Here is what I feel about the whole Scott McClelland thing. I haven't read his book but I will read it and I did watch his interview on Olbermann last night. What he is saying is important in that it is confirmation of what has been thought. However, if I am completely honest with myself and give an honest and accurate reflection, my actual thought is that I despise a snitch. I'm going to link you to Peggy Noonan's column from today's WSJ where she writes, "And Americans in general have a visceral and instinctive dislike for what Drudge called a snitch. This is our tradition, and also human nature."
I obviously agree with her analysis, and wish that I could somehow prove that I felt that way before she wrote it -- I did tell my girlfriend that I despise a snitch last night before the column even came out-- but that is not as important as the fact that this is truly what I feel. What I mean by that is, I despise the person who helps perpetrate wrong, or who helps carry out wrong and then AFTER the fact, speaks up and turns on the others. As a lawyer of course, I know that this is common place and can be quite helpful to the government in securing convictions. It is also helpful to the snitch in getting a plea deal.
I think that McClellan's book, no matter how much I despise a snitch can also be helpful to our government. It adds a level of insight into important missteps which has been missing. I also think that through an historical lense, McClellan will also get a better deal from the public because he DID say something, he DID speak up, even if it is after the fact
Again, I have not read the book yet, but Peggy has and you should read her column here.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Is media going the way of the dinosaur?
Well, that was the prediction of Michael Crichton in 1993. Slate.com does a catch-up interview with Crichton that you can find here. Some very interesting highlights:
"[T]he American media produce a product of very poor quality," he lectured. "Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy but it's basically junk."
As we pass his prediction's 15-year anniversary, I've got to declare advantage Crichton. Rot afflicts the newspaper industry, which is shedding staff, circulation, and revenues. It's gotten so bad in newspaperville that some people want Google to buy the Times and run it as a charity! Evening news viewership continues to evaporate, and while the mass media aren't going extinct tomorrow, Crichton's original observations about the media future now ring more true than false. Ask any journalist.
Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide.
"[T]he American media produce a product of very poor quality," he lectured. "Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy but it's basically junk."
As we pass his prediction's 15-year anniversary, I've got to declare advantage Crichton. Rot afflicts the newspaper industry, which is shedding staff, circulation, and revenues. It's gotten so bad in newspaperville that some people want Google to buy the Times and run it as a charity! Evening news viewership continues to evaporate, and while the mass media aren't going extinct tomorrow, Crichton's original observations about the media future now ring more true than false. Ask any journalist.
Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide.
PLEASE LEAVE ALREADY!!!
I love the United States of America. I absolutely love this country, for all it's good and bad. And yes, I hate a vast majority of what the Bush Administration has done, but it hasn't in anyway made me fear that we are all going to hell in a handbasket, and it certainly hasn't made me feel like our country is second rate. Rather, it has made me think, not feel, that our country needs some big changes and shifts in policy. It has made me think that our foreign policy ought to be dictated by facts and reality as opposed to some ethereal theory or belief. Finally, it makes me think that our domestic policy ought to be driven by a desire to make our country and our economic system function for everyone who is willing to put in a full day's work. I also THINK, most Americans would agree with these thoughts. That is why ours is a great country.
So, when I read "news" blurbs like this: SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. It makes me want to scream and say, "GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!" Why would Sarandon make these comments? Why would all of the celebrities who promised to leave (and unfortunately didn't) if Bush was re-elected in 2004, make such comments? Is it because they believe they are somehow national treasures that we will all feel so horrible over losing? Is it some kind of Hollywood ego trip, wherein they think that some voter in Flint, Michigan is going to say- "oh, well, if Susan is going to leave if McCain is elected, I better vote for Obama. I've lost my job, my home and I'm in danger of losing my kids--losing Susan would just be too much to take and put me over the edge."
Let us please call this for what it is: Bullshit. Love this country or don't. Work to change this country or don't. Complain about this country or don't. I don't care. There are enough good people in this country, doing good, positive things that it make it a great country. If you can't see that, or if you can't see that this is the only country in the world that you could have had the career that you have . . . then you are blind to reality; or worse--stupid. So please, do us all a favor and leave already! Don't wait! Just leave now.
Oh, and Susan . . . one last thing . . . Canada? Are you freaking kidding me!?
So, when I read "news" blurbs like this: SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. It makes me want to scream and say, "GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!" Why would Sarandon make these comments? Why would all of the celebrities who promised to leave (and unfortunately didn't) if Bush was re-elected in 2004, make such comments? Is it because they believe they are somehow national treasures that we will all feel so horrible over losing? Is it some kind of Hollywood ego trip, wherein they think that some voter in Flint, Michigan is going to say- "oh, well, if Susan is going to leave if McCain is elected, I better vote for Obama. I've lost my job, my home and I'm in danger of losing my kids--losing Susan would just be too much to take and put me over the edge."
Let us please call this for what it is: Bullshit. Love this country or don't. Work to change this country or don't. Complain about this country or don't. I don't care. There are enough good people in this country, doing good, positive things that it make it a great country. If you can't see that, or if you can't see that this is the only country in the world that you could have had the career that you have . . . then you are blind to reality; or worse--stupid. So please, do us all a favor and leave already! Don't wait! Just leave now.
Oh, and Susan . . . one last thing . . . Canada? Are you freaking kidding me!?
The Michigan Attorney General Fights for Red Wings Fans!
I am not a huge fan of my home state AG Mike Cox, but this news story about him is great. (From the Detroit Free Press' Chris Christoff)
LANSING -- Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox took steps Thursday to ensure that Red Wings fans aren't completely frozen out of the Igloo.
Only fans in Pennsylvania, seven adjacent states and the District of Columbia can buy tickets via Ticketmaster to Saturday's Game 4 of the Stanley Cup finals in Pittsburgh. No Michigan fans need apply, according to the Ticketmaster Web site.
Cox wasn't having it. He rang up Ticketmaster and the Pittsburgh Penguins to complain. And in a triumphant announcement, he assured Michigan fans they could still buy resale tickets online.
Ticketmaster said the restriction applied only to direct sales, not Ticketmaster's online resales from season-ticket holders and others.
"The way the Web site is written, you would not have known that," Cox spokesman Rusty Hills said. The same rules apply if Game 6 is necessary in Pittsburgh.
"Great job" to Cox standing up for the great people of Michigan! GO WINGS!
LANSING -- Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox took steps Thursday to ensure that Red Wings fans aren't completely frozen out of the Igloo.
Only fans in Pennsylvania, seven adjacent states and the District of Columbia can buy tickets via Ticketmaster to Saturday's Game 4 of the Stanley Cup finals in Pittsburgh. No Michigan fans need apply, according to the Ticketmaster Web site.
Cox wasn't having it. He rang up Ticketmaster and the Pittsburgh Penguins to complain. And in a triumphant announcement, he assured Michigan fans they could still buy resale tickets online.
Ticketmaster said the restriction applied only to direct sales, not Ticketmaster's online resales from season-ticket holders and others.
"The way the Web site is written, you would not have known that," Cox spokesman Rusty Hills said. The same rules apply if Game 6 is necessary in Pittsburgh.
"Great job" to Cox standing up for the great people of Michigan! GO WINGS!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Why Webb Shouldn't (Or Wouldn't) be V.P.
In my pro-Virginia exuberance last week, I wrote here, that I thought Jim Webb would be great as a V.P. selection for Obama. Until today, I had yet to read a compelling reason for why I may be wrong. I found this interesting blog post on Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish and you can find the full text here. In any case, here are some samples from what I think is a well-put together, obviously knowledgable critique of the idea of Webb as V.P., though I might add, that I remain unconvinced that it wouldn't be wise for both Obama and Webb.
- Until 7pm November 4, 2008, Webb might well be a very strong addition to the ticket.
- On November 5, the troubles -- for Webb -- would begin.
Would his credentials on national security and as an undoubtedly tough southern Populist offset, among other problems, the perceived slight to older women among Hillary Clinton's base? It's like a vector problem in physics. My belief is that, purely as a matter of electoral math, Webb would help Obama much more than he would hurt. But I know that's a judgment call, with countless ramifications to argue out.
The problem is what would happen if he did help Obama win. Having first met Webb nearly thirty years ago -- and having co-written an Atlantic cover story with him, and having broken my rule against giving money to political candidates two years ago when he began his Senate run -- I can't imagine a job he would enjoy less than the vice presidency.
- Until 7pm November 4, 2008, Webb might well be a very strong addition to the ticket.
- On November 5, the troubles -- for Webb -- would begin.
Would his credentials on national security and as an undoubtedly tough southern Populist offset, among other problems, the perceived slight to older women among Hillary Clinton's base? It's like a vector problem in physics. My belief is that, purely as a matter of electoral math, Webb would help Obama much more than he would hurt. But I know that's a judgment call, with countless ramifications to argue out.
The problem is what would happen if he did help Obama win. Having first met Webb nearly thirty years ago -- and having co-written an Atlantic cover story with him, and having broken my rule against giving money to political candidates two years ago when he began his Senate run -- I can't imagine a job he would enjoy less than the vice presidency.
The Best Rationale for Supporting Hillary
HERE IT IS!!!! The best (and really only) reason left to support Hillary.
Dunkin' Donuts Gives in to Terrorism!
I am not sure how many people have seen this story but it makes me sick!
Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.
The coffee and baked goods chain said the ad that began appearing online May 7 was pulled over the past weekend because "the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee."
In the spot, Ray holds an iced coffee while standing in front of trees with pink blossoms.
Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.
The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."
A statement issued by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot.
"Absolutely no symbolism was intended," the company said.
Dunkin' spokeswoman Michelle King said the ad appeared on the chain's Web site, as well as other commercial sites.
Malkin, in a posting following up on last week's column, said of Dunkin's decision to pull the ad, "It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists."
I try to keep a fairly level headed approach on this blog, but this story has me steaming mad. There is no explanation for the "outrage" over this scarf that is explainable outside of the anti-Arab, fascist tendencies of those who protested and complained, and the utterly weak-kneed, slimey, anti-principled response of Dunkin' Donuts! I am sick to my stomach over the fact that they caved into the "pressure" of these complaints, highlighted by perhaps the most illogical, idiotic, dimwitted, imbecilic, fatuous dolt of a "pundit"(no disrespect intended to actual pundits)--Michelle Malkin. She makes Ann Coulter seem reasonable, calm and collected.
First off, there is the question of whether this is even a kaffiyeh in the first place. Second, there is the more important question of why it matters? How is a traditional piece of clothing worn by many Arab men a sign of support for terrorism? The dimwitted one argues that it is a sign of Palestinian nationalism and therefore terrorism and therefore Dunkin' Donuts' ad with Rachel Ray (a terrorist if I've ever seen one) wearing, what is speciously thought by the imbecile to be a kaffiyeh, is a sign of solidarity with the terrorists. Oh the logic of wholly simple-minded.
Shame on Dunkin' Donuts for paying ANY heed to this disgraceful, fascistic nonsense!
Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.
The coffee and baked goods chain said the ad that began appearing online May 7 was pulled over the past weekend because "the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee."
In the spot, Ray holds an iced coffee while standing in front of trees with pink blossoms.
Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.
The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."
A statement issued by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot.
"Absolutely no symbolism was intended," the company said.
Dunkin' spokeswoman Michelle King said the ad appeared on the chain's Web site, as well as other commercial sites.
Malkin, in a posting following up on last week's column, said of Dunkin's decision to pull the ad, "It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists."
I try to keep a fairly level headed approach on this blog, but this story has me steaming mad. There is no explanation for the "outrage" over this scarf that is explainable outside of the anti-Arab, fascist tendencies of those who protested and complained, and the utterly weak-kneed, slimey, anti-principled response of Dunkin' Donuts! I am sick to my stomach over the fact that they caved into the "pressure" of these complaints, highlighted by perhaps the most illogical, idiotic, dimwitted, imbecilic, fatuous dolt of a "pundit"(no disrespect intended to actual pundits)--Michelle Malkin. She makes Ann Coulter seem reasonable, calm and collected.
First off, there is the question of whether this is even a kaffiyeh in the first place. Second, there is the more important question of why it matters? How is a traditional piece of clothing worn by many Arab men a sign of support for terrorism? The dimwitted one argues that it is a sign of Palestinian nationalism and therefore terrorism and therefore Dunkin' Donuts' ad with Rachel Ray (a terrorist if I've ever seen one) wearing, what is speciously thought by the imbecile to be a kaffiyeh, is a sign of solidarity with the terrorists. Oh the logic of wholly simple-minded.
Shame on Dunkin' Donuts for paying ANY heed to this disgraceful, fascistic nonsense!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Is Hillary Last Call for Women?
It seems shocking to me how apoplectic some people are over the imminent demise of Hillary. They seem to think that we are immediately receding to an era where a woman's right to vote will soon be questioned and perhaps challenged. Some, as Dahlia Lithwick for Slate.com points out, are suggesting that there will never be another viable woman candidate for President in their life time. Well sure, maybe if you die really, really soon. Lithwick'e explanation for the craziness:
Perhaps it's the inevitable byproduct of the accusation that anyone who failed to support Clinton's presidential bid has doomed feminism, but the claim that the doors have slammed on decades of future woman presidents is as maddening as the Olympics of Oppression that preceded it. The folks claiming we've allowed the presidency to slip through our fingers arrive at this conclusion by pressing the same flawed syllogism: The only viable woman candidate thus far has been Hillary; Hillary did not win; ergo there will never be another viable woman candidate. . . .
We all know these double standards exist for females in public life—voters demand toughness but not bitchiness, confidence but not shrillness, authenticity but also glamour. If the Clinton candidacy has taught us anything, however, it's that a woman can straddle all those irreconcilable demands and still win. She can win more than 16 million votes in the primaries and around 1,779 delegates. Clinton has shown that a woman can win huge at the ballot box and bring in huge money, and even if Obama ultimately secures the nomination, those facts will not change. Faced with all that evidence of success, how do the naysayers prove it can never be repeated?
I think there are obvious reasons why people would doubt that what Hillary has done can be repeated. After all, she is a former First Lady with absolute name recognition. She is a sitting U.S. Senator and was the formidable and unquestioned front-runner and leading fundraiser for the Democratic nomination right up until actual votes were cast, and STILL she could not win. But she got a fair hearing on the merits. She lost and she came up short. Could some of it have to do with the fact that she is a woman? Sure. I'm certain some of it did. Is it the REASON she is going to lose? Absolutely not.
The future looks bright for women. There are many women out there more capable, more able and less polarizing than Hillary. As Lithwick remarks:
Even if it were true that no new female candidate can appear to amaze and inspire us by 2012, we are already blessed—as even the naysayers concede—with a bullpen that's both deep and wide. It features female talents such as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Condoleezza Rice, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Why diminish all these women with claims that whatever qualities of Clinton's they lack are precisely those qualities needed to become president someday? What possible evidence do we have for that?
There is no such evidence, and Lithwick's list is nowhere near exhaustive, nor hardly inclusive of some of the best of the GOP women candidates. (Perhaps this might contribute to Democratic women's Hillary myopia? Maybe they are only looking for a Democratic woman President? Would all of these women, mourning never seeing a woman President, stand up and support a female Republican . . . because they wanted a WOMAN to be President? I have my doubts.)
In any case, as I said before, the future for women in national politics and presidential politics looks bright! In fact, it is not last call at all. Sure, the bar may be closing now, but it will open right back up tomorrow!
Perhaps it's the inevitable byproduct of the accusation that anyone who failed to support Clinton's presidential bid has doomed feminism, but the claim that the doors have slammed on decades of future woman presidents is as maddening as the Olympics of Oppression that preceded it. The folks claiming we've allowed the presidency to slip through our fingers arrive at this conclusion by pressing the same flawed syllogism: The only viable woman candidate thus far has been Hillary; Hillary did not win; ergo there will never be another viable woman candidate. . . .
We all know these double standards exist for females in public life—voters demand toughness but not bitchiness, confidence but not shrillness, authenticity but also glamour. If the Clinton candidacy has taught us anything, however, it's that a woman can straddle all those irreconcilable demands and still win. She can win more than 16 million votes in the primaries and around 1,779 delegates. Clinton has shown that a woman can win huge at the ballot box and bring in huge money, and even if Obama ultimately secures the nomination, those facts will not change. Faced with all that evidence of success, how do the naysayers prove it can never be repeated?
I think there are obvious reasons why people would doubt that what Hillary has done can be repeated. After all, she is a former First Lady with absolute name recognition. She is a sitting U.S. Senator and was the formidable and unquestioned front-runner and leading fundraiser for the Democratic nomination right up until actual votes were cast, and STILL she could not win. But she got a fair hearing on the merits. She lost and she came up short. Could some of it have to do with the fact that she is a woman? Sure. I'm certain some of it did. Is it the REASON she is going to lose? Absolutely not.
The future looks bright for women. There are many women out there more capable, more able and less polarizing than Hillary. As Lithwick remarks:
Even if it were true that no new female candidate can appear to amaze and inspire us by 2012, we are already blessed—as even the naysayers concede—with a bullpen that's both deep and wide. It features female talents such as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Condoleezza Rice, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Why diminish all these women with claims that whatever qualities of Clinton's they lack are precisely those qualities needed to become president someday? What possible evidence do we have for that?
There is no such evidence, and Lithwick's list is nowhere near exhaustive, nor hardly inclusive of some of the best of the GOP women candidates. (Perhaps this might contribute to Democratic women's Hillary myopia? Maybe they are only looking for a Democratic woman President? Would all of these women, mourning never seeing a woman President, stand up and support a female Republican . . . because they wanted a WOMAN to be President? I have my doubts.)
In any case, as I said before, the future for women in national politics and presidential politics looks bright! In fact, it is not last call at all. Sure, the bar may be closing now, but it will open right back up tomorrow!
A Laugh for All!
This ought to be a good laugh for everyone in need of one! I saw this on Drudge and couldn't help but laughing. I had to share it with everyone. Hope you laugh!
Maybe Bill doesn't want Hill to be Veep!
Maureen Dowd presents a hilarious look at a hypothetical conversation between Obama and Bill Clinton about Hillary as V.P. in today's NYTIMES. I can't even give you snippets. The whole thing is too hilarious and too connected to give bits and pieces. Check it out.
Another Convention Mess?
As I've mentioned recently, I just finished Terry McAuliffe's What a Party. In it he talks about being appointed by President Clinton to serve as ambassador to the Court of St. James, only to be subsequently asked by Vice President Al Gore to take over Convention duties in Los Angeles, where the local committee planning the 2000 Democratic Convention fell well-short of fundraising goals and was in danger of failing the party. It appears that this year's host, Denver, is having similar problems.
It seems absurd in this political climate that Democrats are short on fundraising, especially when compared to the GOP. There is a level of professionalism and responsibility that seems to be lacking in the Democratic party and it's absence is troubling. This stems from the top of the DNC down. Howard Dean has to make sure that the fundraising project for Denver is on schedule. He has to make that happen. He also has a bigger role in settling the ongoing morass of a primary. He is going to have a chance to put the primary all back in order at the Rules Committee meeting this weekend and he would be wise not to miss the opportunity. He has a chance to put his party together, or allow the party to be stretched further by allowing the "wily" Harold Ickes to dominate the Rules Committee in favor of Hillary. Here is to hoping that he puts his foot down, puts in place an agreement that brings the party together. This might just be the best hope to make sure the Convention reaches it's fundraising benchmarks. This might just be the best hope to make the Democratic look like a professional organization.
It seems absurd in this political climate that Democrats are short on fundraising, especially when compared to the GOP. There is a level of professionalism and responsibility that seems to be lacking in the Democratic party and it's absence is troubling. This stems from the top of the DNC down. Howard Dean has to make sure that the fundraising project for Denver is on schedule. He has to make that happen. He also has a bigger role in settling the ongoing morass of a primary. He is going to have a chance to put the primary all back in order at the Rules Committee meeting this weekend and he would be wise not to miss the opportunity. He has a chance to put his party together, or allow the party to be stretched further by allowing the "wily" Harold Ickes to dominate the Rules Committee in favor of Hillary. Here is to hoping that he puts his foot down, puts in place an agreement that brings the party together. This might just be the best hope to make sure the Convention reaches it's fundraising benchmarks. This might just be the best hope to make the Democratic look like a professional organization.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
McClellan on Bush *Breaking News*
Okay, I'm not actually breaking this news, but it is pretty big news being broke by Politico, MSNBC and Drudge. Read about it here. More comment on this later.
Here is another good article previewing the book and talking a bit about McClellan's assertions.
My thoughts on this right now are that McClellan is not saying anything that is surprising to anyone who has followed this White House, who has paid attention to the news, or observed the President.
"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," -OOOOOAAAAAAH! Really Scott?
The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.
"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"
"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."
Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."
"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."
I am sorry Scott, but this is the same game (albeit on a different level) that you played as Press Secretary. What you are describing is FLAT-OUT-LYING! Convincing yourself that something not true is true and then propagating this "convinced truth" is in fact lying.
Here is another good article previewing the book and talking a bit about McClellan's assertions.
My thoughts on this right now are that McClellan is not saying anything that is surprising to anyone who has followed this White House, who has paid attention to the news, or observed the President.
"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," -OOOOOAAAAAAH! Really Scott?
The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.
"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"
"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."
Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."
"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."
I am sorry Scott, but this is the same game (albeit on a different level) that you played as Press Secretary. What you are describing is FLAT-OUT-LYING! Convincing yourself that something not true is true and then propagating this "convinced truth" is in fact lying.
And the V.P. candidates are (should be) . . . ?
I have already laid out the logic behind my recommendation that Obama pick Sen. Webb as his running mate. With logic and sense, David Brooks in the NYTIMES completely undermines my thinking with his suggestion on how the candidate should think of his V.P. selection. Ahem, I'll admit, that per usual, he has some good points.
My first thought on the running mate question is that to balance his ticket, Barack Obama should pick a really old white general. Therefore, he should pick Dwight Eisenhower. John McCain, on the other hand, needs to pick someone younger than himself. Therefore, he also should pick Dwight Eisenhower.
My second thought is that most of the commentary on vice president picks is completely backward. Most discussion focuses on what state or constituency this or that running mate could help carry in the fall. But, as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions.
A vice president can, however, have a gigantic impact on an administration once in office (see: Cheney, Richard). Therefore, a sensible presidential candidate shouldn’t be selecting a mate on the basis of who can help him get elected. He should be thinking about who can help him govern successfully so he can get re-elected.
That means asking: What circumstances will I face when I take office? What tasks will I need my chief subordinate to perform to help me face those circumstances?
If Barack Obama is elected, his chief challenge will be that he hopes to usher in a new style of politics, but he has no real strategy for how to do that.
If John McCain is elected, he’ll face a political culture threatening to split at the seams. In defeat, Democrats will be enraged at everything and everybody. The Republican Party will still be exhausted and divided. McCain will find it hard to staff the administration since so many Republican advisers were exhausted over the previous eight years.
Amid these centrifugal forces, McCain will need somebody who radiates calm. He’ll need somebody who can provide structure and organization. He’ll need somebody who enjoys working with budgets.
Check out the whole article, it is short I swear. I'm not changing my opinion, due to the logic of Brooks. I am just willing to suggest that it adds to the level of gravity a V.P. decision carries. Politics, however, should not be read out of the equation. For, if you CAN find a V.P. choice who can help you carry a state you wouldn't have carried on your own or with someone else, you're more likely to get the chance to govern. Obviously this is the essential part of the "making your first governing decision" theory. One that Brooks too easily tosses aside, I might add.
My first thought on the running mate question is that to balance his ticket, Barack Obama should pick a really old white general. Therefore, he should pick Dwight Eisenhower. John McCain, on the other hand, needs to pick someone younger than himself. Therefore, he also should pick Dwight Eisenhower.
My second thought is that most of the commentary on vice president picks is completely backward. Most discussion focuses on what state or constituency this or that running mate could help carry in the fall. But, as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions.
A vice president can, however, have a gigantic impact on an administration once in office (see: Cheney, Richard). Therefore, a sensible presidential candidate shouldn’t be selecting a mate on the basis of who can help him get elected. He should be thinking about who can help him govern successfully so he can get re-elected.
That means asking: What circumstances will I face when I take office? What tasks will I need my chief subordinate to perform to help me face those circumstances?
If Barack Obama is elected, his chief challenge will be that he hopes to usher in a new style of politics, but he has no real strategy for how to do that.
If John McCain is elected, he’ll face a political culture threatening to split at the seams. In defeat, Democrats will be enraged at everything and everybody. The Republican Party will still be exhausted and divided. McCain will find it hard to staff the administration since so many Republican advisers were exhausted over the previous eight years.
Amid these centrifugal forces, McCain will need somebody who radiates calm. He’ll need somebody who can provide structure and organization. He’ll need somebody who enjoys working with budgets.
Check out the whole article, it is short I swear. I'm not changing my opinion, due to the logic of Brooks. I am just willing to suggest that it adds to the level of gravity a V.P. decision carries. Politics, however, should not be read out of the equation. For, if you CAN find a V.P. choice who can help you carry a state you wouldn't have carried on your own or with someone else, you're more likely to get the chance to govern. Obviously this is the essential part of the "making your first governing decision" theory. One that Brooks too easily tosses aside, I might add.
The Drug War (in OUR country) . . .
We don't hear about this aspect of the "War on Drugs" frequently enough. But this is a very interesting article from Slate and letter from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers. It is worth a minute or two of your time to check it out. A brief sample:
Since 1996, California laws have permitted citizens to use marijuana "for medical purposes." But the drug remains illegal under federal law, and the Drug Enforcement Agency regularly shuts down cannabis despensaries in the state. Last month John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House judiciary committee, wrote DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart (see below and on the following two pages) questioning the "dramatically intensified … frequency of paramilitary-style enforcement raids" on authorized users and suppliers. Conyers asked for an accounting of the agency's costs for these measures against "individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness" and for its rationale for threatening landlords of licensed dispensaries with "arrest and forfeiture of their property." Meanwhile, the California State Legislature is considering a measure that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to refuse cooperation with the DEA.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign told the San Francisco Chronicle last week that if elected president, Obama would curb federal enforcement on state medical marijuana suppliers.
My reaction: It is absolutely ridiculous for Federal drug officials to be sending in S.W.A.T. teams to break up vicious rings of cataracts sufferers. This, especially coming from an administration that claims to believe in Federalism, yet, has no clue as to the meaning of Federalism (Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding!).
It is a breath of fresh air to see the comment (emboldened above) from Obama's campaign, that is not laced with pander but good sense.
Since 1996, California laws have permitted citizens to use marijuana "for medical purposes." But the drug remains illegal under federal law, and the Drug Enforcement Agency regularly shuts down cannabis despensaries in the state. Last month John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House judiciary committee, wrote DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart (see below and on the following two pages) questioning the "dramatically intensified … frequency of paramilitary-style enforcement raids" on authorized users and suppliers. Conyers asked for an accounting of the agency's costs for these measures against "individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness" and for its rationale for threatening landlords of licensed dispensaries with "arrest and forfeiture of their property." Meanwhile, the California State Legislature is considering a measure that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to refuse cooperation with the DEA.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign told the San Francisco Chronicle last week that if elected president, Obama would curb federal enforcement on state medical marijuana suppliers.
My reaction: It is absolutely ridiculous for Federal drug officials to be sending in S.W.A.T. teams to break up vicious rings of cataracts sufferers. This, especially coming from an administration that claims to believe in Federalism, yet, has no clue as to the meaning of Federalism (Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding!).
It is a breath of fresh air to see the comment (emboldened above) from Obama's campaign, that is not laced with pander but good sense.
When a wino just wants to drink . . .
This is a nice change of pace piece from Hitchens that is worth a read.
(On "waiters" coming to the table and emptying out the bottle of wine amongst all of the guests at dinner, then asking if you're ready for another bottle . . . )
Well, all it takes is a bit of resistance. Until relatively recently in Washington, it was the custom at diplomatic and Georgetown dinners for the hostess to invite the ladies to withdraw, leaving the men to port and cigars and high matters of state. And then one evening in the 1970s, at the British Embassy, the late Katharine Graham refused to get up and go. There was nobody who felt like making her, and within a day, the news was all over town. Within a very short time, everybody had abandoned the silly practice. I am perfectly well aware that there are many graver problems facing civilization, and many grosser violations of human rights being perpetrated as we speak. But this is something that we can all change at a stroke. Next time anyone offers to interrupt your conversation and assist in the digestion of your meal and the inflation of your check, be very polite but very firm and say that you would really rather not.
(On "waiters" coming to the table and emptying out the bottle of wine amongst all of the guests at dinner, then asking if you're ready for another bottle . . . )
Well, all it takes is a bit of resistance. Until relatively recently in Washington, it was the custom at diplomatic and Georgetown dinners for the hostess to invite the ladies to withdraw, leaving the men to port and cigars and high matters of state. And then one evening in the 1970s, at the British Embassy, the late Katharine Graham refused to get up and go. There was nobody who felt like making her, and within a day, the news was all over town. Within a very short time, everybody had abandoned the silly practice. I am perfectly well aware that there are many graver problems facing civilization, and many grosser violations of human rights being perpetrated as we speak. But this is something that we can all change at a stroke. Next time anyone offers to interrupt your conversation and assist in the digestion of your meal and the inflation of your check, be very polite but very firm and say that you would really rather not.
How Scary Is Mexico Lately?
Seriously, the drug wars in Mexico are becoming increasingly frightening, or at least the press coverage of them is increasing to the point where it seems the violence is increasing. This story from CNN caught my eye, particularly for the way that they are using young kids. There are lots of stories out there about the recent uptick in violence if you are interested. You can find them here, here and here.
It is a serious problem and it makes you wonder why the Mexican government is then spending it's money doing this!
It is a serious problem and it makes you wonder why the Mexican government is then spending it's money doing this!
The Tone of this Campaign
Bob Herbert in today's NYTIMES properly recognized the point made by Sen. Joe Biden last Friday, about the tone of the ongoing and coming campaign. The tone he refers to is the comment from McCain on Obama, when questioned on why he won't support Sen. Webb's new GI Bill, "I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lecture on my regard for those who did."
While I am not one to suggest that McCain should be accepting any lectures from anyone on military service, it seems well within the parameters of a presidential campaign for one candidate to ask why another does not support a certain piece of legislation. Having served in the military does not allow a presidential candidate an exemption from explaining his positions on issues regarding the military. Especially when you consider that the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, made it constitutionally apparent that the presidency was to be a civilian position.
When asked about the above comments, Biden obviously had difficulty answering as Herbert relays, “This is tough for me,” he said, “because John’s been my friend for 35 years, and I’m disappointed. Because, as you all know, there is a difference between an ad hominem argument and a logical response.” Senator McCain had taken the ad hominem route, said Senator Biden, and he was saddened by it. That kind of behavior, he said, should be “beneath us.”
That kind of behavior should be beneath us, and it is most troubling to me in it's similarity to Bush rhetoric. I've been defending McCain saying that he is not, as the Democrats try to portray. Bush's third term. But comments and behavior like this do more to support that assertion than to dissuade.
While I am not one to suggest that McCain should be accepting any lectures from anyone on military service, it seems well within the parameters of a presidential campaign for one candidate to ask why another does not support a certain piece of legislation. Having served in the military does not allow a presidential candidate an exemption from explaining his positions on issues regarding the military. Especially when you consider that the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, made it constitutionally apparent that the presidency was to be a civilian position.
When asked about the above comments, Biden obviously had difficulty answering as Herbert relays, “This is tough for me,” he said, “because John’s been my friend for 35 years, and I’m disappointed. Because, as you all know, there is a difference between an ad hominem argument and a logical response.” Senator McCain had taken the ad hominem route, said Senator Biden, and he was saddened by it. That kind of behavior, he said, should be “beneath us.”
That kind of behavior should be beneath us, and it is most troubling to me in it's similarity to Bush rhetoric. I've been defending McCain saying that he is not, as the Democrats try to portray. Bush's third term. But comments and behavior like this do more to support that assertion than to dissuade.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Why a Joint Ticket is not so Dreamy . . .
The Rationale Doesn't Hold Up:
Andrew Sullivan has seemingly fallen into the camp that thinks that Obama's selection of Clinton as V.P. might be the best (read: only) option available. Back in early May, after PA, but before NC and IN, Sullivan wrote an interesting piece in the Times of London, where he argued that, "[t]he rationale for a fusion ticket is the same as for any grand political compromise. Very few people in Washington believe that Barack Obama can now be denied the Democratic nomination. Even after the past month, as Hillary Clinton has hung in there, as the scandal about Jeremiah Wright (Obama's firebrand cleric) scandal has battered the post-racial Obama brand, and as white Reagan Democrats have proven resistant to a new young black freshman senator, Obama has actually increased his number of delegates."
That does not really seem like much of a rationale. As he points out, even without breaking solidly into the white Reagan Democrats, Obama's delegate lead continues to grow.
To be fair to Sullivan, that argument was made shortly after PA, when there was still some kind of glimmer or life to the Clinton campaign. However, today on his blog, a must read for anyone serious about thought AND politics (that strange mixture), he writes that, "[t]he upside of an Obama-Clinton ticket would be considerable. I know I've been all over the place on this. My fear of an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. My interest in an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. They're dangerous to Obama - the overthrown dynasts who are pulling a Richard II right now. But they're just as dangerous in the tent and out of it. Obama needs to figure out which is the greater danger. I don't envy him."
My take on the first Sullivan point is that it makes sense that the Clinton campaign would be working back-channels trying to get the V.P. slot, but it would not make sense for Obama to add her to the ticket. What does Obama get for putting her on the ticket? No nomination fight? The backing of the Clinton "machine"? She certainly doesn't give him a state he wouldn't otherwise win, with perhaps the exception of Arkansas. The bottom line is this: The things she brings him, she should be doing anyway as a loyal Democrat. The rationale Sullivan speaks of, does not hold up.
The Media Perception Could Kill:
The second point Sullivan raises is that the Clintons are dangerous to Obama, either inside or outside of the administration. This is surely true and it is also true that Obama could probably keep the Clintons under wraps a little bit more if they were in his administration. However, this approach would fail to address what may potentially be a bigger problem for Obama, public/media perception. This is really my biggest problem with all of this so-called "logic" for putting her on the ticket.
I think that if you put her on the ticket, no matter how well they get along and work together, and no matter how much they might both make the other better, the news story will always be, (and therefore the persistent feeling in the zeitgeist will always be), that there is a riff between the Obama camp and Clinton camp. Everything the Clintons do will be seen as trying to upstage Obama, even if they have no intention of doing so. And then there is the specter of having Bill hanging around all of the time. First, if you're Obama and you are the new politics, how can you even think of having Bill always hanging, lurking, just around the corner reminding everyone of the '90's (which he has, in part, campaigned against)? Second, Bill is a rockstar in the media and Obama is a growing rockstar. While the second point may be far more frivolous than the first, it remains that if you have the opportunity to deny your "rival" a constant spot in the limelight, then you ought to do so, once and for all, and never look back.
Who Should be Vice President?:
I have a clear favorite for V.P. My Senator, Jim Webb of VA. He has been in the national spotlight since his election in 2006 and his scathing "Democratic Response" to the President's 2007 "State of the Union." He has served in an Executive Branch position (during the Reagan administration), he is popular in his home state of VA and could possibly deliver, the once solidly red state, to the Democrats. VA is considered a "purple" state by some already, in that it is perhaps a swing state already. I also think Webb helps in any contrast the McCain campaign might make with Obama and his lack of milirary experience. Webb is tough on defense and not just as a talker. He introduced the current redux of the GI Bill before Congress and his own son is serving in the military presently. It would be a powerful message if everytime McCain (who also has a son in the war and possibly another on the way), talks about the military and how Obama doesn't have the experience to lead as Commander and Chief, to have Webb stand up and call out McCain and ask him to state loudly and publicly why he doesn't think that the new GI Bill is good idea. He can ask him why he has such a low opinion of the honorable people who serve this country that he thinks that if they are offered "too good" of a package, they will leave their military commitment earlier. Webb simply adds a new level of gravitas to the ticket.
In addition to just gravitas, Webb could also help Obama in the area of the country where Obama has just taken a beating--white Appalachia. These are Webb's people and he speaks their language. He is not afraid to get out there, get his boots dirty and communicate with these folks who have largely looked past Obama because, as Webb says, they haven't met him (Obama) yet. It might even be possible for Webb to get WV back in the Democratic column, where it was in '92 and '96 for Bill Clinton. It will no doubt help with unsure voters in the South to have a man on the ticket who they feel understands their concerns and understands them.
This is not to say that Obama could not also reach out to these people on his own, or call out John McCain on the GI Bill on his own, or with another V.P. It is merely to say that an Obama candidacy can be so much stronger with Senator Webb aboard because it seems to come much more naturally for him.
To steal my friend Don's mantra: "You heard it here first!"
Andrew Sullivan has seemingly fallen into the camp that thinks that Obama's selection of Clinton as V.P. might be the best (read: only) option available. Back in early May, after PA, but before NC and IN, Sullivan wrote an interesting piece in the Times of London, where he argued that, "[t]he rationale for a fusion ticket is the same as for any grand political compromise. Very few people in Washington believe that Barack Obama can now be denied the Democratic nomination. Even after the past month, as Hillary Clinton has hung in there, as the scandal about Jeremiah Wright (Obama's firebrand cleric) scandal has battered the post-racial Obama brand, and as white Reagan Democrats have proven resistant to a new young black freshman senator, Obama has actually increased his number of delegates."
That does not really seem like much of a rationale. As he points out, even without breaking solidly into the white Reagan Democrats, Obama's delegate lead continues to grow.
To be fair to Sullivan, that argument was made shortly after PA, when there was still some kind of glimmer or life to the Clinton campaign. However, today on his blog, a must read for anyone serious about thought AND politics (that strange mixture), he writes that, "[t]he upside of an Obama-Clinton ticket would be considerable. I know I've been all over the place on this. My fear of an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. My interest in an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. They're dangerous to Obama - the overthrown dynasts who are pulling a Richard II right now. But they're just as dangerous in the tent and out of it. Obama needs to figure out which is the greater danger. I don't envy him."
My take on the first Sullivan point is that it makes sense that the Clinton campaign would be working back-channels trying to get the V.P. slot, but it would not make sense for Obama to add her to the ticket. What does Obama get for putting her on the ticket? No nomination fight? The backing of the Clinton "machine"? She certainly doesn't give him a state he wouldn't otherwise win, with perhaps the exception of Arkansas. The bottom line is this: The things she brings him, she should be doing anyway as a loyal Democrat. The rationale Sullivan speaks of, does not hold up.
The Media Perception Could Kill:
The second point Sullivan raises is that the Clintons are dangerous to Obama, either inside or outside of the administration. This is surely true and it is also true that Obama could probably keep the Clintons under wraps a little bit more if they were in his administration. However, this approach would fail to address what may potentially be a bigger problem for Obama, public/media perception. This is really my biggest problem with all of this so-called "logic" for putting her on the ticket.
I think that if you put her on the ticket, no matter how well they get along and work together, and no matter how much they might both make the other better, the news story will always be, (and therefore the persistent feeling in the zeitgeist will always be), that there is a riff between the Obama camp and Clinton camp. Everything the Clintons do will be seen as trying to upstage Obama, even if they have no intention of doing so. And then there is the specter of having Bill hanging around all of the time. First, if you're Obama and you are the new politics, how can you even think of having Bill always hanging, lurking, just around the corner reminding everyone of the '90's (which he has, in part, campaigned against)? Second, Bill is a rockstar in the media and Obama is a growing rockstar. While the second point may be far more frivolous than the first, it remains that if you have the opportunity to deny your "rival" a constant spot in the limelight, then you ought to do so, once and for all, and never look back.
Who Should be Vice President?:
I have a clear favorite for V.P. My Senator, Jim Webb of VA. He has been in the national spotlight since his election in 2006 and his scathing "Democratic Response" to the President's 2007 "State of the Union." He has served in an Executive Branch position (during the Reagan administration), he is popular in his home state of VA and could possibly deliver, the once solidly red state, to the Democrats. VA is considered a "purple" state by some already, in that it is perhaps a swing state already. I also think Webb helps in any contrast the McCain campaign might make with Obama and his lack of milirary experience. Webb is tough on defense and not just as a talker. He introduced the current redux of the GI Bill before Congress and his own son is serving in the military presently. It would be a powerful message if everytime McCain (who also has a son in the war and possibly another on the way), talks about the military and how Obama doesn't have the experience to lead as Commander and Chief, to have Webb stand up and call out McCain and ask him to state loudly and publicly why he doesn't think that the new GI Bill is good idea. He can ask him why he has such a low opinion of the honorable people who serve this country that he thinks that if they are offered "too good" of a package, they will leave their military commitment earlier. Webb simply adds a new level of gravitas to the ticket.
In addition to just gravitas, Webb could also help Obama in the area of the country where Obama has just taken a beating--white Appalachia. These are Webb's people and he speaks their language. He is not afraid to get out there, get his boots dirty and communicate with these folks who have largely looked past Obama because, as Webb says, they haven't met him (Obama) yet. It might even be possible for Webb to get WV back in the Democratic column, where it was in '92 and '96 for Bill Clinton. It will no doubt help with unsure voters in the South to have a man on the ticket who they feel understands their concerns and understands them.
This is not to say that Obama could not also reach out to these people on his own, or call out John McCain on the GI Bill on his own, or with another V.P. It is merely to say that an Obama candidacy can be so much stronger with Senator Webb aboard because it seems to come much more naturally for him.
To steal my friend Don's mantra: "You heard it here first!"
Thursday, May 22, 2008
European Court of HUMAN Rights to hear the case of a Chimpanzee
If you're like me that headline made you think of "Loser" by Beck, In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey, butane in my veins and I’m out to cut the junkie . . .
This story is not really about that at all. It is however, a strange combination between heart warming and . . . weird!
This story is not really about that at all. It is however, a strange combination between heart warming and . . . weird!
Not appeasement but still a mistake?
A NYTIMES OP-ED today suggests that Obama's references to President Kennedy, when talking about his willingness to meet with foreign leaders we don't like, may be more instructive for him, rather than those he seeks to persuade.
Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.
Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.
A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.
If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.
Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.
Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.
A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.
If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
What is Clinton Doing?
This is an honest question, to which there are no simple answers. It is not just that I don't have the answer, but it doesn't seem anyone has the answer. A good friend of mine said to me yesterday, "now Burns, you know I'm no card carrying Democrat, but I'm watching this thing and it just seems to me like Hillary is just dividing the party further. What is she doing?" My answer to that is this: I follow politics as closely as anyone I know. I read and watch pretty much everything I can. I'm certainly not an insider but as an observer--I have no idea what her strategy or plan is.
The charitable view is that she knows it is over and that it's a good thing that she has stayed in the race. She was going to win West Virginia and Kentucky (and likely Puerto Rico) whether she stayed in the race or not. Better to have the eventual nominee of the party lose in these states to a candidate who is still running than one that has dropped out. I think that is the charitable view but I don't believe that it's the most plausible scenario.
What seems to be happening, with the new mantra of the Clinton lead in the popular vote numbers, is that they still have some kind of hope that when the DNC Rules Committee gets together on May 31 and they decide what to do with Michigan and Florida, a miracle will occur. Even if she got everything she wanted at this meeting and got the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated, and counted the popular vote differentials from each state (giving Obama no votes at all from Michigan where he wasn't on the ballot, and incidentally is the way she "has" the popular vote lead), even then, she still has no path to the nomination. As Russert said last night, back in the winter and before a single vote was cast, members of both campaigns, the DNC and prominent Democrats all agreed on one thing: delegates nominate! If delegates nominate then Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, no matter how rosy a scenario Clinton paints with the popular vote.
I think it is also important to make the point that Hillary's "every vote counts" mantra is contradicted by the strategy laid out above. It is contradicted by the fact that she is claiming a popular vote lead that discounts 45% of voters in Michigan who did not vote for her. What about those votes? Why do those votes not count?
I just finished reading Terry McAuliffe's book, What A Party, and it is an excellent book that I recommend to anyone interested in politics, political stories or great story telling in general. In the book, he talks about his time as DNC Chair, dealing with the 2004 election. He talks about how important it was for the party to have a nominee to line up behind by March of '04 because it was important that the party be unified and not distracted by a drawn out nomination fight. It was important for fundraising and it was important so that they could focus on the major competition of beating the GOP. It was important because it would unify the party. Now, I realize the McAuliffe is in a different role now as the Chair of the Clinton campaign, but does it not still feel more than slightly disingenuous that he is out there saying it doesn't matter that this nomination fight has now carried into May and will likely continue at least until the beginning of June?
These are my thoughts and speculation on the issue, but mostly I am wondering what is the end game and what is Clinton doing?
The charitable view is that she knows it is over and that it's a good thing that she has stayed in the race. She was going to win West Virginia and Kentucky (and likely Puerto Rico) whether she stayed in the race or not. Better to have the eventual nominee of the party lose in these states to a candidate who is still running than one that has dropped out. I think that is the charitable view but I don't believe that it's the most plausible scenario.
What seems to be happening, with the new mantra of the Clinton lead in the popular vote numbers, is that they still have some kind of hope that when the DNC Rules Committee gets together on May 31 and they decide what to do with Michigan and Florida, a miracle will occur. Even if she got everything she wanted at this meeting and got the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated, and counted the popular vote differentials from each state (giving Obama no votes at all from Michigan where he wasn't on the ballot, and incidentally is the way she "has" the popular vote lead), even then, she still has no path to the nomination. As Russert said last night, back in the winter and before a single vote was cast, members of both campaigns, the DNC and prominent Democrats all agreed on one thing: delegates nominate! If delegates nominate then Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, no matter how rosy a scenario Clinton paints with the popular vote.
I think it is also important to make the point that Hillary's "every vote counts" mantra is contradicted by the strategy laid out above. It is contradicted by the fact that she is claiming a popular vote lead that discounts 45% of voters in Michigan who did not vote for her. What about those votes? Why do those votes not count?
I just finished reading Terry McAuliffe's book, What A Party, and it is an excellent book that I recommend to anyone interested in politics, political stories or great story telling in general. In the book, he talks about his time as DNC Chair, dealing with the 2004 election. He talks about how important it was for the party to have a nominee to line up behind by March of '04 because it was important that the party be unified and not distracted by a drawn out nomination fight. It was important for fundraising and it was important so that they could focus on the major competition of beating the GOP. It was important because it would unify the party. Now, I realize the McAuliffe is in a different role now as the Chair of the Clinton campaign, but does it not still feel more than slightly disingenuous that he is out there saying it doesn't matter that this nomination fight has now carried into May and will likely continue at least until the beginning of June?
These are my thoughts and speculation on the issue, but mostly I am wondering what is the end game and what is Clinton doing?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A Pointed Critique of Obama
In the NYTIMES today, Brooks made an excellent critique of Obama's "change" mantra juxtaposed with McCain's career, all within the context of last week's $307 billion farm bill. He says:
Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.
The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest. The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk . . .
Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.
Obama’s vote may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.
If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?
John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: “It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it.”
McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.
In fact, in this issue, McCain may have found a theme to unify his so far scattershot campaign. He has always been an awkward ideological warrior. In any case, this year may not be the best year for Republicans to launch a right versus left crusade. But McCain has infinitely better grounds than Obama to run as a do-what-it-takes reformer.
Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.
The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest. The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk . . .
Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.
Obama’s vote may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.
If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?
John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: “It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it.”
McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.
In fact, in this issue, McCain may have found a theme to unify his so far scattershot campaign. He has always been an awkward ideological warrior. In any case, this year may not be the best year for Republicans to launch a right versus left crusade. But McCain has infinitely better grounds than Obama to run as a do-what-it-takes reformer.
Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA
I was disagreeing with my girlfriend today about the relationship between science and religion. I know, right? What a normal thing to be discussing. Well, we're both proud to be very much "not normal." She was arguing that science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive and that they can answer the questions of one another. I agree with the latter point, but disagree that it is not important to keep them separate inquiries at least, if not quite mutually exclusive.
In any case, the conversation put me back in undergrad where my friend Adam and Prof. Price encouraged me to read "Rock of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould. In the book, Gould lays out the brilliant theory of Non-Overlapping Magisteria- or NOMA, to describe what is, in his opinion, the proper relationship or understanding between religion and science.
While I am quite certain that this mention is not going to send everyone in a rush to the bookstore to purchase "Rock of Ages" (although it is very interesting reading and would be well-worth anyone's time), I did want to put up a link to an essay, that was published by Gould in 1997 in Natural History magazine where he essentially lays out and works with his NOMA theory.
HERE IS THE LINK
It is a good 15-20 minute read, but it is not terribly dense. The essay, quite like the book, is accessible to pretty much any level of adult reader. Even if you vehemently disagree, I hope you will find it well worth the read.
In any case, the conversation put me back in undergrad where my friend Adam and Prof. Price encouraged me to read "Rock of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould. In the book, Gould lays out the brilliant theory of Non-Overlapping Magisteria- or NOMA, to describe what is, in his opinion, the proper relationship or understanding between religion and science.
While I am quite certain that this mention is not going to send everyone in a rush to the bookstore to purchase "Rock of Ages" (although it is very interesting reading and would be well-worth anyone's time), I did want to put up a link to an essay, that was published by Gould in 1997 in Natural History magazine where he essentially lays out and works with his NOMA theory.
HERE IS THE LINK
It is a good 15-20 minute read, but it is not terribly dense. The essay, quite like the book, is accessible to pretty much any level of adult reader. Even if you vehemently disagree, I hope you will find it well worth the read.
Shame on the GOP
This is not shocking, but it should be a wake-up call. The GOP has a real problem going forward. The problem is that their message doesn't speak to minorities. There message is not geared toward minorities and even if it were, they do a terrible job reaching out to minorities. This is by no means suggesting that the Democratic party's policies are 100% in favor of minorities, or that it is a no-brainer for minorities to vote Democratic. It is merely to suggest that the GOP has long been able to win elections without appealing to minorities, whereas Democrats cannot. I think that with the changing ethnic makeup of this country, it is going to be increasingly impossible for the GOP to ignore efforts to craft a message that resonates, and actively recruit minority candidates of all backgrounds.
I have never, EVER quoted Al Sharpton before and I only do so here in closing, with pause. What he said at the 2004 Democratic Convention speaks brilliantly to this issue:
"As I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African American voters. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give forty acres and a mule . . . We never got the forty acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover and we never got the forty acres. We didn't get the mule, so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us."
I have never, EVER quoted Al Sharpton before and I only do so here in closing, with pause. What he said at the 2004 Democratic Convention speaks brilliantly to this issue:
"As I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African American voters. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give forty acres and a mule . . . We never got the forty acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover and we never got the forty acres. We didn't get the mule, so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us."
Prime Minister's Questions
Hitchens, in his latest article, talks about John McCain's recent suggestion that he would begin an American practice similar to Britain and Canada, by going to Congress and taking questions. This is the most brilliant proposal I have heard in American politics . . . ever!
I think it is interesting to view the Presidential race within the context of who would be a better President in "President's Questions"?
I think that the experienced, Senatorial McCain would have the tenor down pat. I don't think that he would allow himself to be bullied or pushed around by Congress, however, there might be some worry about him having a temper meltdown.
Obama I think would be forced to lose his, "cool cat" demeanor. I also think that he would be pressed in a more substantive way than he has ever been before on his lofty, idealist goals. I also happen to think he is more than able to do so quite adequately.
I think McCain and Obama would be a lot of fun to watch in a "President's Questions" format. I think they would both excel at it. Most importantly, I think it would be a great thing to institute in our country.
Thought of the day: Imagine George W. Bush in "President's Questions" and imagine how our foreign policy might be different if the President were forced to withstand scrutiny on the policies he implemented and decisions he made, and ask yourself whether you would have been better off with this system in place eight years ago?
I think it is interesting to view the Presidential race within the context of who would be a better President in "President's Questions"?
I think that the experienced, Senatorial McCain would have the tenor down pat. I don't think that he would allow himself to be bullied or pushed around by Congress, however, there might be some worry about him having a temper meltdown.
Obama I think would be forced to lose his, "cool cat" demeanor. I also think that he would be pressed in a more substantive way than he has ever been before on his lofty, idealist goals. I also happen to think he is more than able to do so quite adequately.
I think McCain and Obama would be a lot of fun to watch in a "President's Questions" format. I think they would both excel at it. Most importantly, I think it would be a great thing to institute in our country.
Thought of the day: Imagine George W. Bush in "President's Questions" and imagine how our foreign policy might be different if the President were forced to withstand scrutiny on the policies he implemented and decisions he made, and ask yourself whether you would have been better off with this system in place eight years ago?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Kristol Clear
Bill Kristol, in the NYTIMES this morning puts out an interesting piece. It is interesting because it raises the specter that while the country is clearly sick of Republican leadership, McCain, especially McCain when juxtaposed with Obama, might be an exception to the rule on Republicans.
This is not a brilliant point, but it is one worth noting. To toot my own horn, it was something I picked up on way back in the beginning of the nominating process when the mainstream Republican media was bashing John McCain. I was thinking, out loud and to myself, that John McCain surely represents the best, if only, option for the Republicans to retain the White House. I am not suggesting that he will in fact, it is too early to prognosticate that far out, but he certainly seems better positioned to do so than anyone else in his party.
Here are some of Kristol's comments:
The Republican Party is clearly in bad shape — trailing by double digits in party preference among the electorate, very likely to lose House and Senate seats in the fall. But John McCain — despite a rather haphazard campaign so far lacking in thematic coherence — is doing pretty well. In two public tracking polls, by Gallup and Rasmussen, he’s basically even with Barack Obama; other polls have him slightly behind.
What’s more, three developments this past week were promising for McCain — or what amounts to pretty much the same thing, problematic for Obama.
1. On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin. The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.
2. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.
Obama’s campaign issued a statement that its candidate “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” The McCain campaign, by contrast, said it recognized “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution ... John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.
This is not a brilliant point, but it is one worth noting. To toot my own horn, it was something I picked up on way back in the beginning of the nominating process when the mainstream Republican media was bashing John McCain. I was thinking, out loud and to myself, that John McCain surely represents the best, if only, option for the Republicans to retain the White House. I am not suggesting that he will in fact, it is too early to prognosticate that far out, but he certainly seems better positioned to do so than anyone else in his party.
Here are some of Kristol's comments:
The Republican Party is clearly in bad shape — trailing by double digits in party preference among the electorate, very likely to lose House and Senate seats in the fall. But John McCain — despite a rather haphazard campaign so far lacking in thematic coherence — is doing pretty well. In two public tracking polls, by Gallup and Rasmussen, he’s basically even with Barack Obama; other polls have him slightly behind.
What’s more, three developments this past week were promising for McCain — or what amounts to pretty much the same thing, problematic for Obama.
1. On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin. The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.
2. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.
Obama’s campaign issued a statement that its candidate “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” The McCain campaign, by contrast, said it recognized “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution ... John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.
And this is why we don't want to go the way of France. . .
The French are often vilified by the Right in this country. For years I have been standing up for France, a country I have visited on several occasions and a country of which I am quite fond. However, perhaps the Right has been correct all along. Maybe France is a threat to all that is good in the world. Maybe France is just wrong on EVERYTHING! Maybe I should start eating Freedom Fries . . . and you should too because this time France is simply going too far! Read about their atrocious behavior here!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Matthews Owns His Guest
I don't know how many of you watch Hardball. It is an entertaining show for sure, though Chris Matthews can be, at times, difficult to take and better in small doses. However, he will seldom be accused of not knowing his stuff.
Below you will see a video with Matthews at his best, absolutely OWNING a right-wing blabber mouth talking about Bush's insinuation that Obama is an appeaser because he is willing to talk with our enemies. Blabber mouth Kevin James compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain as an appeaser. When pressed by Matthews on what exactly most people frown upon Neville Chamberlain for, or asked the simple, historical question: what did Neville Chamberlain do? James has absolutely no answer and Matthews rightly calls him out on it.
The issue is not that this guy didn't know what Neville Chamberlain did. Rather, the issue is that this guy went on television and said Obama was analagous to Chamberlain, who he said was a Nazi appeaser. This is a serious charge levelled, but he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. It was just empty rhetoric, shouted with volume. And we wonder why people are so often turned off by politics. It's because of imbeciles like this clown.
Enjoy the video!
Below you will see a video with Matthews at his best, absolutely OWNING a right-wing blabber mouth talking about Bush's insinuation that Obama is an appeaser because he is willing to talk with our enemies. Blabber mouth Kevin James compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain as an appeaser. When pressed by Matthews on what exactly most people frown upon Neville Chamberlain for, or asked the simple, historical question: what did Neville Chamberlain do? James has absolutely no answer and Matthews rightly calls him out on it.
The issue is not that this guy didn't know what Neville Chamberlain did. Rather, the issue is that this guy went on television and said Obama was analagous to Chamberlain, who he said was a Nazi appeaser. This is a serious charge levelled, but he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. It was just empty rhetoric, shouted with volume. And we wonder why people are so often turned off by politics. It's because of imbeciles like this clown.
Enjoy the video!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sean Penn is a SUPER Douche!
Here are Sean Penn's utterly incoherent "thoughts" on this year's Presidential election:
"I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring," he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.
"I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”
Pray tell Sean, what is it that you find inhuman and unconstitutional in Obama's voting record? You can't just level a ridiculous accusation like that without back up. Oh, and do please explain how Obama is supposed to ward off disillusionment if he doesn't become a greater man than he ever will be. . . This last part MIGHT make sense if he had said, a greater man than he ever can be, because that speaks to potential, will be speaks as a foregone conclusion.
This is a perfect example of why people hate Hollywood types getting involved in politics. Seriously, if he hadn't played Huey Long in "All the King's Men," I might never watch another movie of his again! SUPER DOUCHE!
"I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring," he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.
"I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”
Pray tell Sean, what is it that you find inhuman and unconstitutional in Obama's voting record? You can't just level a ridiculous accusation like that without back up. Oh, and do please explain how Obama is supposed to ward off disillusionment if he doesn't become a greater man than he ever will be. . . This last part MIGHT make sense if he had said, a greater man than he ever can be, because that speaks to potential, will be speaks as a foregone conclusion.
This is a perfect example of why people hate Hollywood types getting involved in politics. Seriously, if he hadn't played Huey Long in "All the King's Men," I might never watch another movie of his again! SUPER DOUCHE!
The Edwards Plan
What is John Edwards' plan with supporting the nomination of Obama? Apparently, he suggested last week that he has always been for Obama (he said that he would endorse the candidate that he voted for) and it appears he was strong enough in his support of Obama to overcome his wife, the inimitable Elizabeth Edwards, who apparently is still a strong backer of Hillary.
What does this mean and what does it matter? I don't know, but I throw it out there as food for thought--What does Edwards want? What should Edwards get?
An interesting blurb from a Rutenberg piece in the NYTIMES:
As the campaign proceeds, aides to both men said, Mr. Edwards is sure to be included on a short-list of vice presidential prospects. Mr. Edwards has played down any aspirations for an administration role. In an interview in January, he said he would not accept a vice presidential spot or a Cabinet position. “No, absolutely not,” he said, shaking his head emphatically. But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general.
I'd be interested to hear your take on what you think the appropriate role, if any, for John Edwards is?
I happen to think Edwards is a talented guy, but I'm not sure Obama owes him any position. I think that Edwards should come out and campaign and help Obama with blue collar voters because he owes it to the party. If he wanted something bigger, he could have come out and endorsed much earlier, a la Chris Dodd.
If I had to pick, I think he would make a nice, easily confirmable AG.
What does this mean and what does it matter? I don't know, but I throw it out there as food for thought--What does Edwards want? What should Edwards get?
An interesting blurb from a Rutenberg piece in the NYTIMES:
As the campaign proceeds, aides to both men said, Mr. Edwards is sure to be included on a short-list of vice presidential prospects. Mr. Edwards has played down any aspirations for an administration role. In an interview in January, he said he would not accept a vice presidential spot or a Cabinet position. “No, absolutely not,” he said, shaking his head emphatically. But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general.
I'd be interested to hear your take on what you think the appropriate role, if any, for John Edwards is?
I happen to think Edwards is a talented guy, but I'm not sure Obama owes him any position. I think that Edwards should come out and campaign and help Obama with blue collar voters because he owes it to the party. If he wanted something bigger, he could have come out and endorsed much earlier, a la Chris Dodd.
If I had to pick, I think he would make a nice, easily confirmable AG.
Her Path to the Nomination
Here is a funny little bit from Gail Collins' NYTIMES column today on how Hillary can still win the nomination:
Given the Democratic Party’s innovative method of doling out delegates, all that’s necessary for her to snatch the nomination is:
1) A big, big win in Kentucky next Tuesday. Ideally, Obama should be limited to no more than 100 votes.
2) Oregon, scheduled for the same day, inexplicably breaks off and sinks into the Pacific Ocean.
3) Puerto Rico, clocking in on June 1, not only gives Clinton a huge majority, but also manages to become a state in advance of the vote.
4) Finally, on June 3 as the South Dakota polls open, Thomas Jefferson’s head on Mount Rushmore comes to life and starts shouting, “You go, girl.”
An ambitious scenario, true. But nothing less than we’ve come to expect from the most hard-working political family in American history.
The whole article goes on in a hilarious, yet genuine look at the qualities of Hillary. Another funny part:
If, as is projected, Hillary wins Kentucky and loses Oregon next week, are we supposed to think that it’s because people in Portland don’t work as hard as people in Louisville? Oregonians do have a reputation for being kind of laid back, but they do not put billboards on the highway saying, “Welcome to the State that Likes a Good Nap.”
On West Virginia primary night, Hillary listed the folks who need her to fight hard for them because “they’re fighting so hard every single day,” and she ticked off everybody from waitresses to coal miners to “the trucker, the soldier, the vet, the college student ...” While there are certainly college students working three jobs to get themselves through school, I guarantee you that when it comes to intensive labor, undergraduates as a group do not rank in the top 20.
Politicians, unless they are very cynical, tend to believe that their supporters are a lot like them. Barack probably feels his are sort of cool, and unusually smart.
Hillary’s folk, then, would be really, really, really driven. “We know people have to work hard,” she noted, somewhat unnecessarily.
Given the Democratic Party’s innovative method of doling out delegates, all that’s necessary for her to snatch the nomination is:
1) A big, big win in Kentucky next Tuesday. Ideally, Obama should be limited to no more than 100 votes.
2) Oregon, scheduled for the same day, inexplicably breaks off and sinks into the Pacific Ocean.
3) Puerto Rico, clocking in on June 1, not only gives Clinton a huge majority, but also manages to become a state in advance of the vote.
4) Finally, on June 3 as the South Dakota polls open, Thomas Jefferson’s head on Mount Rushmore comes to life and starts shouting, “You go, girl.”
An ambitious scenario, true. But nothing less than we’ve come to expect from the most hard-working political family in American history.
The whole article goes on in a hilarious, yet genuine look at the qualities of Hillary. Another funny part:
If, as is projected, Hillary wins Kentucky and loses Oregon next week, are we supposed to think that it’s because people in Portland don’t work as hard as people in Louisville? Oregonians do have a reputation for being kind of laid back, but they do not put billboards on the highway saying, “Welcome to the State that Likes a Good Nap.”
On West Virginia primary night, Hillary listed the folks who need her to fight hard for them because “they’re fighting so hard every single day,” and she ticked off everybody from waitresses to coal miners to “the trucker, the soldier, the vet, the college student ...” While there are certainly college students working three jobs to get themselves through school, I guarantee you that when it comes to intensive labor, undergraduates as a group do not rank in the top 20.
Politicians, unless they are very cynical, tend to believe that their supporters are a lot like them. Barack probably feels his are sort of cool, and unusually smart.
Hillary’s folk, then, would be really, really, really driven. “We know people have to work hard,” she noted, somewhat unnecessarily.
Why Hillary is Still In
In her words, here it is:
Dear Eric,
There are some people out there who want to declare this race over now, before all the ballots have been counted or even cast. There are some who say they don't know why I'm in this race. So let me tell you why I'm still running.
I'm in this race for everyone who needs a champion. For the hardworking families who are losing sleep over gas prices and grocery costs and mortgage payments and medical bills -- but who never lose that American can-do spirit and optimism.
I'm in this race for the more than 16 million people like you who have supported me -- for the people who have put their hearts into winning this race. You never gave up on me, and I'll never give up on you.
We are in the homestretch. After sixteen months, there are only three weeks left to compete in the final contests. With your help I'm going to keep fighting until every last American has a chance to be heard, and as we learned last night in West Virginia, I know we can win.
Contribute now to keep our campaign going strong.
I'm also in this race because I have the best chance of beating John McCain in November and putting America on the right track. We proved something in West Virginia last night -- a state every Democratic president has won since 1916. And we proved something in a few other battleground states that have a history of picking presidents. Pennsylvania. Ohio. Arkansas. New Hampshire. New Jersey. New Mexico. Nevada. And, yes, Michigan and Florida.
I am in this race, and so are you, because we both know the stakes in this election are too high to stay on the sidelines. So let's keep going together, you and me. Let's keep driving our campaign forward, and let's keep winning.
Make a contribution today to help me win.
I want to thank you again for the incredible generosity of spirit you have shown over the course of this campaign. Together, you and I are going to make history.
Thank you,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
What you will no doubt notice is missing, is any strategy to actually WIN rather than continue to disrupt the race. As each day passes, I'll be honest, I begrudge her less and less. She has pulled off some spectacular victories, she has created an astounding coalition of voters. While I still think it does more harm to the party to have her stay in the race, I can't really say that I would do anything different in her position.
I take issue with her claim that she is better suited to beat John McCain, but when I do the electoral math, I can sort of see her point. I also take issue with the whole "you need a champion" idea. She sounds like she is running for Congress with that.
So, for what it is worth--that's why she is staying in.
Dear Eric,
There are some people out there who want to declare this race over now, before all the ballots have been counted or even cast. There are some who say they don't know why I'm in this race. So let me tell you why I'm still running.
I'm in this race for everyone who needs a champion. For the hardworking families who are losing sleep over gas prices and grocery costs and mortgage payments and medical bills -- but who never lose that American can-do spirit and optimism.
I'm in this race for the more than 16 million people like you who have supported me -- for the people who have put their hearts into winning this race. You never gave up on me, and I'll never give up on you.
We are in the homestretch. After sixteen months, there are only three weeks left to compete in the final contests. With your help I'm going to keep fighting until every last American has a chance to be heard, and as we learned last night in West Virginia, I know we can win.
Contribute now to keep our campaign going strong.
I'm also in this race because I have the best chance of beating John McCain in November and putting America on the right track. We proved something in West Virginia last night -- a state every Democratic president has won since 1916. And we proved something in a few other battleground states that have a history of picking presidents. Pennsylvania. Ohio. Arkansas. New Hampshire. New Jersey. New Mexico. Nevada. And, yes, Michigan and Florida.
I am in this race, and so are you, because we both know the stakes in this election are too high to stay on the sidelines. So let's keep going together, you and me. Let's keep driving our campaign forward, and let's keep winning.
Make a contribution today to help me win.
I want to thank you again for the incredible generosity of spirit you have shown over the course of this campaign. Together, you and I are going to make history.
Thank you,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
What you will no doubt notice is missing, is any strategy to actually WIN rather than continue to disrupt the race. As each day passes, I'll be honest, I begrudge her less and less. She has pulled off some spectacular victories, she has created an astounding coalition of voters. While I still think it does more harm to the party to have her stay in the race, I can't really say that I would do anything different in her position.
I take issue with her claim that she is better suited to beat John McCain, but when I do the electoral math, I can sort of see her point. I also take issue with the whole "you need a champion" idea. She sounds like she is running for Congress with that.
So, for what it is worth--that's why she is staying in.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Finally, Clinton speaks up to calm some of the madness. . .
Hillary Clinton has finally spoken out about the growing absurdity in the poll numbers that suggest large numbers of Democratic voters who have voted for either Obama or Hillary won't vote for other if they are the eventual nominee.
As I announced on this blog last week, I believe the nomination is Obama's. He is now the presumptive nominee. I was therefore quite happy to see this story on Hillary's comments today.
It would be terrible for Hillary supporters to not support Obama, and vice versa. It would be terrible and it would be absurd, as Hillary pointed out:
Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain.
As I announced on this blog last week, I believe the nomination is Obama's. He is now the presumptive nominee. I was therefore quite happy to see this story on Hillary's comments today.
It would be terrible for Hillary supporters to not support Obama, and vice versa. It would be terrible and it would be absurd, as Hillary pointed out:
Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain.
McCain's Silver Bullet
Slate.com has an interesting article on McCain's courting of the business class vote and his secret weapon for securing the vote. Read about it here.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Net Surfing in Class. . .
I came across this very interesting OP-ED in the NYTIMES today.
The best line from it is where his Dad says, "I thought you were a liberal." This perfectly captures my view on the issue. It is interesting to watch professors give up their long-held views when it comes to THEIR classroom. It is interesting how easily hypocrisy seeps in. Maybe I am being tough on professors by saying so, but they should not take the mindset of classroom dictators. Yes, they have information that we need to learn from them. They govern how they teach, but we govern how we learn. Who's to say that because they know what needs to be taught that they know how I should learn?
As a non-net surfer in law school, this reminds me of the time that I got bumped down from my final grade in Family Law because of lack of attendance. That just seems the dumbest thing ever to me. Maybe it's because you are such a good teacher that I was able to learn what I needed to know to do well, in a shorter period of time. Or, in the alternative- maybe you shouldn't give take-home examinations to students whose one, absolutely solid skill, is research. I'm just saying . . .
The best line from it is where his Dad says, "I thought you were a liberal." This perfectly captures my view on the issue. It is interesting to watch professors give up their long-held views when it comes to THEIR classroom. It is interesting how easily hypocrisy seeps in. Maybe I am being tough on professors by saying so, but they should not take the mindset of classroom dictators. Yes, they have information that we need to learn from them. They govern how they teach, but we govern how we learn. Who's to say that because they know what needs to be taught that they know how I should learn?
As a non-net surfer in law school, this reminds me of the time that I got bumped down from my final grade in Family Law because of lack of attendance. That just seems the dumbest thing ever to me. Maybe it's because you are such a good teacher that I was able to learn what I needed to know to do well, in a shorter period of time. Or, in the alternative- maybe you shouldn't give take-home examinations to students whose one, absolutely solid skill, is research. I'm just saying . . .
Hitchens on Israel
Find the article here.
Some interesting outtakes:
The questions of principle and the matters of brute realism have a tendency (especially for one who does not think that heaven plays any part in the game) to converge. Without God on your side, what the hell are you doing in the greater Jerusalem area in the first place? Israel may not be the rogue state that so many people say it is—including so many people who will excuse the crimes of Syria and Iran—but what if it runs the much worse risk of being a failed state? Here I must stop asking questions and simply and honestly answer one. In many visits to the so-called Holy Land, I have never quite been able to imagine that a Jewish state in Palestine will still be in existence a hundred years from now. A state for Jews, possibly. But a Jewish state …
For me, the Israeli family is not the alternative to the diaspora. It is part of the diaspora. To speak roughly, there are three groups of 6 million Jews. The first 6 million live in what the Zionist movement used to call Palestine. The second 6 million live in the United States. The third 6 million are distributed mainly among Russia, France, Britain, and Argentina. Only the first group lives daily in range of missiles that can be (and are) launched by people who hate Jews. Well, irony is supposed to be a Jewish specialty.
And the most depressing and wretched spectacle of the past decade, for all those who care about democracy and secularism, has been the degeneration of Palestinian Arab nationalism into the theocratic and thanatocratic hell of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, where the Web site of Gaza's ruling faction blazons an endorsement of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This obscenity is not to be explained away by glib terms like despair or occupation, as other religious fools like Jimmy Carter—who managed to meet the Hamas gangsters without mentioning their racist manifesto—would have you believe. (Is Muslim-on-Muslim massacre in Darfur or Iraq or Pakistan or Lebanon to be justified by conditions in Gaza?) Instead, this crux forces non-Zionists like me to ask whether, in spite of everything, Israel should be defended as if it were a part of the democratic West. This is a question to which Israelis themselves have not yet returned a completely convincing answer, and if they truly desire a 60th, let alone a 70th, birthday celebration, they had better lose no time in coming up with one.
Some interesting outtakes:
The questions of principle and the matters of brute realism have a tendency (especially for one who does not think that heaven plays any part in the game) to converge. Without God on your side, what the hell are you doing in the greater Jerusalem area in the first place? Israel may not be the rogue state that so many people say it is—including so many people who will excuse the crimes of Syria and Iran—but what if it runs the much worse risk of being a failed state? Here I must stop asking questions and simply and honestly answer one. In many visits to the so-called Holy Land, I have never quite been able to imagine that a Jewish state in Palestine will still be in existence a hundred years from now. A state for Jews, possibly. But a Jewish state …
For me, the Israeli family is not the alternative to the diaspora. It is part of the diaspora. To speak roughly, there are three groups of 6 million Jews. The first 6 million live in what the Zionist movement used to call Palestine. The second 6 million live in the United States. The third 6 million are distributed mainly among Russia, France, Britain, and Argentina. Only the first group lives daily in range of missiles that can be (and are) launched by people who hate Jews. Well, irony is supposed to be a Jewish specialty.
And the most depressing and wretched spectacle of the past decade, for all those who care about democracy and secularism, has been the degeneration of Palestinian Arab nationalism into the theocratic and thanatocratic hell of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, where the Web site of Gaza's ruling faction blazons an endorsement of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This obscenity is not to be explained away by glib terms like despair or occupation, as other religious fools like Jimmy Carter—who managed to meet the Hamas gangsters without mentioning their racist manifesto—would have you believe. (Is Muslim-on-Muslim massacre in Darfur or Iraq or Pakistan or Lebanon to be justified by conditions in Gaza?) Instead, this crux forces non-Zionists like me to ask whether, in spite of everything, Israel should be defended as if it were a part of the democratic West. This is a question to which Israelis themselves have not yet returned a completely convincing answer, and if they truly desire a 60th, let alone a 70th, birthday celebration, they had better lose no time in coming up with one.
Belief in God Is Childish
These are the words of Albert Einstein in a letter being sold this week. Also in the letter, Einstein says that, "[f]or me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions, . . . [a]nd the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."
To read more about it go here.
To read more about it go here.
Law School Graduation
First, I want to send out congratulations to my boys Chris and Josh who just graduated from Wayne State Law yesterday! I'm proud of them and know they will both make terrific attorneys. So, get on with the Bar Exam study!
Their graduation ceremony, however, has turned into a bit of a spectacle. The law school gave an Honorary degree to Justice Corrigan of the Michigan Supreme Court, which turned out to be a very controversial decision amongst the faculty. One faculty member in particular. Full disclosure: Justice Corrigan is the mother of one of my great friends from law school. I was an usher in her son's wedding and she held a special session of the Michigan Supreme Court to swear me in as an attorney last November. She is an extraordinarily bright, sociable, very kind, genuine person. She is a good person and a good judge. That being said- I don't agree with her "views" or reasoning in a lot of her opinions at all, but that is fine. The law, if anything, gives room to maneuver and rationally disagree. That is why I was sad to see emails from faculty, protesting her Honorary degree.
I never had a class with Professor Hammer, who wrote the following email. But he sounds bitter and a little self-obsessed. What about his students? What about honoring them? You're not going to show up to graduation because they are giving an Honorary degree to a Justice who recently voted against you in a legal decision? She didn't even WRITE the opinion, she just agreed with it. Again, I don't agree with the Court's holding in the case at all, but I accept that this is sometimes the way things go in the law. Certainly a professor ought to have that understanding and avail himself of that perspective and certainly he ought to be able to find another way to protest the school's decision, rather than not supporting his students that are graduating. In any case- I am off my soapbox. Here is what the professor wrote:
Dear Members of the Graduating Class of 2008,
As many of you know, I was a plaintiff in National Pride at Work v. Granholm, decided last week by the Michigan Supreme Court. At issue was whether individuals had the right to enter private contracts with state employers to ensure health care benefits for their domestic partners. These are important rights that affect the lives of real people.
A majority of the Supreme Court held that the “plain meaning” of the 2004 marriage amendment, limiting marriage to a man and a woman, forbade state employers from contracting with employees to provide private benefits. This conclusion, driven by serial citations to the Random House Dictionary, was so obviously dictated by the plain meaning, the court felt, that no recourse could be made to the electoral context to ascertain voter intent.
As those in my contracts classes know, one of my favorite aphorisms is that “all text is context.” My instincts as a lawyer always tell me that a rote assertion of plain meaning is usually a sign that someone is trying to hide something from me. Indeed, the majority opinion is a good illustration of how language can be plainly made to mean almost anything an advocate wants. Ironically, the majority opinion shows substantial judicial ingenuity in demonstrating how many conflicting inferences are possible when analyzing statements made during the referendum campaign. These are fair points. But it is puzzling why the majority chooses to carefully parse campaign statements (also words), but does not apply the same, careful legal methods to the text of the amendment.
At the graduation ceremony, Justice Maura D. Corrigan will be given an honorary degree. I cannot attend a ceremony where my robed presence on stage would constitute an implicit endorsement of such an important honor.
We live in a diverse community and need to be tolerant of differing views on contested public issues. Justice Corrigan’s private views on the issue of marriage are well known, and I am respectful of them. Justice Corrigan is a member of the Institute for American Values’ Council on Family Law. This group has released Reports like “The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America” (2005). Among other things, the Report advocates for a five-year moratorium on any changes to laws that would further erode traditional understandings of marriage. Justice Corrigan also authored a contribution, “Judging Marriage: An Experiment in Morals and Conduct,” as part of a Special Issue of the Ave Maria Law Review devoted to “Perspectives on Natural Marriage” (Vol. 4:2, 2006). These documents speak for themselves.
I have no objection to providing an honorary degree to someone with views that differ from mine. A core value of the academy is to engage ideas in good faith and in an open manner. I have no objection in providing an honorary degree to someone whose judicial temperament is more textualist and formalist than is my inclination. These are both fine traditions in American jurisprudence. Moreover, any good lawyer must have the skills to operate effectively within these traditions.
The decision in National Pride, however, illustrates a deeper and more troubling trend in the Michigan Courts. In many areas of law, not just marriage, textualism is invoked as a judicial conclusion intended to end debate, not as a method of legal analysis that can be openly engaged in a good faith manner. Outcomes are increasingly driven by politics and ideology, not legal discourse. It is my personal belief that the type of analysis illustrated in National Pride is not the type of judicial reasoning that this Law School should celebrate. At this point in history, I individually decline to participate in a ceremony extending such an honorary degree.
I make this decision with regret. Graduation is ultimately about celebrating the accomplishments of our students. My decision not to attend and further to communicate the rationale for my decision outside the context of the ceremony is made so that the events on Monday night can rightly focus where they should – on the tremendous accomplishments and bright futures of each member of the graduating class.
In absentia, you all have my best wishes and finest regards.
Sincerely,
Peter Hammer
Their graduation ceremony, however, has turned into a bit of a spectacle. The law school gave an Honorary degree to Justice Corrigan of the Michigan Supreme Court, which turned out to be a very controversial decision amongst the faculty. One faculty member in particular. Full disclosure: Justice Corrigan is the mother of one of my great friends from law school. I was an usher in her son's wedding and she held a special session of the Michigan Supreme Court to swear me in as an attorney last November. She is an extraordinarily bright, sociable, very kind, genuine person. She is a good person and a good judge. That being said- I don't agree with her "views" or reasoning in a lot of her opinions at all, but that is fine. The law, if anything, gives room to maneuver and rationally disagree. That is why I was sad to see emails from faculty, protesting her Honorary degree.
I never had a class with Professor Hammer, who wrote the following email. But he sounds bitter and a little self-obsessed. What about his students? What about honoring them? You're not going to show up to graduation because they are giving an Honorary degree to a Justice who recently voted against you in a legal decision? She didn't even WRITE the opinion, she just agreed with it. Again, I don't agree with the Court's holding in the case at all, but I accept that this is sometimes the way things go in the law. Certainly a professor ought to have that understanding and avail himself of that perspective and certainly he ought to be able to find another way to protest the school's decision, rather than not supporting his students that are graduating. In any case- I am off my soapbox. Here is what the professor wrote:
Dear Members of the Graduating Class of 2008,
As many of you know, I was a plaintiff in National Pride at Work v. Granholm, decided last week by the Michigan Supreme Court. At issue was whether individuals had the right to enter private contracts with state employers to ensure health care benefits for their domestic partners. These are important rights that affect the lives of real people.
A majority of the Supreme Court held that the “plain meaning” of the 2004 marriage amendment, limiting marriage to a man and a woman, forbade state employers from contracting with employees to provide private benefits. This conclusion, driven by serial citations to the Random House Dictionary, was so obviously dictated by the plain meaning, the court felt, that no recourse could be made to the electoral context to ascertain voter intent.
As those in my contracts classes know, one of my favorite aphorisms is that “all text is context.” My instincts as a lawyer always tell me that a rote assertion of plain meaning is usually a sign that someone is trying to hide something from me. Indeed, the majority opinion is a good illustration of how language can be plainly made to mean almost anything an advocate wants. Ironically, the majority opinion shows substantial judicial ingenuity in demonstrating how many conflicting inferences are possible when analyzing statements made during the referendum campaign. These are fair points. But it is puzzling why the majority chooses to carefully parse campaign statements (also words), but does not apply the same, careful legal methods to the text of the amendment.
At the graduation ceremony, Justice Maura D. Corrigan will be given an honorary degree. I cannot attend a ceremony where my robed presence on stage would constitute an implicit endorsement of such an important honor.
We live in a diverse community and need to be tolerant of differing views on contested public issues. Justice Corrigan’s private views on the issue of marriage are well known, and I am respectful of them. Justice Corrigan is a member of the Institute for American Values’ Council on Family Law. This group has released Reports like “The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America” (2005). Among other things, the Report advocates for a five-year moratorium on any changes to laws that would further erode traditional understandings of marriage. Justice Corrigan also authored a contribution, “Judging Marriage: An Experiment in Morals and Conduct,” as part of a Special Issue of the Ave Maria Law Review devoted to “Perspectives on Natural Marriage” (Vol. 4:2, 2006). These documents speak for themselves.
I have no objection to providing an honorary degree to someone with views that differ from mine. A core value of the academy is to engage ideas in good faith and in an open manner. I have no objection in providing an honorary degree to someone whose judicial temperament is more textualist and formalist than is my inclination. These are both fine traditions in American jurisprudence. Moreover, any good lawyer must have the skills to operate effectively within these traditions.
The decision in National Pride, however, illustrates a deeper and more troubling trend in the Michigan Courts. In many areas of law, not just marriage, textualism is invoked as a judicial conclusion intended to end debate, not as a method of legal analysis that can be openly engaged in a good faith manner. Outcomes are increasingly driven by politics and ideology, not legal discourse. It is my personal belief that the type of analysis illustrated in National Pride is not the type of judicial reasoning that this Law School should celebrate. At this point in history, I individually decline to participate in a ceremony extending such an honorary degree.
I make this decision with regret. Graduation is ultimately about celebrating the accomplishments of our students. My decision not to attend and further to communicate the rationale for my decision outside the context of the ceremony is made so that the events on Monday night can rightly focus where they should – on the tremendous accomplishments and bright futures of each member of the graduating class.
In absentia, you all have my best wishes and finest regards.
Sincerely,
Peter Hammer
Our Amazing Supreme Court
I think that this is an interesting story.
Its tradition that when people go to work in the White House that they put their investments into a blind trust, so that they don't make policy decisions on the basis of their stockholdings. I think that in most cases, its perfectly fine for a Justice to recuse themself from a case, but as this case illustrates, sometimes it doesn't work. And it makes me wonder why the Justices are not required to put their investments in a blind trust as well.
Its tradition that when people go to work in the White House that they put their investments into a blind trust, so that they don't make policy decisions on the basis of their stockholdings. I think that in most cases, its perfectly fine for a Justice to recuse themself from a case, but as this case illustrates, sometimes it doesn't work. And it makes me wonder why the Justices are not required to put their investments in a blind trust as well.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Very interesting reading. . .
I am posting this morning because for the second day in a row, I am working off site and am not near a computer at all. Instead I am going through boxes of depositions in a warehouse in Alexandria.
I wanted to post this article though. It's a couple of days old, and it is long, its not a quick little, fun, easy read. It's not tremendously difficult however, and it is IMMENSELY interesting. It's going to make you want to read the full book by Fareed Zakaria.
I wanted to post this article though. It's a couple of days old, and it is long, its not a quick little, fun, easy read. It's not tremendously difficult however, and it is IMMENSELY interesting. It's going to make you want to read the full book by Fareed Zakaria.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Primary Is Over Tonight
I think its a fact that tonight marks the end of the Democratic primary. My consiglieri has already texted me and told me that that bell rung long ago. However, until the resounding victory tonight in North Carolina and the closing margin of Hillary's lead in Indiana, I don't believe that it WAS over. Now, it is over. We have a Democratic nominee who can beat John McCain in the fall.
If Hillary is a responsible Democrat, she should drop out now. Even Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC tonight that there is no logic for her remaining in the race. All she can do is beat him up in Kentucky and West Virginia and still make up no ground in the overall race. This would only harm the party overall and create resentment towards her for her selfishness.
It has been a long and tedious race and there will be a long general election race. But it is good that it was long, it should be. This is too important of an election that means too much to our great nation.
It is over. We move forward.
If Hillary is a responsible Democrat, she should drop out now. Even Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC tonight that there is no logic for her remaining in the race. All she can do is beat him up in Kentucky and West Virginia and still make up no ground in the overall race. This would only harm the party overall and create resentment towards her for her selfishness.
It has been a long and tedious race and there will be a long general election race. But it is good that it was long, it should be. This is too important of an election that means too much to our great nation.
It is over. We move forward.
Christian Pop Culture
This is an interesting critique of the sub-culture of "Christian" entertainment . . .
As my girlfriend dutifully pointed out to me, it seems that the author of this review/article is a little sloppy in her terminology when she begins by talking about "evangelicals" and then uses "Christians" the rest of the way throughout the article. . .
Also, she makes some weird conclusions about "Christians" and being surprised they are watching The Daily Show, which is odd because I don't think there is anything inherently un-"christian" or not "christian" friendly about the The Daily Show, except for the fact that this author suggests that Jon Stewart doesn't like "Christians." I'm willing to bet that Jon Stewart would take exception to that broad claim.
In any case, these are the things that are glaringly wrong or inaccurate about what this author says, but her review of the book is very interesting.
And why, you may ask, do I find it so interesting? Back in the day, I was quite the connoisseur of "christian" rap music-- so there, I was a bad ass for Jesus!
As my girlfriend dutifully pointed out to me, it seems that the author of this review/article is a little sloppy in her terminology when she begins by talking about "evangelicals" and then uses "Christians" the rest of the way throughout the article. . .
Also, she makes some weird conclusions about "Christians" and being surprised they are watching The Daily Show, which is odd because I don't think there is anything inherently un-"christian" or not "christian" friendly about the The Daily Show, except for the fact that this author suggests that Jon Stewart doesn't like "Christians." I'm willing to bet that Jon Stewart would take exception to that broad claim.
In any case, these are the things that are glaringly wrong or inaccurate about what this author says, but her review of the book is very interesting.
And why, you may ask, do I find it so interesting? Back in the day, I was quite the connoisseur of "christian" rap music-- so there, I was a bad ass for Jesus!
Huffington is Wrong on McCain
Here Arianna Huffington tries to tell you how far John McCain has fallen to the right by noting that he once told her that he did not vote for Bush in 2000. She then makes the argument that he has turned far to the right from that point to where he is now- running for a 3rd Bush term. Her logic is nonsensical at best.
You will note at the beginning of the post, there is an update wherein John McCain has denied telling Huffington that he did not vote for Bush. She then talks about all the spin and denials that McCain has issued and asks why should anyone believe THIS denial. Which is fine, but mean what you say. If her point is that John McCain has made a career of spinning and prevarication well then, great . . . welcome to politics in the 21st Century Arianna! And if her subsequent point is that he has lately sold out to the Right Wing of his party, how is this not, at least a little, contextualized by her previous point? Maybe his selling out to the Right Wing of the party is spin and prevarication to get a nomination he desperately wanted and the true John McCain is still the one who hated what Bush did to his party in 2000 and therefore did not vote for him?
I like John McCain, and say what you want about him, except for that he is a 3rd Bush term. He is most certainly not, but he is Machiavellian enough to know that it will only help him with his base if he has the crazy Huffington's of the world proclaiming him as such.
Well done John.
You will note at the beginning of the post, there is an update wherein John McCain has denied telling Huffington that he did not vote for Bush. She then talks about all the spin and denials that McCain has issued and asks why should anyone believe THIS denial. Which is fine, but mean what you say. If her point is that John McCain has made a career of spinning and prevarication well then, great . . . welcome to politics in the 21st Century Arianna! And if her subsequent point is that he has lately sold out to the Right Wing of his party, how is this not, at least a little, contextualized by her previous point? Maybe his selling out to the Right Wing of the party is spin and prevarication to get a nomination he desperately wanted and the true John McCain is still the one who hated what Bush did to his party in 2000 and therefore did not vote for him?
I like John McCain, and say what you want about him, except for that he is a 3rd Bush term. He is most certainly not, but he is Machiavellian enough to know that it will only help him with his base if he has the crazy Huffington's of the world proclaiming him as such.
Well done John.
The True Problem With Miley Cyrus
Okay, this blog does not and will not give a lot of time to issues involving so called, "tweenyboppers" but last week's focus on the Annie Leibovitz photos of one Miley Cyrus has made it a news story, if not an entirely legitimate one.
I have never watched Miley's show Hannah Montana other than in passing at my friend Jason's house where his young daughters were glued to the T.V. However, I am familiar with the concept of the show and I know that her dad is in it, and I remember absolutely loving "Achy Breaky Heart" back in the summer between 4th and 5th grade. That being said, I share the thesis of Slate.com's Meghan O'Rourke, that the show is weird in the message that it sends to its core audience. Here are some snippets from the article:
Who knew that 9-year-olds (among the show's core audience) were enthralled by efforts to find a balance between life and career?
This is the way the show works: It teaches kids to understand their own experiences—about growing pains, about being honest with their parents, and so on—through the narrow lens of teen celebrity, rather than through broader storytelling. Once, sitcoms taught kids to be true to themselves by showing what happened when, say, Greg Brady thought about cheating on a test, or how Sandy and Bud's adventures with Flipper shaped their character. Hannah Montana instructs them in the proper etiquette of endorsement deals.
. . . [T]he entire show is a canny celebration of pop culture masquerading as a story about hope and family life. What's most interesting about the scandal that erupted last week is that it's an example of the real dilemmas a 15-year-old celebrity has to navigate—one that will never make it into the plot lines of Hannah Montana. The squeaky-clean teen image that everyone keeps talking about was precisely that: an image created, managed, and assiduously maintained by Miley and her parents, at great cost to the product herself.
You can find the full text of Meghan's article here.
I have never watched Miley's show Hannah Montana other than in passing at my friend Jason's house where his young daughters were glued to the T.V. However, I am familiar with the concept of the show and I know that her dad is in it, and I remember absolutely loving "Achy Breaky Heart" back in the summer between 4th and 5th grade. That being said, I share the thesis of Slate.com's Meghan O'Rourke, that the show is weird in the message that it sends to its core audience. Here are some snippets from the article:
Who knew that 9-year-olds (among the show's core audience) were enthralled by efforts to find a balance between life and career?
This is the way the show works: It teaches kids to understand their own experiences—about growing pains, about being honest with their parents, and so on—through the narrow lens of teen celebrity, rather than through broader storytelling. Once, sitcoms taught kids to be true to themselves by showing what happened when, say, Greg Brady thought about cheating on a test, or how Sandy and Bud's adventures with Flipper shaped their character. Hannah Montana instructs them in the proper etiquette of endorsement deals.
. . . [T]he entire show is a canny celebration of pop culture masquerading as a story about hope and family life. What's most interesting about the scandal that erupted last week is that it's an example of the real dilemmas a 15-year-old celebrity has to navigate—one that will never make it into the plot lines of Hannah Montana. The squeaky-clean teen image that everyone keeps talking about was precisely that: an image created, managed, and assiduously maintained by Miley and her parents, at great cost to the product herself.
You can find the full text of Meghan's article here.
Loving v. Virginia
For anyone who has gone to law school, you know the case I am talking about. My colleague Latoya passed on this interesting article to me about Mildred Loving passing away last Friday.
As Latoya said- it's cases like this that made (or make) law school worth it.
As Latoya said- it's cases like this that made (or make) law school worth it.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Babe Ruth Batting Right-Handed
This is freaking hilarious!!!!
It seriously underlines the ridiculousness of Hillary trying to now portray herself as the blue collar, beer swilling, I love guns candidate.
No, of course it doesn't really matter, but its funny and it doesn't mean nothin'.
It seriously underlines the ridiculousness of Hillary trying to now portray herself as the blue collar, beer swilling, I love guns candidate.
No, of course it doesn't really matter, but its funny and it doesn't mean nothin'.
(It Appears . . .) HE'S BAAAACK
After intense coverage of everything Rev. Wright and after Obama's complete distancing of himself from Rev. Wright, it appears Obama's numbers that had been lagging are now resurgent.
I think this is because of two things: 1) I truly think that Rev. Wright's performances last week (whether orchestrated in concert with the Obama campaign as I cheekily suggested, or not) were so over-the-top that it was helpful to Obama. Even people who don't love Obama don't believe that he is that crazy or over the top and I think Rev. Wright, on his own, separated himself from Obama and I think that Obama did his part well and 'nipped the issue in the bud'. 2) Obama's message of change resonates with people and a lot of people are looking for reasons to LIKE him as opposed to looking for reasons not to like him. He is a likeable guy and he is new. There is at least some segment of the population that is yearning for change and when faced with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House-- they blink.
This is why I think Obama will win North Carolina and be close enough to make it of no difference in Indiana.
At that point--what is the Clinton argument?
I think this is because of two things: 1) I truly think that Rev. Wright's performances last week (whether orchestrated in concert with the Obama campaign as I cheekily suggested, or not) were so over-the-top that it was helpful to Obama. Even people who don't love Obama don't believe that he is that crazy or over the top and I think Rev. Wright, on his own, separated himself from Obama and I think that Obama did his part well and 'nipped the issue in the bud'. 2) Obama's message of change resonates with people and a lot of people are looking for reasons to LIKE him as opposed to looking for reasons not to like him. He is a likeable guy and he is new. There is at least some segment of the population that is yearning for change and when faced with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House-- they blink.
This is why I think Obama will win North Carolina and be close enough to make it of no difference in Indiana.
At that point--what is the Clinton argument?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Greenfield on Orwell and Obama
I am always fascinated by anyone using the always relevant Orwell as a point of comparison with today's society. Usually, it is my favorite writer Hitchens who is employing Orwell. But here, Jeff Greenfield at Slate.com compares Orwell to the current Democratic primary--to great effect. Some samples:
Substitute liberal or progressive for socialist, and the text often reads as though Orwell were covering American politics today.
"Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, is a way out [of the worldwide depression,]" Orwell writes. "It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat, even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such an elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already." And yet, he adds, "the average thinking person nowadays is merely not a Socialist, he is actively hostile to Socialism. … Socialism … has about it something inherently distasteful—something that drives away the very people who ought to be flocking it its support."
One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)
The perennial struggle of Democratic contenders to appeal to ordinary Americans seems very much of a piece with Orwell's sharp descriptions. Election after election, Democrats argue that once Joe and Jane Sixpack fully grasp the wisdom of the latest six-point college-loan program, or of an 800-page health-care scheme, they will come to wave the Democratic banner. And, sometimes, these voters do just that—provided that the candidate in question has demonstrated a sense that he or she is not treating them as the subject of an anthropological study. Bill Clinton had a full steamer trunk of domestic programs; he also was a product of Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law School. But his 18 years in the vineyards of Arkansas politics gave him the tools to compete for support on a more visceral level. Then there were Clinton's obvious tastes for earthly pleasures—from Big Macs to more intimate diversions—which made it very hard to label him as an aloof elitist.
For Democrats at the moment, it is no doubt exasperating to watch working-class voters choose candidates whose economic tastes run to comforting the comfortable. And it may be cold comfort to learn that such impulses are not confined to time and place. But if you want to court these voters in a way that will resonate with them, you could do a lot worse than heeding the cautionary words of George Orwell.
And Barack? Ix-nay on the egg-white omelets.
Substitute liberal or progressive for socialist, and the text often reads as though Orwell were covering American politics today.
"Everyone who uses his brain knows that Socialism, is a way out [of the worldwide depression,]" Orwell writes. "It would at least ensure our getting enough to eat, even if it deprived us of everything else. Indeed, from one point of view, Socialism is such an elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed that it has not established itself already." And yet, he adds, "the average thinking person nowadays is merely not a Socialist, he is actively hostile to Socialism. … Socialism … has about it something inherently distasteful—something that drives away the very people who ought to be flocking it its support."
One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)
The perennial struggle of Democratic contenders to appeal to ordinary Americans seems very much of a piece with Orwell's sharp descriptions. Election after election, Democrats argue that once Joe and Jane Sixpack fully grasp the wisdom of the latest six-point college-loan program, or of an 800-page health-care scheme, they will come to wave the Democratic banner. And, sometimes, these voters do just that—provided that the candidate in question has demonstrated a sense that he or she is not treating them as the subject of an anthropological study. Bill Clinton had a full steamer trunk of domestic programs; he also was a product of Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law School. But his 18 years in the vineyards of Arkansas politics gave him the tools to compete for support on a more visceral level. Then there were Clinton's obvious tastes for earthly pleasures—from Big Macs to more intimate diversions—which made it very hard to label him as an aloof elitist.
For Democrats at the moment, it is no doubt exasperating to watch working-class voters choose candidates whose economic tastes run to comforting the comfortable. And it may be cold comfort to learn that such impulses are not confined to time and place. But if you want to court these voters in a way that will resonate with them, you could do a lot worse than heeding the cautionary words of George Orwell.
And Barack? Ix-nay on the egg-white omelets.
Catholics for Hillary
I think this is interesting and I think it is disturbing. Yet, in a twisted way that Melinda Henneberger only barely touches upon, it make sense by and large.
Hillary is a comfortable choice.
On the "life issues," Hillary has been around a lot longer, and has learned how to deal with the issue better. Of course she has the upper hand here. After all, her husband basically created the most sensi(tive v. bile) argument for legalized abortion when he said "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare." Thats a lot more difficult to argue with than Obama's "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby."
Still, on virtually every other social or economic issue that the Catholic Church has teachings on-- Obama is the FAR superior candidate and his track record (short though it may be) is much more in line with what one would think Catholic voters would be looking for.
Hillary is a comfortable choice.
On the "life issues," Hillary has been around a lot longer, and has learned how to deal with the issue better. Of course she has the upper hand here. After all, her husband basically created the most sensi(tive v. bile) argument for legalized abortion when he said "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare." Thats a lot more difficult to argue with than Obama's "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby."
Still, on virtually every other social or economic issue that the Catholic Church has teachings on-- Obama is the FAR superior candidate and his track record (short though it may be) is much more in line with what one would think Catholic voters would be looking for.
H.S. Principal Outing Gay Students?
Here is an interesting story.
If you read this and have an opinion on it, I would really love to hear it.
My opinion boils down to this-- I think what the Principal did was wrong, and I think the method she chose to deal with, what she obviously perceived as a problem, is not likely going to be successful. or legitimate answer to the problem. I also don't believe it was discriminatory, nor do I think it was unconstitutional.
It also bothers me that the ACLU is so quick to jump in. My Consiglieri asked me why it bothers me that the ACLU is getting involved and the reason is this: I don't think this is a constitutional issue and it undermines the good work the ACLU does when they haphazardly jump into these issues.
So, well . . . that is my opinion-- I am definitely interested in hearing yours!
If you read this and have an opinion on it, I would really love to hear it.
My opinion boils down to this-- I think what the Principal did was wrong, and I think the method she chose to deal with, what she obviously perceived as a problem, is not likely going to be successful. or legitimate answer to the problem. I also don't believe it was discriminatory, nor do I think it was unconstitutional.
It also bothers me that the ACLU is so quick to jump in. My Consiglieri asked me why it bothers me that the ACLU is getting involved and the reason is this: I don't think this is a constitutional issue and it undermines the good work the ACLU does when they haphazardly jump into these issues.
So, well . . . that is my opinion-- I am definitely interested in hearing yours!
The Globalization Paradigm
Another article worth a read!
The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals. But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.
The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?
It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.
The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals, they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the commanding generals. But there’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.
The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions that distort the way it is perceived?
It’s not that globalization and the skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians, especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.
The Most Thoughtful Comment on Rev. Wright
Leave it to former Reagan speechwriter, Peggy Noonan to put the Rev. Wright issue into perspective.
She captures the issue in a very understandable and well-stated manner. Here are some samples:
I also think that if Hillary Clinton wins because of the Wright scandal, it will leave a sad taste in the mouths of many. Mr. Obama reveals many things in his books, speeches and interviews but polarity and a tropism toward the extreme are not among them. What happened with Mr. Wright should not determine the race. Mr. Obama's stands, his ability to convince us he can make good change, his ability to be "one of us," that great challenge for a national politician in a varied nation, should determine the race.
I do not feel a sense of honest anger or violation at his remarks, in part because I don't think his views carry deep implications for our country. I have been watching America up close for many years – if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger?
Please read the whole article. It is definitely a worth-while read.
She captures the issue in a very understandable and well-stated manner. Here are some samples:
I also think that if Hillary Clinton wins because of the Wright scandal, it will leave a sad taste in the mouths of many. Mr. Obama reveals many things in his books, speeches and interviews but polarity and a tropism toward the extreme are not among them. What happened with Mr. Wright should not determine the race. Mr. Obama's stands, his ability to convince us he can make good change, his ability to be "one of us," that great challenge for a national politician in a varied nation, should determine the race.
I do not feel a sense of honest anger or violation at his remarks, in part because I don't think his views carry deep implications for our country. I have been watching America up close for many years – if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger?
Please read the whole article. It is definitely a worth-while read.
An Ode to Sports
For those of us from Detroit, these have been trying times. Michigan, our state, seems to be in a one state recession. Detroit itself, is wrapped up in scandal as I talked about earlier this week. However, we have one bright spot-- and that is our sports teams. Last night the Detroit Tigers pulled off a sweep of the Evil Empire New York Yankees--on the road, in their last series in Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. This is a feat the Tigers have not managed since 1966! Last night the Detroit Pistons defeated the Philadelphia 76ers 100-77 in Game 6 of their first round series to advance to the Eastern Conference semifinals against the Orlando Magic. Finally, also last night, and into the early morning on the East coast, the Detroit Red Wings beat the Colorado Avalanche 8-2 to sweep their Western Conference semifinal and advance to the conference finals for the second year in a row.
I am not knowledgable enough to know whether this is unprecedented or not. What I do know is that this is tremendously exciting. Last year was similarly exciting as both the Pistons and Red Wings each reached the conference finals. We are in a period of Detroit sports where 3 of our 4 major professional teams are playing at high, sometimes dominant levels. They are all competitors for the championship in their respective sports and it is great to be a Detroit sports fan.
I think that in the difficult times that the state of Michigan and Detroit are undergoing, it is important to have sports to unite and uplift the city. And that is the power of sports. While many see it as a frivolous or tangential to societal issues, I see it as crucial. Not merely as an opiate of the masses, or merely as a distraction, but probably yes to both of those accusations as well. Sports has a chance to unify and uplift an area when times are down. Sports stadiums, like Comerica Park in downtown Detroit, have the power to be a driving force in revitalizing a downtown area. Sports, in the final analysis, is a soothing cocktail at the end of a long hard week. It is a couch for you to plop yourself down on and relax. These may be distractions but they are good distractions, and I think we can all agree that times like these, Detroit needs the distractions.
I am not knowledgable enough to know whether this is unprecedented or not. What I do know is that this is tremendously exciting. Last year was similarly exciting as both the Pistons and Red Wings each reached the conference finals. We are in a period of Detroit sports where 3 of our 4 major professional teams are playing at high, sometimes dominant levels. They are all competitors for the championship in their respective sports and it is great to be a Detroit sports fan.
I think that in the difficult times that the state of Michigan and Detroit are undergoing, it is important to have sports to unite and uplift the city. And that is the power of sports. While many see it as a frivolous or tangential to societal issues, I see it as crucial. Not merely as an opiate of the masses, or merely as a distraction, but probably yes to both of those accusations as well. Sports has a chance to unify and uplift an area when times are down. Sports stadiums, like Comerica Park in downtown Detroit, have the power to be a driving force in revitalizing a downtown area. Sports, in the final analysis, is a soothing cocktail at the end of a long hard week. It is a couch for you to plop yourself down on and relax. These may be distractions but they are good distractions, and I think we can all agree that times like these, Detroit needs the distractions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)