You Can Have My Gun...

Do you remember the campaign rally where John McCain was finally forced to confront the escalation of the hateful rhetoric that seemed to plague his campaign? In the weeks after Sarah Palin was named the VP candidate, certain bad seeds began to whip the reactionary crowds into frenzied mobs, and there was some shady invective being tossed about. McCain had to reassure an old biddy that Obama did indeed love his country, and that he wasn’t a Muslim, nor was he a terrorist. I remember feeling the bad juju in the air, and there was a period when I felt a palpable fear that the future president would be attacked, and maybe even killed. Fortunately a combination of effective security and cooler heads prevailed, and our man was sworn in without incident (other than a John Roberts gaffe during the administration of the oath).

I realized at that time that there was a sizable minority in this nation that would never accept the legitimacy of his ascension. Granted the same thing applied during the Bush terms, but I don’t ever remember any reporting of credible threats against his life. The man just didn’t inspire as much hatred among the groups likely to engage in politically-minded violence. He was an anti-tax, flag-waving Christian. And he never made the extreme right worry that he would take away their guns. Obama, on the other hand, had few qualms about stating his support for gun control. He even publicly expressed his support for the handgun ban in DC (overturned recently by the Federal Supreme Court).

Within the past few months firearms purchases have spiked dramatically. Some of this increase has been due to a growing wave of gun smuggling flowing from the United States to Mexico, a nation currently in the midst of chaos caused by violent drug wars. But I believe that political paranoia and insecurity in-country is the driving force behind the bulk of this activity. For some reason, it seems that there will always be a segment of society that believes that the Democratic Party seeks to eliminate the Second Amendment Rights ensured by the government. No amount of logical reasoning or patient explanation seems to allay the fears of this group. They trend toward the extreme. And because they think that knock on the door could come at any time, they stockpile weapons and ammunition.

Such appears to have been the case with 22-year old Richard Poplawski. A dishonorably discharged Marine, Poplawski killed three police officers who responded to a domestic dispute call early this past Saturday morning. Apparently his mother (who he lived with) got into an argument with him after his cat pissed on the floor. After mama called the 5-0, Poplawski donned his bulletproof vest, brandished his illegally acquired AK-47, and waited for his moment of confrontation. Those cops never had a chance. And to add to the senseless tragedy of this event, there seems to have been evidence that Poplawski was insane, despite the denials of his friends and family. He also carried a record which included disorderly conduct and protection from abuse orders.

No doubt there will be additional information about the sad life of Richard Poplawski filtering out into the media in the coming week, and during what is sure to be a highly publicized criminal case involving capital crimes. A quick internet search reveals possible ties to a Neo Nazi white supremacist group called Stormfront. If you want to have a look at that stuff… do your own research. But you don’t have to track down the Aryan brotherhood to hear alarmist wingnuts sound the clarion call. Just tune into any number of conservative hack radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and/or Glenn Beck. They are not at all shy about provoking hate to advance their own selfish aims in their sick games. Unfortunately, they aren’t about to be held accountable for unsettling the deeply disturbed... people like Richard Poplawski. I think we’re going to see a lot more of this stuff over the next couple of years.

Kerry Max Cook, "Chasing Justice" (2007).

As if I didn't have enough stuff to think about, I continue to struggle with my support for the death penalty. It's not that my perception of humanity has altered in any significant way. I still run up against the thorny juxtaposition of my diet (which includes many animal products) and my belief that people are simply animals (albeit a bit more sophisticated in their brain development). If I'm willing to eat something, then I have to be willing to put it to death, or at least be responsible for its slaughter, right? Sure, I'll take a pass on the feast of the dead criminal- but that doesn't mean I'm willing to forgo his/her passing. All "god's" creatures die, one way or another... and we all have a hand in that process.

Yet I'm not altogether comfortable with the company that this particular position puts me in. All too frequently I find myself at odds with death penalty advocates on just about every other political issue. And on an intuitive level, I usually don't want to be associated with them. On the other hand, the majority of those who would seek to abolish executions are folks that I respect and sometimes even admire. Why wouldn't I want to throw in my lot with them? On the other hand, I can't seem to transcend my repulsion toward the idea of out-of-control homo sapien proliferation. I guess it's akin to the way most people feel about cockroaches. There's just too many of them, and they overwhelm environments once they take root.

That doesn't mean that I don't love individuals. I can usually find something to care about in everyone, once I get to know them a bit. I'm definitely not a misanthrope on a personal level. It's only the idea of humanity that bothers me. Anyway... so yeah, why not just eliminate those who are clearly beyond redemption? Pluck them from society so they don't perpetuate their behavior? I don't find many of the counterarguments convincing. The ultimate penalty is unfairly applied, but that's a systemic issue. The appeals process is costly, but once again it comes down to management. These are problems that must be addressed. However, they aren't sufficient to convince me that capital punishment is "wrong".

What does give me pause is the reality that the innocent are sometimes executed. Since techniques to establish DNA comparisons have become cheaper and more accurate, over a 100 men have been released from death row. Kerry Max Cook is just one of them. He spent 20 years in Texas prisons (notorious for being among the worst in the nation), and he put everything he had along the way into establishing his innocence. Incredibly, the very conservative Texas Court of Appeals reversed his conviction three times. There was so much corruption in Smith County (where Cook lived) that prosecutor misconduct caused a long series of injustices. Reading this man's autobiography is a harrowing experience.

Kerry Cook was a young, sexually ambivalent man when he was charged with raping, killing, and mutilating a woman who lived in the apartment complex where he was staying. There was scant evidence that Cook was guilty, but it was used to build a distorted version of the tragic events that took place. The depictions of the courtroom dramas that sent Cook repeatedly back to prison are troubling. Perhaps even more so are the accounts of horrid abuse Cook faced while incarcerated. Chasing Justice seems like a reasonably objective retelling of the author's experiences, and lacks the pretension that often plagues convict memoirs. It certainly makes me think twice about allowing such a thing to occur in our "open and democratic" society.

Gambling... our future.

A few years ago, the wise men who lead Pennsylvania decided to legalize "gambling". This meant that they would issue licenses to a few lucky parties to build casinos to house slot machines. Apparently these would serve as tourist attractions, or alternatively keep local gambling addicts in town to spend their money (as opposed to, say, having these folks drive to Wheeling, WV). Personally, I don't go in for this sort of "gaming", and I was decidedly uninterested in having the opportunity to play slots in my hometown. At the same time, I felt that if people really wanted to waste their money this way... why shouldn't they be allowed to? Who am I to judge folks and the way they spend their hard-earned cash?

As far as I understood, the reason to allow such activities was to generate revenue that could offset property tax reductions. I've been a home-owner for over a half decade, so this sounded good to me. And I had no moral qualms about folks throwing their dollars in the public kitty, with irrational dreams of becoming wealthy overnight. I wasn't sure why these gambling licenses were limited to slot machines, nor could I figure out the particular appeal of such a game. It didn't seem like anything that could ever hold my interest even if I was interested in placing bets. Why not include high-stakes poker or blackjack? Hell, even something like the roulette wheel seems more captivating. But to each their own.

It's been years since the legislation allowing "gaming" was passed, and Western PA is still waiting for the grand opening of the casino. Meanwhile times are getting tougher. So now PA Governor Ed Rendell is casting about for other ways to generate money for the state. His latest idea is to legalize the video poker machines that have been part of the bar/cafe scene for as long as I've been in the 'Burgh. I don't remember seeing them in Eastern PA, but I'm aware that they've been quite popular around these parts. The first time I saw a back-room full of these things in a ma-and-pop convenience store, I was confounded. After I got my first job at a bar, I realized that these places did indeed pay out winnings in cash. I assumed the entire business was mob-run. I knew it was illegal.

Rendell believes that the state can generate serious income (he estimates $550 million) for higher education by bringing these operations "above board". In his proposal, PA would get 50% of the take and leave the rest for the individual owner of the machine. I'm not quite sure where that leaves the syndicates that have been in charge of this illicit business for decades. Obviously there are some parties whose interests are at stake. The anti-gambling lobby couldn't help but oppose this. But the most vocal resistance is coming from the new casino operators who believe that video poker will eat into their own profits. Ultimately, at least a few lawmakers suspect that Rendell is simply positioning himself to push through table games as an alternative.

Meanwhile, PA State Senator Jeffrey Piccola (out of Harrisburg) has entered the fray with a counter-proposal. He's putting forth a plan that intends to boost tuition aid assistance for state schools that would (speculatively) serve an additional 25,000 students. But he wouldn't do it through legalizing video poker. Piccola wants to cut funding for the state's museums, private colleges, and art programs. He also wants to end the tax credit that Pennsylvania has extended to attract film production companies. It's difficult to understand Mr. Piccola's logic on this matter. He wants to enable more folks to get higher education, at the expense of the type of jobs and careers that such training will prepare them for. Let's all hail another genius politico.

The Stimulus Package.

It's been weeks since I started thinking about the "stimulus package", and days since I considered writing about it. Yet what's kept me from attempting an exposition of my thoughts is the utter state of confusion that everybody is mired in regarding this prospective legislation. It's simply too big a subject. There may be individuals who claim to understand what it means, but I suspect that this "understanding" results more from ideology (or mere wishful thinking) than any clear perspective about the realities of the situation that necessitates it. My "spidey sense" is telling me that we are fucked beyond conception. Prophets have been foretelling this condition for decades, and so few have heeded their warnings.

I don't think that we can boil down our problems to a demi-glace of credit default and Wall Street shenanigans. The issues plaguing our economy have been sitting rank in the open air for longer than most are suggesting. Sure, our federal and state governments have been compounding the problems with willful ignorance and rampant corruption... but our citizenry must accept its share of responsibility. Ten trillion (+) dollars is an amazing number that lies beyond the reasonable comprehension of the human brain, but that amount is dwarfed by the amounts of personal debt that accumulate when we consider the personal debts of all Americans. And for this there is no easy excuse.

Who do we expect to lead us out of these dark borderlands? If people have built Barack Obama into a sort of messianic figure, it is only because of our desperate need for such a mythical creature. We've already played out that story. How many saviors can we create? Jesus Christ is said to have died for our spiritual sins, and those are certainly beyond quantification. That ambiguity is convenient for those that seek to offer us comfort. But we have created a standard of value for material things, and there will be no symbolic expiation available to clear our books. We are stuck with the prospect of a Day of Reckoning. The "infinite growth" of free market capitalism was a lie. We can't continue to fuel our economy on debt.

Still there is no doubt in my mind that we will try to spend our way out of our predicament, even if we have to pull the money out of thin air to achieve this. Like it or not, hyperinflation is the only answer. The main puzzle to sort out is how to distribute the paper. Shall we continue to put it in the hands of the institutions that have fomented our crisis? Wall Street, the banks, and the global corporate capitalists all ensured us of the viability of our system. They assumed the authority to guide the operation of our society, and they should face the most severe consequences of its failures. Most of us were given no choice to distinguish ourselves from the gamblers. The stakes were pre-determined at our birth.

When I hear the voices of those that have belatedly discovered "fiscal conservatism", my blood pressure rises and the muscles in my forehead spasm involuntarily. When Congressional "leaders" lament the prospect of increased taxes, I feel like puking. Everyone needs to realize that we've already spent our legacy. We've been profligate, and future generations will inevitably suffer from our wasteful ways. If we are going to "inject" more currency into our economy, we have a duty to invest it in such a way that our heirs will see some small benefit. It's time to go beyond considerations of our own comfort. We have earned the impending Depression. There's no avoiding it.

Confirmation Hearings.

To say that I have completely disengaged national politics since the election would be untrue. While I certainly don't spend nearly as much time following the intricacies in the halls of federal power as I did at the beginning of last autumn, I am still trying to keep my ear to the ground for the rumblings that may kick up significant dust. Barack Obama has now been president for a week, and I'm aware that he has indeed fulfilled his promise to get off to an active start. Michael Savage was on air last night trying to make the case that our new president is abusing his right to pass executive orders. He seems to think that the six times Obama has used the tool is some kind of record. I'm not going to do his homework for him by verifying the validity of the claim.

During Bush's reign there were a number of executive orders that generated controversy. It would be interesting to see an enterprising professional journalist do a side-by-side comparison of Bush and Obama in that regard. But lately my interest has been drawn more by the ongoing discussion about the President's cabinet appointees. The big three so far, as far as I'm concerned, have been Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, and Eric Holder. Hillary was bound to escape much of the nasty criticism and attention she might have drawn had she not been appropriated as the Conservative pundits' poster child for opposition to Obama's candidacy last year. Remember Operation Chaos and all those silly right-wingers with their 'I heart" Clinton sock puppets?

Meanwhile former president of the New York Federal Reserve Tim Geithner seemed like an incredibly cautious choice for Treasury Secretary. He was widely seen as non-partisan, and had significant support from many financial and political quarters. While he did draw some flak for his role as a key adviser in the Wall Street Meltdown Crisis, he managed to come off as an establishment guy that might just have the answers to get the nation out of the mess that had been brewing for years. No one expected anything else but a quick and uncomplicated Senate confirmation hearing that would be more ceremonial than investigative. And then information about Geithner's tax evasion in the early part of this decade came to light.

Geithner was able to weather the controversy, but he emerged into his position with more bruises than anyone really expected. Sure, it's a bit ironic to hear a bunch of Republicans whine about a guy who didn't particularly relish the idea of paying federal taxes, but this is more of an issue of strict adherence to rules than concordance of basic philosophies. Perhaps Geithner would be hailed as a hero (on the Right) for his past foibles if he were a Bush appointee? It's all a bit beside the point anyway, as he was ushered into the Obama administration officially by a 60-34 senate vote. Still he could end up being a black mark on the President's economic recovery program should things not work out in an ideal fashion (which they won't).

Now we can expect to see the Eric Holder saga taking center stage in the upcoming media cycle. Obama's nomination for Attorney General has been called on the carpet to justify his participation in the Clinton pardon of Democratic campaign contributor Mark Rich. A fact not likely to receive much media play is that Holder first attained the federal bench via appointment by former President Ronald Reagan. Similarly, conservative pundits and skeptics (like Arlen Specter) are likely to gloss over the fact that George W. Bush used Holder as the acting Attorney General in 2001, while awaiting the confirmation of super-dolt John Ashcroft. And finally, the same critics probably won't bring up Holder's encouragement of the strong independent counsel that Janet Reno set in motion, resulting in a an impeachment hearing for the last Dem president. Washington can always rely on an awfully short institutional memory.

A Day in the Life of a Nation.

By the time you read this, there will be a new President of the United States. It seems almost absurdly surreal to type that sentence and read it as it appears on the monitor. Personally, this fact alone would be cause for much satisfaction. I've made it pretty clear over the life of this blog that I've been no fan of George W. Bush. Just like the man himself said about a week ago, there have been disappointments during his two terms in office. That's a particularly egregious understatement- actually Bush's "disappointments" have helped foment this nation's impending depression. There is no way to encapsulate all that has happened over the last eight years. I'm sure all readers can make a list if they are so inclined.

Despite the administration's string of missteps staggered along this first decade of the Twentieth century, I have managed to advance my own life. The individualist strain of the American character certainly suggests that this is possible regardless of anything happening on the national stage. We're not supposed to make excuses for the trajectory of our own existences. I have been lucky enough to be able to take responsibility for my own outcomes. Yet while it is true that everyone has a degree of opportunity to chart his/her own course, I think it would be a mistake to imagine that all US citizens have been blessed equally. A cursory look through our country's history should clearly indicate otherwise.

Obviously social inequities have not been limited to factors such as race, gender, and ethnicity. I am a white man born of Christian extraction. That puts me within a demographic that has been historically most likely to reach the upper echelons of the power structure of the United States. However that doesn't mean that everyone with similar circumstances has the same potential. Some of the nation's poorest are to be found among those of Scots-Irish extraction living in the Appalachian region. I've driven through areas that feature tar paper shacks and outhouses. To see things like that is to doubt one's place in time. It's a mistake to draw conslusions about others simply based upon externally visible characteristics.

Still I can't help but acknowledge what Barack Hussein Obama's inauguration will mean to largely disenfranchised segments of the population. Walk into any public school history class, and you are likely to see a series of portraits representing every person ever to hold the presidency. It's hard to miss the homogeneity in their collective appearance. There are no women, no Latinos, no Asians, no Native Americans... nor are there any blacks. As strange as it may seem to those of us adults who sat in classrooms adorned with such images, the basic picture is going to change. And if an African-American can be added to the ranks of this club, then it seems to expand the range of possibility for everyone.

For me, today is probably not going to be substantially different than any other ordinary Tuesday. I'll follow my customary routine, and mark the passing of another workday. Unlike more than a million of my fellow countrymen/women, I'm not going to journey to DC to see the swearing in of our new Commander-in-Chief. I'm not going to join the crowds that are swelling the Capitol to witness this historical event. But like legions of folks dotting the American landscape, I'm going to devote some time to reflect upon this moment in our story. We are living through a time of extraordinary upheaval and challenge. Without succumbing to melodrama, it's possible to say that President Obama will have an unprecedented chance to make a difference.

George Bush's Final Press Conference.

President George W. Bush gave his very last press conference this past Monday. Throughout his time in office, Dubya has made a point of showing his disdain for the national media by giving it few opportunities to substantially question him about national policy. Even when he did appear in front of the press, he was evasive and cocky. Now that he is in his last week as the national executive, he is obviously thinking about his legacy. So he apparently decided to give a handful of reporters an opportunity to help him get a head start in rehabilitating his record. I stumbled across the live coverage by accident. The Q-and-A session was held during lunchtime on a workday. I have no doubt the White House communications director insisted on that.

If you went from being a major world leader with a near-record-high approval rating in the first year of your presidency, to a documented record-low by your last year- would you be eager to stand up and face the nation in prime time? This guy is literally slinking away under the weight of his own failure. He doesn't have much wiggle room to make himself look good. What could he possibly say that would make the average American feel better after the last eight years (besides an acknowledgment that he is leaving)? Certainly there was a bit more than a hint of bloodthirsty anticipation apparent in the tone of some of the journalists lobbing their queries. It was clear that a lot of them felt they deserved a shot or two after two frustrating Bush terms.

Yet I have to give him credit for having a sense of humor. Bush knows how much many of the Washington correspondents dislike him and his administration. And naturally he has a response for that, filled with a complicated mix of hubris and unreflective comedy. In fact this was one of the highlights of the entire press conference as far as I'm concerned- he actually compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, pointing out that the 16th president had plenty of critics too (just like the 43rd). But the funniest thing is that he said that he came about this revelation from reading a lot about Lincoln's presidency. It makes me wonder about the authorship of the literature that passes through Bush's hands.

Still, when the POTUS says that the press often "misunderestimated" me, it does show a certain cognizance of the general level of respect many Americans have for him. No doubt the average citizen could come up with a laundry list of mistakes he/she believes that Mr. Bush has made. And one wouldn't even need to necessarily read books to compile items for that list. That reality makes it especially difficult to understand George Bush's demonstrated inability to assess his own record. At least he has finally come around to identifying the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing as a "mistake". To wit- "It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.

When it comes to talking about "the enemy', George W. Bush has never had any trouble in using the broadest and most sensational terminology. Yet when it comes to his own actions, he can be a master of understatement. The debacle of Abu Ghraib... the response to Katrina,.. starting a "pe-emptive war on the pretext of WMD that never turned up- these were things (in Dubya's words) that "didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way." Give him credit for realizing that some folks viewed these issues as serious. During the majority of his presidency it was often hard to figure out just what the hell was going through his mind. Some people will insist that he was just plain stupid, but I'm not sure I agree. Either way, I'll leave you with a few other choice cuts from his "ultimate exit interview":

"I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope."

"And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland."

"We had a -- people -- we -- I had a fabulous team around me of highly dedicated, smart, capable people, and we had fun. I tell people that, you know, some days happy, some days not so happy, every day has been joyous."

"And I thank you for giving me a chance to defend a record that I am going to continue to defend, because I think it's a good, strong record."

Dubya's legacy of Peace (?!)

In late 2006 George W. Bush made headlines in Israeli newspapers by publicly stating that he "would understand" if Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. It didn't get major play in US media outlets at the time, but hardliners (on both sides) in the Midde East took notice. Even though Condolleeza Rice tried to downplay the comment, Bush's words were interpreted by some as a not-so-subtle approval of opening up a third front on the "War on Terror" (or was that "Axis of Evil"?). Speculation suggested that Bush would "go along" with an initiation of aggression in a preemptive strike to degrade Iran's ability to become a regional power. Obviously it didn't do much for US diplomacy with the Mullahs.

There were some in America that were perversely satisfied with the president's "hardline stance". Many on the Christian Right applauded their hero's willingness to encourage Armageddon. Zionists on the North American continent may have been a bit more circumspect about communicating their pleasure, but the signs indicated their favorable reaction. Certain civilian "thinkers" in the Defense Department licked their lips in anticipation. The war drums beat a trance-like rhythm that made forward momentum almost unavoidable. Yet bad news from the Iraqi front seemed to dampen the spirit, if only among the general population. Soon after the expression of "understanding", the political landscape changed through that year's election.

Now fast-forward to this past Fall, and the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Fourth Estate finally started doing its job, empowered somehow by Tina Fey and Katie Couric. The subject of possible strikes against Iran became an actual issue that inspired actual questions in an actual debate. Obama expressed his willingness to sit down and talk with the actual leadership of Iran (HINT: he wasn't talking about Ahmadinejad). For this he was mercilessly attacked by both his opponent and the Rightwing echo chamber. Meanwhile he wasn't getting much support from within his own party. No political figure wanted to risk alienating an important constituency capable of helping finance a successful campaign.

While YouTube footage of McCain's version of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" continued to circulate among the discontents, NPR aired an interview between Terry Gross and Robert Baer. I happened to tune in that day and had all my assumptions about power politics in the Middle East challenged. So when McCain tried to batter Obama for his advocacy of "sitting down with our enemies", I paid very close attention. I tried to sort through the bullshit and figure out exactly what the candidates believed about the "threat" of Iran and the structure of influence in the Muslim world. I became acutely afraid that Bush would give the green light to Israel, and a conflagration would erupt. I slept fitfully until I distracted myself with other concerns.

Fortunately for Western civilization, we made it through one alluring window of opportunity for an Israeli raid on Iran. We still have a major issue to confront, but I feel better about our foreign policy direction. However, there's another piece of information that I have to absorb now. This week NPR and NYT are reporting that George W. Bush refused an Israeli request for "bunker busters" that they intended to drop on Iran. I find it ironic that the single greatest possible chance that Bush has for a positive legacy is the result of an inaction. The only way he could have topped that was not to run for the office in the first place. Our outgoing leader is fond of saying that history will be his judge, but I'd like to suggest that he's wrong... the consequences of his actions will stretch well into the future.

Don't Know Much About Afghanistan...

When Russia first invaded Afghanistan I was about 9 years old. I couldn't have told you where the nation was, nor could I have explained its importance to the US or any other country. I didn't even know much about the Soviet Union, other than the fact that they were our "enemy" in something called the "Cold War". That latter term itself was a bit confounding. Did soldiers square off against each other across a great ice field? Was it the manifestation of what our elders warned us about when they referred to Hell freezing over? And what was its opposite? Desert warfare? Now I understand only minimally more about the conflict than I did way back when. I trust that others have done our homework for us.

We (I mean the United States under Barack Obama) are about to refocus our military efforts on this far-flung land. In some ways it seems like we've just left after expelling the Taliban in the wake of 9-11. Yet I know that we never did pull out completely. We've been there for over six years now. That's an abstracted reality, but it's true nonetheless. When the Bush administration was making the case to overthrow the Hussein regime, we were already in Afghanistan. In 2003, when the president touched down on the aircraft carrier for his "Mission Accomplished" press conference, the troops were still there. When everything started going bad in Iraq, the US military maintained its presence in that "other war" quietly.

Do you think that you have any idea what is going on in Afghanistan? I don't. It's a great far Eastern mystery as far as I'm concerned. I know what I'm told. The Taliban is regrouping. People are growing poppies and synthesizing it into opium and heroin. There are warlords, and plenty of children running around with missing limbs. Once in awhile we hear about American soldiers dying there. NFL player Pat Tillman was killed in a shady incident a few years back. We are at war in that country. But what's the mission? What's the objective? Are we building and protecting an oil pipeline? Are we staging operations into Pakistan? Are we still looking for Osama Bin Laden?

Interestingly, a lot of historians identify the first theater of the so-called "War on Terror" as Afghanistan. Bin Laden himself, scion of a wealthy Saudi family of contractors, made a name for himself there resisting the Soviet invasion. The US knows a lot about that, as the intelligence community was active in supporting the Muhajideen, of which Bin Laden was an early bagman. There are still plenty of rusted out old Russian tanks littering the landscape of the Afghan mountains. We've been "successful" in the country several times (or so the story goes). So why do we keep meddling with their affairs? It seems that whatever we achieve must be paid back threefold in pain and sufering.

Did you know that folks within the Afghan communist government actually pleaded with the USSR to send troops into their country? Leonid Brezhnev, who was dying and realized the poor economic state of his nation, didn't like the idea initially but eventually gave in. But first the Soviet Union tried to have the leader* of Afghanistan assassinated. They slipped poison into his favorite beverage, not realizing that Coca-Cola would counter the effects of the lethal juice. Then they tried to taint his soup. That worked, but doctors at the Russian ambassy weren't aware of the plan, and so delivered medical attention that saved his life. Finally the soldiers came and completed the task with a few choice rounds. And then they stuck around for years afterward not knowing what to do next.


*President Hafizullah Amin.

Senator Al Franken !?

I'd like to extend congratulations to my friends in Minnesota who have the pleasure of welcoming their new US Senator Al Franken. It seems that you people have gained a tirelessly determined warrior. I think very few political observers would have predicted his victory with any level of confidence in early November. In fact when the canvassing board reconvened to declare Franken the winner over incumbent Norm Coleman yesterday, there were no doubt many observers watching in stunned disbelief. The margin of victory was indeed minuscule, and the race was decided by a mere 225 (or so) votes. I'd imagine there are a lot of Minnesotans marveling over the fact that their votes actually counted.

Of course Coleman and his campaign have vowed to fight on in the courts. Still it seems that perception counts for more than anything else in politics, and the declaration of a victor seems to be almost unimpeachable. I can't see any authority being willing to retract this outcome. It would be a significant subversion of the American political process. In some ways it's reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election, in which that other "Al" was vanquished in our highest federal courts. Congress will return to DC today and there will be an empty seat, as Minnesota law necessitates a week delay before the declaration of an official winner. But very few question who will be occupying that seat during the next six years.

Interestingly, the GOP does have recourse to block Franken from the Upper House. Certification of the election results lies in the hands of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who came very close to becoming John McCain's running mate this past August. And while the Democratic Senate majority and its Rules Committee ordered Norm Coleman's offices closed at the Capitol building, there is some noise about the Republicans taking the matter to the federal courts. If they do, it could delay the seating of Franken for weeks, or even months. It will be interesting to see how patient the citizens of Minnesota will be with their representation cut in half by continued legal wrangling. I doubt it will make Coleman any more popular.

Indeed Norm Coleman risks looking like a hypocrite if he drags this out any further. When Franken refused to concede in the wake of the November election, while citing the need for an official recount, Coleman accused his challenger of wasting taxpayer money. Now this former Democratic mayor of St. Paul is threatening to do the same thing. By hook-or-by-crook, it seems like the Brooklyn-native is committed to retaining his power. Coleman has a tradition of being willing to sacrifice his principles to achieve position. He changed party affiliations in 1997 in a bid to attain statewide office. Now he's a long way from his roots as an anti-War progressive Democrat in the Woodstock-era counterculture.

Regardless of Coleman's odd persistence, it now appears that the Democrats will be a single vote away from ensuring cloture in the US Senate. With 59 votes, they only need to ensure the cooperation of one member from across the aisle to advance any particular piece of legislation. But there are certainly some kinks to be worked out. No one quite knows how to handle the situation in Illinois, with Blogojevich-appointee Roland Burris appearing set on claiming the President-elect's vacated seat. Meanwhile in New York, the brewing controversy over the possible ascension of Caroline Kennedy is playing out (pending Hillary Clinton's approval as Secretary of State). There is a lot to be determined, and Franken is only part of the picture.

"Oh, and about gays in the miltary..."

Today there's talk that Barack Obama will make ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the services a distinct priority at the beginning of his first term. While there is much to be said about the high-mindedness of such a move, I believe it's a mistake. Bill Clinton made the same miscalculation at the beginning of his presidency, and he was pilloried for it. The former Arkansan governor could have chosen few more effective ways to mobilize his opposition on the Christian Right. He also didn't curry much favor among the brass of the armed forces. I think it would be in the President-Elect's best interest to consider moving away from this initiative before he stirs up a hornet's nest and accelerates the "Culture War".

Listen... I want to make it quite clear that I support gay rights. I can't think of a single reason why men or women that are attracted to members of the same sex should be discriminated against by the government. People need to spend more time attending to the conditions of their own houses before they start trying to impose their prejudices on others. There's nothing more bothersome than another highly flawed human being getting uppity. What people do with (or to) their partners is their business, as long as it is consensual and the terms are defined upfront among the principals. I'm not concerned about what folks choose to do in their own beds. I have plenty of things to mull over without getting into that.

But I also believe that drugs should be completely decriminalized, and for many of the same reasons. What you do unto yourself is your own problem or escape, and not for me to judge. However I wouldn't recommend that Barack Obama make that an important priority on his domestic agenda either. Not only are there plenty of more pressing issues of importance to the future of the nation, but drug policy is another issue that would generate a surplus of resistance that would be distracting. This is a pivotal moment in American history, and Obama is going to need to make significant compromises to enact the type of platform capable of addressing the difficulties we face. He's going to have to pick his battles carefully.

Since Clinton capitulated and allowed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to take effect, over 12,000 gay individuals have been ushered out of the military. In the meantime Britain and Israel have seen fit to allow soldiers who are openly gay to serve. I haven't taken the time to read any exhaustive studies of how these men and women have integrated into their organizations, and I can't say whether or not they have had a significant impact on the operations of their respective forces. I have a hard time believing that they are living in a culture wherein they'd feel comfortable coming on strongly to their heterosexual colleagues. I wouldn't expect to find that lustful urges have overwhelmed their collective ability to concentrate on the mission.

It's certainly true that the American military is in dire need of an injection of new blood. Perhaps allowing gays to join would swell the numbers. I'm not sure why anyone would be anxious to enlist in these trying times, but I guess the motivations of homosexuals are the same as anyone else in this regard. For some, this path is among the very few opportunities they have in a troubling economic climate. Ultimately it appears that Obama is committed on the issue. He's actually considering appointing an openly-gay man to the position of Secretary of the Navy (which, if you think about it, is reinforcing a long-held stereotypical perception of that branch). Whatever happens, I wish the new President well.

They Love Me, They Love Me Not...

A few days ago, when I first heard about the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush during a press conference, I really wanted to post about the incident. I'd be lying if I didn't admit I got a big kick (no pun intended) out of it. I just had too many other things on my mind to delve into the subject. It's not like there is an overwhelming amount of news on the national political scene. Things have finally calmed down with the President-Elect. He's made most of his major cabinet appointments and is now busy filling the remaining slots, which include positions overseeing stuff like the White House bathrooms and tennis courts. Obama simply doesn't appear to be able to generate as much controversy as his predecessor (yet).

As far as Dubya is concerned, I'm forced to concede that I have developed the slightest hint of sympathy for the guy. This is inconvenient and even a bit painful, as he has been the figurehead overlooking eight years of almost unmitigated disaster. Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how safe he has kept the country over the last eight years. But to buy that premise you have to overlook 9-11, and believe that he could have done nothing to stop it. You also have to come to the conclusion that the War in Iraq has made the world (and thus the homefront) more secure. And you might even have to get over any qualms you have about how his administration has responded to domestic disasters.

Add to all of this the power his master Cheney has seized for his "unitary executive branch", and the terrible leadership he has extended over the economy, and I understand why anyone would be resistant to feeling sorry for Bush. Still I can't help it, and I suppose that the reason for that has something to do with the irrationality of feelings. I've always had an eye for the underdogs in life, and despite his natural advantages, George W. Bush has perpetually managed to force himself into that category. He's been a singular failure at every endeavor he's ever undertaken. That takes some mad determination, especially considering the family he was born into. His level of incompetence makes you want to cheer him on to a single victory.

But it seems all too clear that his redemption will not be forthcoming during his last month in office. Even Oliver Stone, with his reportedly sycophantic biopic and tradition of historical revisionism, couldn't rehabilitate this guy's reputation. Bush sits at favorable odds to be remembered as the worst president in US history... worse even than Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson. That's sordid company indeed. And now he wants to portray his adventurism in Iraq as a positive story, with a happy ending (a sadly fitting description, if you apply this term's more obscure meaning). However, he can't get everyone to play along. This isn't the Special Olympics, and he doesn't get points just for surviving his presidency.

If we want to properly place our warm sentiments, perhaps we should direct them at the hurler himself- journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who was employed by the Egypt-based al-Baghdadia television network. He even flung an accompanying insult, shouting "It is the farewell kiss, you dog." That, of course, referred to the soles of his footwear, which he certainly meant to come into contact with the President's smug face. While the meaning may be lost on some Americans, this gesture was the ultimate indictment, and an action conveying the deepest disrespect from an Arabian point-of-view. For his indiscretion, al -Zaidi now faces a likely two-year stint in an Iraqi prison for "insulting a foreign head of state"*. Yikes! No doubt Iraqis are enjoying their new "free society".

* al-Zaida also suffered a broken arm and several cracked ribs as a "result of the incident".

Saxby Chambliss Allowed to Continue Poisoning DC.

I'm sure that you've heard by now that Saxby Chambliss won his Georgian run-off election to retain his US Senate seat. He actually beat his rival Jim Martin by 15 points- a much larger win than during the general election, when he failed to achieve the necessary 50% of the vote to avoid the "do-over". With that victory, the Republicans have finally achieved what they fought so hard for during this past voting cycle. The GOP has been able to avoid a supermajority of Democrats in the Upper House. That means that the filibuster is still in play for these obstructionists. Now their opponents will need to sway someone from their side in order to attain cloture, and force votes on controversial legislation.

I can't say that this was particularly unexpected. It was quite clear before November 4th that the Dems had a long road to 60 seats. Still I can't help being a little disappointed. It looked for a minute like they had a shot. Franken and Coleman have been running neck-and-neck in the Minnesotan recount, and the party seemed to have resources to sink into the Georgian race. The ironic thing is that if the Democrats could have foreseen that they were going to get this close to complete dominance, they might have looked a lot harder for a stronger candidate than Jim Martin. Apparently the best thing he had going for him was that he wasn't Saxby Chambliss. Obviously that wasn't enough without Obama's long coattails.

The thing is that I really wanted Chambliss to lose for reasons quite apart from the larger partisan politics. The guy is clearly an asshole. He only occupies his place in Washington because he smeared Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland in 2002. What's so galling is that Chambliss is just another chicken hawk within the "Patriot Party". He scored five deferments to stay out of Southeast Asia, and still had the nerve to attack Cleland for voting against a homeland security bill. His campaign actually produced an ad that associated Cleland with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Even John McCain stepped forward to criticize the spot, saying "It's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible."

Still that didn't stop McCain from flying down to Georgia to support Chambliss' re-election bid. Apparently the former US congressman is quite connected. Chambliss is one of several GOP lawmakers to publicly return money he received from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He was one of the only senators in history to gain a chairmanship on a full standing committee within his first two years of assuming office. That position (head of Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry) seemed to present a conflict of interest, as his son Bo Chambliss is a lobbyist for a commodities firm in Chicago that is under its legislative jurisdiction. I guess that it's just "all in the family" for this notorious southern clan.

Chambliss is fairly typical of many of the Republican politicians that swept into DC in 1994 under Newt Gingrich's congressional leadership. He's a social conservative, and he's corrupt. The ACLU gave him a 17% rating on civil rights. The National Educational Association gave him an "F". On organized labor issues, he has earned a score of 11%. He's terrible on the environment... a fact that likely explains why the GOP wants him working on our nation's forests. All of this makes him a natural for the Deep South. It's just too bad that the Democrats couldn't capitalize on the unique congruence of factors that prevailed in the recently concluded election. Perhaps Georgia would have actually enjoyed a change in their national representation. It will be many years before they see another such opportunity.

Sunday Football?! On Serendipity?!

It would definitely come as a surprise to anyone who knows me that I did indeed make a point of watching the Pittsburgh Steeler game on Sunday. Did I suddenly discover a hidden joy in football? Have I decided that I don't have enough light entertainment in my life? Do I need yet another distraction? The answer to all of those questions is "no". I haven't had any revelations that compel me to direct my attention to sports on television. Sure, I remain open to playing games that might entail me to run around a bit, but I don't intend to shift my energies in any voyeuristic way. You won't catch me dropping the names of the "local" professional athletes anytime soon.

Of course I realize that explaining my lack of interest in the pigskin opens me to charges of hypocrisy. Yes, I have admitted to watching hockey in the past. I've even described my allegiance to a specific team, and have kept abreast of player transactions and salary cap management. Still the truth is that I haven't watched more than a few periods of the game over the last couple of years. I simply can't justify the expenditure of time any more. However, I do have an interest in keeping my "blue team-American male" card, so I make it a point to remain minimally knowledgeable about hockey. At least that way I can fall into conversation with strangers in bars if need be.

When I got a text message from a friend who owns an area restaurant inviting me to watch the Steelers/Patriots showdown on his new big-screen, I decided that it was worth the trip. After all, he promised that there would be food and libation provided gratis. I invited some guys that I knew were Steeler fans, and that had never been to my buddy's business before. I knew I'd get the opportunity to see a lot of people that I'm close with, but haven't seen in awhile. The stars were aligned... what can I say? I wasn't at all disappointed, as I did indeed see folks that I've been missing recently. Between the rounds the waitress brought by, and the spread of food laid out for the occasion, I was pretty happy.

I can't tell you what the final score was. I know that the home team won. I probably watched about three plays during the entire thing. At one point, some lumbering guy was breaking for the end zone in what looked like a slow motion replay. I guess there was a turnover of some kind. Everyone was happy, as if we had just won the war on terror. There was definitely a sense of camaraderie as one might expect whenever a room full of people are in accord about rooting for a particular side. I can understand folks getting swept away by that kind of energy, but if one steps back to take a clear look at the phenomenon, it becomes surreal very quickly. Why does anyone care what happens on that field?

One of my friends was taken aback by my professed reason for rooting for the Steelers after a virtual lifetime of disinterest. I told him that I was making an exception because the club's owner Dan Rooney had officially endorsed Barack Obama in the presidential election. He replied that

this was the single worst justification he had ever heard for caring about the team. I didn't press him to explain his opinion, but in retrospect I wish I had followed that up. After all, American sports are all about business. Why shouldn't I take whatever political positions they advocate into account? I'm pretty sure that if I were boycotting a company based upon practices I disagreed with, my friend would understand. So anyway... Go Steelers.

The Stuff of Dreams.

We are now several weeks into the President-Elect's administration. Doesn't that sound exceptionally weird? This is the first time in my experience that a newly-elected executive seems like the head of state a full two months before officially assuming office. When Clinton was in his last months, I remember people dreading his departure. No doubt that had much to do with the fact that the 2000 election was contested, and it wasn't clear who Clinton's replacement would be. A lot of folks certainly had a bad feeling about the idea of another Bush in office. Still I think few had any idea just how disastrous his first term would be. Anyway, there is a wide consensus that it's a good thing he's leaving.

I feel entitled to a couple of months of self-delusion. Can't I simply bask in the dream that we will be put back on a brighter path? Actually, the answer seems to be a resounding "No"! Despite the impression I have of Barack Obama as a resourceful and thoughtful man, if I'm really honest with myself, I have to realize that the problems are almost incomprehensibly vast. The economy is tanking, and the fed is "injecting" so much additional currency into the system that it will almost certainly overdose. This is a paradigm shift. After 9-11 we were promised that "the nation will never be the same again". I think that might have been overstated at the time, but it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Every time I consider the trillions of dollars that our government is spending to forestall the greatest crash in US history, I get that much more sick to my stomach. How could anyone have a plan to help us escape the mess? It appears that the best we can hope for is to reassure foreign investors that the entire edifice isn't built on a pile of shit and wishes. How long can we fool the rest of the world? If we are successful at this task for another few years, what are the chances that we will correct our course in the interim? Perhaps the essential human flaw comes down to a limited perspective at the core of our beings. It doesn't seem like foresight is an essentially well-developed quality of mankind. Nobody really wants to suffer for a better future.

The only thing I can do for a break is to let my cultural obsessions overcome my political ones. I need to distract myself (if only for a bit) for the sake of my own sanity and health. I promise that I won't let it go on too long, as that would mean I'm only contributing to another fundamental problem within our populace. But I feel like I deserve it. So I'm spending more time reading a book about the history of millenarian thought, with a special focus on Judeo-Christian traditions. If you're not aware of this theme, I would describe it in very simplistic terms as a belief that the world is coming to an end, and the accompanying concern with the details surrounding preparation for, and the significance of, Armageddon. If you are still unclear about the subject, have a look at the Biblical Book of Revelations as a reference point.

I'm aware of the irony of my choice. Why would I feel like turning to this type of stuff for the purpose of escapism? The answer may sound contradictory. I think that "escapism" is the appropriate descriptor for the application of imagination to "apocalypse". For as long as history has been recorded, there have been thinkers dreaming up "The End". Interestingly, they tend to twist it around into an ultimately positive scenario. Sure, you've got to go through hellish tribulations, but if you are able to come out the other side, you are in for a treat of 1000 years of peace and happiness. You see, the truth of the matter is that there is no escape. Society is (and always will be) as flawed as the individuals that make it up. Embrace that reality, and rely on dreams only whenever you find them absolutely necessary to get by.

Obama Tips His Hand With Tim Geithner.

President-Elect Barack Obama is moving forward at an extremely accelerated rate to form his cabinet. Obviously, with the number and severity of major challenges the nation faces, this atypical haste makes some sense. First and foremost on virtually everybody's mind is the financial crisis. The situation took decades to erode to its current point, but people are hoping for a quick fix. It's clear to anyone with even a cursory understanding (like me) that solutions will neither come easy nor fast. Our economy is in shambles, and our public and private debt is out of control. If done correctly, it could still take a generation to work out of the mess that we are in. There likely won't be any miracles.

I've seen and heard a lot of folks discussing what they perceive as unreasonable expectations among Obama supporters. This perception has been no doubt fueled by the Republican-formulated meme that people view our next president as a "Messiah". They believe that he has promised everything to everybody, and that the public will hold him to ridiculously high standards. The reality is that Obama is no extremist, despite what we heard during the election out of the McCain camp. If anything he is a centrist. Leaving aside the center-right or center-left characterizations, we can expect the former Senator from Illinois to take a pragmatic approach to governance. "Better than Bush" is as far as I'm willing to go in my speculations.

If you still fear (or hope) that our new federal executive is a "socialist", you should take a good, hard look at the team he's built so far. Last Friday, it was announced that Timothy Geithner (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since 2004) will be the next Treasury Secretary. The markets responded by jumping ahead 500 points. Geithner is a Brooklyn native, and has attended Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins University. He is a world-traveler, having lived in India, China, Thailand, and Indonesia. It's notable that Geithner is not a "professional economist". His first job in government was with the US Treasury Department in 1988. He served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the Clinton years, and then moved on to the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Monetary Fund.

Geithner is particularly known for dealing with crisis. This past March he engineered the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns, but also helped make the decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. He is also credited with managing serious troubles in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. During the current debacle in the US, he's had a close working relationship with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. He's an establishment guy, with ties to Clinton advisers like Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin. His philosophy is no doubt in line with the architects of the $750+ bailout that was recently approved by Congress. He's succinctly encapsulated his working philosophy by saying, “Most consequential choices involve shades of gray, and some fog is often useful in getting things done.” (The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 20, 2007).

On a personal level, it is said that Geithner is avowedly non-partisan, and a registered independent. He's known for his willingness to challenge authority, self-deprecating humor, and vast resources of energy. But he's also reportedly even-keeled and conciliatory. He's likely to maintain his close associations with Bernanke and Summers (who was pegged by Obama to be Chairman of the National Economic Council / Assistant to the President for Economic Policy*). It's evident that Geithner is an advocate of applying a robust activism in order to "save" the markets. Whether that means "business as usual" is yet to be seen, but the scuttlebutt is that Geithner wants even more power to search for solutions in order to avoid another Great Depression.

* Some suspect that Summers was offered this position instead of Treasury Secretary in order to avoid tricky confirmation hearings. Summers is known as an advocate of unfettered "free markets" and deregulation. This article, however, suggests that Geithner has been arguing for more consolidated supervision over the banking and financial industries.

There is also speculation that Lawrence Summers will be groomed to become the next Fed Chairman when Ben Bernanke's term expires in 2010.

Another Strike Against Potential Filibusters.

One more battle in the Congressional War on Obstructionism has been concluded. Mark Begich has officially defeated Alaskan senator Ted Stevens. The count of absentee and early ballots gave the Mayor of Anchorage a 1.2% lead over the incumbent. Stevens was the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, but saw his reputation shattered after being convicted on seven counts of corruption charges. Apparently he accepted money ($250K) in the form of personal gifts from VECO, an oil-services company. Even had he won the election, it's doubtful that he would have been allowed to occupy his seat. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was planning to call upon Stevens to resign. The GOP mercifully postponed an expulsion vote until after the results of the count.

With Begich joining the majority, the Democrats now number 58 within their caucus. His victory makes him the first Alaskan Democratic Congressman since Mike Gravel left the Senate in 1981. Interestingly, the last member of the House of Representatives to represent the party was Nick Begich (Mark's father) , who disappeared in a flight over Alaska in 1972. Begich will be the only legislator in the Upper House who does not have a college degree. He's got a history of barely squeezing into his elected positions. After running unsuccessfully to be the Anchorage Mayor twice, he found his third try charmed when he won by just eleven votes. He also benefited from a law passed during that cycle that allowed a candidate to win the mayoralty without a majority of the vote.

In other recent news, "Independent" legislator Joe Lieberman will remain with his former party, as he is being allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. A secret vote on his future weighed heavily in his favor (42-12). He reportedly appreciates the gesture as one of "reconciliation" rather than "retribution". Closer to the truth is the longshot chance that the Democrats may attain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if everything falls their way. The two remaining contests involve a hand recount of 2.9 million votes in Minnesota, where Norm Coleman (R) leads Al Franken (D) by a mere 215 votes, and a runoff in Georgia pitting incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) against Jim Martin (D).

My prediction prior to the election was that the Dems would end up with 57-58 seats in the Senate, and they have now reached that mark. What's particularly amusing is that several "conservatives" on talk radio were crowing about the Democratic "failure" to gain their objectives in Congress, despite the fact that they expanded their numbers in both houses. Despite the difficult odds, they now have a slim possibility of being able to defeat any GOP filibusters. I know that scares the hell out of the Republicans, but it would certainly prime the pumps of the Obama administration. It would mean, that instead of merely focusing on undoing the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration, the Dems could actually pursue a progressive agenda.

In order to force cloture (end discussion on a proposed bill for a vote), there needs to be 60 senators who want to move legislation forward. Perhaps the Democrats will be able to isolate a few Republican dissidents, and make deals that defeat filibusters. That techique gets its title from the Spanish word for "pirate" or "freebooter". It involves participating in an endless stream of debate in order to stall action on a bill. The last session of Congress saw the GOP minority employ this tactic more than any group of senators in US history. There is no doubt that it will continue to do anything it can to thwart the Democratic agenda. Besides going "nuclear" (changing the rules on the Senate floor), there are not going to be a lot of options to curb procedurally-enforced inaction.

The Big Three: Belly-up or Bailout?

Now the big three American automakers have made their great journey to the "Land of Milk and Honey" that we call D.C., and they have their hands extended for a bailout. And really, who can blame them? They have seen the federal government give out $750 billion to the financial world, and they want their piece while the getting's good. Unlike Wall Street, Detroit can actually lay claim to making a product that many citizens are reliant on. While it's true that the populace can look elsewhere for automobiles (and many in fact do), it also must be noted that between those who actually work directly for the "Big Three", and all the ancillary companies that support the industry, there are approximately 2.5 million jobs at stake.

I find it completely understandable that folks are resisting forking over more funds for corporations that have a long tradition of mismanagement. I've read estimates that General Motors is losing $1 billion a month. The outstanding question is, "Will any low-interest government loan amount to throwing good money after bad?" If the policies and strategies of car manufacturers in the United States don't change, then there is no reason to believe that an injection of $25 billion into the industry will do anything other than delay its inevitable failure. Still we are told that GM is on the cusp of finally unveiling the Chevy Volt. Maybe this is the chunk of change that will finally put the product over the top?

It's pretty obvious that the reliance on making high-profit SUVs and other large model cars has put these automakers in dire straits. It was fine when gas was consistently cheap... the marketing campaigns were effective enough to convince many suburb/exurbanites that they needed these things for their family trips back-and-forth to Walmart. Once a substantial number were on the road, ownership of such inefficient machines was seen as a status symbol. Then it was easy to justify buying one because you needed to keep up just to be safe among the other behemoths of the road. It was a self-perpetuating cycle that was only stymied by the steep increases in fuel prices. Of course after that it was difficult to give them away.

Still, those who favor such profligate consumer lifestyle choices will say that the state of the "Big Three" has nothing to do with SUVs, but rather the salaries and benefits of unionized auto employees. It's easy to surf the net and find people bitching about "luxury" dental plans and "undeserved" wage increases. Their position is that if we just adjust worker compensation to fall in line with those in third world nations, then we'll be truly competitive. The answer, according to these "free market" capitalists, is "let them go into bankruptcy" so that they don't have to honor their labor contracts. They insist that the preservation of decent jobs is not the business of our national government.

However, I'm convinced that the "Big Three" is going to get their assistance no matter what. The only question is where the money is going to come from. Henry Paulson doesn't want to break it off from the ridiculously large sum he has been given to play with, without oversight. That's for the investment banks. He suggests that Congress take the sum from the legislative allocation that has been made to encourage the production of fuel-efficient cars. But Democrats are not going for it. Apparently they are sick of seeing these large corporations place all their concerns on short-term profits at the expense of technological investments that could serve them well in the future. I can't say I blame them. It sickens me too.

NOTE: One suggestion I've come across that seems just (but not likely) is to pressure oil companies (that have made record profits over the last several years) to extend low interest loans to the automakers. Of course if that did happen, there would need to be close governmental supervision to avoid any resulting influence that Exxon/Mobil would have on the "Big Three". That's already a bit of an unholy alliance.

The Herd Meets in Miami.

The GOP has officially started its deconstruction of the sea change that has seen them ousted from power. After the presidential election, it was clear that Republicans were going to have to take stock of their collective position, and try to figure out how to move themselves forward. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Republican Governor's Association met in Miami to sift through the debris. Leaders like Florida Chief Executive Charlie Crist (who hosted the annual gathering) took the opportunity to call for an expansion of the GOP base. The folks in attendance would have been well served to attend closely to Crist's words. Despite the fact that his state went for Obama, the local party did well in stemming the bleeding, ceding only one seat to the Dems in the legislature.

Observations seemed to have flown fast and furious as the politicians disagreed about ways to move forward, and argued about who or what to blame for their recent losses in national government. Curiously, traditional wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage were scarcely mentioned. In a time when the nation faces some of its most formidable challenges in more than half a century, the voting populace is not looking to vilify its less popular members. The "Us vs. Them" mentality that has proved so easy to perpetuate and manipulate over the last eight years is starting to lose its sheen. People are becoming more interested in substantive issues that affect the entire country. The Bush legacy is being increasingly rejected.

So now the GOP is considering turning its attention to energy, education, and the environment. These are areas that their opposition has been working on for decades. As these things become increasingly important to the middle and working classes, Republican leaders are facing being left out in the cold permanently. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty cast light specifically on the recent party approach to energy independence. Pawlenty said, " 'Drill, baby, drill,' by itself, is not an energy policy. We need that, but we need a lot more than that.'' Meanwhile Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal underscored the problem by pointing out, " 'Our bumper-sticker message can't be, 'Vote Republican because the other side is worse' ".

It's fairly easy to interpret some of these comments as criticisms of how the McCain/Palin ticket ran their campaign. There was some speculation at the meeting that John McCain was the worst possible nominee for the highest office in the recently concluded election cycle. Certain individuals suggested that the Arizona senator had "thumbed his nose" at the base (despite his pick for a running mate). Others disagreed, expressing their belief that McCain had the best chance of all the GOP candidates to win a close race against Barack Obama. They also pointed out that a climate that featured an unpopular outgoing president, a controversial war in Iraq, and a crisis in the economy, did not favor a Republican victory.

Not surprisingly participants shied away from attacking Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. After all, she is still the freshest and most noteworthy member of the club. While she represents one side of the growing ideological divide within the GOP, she also happened to be present at the meeting. On Thursday she delivered an address that could have easily been delivered on the stump only a month ago. Ultimately Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour tried to dampen any fomenting dissension by warning, "Anybody here tonight who's talking about the 2012 presidential election needs to get their eye on the ball. We don't need any talk of 2012." Of course one might imagine that his admonition fell on deaf ears.

The Political Litmus Test.

One of the things that was so refreshing about being an Obama supporter was the vast array of thinkers, statesmen, artists, actors and writers that came out publicly for his candidacy. The list of people that I respected who decided to back Obama during this election cycle is long and impressive. It seemed that every week some other figure was coming out to back the Illinois senator. While a lot of these people were predictable, there were quite a few that came as a surprise. Yet what was most remarkable was that I was experiencing much the same phenomena in my own life. The vast majority (and there were really very few exceptions) of the folks that I'm close with felt the same as me when it came to picking our next president.

It's hard for me not to use this variable as a litmus test. The two candidates were so starkly differentiated that they seemed to effectively divide the American populace into camps, and identification with one or the other suggests a fairly distinct profile in terms of philosophy and world view. Perhaps it's silly to consider political affiliation as a factor one uses in determining who he/she would like to spend time with. Maybe it's unfair to become biased toward an individual with such a radically different life perspective that they would pick the ticket that one abhors. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that these associations didn't matter to me. In fact, I could give specific examples from my own experience that demonstrate otherwise.

I realize that this is a crucial time in American history, and that it's important to the future of the nation that some common ground be discovered to mark the path forward. I noted as much in a post after last Tuesday. Still there's something grating about suggestions that Obama must "govern from the center". Commentators from sources like the Weekly Standard and The National Review are trying to make the case that the country remains moderately conservative, despite what the polls showed last week. It's not difficult to figure out why they would insist upon that highly dubious assumption. Their side lost, and lost big. They know that it's the end of an era in America, and they are very unhappy about that fact.

Before the President-Elect and his new team accepts the assertion that bipartisanship requires paying homage to a discredited approach to American governance, I hope they take a few minutes to consider the quality of the voices who still stubbornly cling to their failed and outmoded belief systems. I think it's vital to remember that those who moan the most loudly for "compromise" are the same people that treated their opposition with so much contempt when they held consolidated power. Now they are forced to cry for a "fair and balanced" playing field. It's amusing how the "mandates" of 2000 and 2004 were so much narrower than the "tight race" just concluded, regardless of the actual numbers.

The reality is that the other side has been mortally weakened, is in a state of palpable disarray, and overcome with a breathless sense of desperation. This is a group that once saw itself as invulnerable. Now they are asking for temperance, and hoping for mercy. Their strategists and leaders have always preached that capitulation is self-destructive. They weren't extending any breaks to their critics during the last eight years. They did everything they could to marginalize their opponents. The temptation to repay them in kind is virtually insurmountable. It's not as if I have the urge to destroy the opposition utterly, but rather (playing off the immortal words of Far Right extremist Grover Norquist) "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."