importantly, we hear nothing on this issue from Obama or Clinton, but instead only who supported allocating funds for Iraq, in 2002, and who didn’t.

Oh, yes, and what about Republican presidential nominee-designate, John McCain, whose signature flip-flopping on the issue of waterboarding goes to show that Dolly the sheep isn’t the only celebrity cloning in our lifetime. Indeed, whatever moderate posturing we saw from the Arizona senator, over the past eight years, will be swiftly erased by his egregious kowtowing to the most conservative elements of his party.

With his innuendos of a possible Clinton-Obama match-up, how well-suited Bill Clinton appears to be for the role of the Fool in any of Shakespeare’s tragedies; we now look to Bill for truth, not Hillary. Talk about dramatic irony!

And, when he announced yesterday that a combo ticket would be “almost unstoppable,” one couldn’t help but think that the only things more unstoppable are the insipid campaign promises, and politics of evasion with respect to foreign policy, and the economic quicksand in which we presently find ourselves.

Unless all contenders for president, regardless of party affiliation, step up to the plate, and start talking turkey about torture, they may well be accused of contributing to the delinquency of a nation.

We need to know now where each candidate stands with respect to waterboarding, and other “specialized” tactics, as well as how our detainee ethics impact upon our national security in the largest possible sense.

It’s time to quit playing footsie with the public trust, and get to work

Denial: South of K Street

With his acknowledgment today that "our economy has slowed," it's clear President Bush has found his way out of denial. Now maybe he can find his way out of Washington, too.

A Delegate Balance

The events of the past week got me thinking about a comment to my piece, "Why were they fired," which appeared on The Huffington Post earlier this week. The comment agreed that "all the President's men" should be held accountable for their infractions, and subversions, against the Constitution, and democratic process; but how? when Congress appears to have reached a stalemate.

While the meter is running, and the president's term is quickly approaching the finish line, accountability doesn't come with an expiration date. And, with the certain nomination of Senator John McCain to fill his cowboy boots, it's even more important now to consider that George W. Bush isn't just McCain's paradigm for so-called "national security," but he also provides a template for abuse of power.

While I don't profess to have the answer to the commenter's question, it isn't too late to appoint a special prosecutor to hold the Department of Justice liable for obstruction of justice in their failure to enforce subpoenas against Miers and Bolten, as well as to consider holding Attorney General Michael Mukasey in contempt of Congress and, as importantly, to hold the president and vice-president responsible for making a mockery of their oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This is not just about attorney-generals, sui generis, it is about the attorney-general, in particular, insofar as Mukasey is deliberately following on the coat-tails of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, as well as willfully collaborating with the executive branch to impede a congressional investigation. Were the attorney general to be a private citizen, would he not be liable for indictment on charges of obstruction of justice?

More importantly, while the current gang, on Pennsylvania Avenue will be mostly packed, and on their way back to Dodge in January, if the recent elections in Russia and Cuba are any indication of a global trend, if the people and their elected representatives don't speak up now, we may yet have another eight years of Bush redux in the form of President John McCain.

There are those, in this election, who say there is little difference between the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but consider that Hillary is the candidate who gets a big thumbs-up from both the president and Rush Limbaugh. Consider, too, that apart from the posturing with respect to being strong on national security, as demonstrated by her red phone ad, Hillary, Bush, and McCain share one common denominator: the desire to prolong the war on terror, and refuse to back down on their wrongheaded assumptions that Saddam Hussein, or the sovereign state of Iraq, had anything to do with the events of 9/11.

Think about the doublespeak inherent in the claim that she will use diplomacy over the military option and, at the same time, call Obama "naive" for suggesting that it might just be possible to get somewhere the old-fashioned way, with round table diplomacy. So, in the coming weeks, when you hear pundits say that there really is no difference between Barack and Hillary, think about the judgment thing, and think about this, too.

There is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, regardless of who gets the nomination. For, among other things, the next president will not only decide which battlefield to vacate, and which one to occupy, but who to appoint to the Supreme Court. Consider, too, that we're still suffering from the policies of another Republican president, Ronald Reagan, whose strong suit, like McCain's, wasn't economics.

We have yet to see anything "trickle down" from the economic policies espoused by the great Republican ideologues of the past fifty years, and the only part of our economy that has benefited from their notion of a strong defense are the war contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton. In the month of February alone, this country has lost 63,000 jobs, its greatest loss in half a decade.

We must move past the antiquated notion of divine right of delegates, away from an electoral hierarchy in the form of super delegates, and toward economic equity that is reflected not merely in true representation of the will of the people by popular vote, but in hyper focus not on the horse race that is presidential nomination, but on the underlying issues.

It will take a delicate balance to foist the media scrutiny away from the photo op and toward the flawed, rapidly depreciating democratic process. Similarly, dissembling the apparatus of privilege won't happen overnight, but in the meantime, delegates, pledged and super, must recognize and openly acknowledge the link between obscene corporate wealth and the unnecessary, criminal, cost to human life in Iraq, and elsewhere, as well as how corporate profiteering can only result in the unfair balance of power in this country, and globally.

What's more, few need to be reminded that not since Richard Nixon have we seen such wanton, reckless abuse of power, and disregard for checks and balances. We need leadership that is not merely willing to talk, but to listen, too.

While it is not readily apparent if either of the Democratic candidates will be ready, on day one, to meet the challenges of an increasingly ominous world, it is clear that it is no more the domain of super delegates than the Supreme Court to decide who is best equipped.

Yet again, we have a presidential candidate who is at risk of getting slammed by back room brokering, and he is the one who now appears closest to winning the popular vote. He is also, importantly, the candidate who best addresses the need to heal the damage arising from the politics of pre-emption, reaffirm bonds with the the international community, and best contain nuclear proliferation through diplomacy.

Moreover, the "domino theory" of Communism appears to apply more to the past half dozen or so presidential elections. We seem to have descended further and further into the abyss of campaign irrelevancy and untruth, as well as abnegating whatever notion the framers may have had about representational democracy. Frankly, I think Thomas Jefferson would be asking for his money back by now.

If it is the will of the people that that the nomination go to Obama, then it will be up to the delegates to balance that will against the wrath of the world should the power brokers attempt to wrench it away from him.

Who can believe

Who can

believe

the sun

came up

and he

managed

to sleep

anyway.

A postscript...

A comment to my piece, "Why were they fired," which was also posted on The Huffington Post, agreed with my assertion that "all the President's men" should be held accountable for their infractions, and subversions against the Constitution, and democratic process; but how? the commentor asked when Congress appears to have reached a stalemate.

While I don't profess to have the answer, one possible solution might be to appoint a special prosecutor to hold the Department of Justice liable for obstruction of justice in their failure to enforce subpoenas against Miers and Bolten, as well as to consider holding Attorney General Michael Mukasey in contempt of Congress.

It's clear that not only is Mukasey following in the yes-man footsteps of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, but he is willfully, and knowingly, collaborating with the executive branch to impede a congressional investigation. Were the attorney general to be a private citizen, would this not be called obstruction of justice?

Ultimately, the accountability question has an expiration date inasmuch as the current gang will be on their way back to Dodge in January, but if the recent elections in Russia and Cuba are any indication of a global trend, then it looks like we may well be talking about holding President McCain accountable for abuse of power four years from now.

And, more importantly, in light of today's major primaries, if Rush Limbaugh's endorsement means anything, along with that of President Bush, then a Hillary White House may indeed spell business as usual, and the kind of status quo that would make Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave.

September 12, 1960...

What is this country coming to when the designated Republican Party presidential nominee, John McCain, has declared us to be "a Christian nation," and the candidacy of another is challenged on the basis of his religious faith.

The following is a speech delivered, on September 12, 1960, by then Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, and is a timely response to "religious issues" being raised today in the campaign of another Senator, Barack Obama:

"Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God."

Why were they fired...

who wants to cover it up, and is it any coincidence this is happening before a major election?

"Our investigation into the firing of United States Attorneys revealed an Administration and a Justice Department that seemed to put politics first, and today's decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the US Attorney firings hidden. In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the Committee's subpoenas," said Rep. John Conyers regarding Attorney General Mukasay's stalwart refusal to enforce Miers and Bolton subpoenas.

Everybody is getting caught up in the contempt citations, but few are talking about the core issues of racism, and voter suffrage, which need closer examination by Justice, and both political parties.

The attempt at political obstructionism by way of voter fraud charges simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Racism does not only apply to the demographics on death row, and the make-up of our penal institutions.The appearance (or disappearance) of former White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former presidential counsel, Harriet Miers, ostensibly involves fear on the part of the executive branch that either one, or both, the former aides will divulge details about why the nine U.S. attorneys were fired.

The attorney general appears to think that executive branch employees do not have to answer to a congressional subpoena once the President has uttered the shiboleth "executive privilege." But, Mukasey needs to clarify what he thinks the parameters of "executive privilege" are. During his confirmation hearings, the attorney-general gave the impression that Justice was capable of acting independently from the White House. That claim has yet to be substantiated, and appears dubious in light of Friday's decision in this matter.

There are lots of ways to sabotage an election--breaking into the Democratic headquarters, as happened on Nixon's watch, is only one. Litigating against, incarcerating, or otherwise marginalizing members of a community, especially those who would fall under one's opponent's demographic, under spurious "voter fraud" claims is yet another.

We've seen the important work, most recently, of Rev. Glasgow, in Alabama, as well as others, throughout the country, to ensure that voting rights be respected despite the best efforts of some partisans to disenfranchise those most likely to vote for Democrats. For a government that likes transparency, what could be more transparent than which demographic, politically, socially, and racially, was intended to be targeted by "voter fraud" allegations, and lawsuits which these U.S. attorneys honorably refused to pursue.

George W. Bush has indulged in more white collar crime than any president in recent memory, and has no more right to get off the hook, or get away with destroying millions of White House e-mails, than Richard M. Nixon did. That Numero 43 should be allowed to serve out his second term, with impunity, will be a stain on American history that even the finest K Street dry cleaners would be unable to remove inasmuch as he's not only added hubris to his job description, but unparalleled, and unscripted, use of executive privilege.

One way or another, with or without Justice, all the President's men must be held to account for contempt not merely of Congress, but of the democratic process.

Connecting the Nots...

These days, when watching the President deliver one of his off the cuff press conferences, I'm reminded of a movie, from more than 50 years ago, starring Charlton Heston, "The Ten Commandments." The current referendum on terror takes on a mosaic quality, and one which would inspire only Moses, or a burning bush.

But, one might guess, given his trigger-happy misadventures in Iraq, the President would think twice before delivering any pronouncements on foreign policy to any of the current crop of presidential candidates---not.

Indeed, one would hope he would think once, but instead, Numero 43 delivers his Sermon on the Mount to the beat of war drums, and ridicules Barack Obama for suggesting we can actually talk to our adversaries, both past, present, and future. In fact, the only thing expanding at a faster pace than the national debt, thanks to W, is our list of enemies.

For one whose foreign policy may be summed up in a single word, if hyphenated, "pre-emption," how is it that Mr. Bush has neglected to learn the definition of another one, "proactive." Can it be that, when he got up to the letter "p," he only made it as far as president?

Lest we delude ourselves with the idea that GWB is the only president who made the mistake of believing military intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign state would pay off -- not. With the Tet Offensive, in Vietnam, LBJ not only preceded him, but established a precedent, and one which, should he find himself president, John McCain will surely follow.

Now that we find ourselves in the Valley of the Nots, why not take a look around at other leaders, and other times, nots have transformed into knots:

For instance, how about George H.W. Bush's televised claim that he did not know about the illegal sale of arms in exchange for hostages in Iran -- not or

Number 42's contention: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

Followed, of course, by the unforgettable assertion made, just yesterday, by le Prez that we are not in a recession,

but then, in the interest of fairness, we must also consider Illinois Senator Barack Obama's insistence that he did not vote to authorize the war in Iraq or

Senator McCain's slip of the tongue today on the campaign trail when he called himself a "liberal Republican" -- not.

And, then, too, there's also Daddy Warbuck's constant chant "We will not surrender," and may remain in Iraq for the next hundred years.

But, then, aren't we glad that McCain is talking about foreign policy instead of the economy something about which he confesses to know not. (leaving, btw, a hole in his campaign the size of the average crater on the moon, and one easily big enough for any Democrat to learn to swim in!)

On the plus side of the equation, there's last week's decision by the House, not
to cave in to the President and grant immunity to corporations that break the law in the name of "national defense," as well as Speaker Pelosi's decision not
to accept the Executive's refusal to allow White House aides, Miers and Bolton, to honor subpoenas, and appear before a judicial committee.

Oh, and yes, what about that experience issue---there's a hot one for you. Let's not
forget the President was once governor of Texas, a state that has become synonymous with capital punishment ever since.

Guess we know of two people in this country, President Bush, and his designated throne clone, John McCain, who have yet to see Charlton Heston in that movie, "The Ten Commandments," or read the Cliff Notes, either that, or they missed the part about "Thou shall not kill."

Earth to John Edwards

Ralph Nader’s sudden entry into this tight presidential race proves one thing, if nothing else: it’s time for John Edwards to come back out of the shadows, and into the ring.

Wouldn’t you love to have been a fly on the wall of the room when Barack Obama met John Edwards a bit more than a week ago? Not another word has been said about the outcome of that meeting, but Edwards on the same ticket with Obama would be unstoppable.

Even if it means running for vice president, for the second time, we hope that Senator Edwards will recognize that his presence on the Obama ticket will win the hearts, and votes, of other otherwise disenfranchised elements, to ensure a Democratic victory, in November.

Oh, and as a fringe benefit, it may also result in the kind of platform unity that would expose a Nader run for what it really is—a redundancy.

Resurrection Complex?

Did we hear right? Is Mitt Romney back in the presidential race, too?

First Darth Nader crawls out of the woodwork, no doubt to the glee of Daddy Warbucks McCain, and now Romney is throwing his hat back in the ring.

What is it with these guys, and their resurrection complex!

Between Barack and a Hard Place

Just when it looked like things were finally starting to stabilize, and the Democrats were about to have a nominee, along comes Hurricane Ralph.

To paraphrase the Stones’ hit, with the news of yet another last minute Nader incarnation, we now find ourselves “between Barack and a hard place.”

This isn’t about whether one “likes” Ralph Nader or not, or even whether he has good intentions. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. And, frankly, Nader’s motives for wanting a piece of the action are at least as suspect as any other of the contenders.

Make no mistake, this is about one thing and one thing only—his inimitable timing. Like a shark in the water, Ralph Nader smells blood, and blood to him means victory.

Just when it looked like Obama was getting close to having the nomination locked up, when Edwards walked out for the sake of Party unity, and we’re finally down to a two person race, along comes our Nader to virtually ensure that whatever momentum Obama picks up between now and November won’t get in the way of a decisive McCain win.

The Democratic Party must do whatever it takes to keep Nader off the stump. Forget about Al Gore’s role in brokering the convention. Instead, the former vice president’s time may be put to far better use by paying a visit to the former consumer advocate to insist that he withdraw from this crucially important race.

"Arizona Workhorse"

The other confirmed lobbyist John McCain has been in bed with besides Rupert Murdoch----
Rick Renzi!

Renzi, the congressman who, back in 2006, McCain called "Arizona's workhorse," and said has "integrity beyond reproach," was indicted yesterday on 36 federal corruption charges.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop? Wondering if the yellow brick road will lead to another lobbyist --- Jack Abramoff?

Right around the same time McCain enthusiastically endorsed Renzi, Abramoff pled guilty to three counts of fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Well, there are bribes and there are bribes---some bribes are delivered under the table, and others come in black silk camisoles.

Overall, from what we've seen, an elephant does a much better job of covering its tracks than anyone the Bush folks would endorse. Yet, there are those who say corruption, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. That anyone claiming to go after special interests should be found to have some "special" interests of his own, and so easily, is alarming.

But, think about this. While I don't suggest making book on it, should Senator McCain be forced back to the bottom of the heap, who will lead the Republican ticket-----Mike Huckabee. And, a quick visit to Huckabee's Web site shows which faction, in the Republican Party, would benefit most from a MCain fall, and why.

for a Senator

Happy Birthday

Senator Ted Kennedy

the heart and
soul of
Congress
for a
generation,
and many,
many more!

What is it about lobbyists?

Why all this focus on John McCain’s alleged dalliance, eight years ago, with a lobbyist thirty years his junior as revealed, last night, by The New York Times?
The spotlight should instead be on McCain and his confirmed relationship, ten years ago, with another prominent lobbyist–Rupert Murdoch!

The following is an excerpt from a piece of mine, “The Murdoch Muscle,” which appeared on The Huffington Post nearly a year ago. It especially resonates in light of last night’s New York Times disclosures:

“Aside from his loyalty to conservative Justice Thomas, that same month, that same year, 1998, Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Senator John McCain who, at the time, conveniently happened to be chairman of the committee that oversees the Federal Communications Commissions. In a fundraiser invite, Murdoch called McCain ‘an outspoken leader for the telecommunications industry.’ (NYT)

I’m sure at least one Republican presidential candidate will take one huge sigh of relief should Mr. Murdoch take the helm of Dow Jones, and the second largest newspaper in the country. How expedient to have, as a friend, the owner of Fox News, the New York Post, The Times of London, and now Dow Jones? That is, unless somebody wakes up before their snooze alarm goes off. "

What is startling now are not the obvious Monica Lewinsky echoes, but instead the evidence that the media mogul who has been trying to buy up print, and now Internet, communications in this country is in bed with the number one Republican candidate for president, and heir apparent to the throne. What’s more, those who attempt to deflect attention away from this by talking about when the story broke are, intentionally or otherwise, pandering to the proponents of media consolidation by chipping away at the backbone of a free press.

The Cutting Edge

Since Super Tuesday’s sweep of the primaries, one thing has become crystal clear. Whether it’s Obama, or Clinton, who gets the Democratic Party nomination ultimately doesn’t matter, if the only change that happens is polemical. Risk-takers only need apply.

Leave rhetoric to the rhetoricians. Those who play it close to the vest can’t be expected to make the hard choices, or take the tough path, but only that which is familiar and convenient. And, this election more than any in recent memory, familiarity breeds contempt.

Courage often requires going out on a limb, and we need leadership that is prepared to do that. Progressive leadership requires speaking up on incendiary issues, even if it means alienating important lobbies. More of the same means feeding the war machine, and doing so with their own weapons.

Senator Obama’s advantage is not just his ability, and agility at reaching out to people across racial, economic, political, and social lines, in this country, but in the promise that he will be able to do so internationally, as well. Given that only about 10% of the world’s population is “white,” and that only a fraction of that percentage controls most of the world’s wealth, and starts most of the world’s wars, electing a president who reflects the predominant race is a good place to start on the road to move from a planet in peril to a planet at peace.

Obama’s candidacy may well have the added advantage of facilitating negotiations with the so-called “axis of evil” insofar as his candidacy’s implicit acceptance of cultural, and religious diversity, concepts which are alien to this administration, and its predecessors.

When Senator Clinton says that Obama is “naive” to talk about sitting down at table with the heads of state in Iran, and North Korea it might be naive for her, but not for a man of color given that 90% of the world is either black, brown, or yellow, but not “white.”

Senator Obama has the charisma, charm, wit, and stamina. Even if it may be said that hope is a four letter word, we can still hope he will be ready, willing, and able to cut his teeth on the cutting edge.

Warrior

he sits
across from
me on the train
his
face like
rubber or
a uniform
wearing
thin
maybe
he has come
from war I
want to
ask
which one but
scar tissue forms
around his mouth and
dark glasses
hide his
eyes .
he tells me
he sees flags
now
where roses once were
his suitcase is
filled with
rotting teeth
I watch as
he rolls his
tongue
across his
lips like a song
he can't remember.
maybe he
mistakes me for
another
as he clutches
his bottle of
wine maybe
he is convinced
he is
going
home.
I try to
tell him
this is
his war but
he doesn't
believe me.





By: Jayne Lyn Stahl

Taking on The Lobby

After the horror that was Northern Illinois University Thursday afternoon, Barack Obama announced Friday morning that, as a constitutional attorney, he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, thinks it doesn't only apply to the militia, and that he also plans to use California gun control legislation as a paradigm for a national policy to contain the spread of gun violence.

But, is it really possible to have it both ways? Can one support the right to bear arms, as well as implement the kind of national gun control legislation that will stem the flood of shootings on our nation's campuses, streets, and homes? Essentially, the question is, should Senator Obama become President Obama would he be prepared to take on the most powerful, and influential, congressional lobby outside of the tobacco industry, the gun lobby?

After the spate of campus killings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now at NIU, there is little doubt that the former President, and his attorney general brother, Robert F. Kennedy, would be hard at work on federal gun control legislation now.

Obama is fond of this quote from President John F. Kennedy: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate," but is he any more ready for hand to hand combat with those who put their rifles next to Gideon's Bible in Motel 6's from Idaho to Alaska, those who are the most obstinate opponents of restrictions on the possession, manufacture, and sale of firearms? He suggests that he would support legislation on the order of gun laws implemented, in California, during Gray Davis' tenure as governor.

While California has some of the most draconian firearm laws in the country, requiring that only those handguns be sold, or manufactured, that are listed on the Bureau of Firearms approved list, it's important to remember that private sales are exempted from this restriction. Moreover, one does not need a license to own a handgun in California.

In the nation's capital, all firearms must be registered with the police, and possession of handguns is prohibited, even in one's home, unless they were registered before 1976. And, while this handgun ban is currently being challenged by those who think it violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms, the ban will remain in effect until the Supreme Court hears the case.

Importantly, with the exception of certain counties, in Illinois, site of Thursday's mass shootings and Obama's home state, registering a firearm is not mandated by law, and a Firearm Owner's Identification Card may be easily obtained unless the applicant has been convicted of a felony, or was a mental patient within the past five years, nor is there a carry permit requirement. Notably, the gunman who randomly shot two dozen in a university lecture hall obtained his guns legally.

As one who doesn't profess to know enough about constitutional law to discuss the Second Amendment, I leave it to the Supreme Court to decide what that entitlement is. But, surely the time is ripe to consider some kind of national program, as well as how anyone can demand "Voter I.D.," and not insist upon "Firearms I.D."

One can only hope that, when the Supremes prepare to consider their first gun control appeals case in 70 years, the toxic image of the Virginia Tech shooter will be juxtaposed in their memory along with the Northern Illinois University gunman, as well as others who have taken the lives of middle school students in Oxnard, and done drive-bys throughout our inner cities. One would hope that this, too, would be factored into their deliberations.

Were it possible for the founding fathers to anticipate that, two centuries after their demise, assault weapons would be used by neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, they might have been less ambiguous as to when one has a constitutional right to bear arms. Clearly, as survivors of a revolutionary war, their concept of civilian and militia must have been much different from our own.

Those who like to compare Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy, or his brother and attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, must be reminded that, whether rightly or otherwise, President Kennedy stood up to Cuba, and Bobby Kennedy took on organized crime. We may not be sure of much, but we can count on the courage of both Kennedy brothers to take on the most virulent of corporate lobbies in this country. But, forty years from now, will one be able to say the same of President Obama?

For the past eight years, we've had a President, and a Justice Department, that is too spineless to admit having taken a wrong turn with respect to our involvement in Iraq, yet is not afraid, or ashamed, to tweak the Constitution in ways that compromise freedom of expression, and due process.

For nearly a decade, the Bush administration has lip synched the neo-conservative mantra of respect for human life while, at the same time, forever changing our notion of human rights. One has only to look at the treatment Jose Padilla received at the hands of his captors to grasp that this administration has no more respect for the human rights, and dignity, of its citizens than of those it detains in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

One thing is clear, a McCain presidency will cater to the gun lobby, and not act to seek federal legislation that will limit access to firearms.

What's more, if interpretation of the Second Amendment is in order, one would hope that it would be weighted heavily in favor of the preservation of human life, thus we ask Senator Obama, or any presidential nominee, to look to Washington, D.C., not to California, as a model for gun control legislation, and to work together with gun groups, and law enforcement, to get firearms out of the hands of our children, out of our classrooms, schoolyards, and streets.

Welcome to Rupert Murdoch's America

There’s all this speculation lately about who John Edwards and Al Gore are backing for president.

After yesterday’s announcement that News Corp. is contemplating a takeover over of Yahoo, following closely on the heels of The Wall Street Journal, the question should instead be: who is Rupert Murdoch endorsing? The smart money says that (s)he will be the next president of the United States.