Media: Boy Oh Boy, Barrack, We Couldn’t Wait!

In a rural Iowa campaign stop for John Edwards, a genuine or planted audience question finally let the proverbial “Black cat” out of the bag. And believe me, the press has been salivating for the event. Some doddering old bigot in the crowd asked in a seemingly oblique and confused manner how Edwards and the Democrats would deal with the “OJ Simpson” issue. At first, Edwards scratched his head and wondered what in the hell the guy was talking about. In follow up, the audience member pointed out his belief that the jury in the OJ Simpson criminal trial found the Black American defendant innocent as “payback” for the mistreatment of Black Americans in society. In a continued confused ramble, the audience member speculated that if Barrack Obama were elected President, it follows that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey would demand recompense for Black Americans because of such maltreatment through Obama.

Well the press rushed to blow up what typically would have been viewed as a crackpot incident at a campaign stump. Instead of giving the incident the lack of attention it deserved, it became a major media event upon which various pundits have speculated that the incident shows that Iowans are basically racists, even if they are hiding that racism in the closet. Others have suggested that the racial issue is a subtext in the Presidential election that will undoubtedly provide grist for the media mill in weeks to come. How this old coot became "representative"of anyone, including Iowans is a confounding question.

It would seem beyond obvious that all Black folks do not think alike or happen to be close allies as the bigoted kook’s question would suggest. No two people's views could be farther apart than the views espoused by Obama and Secretary of State Rice, both of whom happen to be politicians of color. Even if Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Winfrey held the same view about the OJ Simpson , an assumption that is extremely doubtful - if any of them even give a rat’s patoot about the subject any more, the notion that such commonality would have any relevance to an Obama presidency is totally absurd.

As Edwards pointed out, there are many current and real issues that face the American public, and Black Americans seem to be disproportionately bereft of health care, educational opportunities and health care. Rather than focusing on an irrelevant topic of the OJ trial, we ought to be focused on what can be done now and in the future to address these disparities so that America can perhaps become a land of truly equal opportunity. That was a relatively nice save by Edwards in an embarrassingly difficult situation.

Perhaps the most we can profitably draw from the event is that there still lurk among the voting public a significant number of racist and bigoted political Neanderthals who are opposed to the idea of a Black President [and seem seriously frightened by their ignorance]. Secondly, a fourth estate devoid of scruples and judgment lies in wait for such a salacious and unworthy topic to be raised so that it can be exploited. The media have been feasting on the notion that many similarly retrograde voters are fearful of having a woman in the White House. But these same media representatives have been fearful of bringing up the “N” word. They needed the help of some crackpot bigot in rural Iowa to raise the issue so that they could exploit it.

Hopefully, the event will die a well deserved prompt death and the media can focus on some of the real issues that seriously threaten to undermine our democracy. Cutting off health care and educational funding while demanding billions of dollars for Iraq is a greater concern regarding where government largesse should go than whether Obama is concerned about OJ Simpson. We now know, for example, that various boondoggles like the base in Iraq for which the American public has paid over $31 billion dollars and was never built are all too common. Whether the next President is Black, White, man, woman or frog, we should be asking what the candidates will do to put a stop to such corruption and hemorrhaging of the public treasury. The real issue, as usual, is not Black of White, but a green one.

Altered States

Various factions of philosophers, mathematicians and science fiction writers have toyed with the notion that there may be multiple “realities” that co-exist, and that have authenticity for those persons who inhabit each separate reality. Whether labeled as a “parallel universe” or “altered state” each alternative reality has its own set of intrinsic rules and system integrity. The theoretical problems arise when these alternative realities intersect. These theoretical intersections result in substantial harm to one of the worlds or both. The damage would arise because the physical nature of the different “beings” in one reality is anathema or toxic to beings in the other, or because the norms, values and rules of behavior in one system of reality seriously conflicts with those of the other.

Politics is frequently viewed as a world of “unreality” where fiction is a stock in trade and facts are "optional.” But recent Bush Administration activities call into question whether these officials are indeed operating in some kind of parallel reality that not only fails to recognize facts we view as proven, but operates under a different set of rules and values that are dangerous and destructive to our known existence.

Consider three different reports recently announced that are intertwined. The first is a report based upon a consensus of oil industry and global market experts indicating that a number of current major oil exporting nations may become net importers of petroleum within the next decade or two. This trend and shift is a result of increasing domestic demand for oil and petroleum products and rapid growth and development within these oil producing nations. One country included in the list of countries likely to significantly reduce its export of oil and potentially become a net importer is Iran.

The second report is the most recent National Intelligence Assessment that advises that Iran abandoned its program for development of nuclear weapons more than four years ago. The timing and impact of this report is significant in the face of the persistent Bush Administration drumbeat over the past year or more calling for aggressive confrontation and making overt threats of military attacks against Iran to force that country to halt its nuclear weapons program. [A program Iran had previously abandoned]

The third report comes in the past week, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited the Middle East and made bellicose pronouncements urging the Gulf States to join with the US in pressuring Iran to abandon its drive to obtain nuclear weapons. The Gulf States rejected the Gates proposal and chided the US for its hypocrisy and diplomatic ineptitude. The Gulf Cooperation Council pointed out that the confirmed intelligence report by US experts indicates that Iran dropped its nuclear weapons program years ago. Thus, Gates was at best seriously overstating the “threat” from Iran to the stability of the region. In addition, they pointed out the hypocrisy in the US refusal to acknowledge that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was an equal or greater threat to regional stability.

While it may be impossible to state with certainty what the Iranian government “thinks” or harbors in its heart of hearts, there is an established value and principle of American democracy that one should not be punished for his thoughts, only for his actions. The notion that the US or any other country has a right to demand that Iran explain its future intentions regarding the possible development of a weapons program or risk threatened unilateral military attack by the US is not only senseless but antithetical to the norms and values upon which our known existence operates. Under no set of circumstances would the US government accede to such a demand. Such arrogance is not only politically unwise, but risks provoking a military conflagration that could precipitate World War III.

A reasonable person would question whether it is unreasonable policy for Iran to take current steps to enrich uranium for domestic energy production in the face of increasing internal demand for oil. Some might even suggest that such moves to produce nuclear energy would be wise domestic policy. That policy could actually be more beneficial to the US than threatening. After all, the US consumes 25% of the world’s current oil production and shows no signs of curbing its appetite in any significant way. Indeed, the Bush Administration and the GOP faithful have resisted all meaningful attempts to force a reduction in US oil consumption through new laws or genuine enforcement of existing regulations. The less oil that Iran consumes domestically, the less it will be required to reduce its level of oil exports.

Why then would the Bush Administration ignore obvious facts, reject logic that most of us would consider inescapable, and instead choose to provoke a confrontation that could result in a global war? May we not at least consider that George W. Bush is operating in an alternative or parallel universe in which his rules, norms and values are distinctly and dangerously at odds with those that we consider to be bedrock? As we look backward, the evidence is manifest. Bush supported torture when the entire civilized international community rejects it. The Bush Administration used chemical weapons against civilians in Fallujah when international human rights principles condemn the practice. The Bush Administration vetoed legislation to provide medical coverage to the poorest children in the US because he deemed %35 Billion over seven years to be too expensive. At the same time, his Administration demands the funding, without limits, to expend more than $8 Billion each month to continue the US occupation in Iraq. The list goes on and on, but the evidence of a fundamental difference in values and concept of reality is all but overwhelming.

Our failure to acknowledge this dysfunction and the dangers involved may be like a person refusing to see a doctor despite all the symptoms of a very serious illness. The risk is that the internal damage from the ravages of the deleterious infection may become so serious and irreversible that the “patient” [the world as we know it] may never be able to recover.

Dare We Look in the Mirror?

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case involving the irrepressibly vexing issue of whether the United States Government can legitimately run a concentration camp in Cuba [Guantanamo Bay or “GITMO”] that denies detainees the right to question whether they are being held without justification. The US Congress sought to override prior rulings by the Highest Court in the Rasual and Hamdan cases that prison facilities operated by the US Government were bound to apply the Constitutional principles of habeas corpus to detainees. The Military Commissions Act has been a political football in which inflamed passions about protecting the country against insidious enemy “terrorists” have been pitted against equally impassioned critics who contend that if we permit the underlying principles of justice to be discarded for the convenience of what appear to be exigent circumstances, we destroy the foundation and the very system we are supposedly fighting to protect.

There is no question that US citizens are entitled under our Constitution and system of justice to a due process procedure, called “habeas corpus,” to challenge the government’s basis for their imprisonment. This age old judicial principle derives from the Magna Carta or before and speaks to the limits of absolute power of the sovereign to imprison those designated by the sovereign as undesirable. Without habeas corpus, the sovereign [who could do no wrong] could simply round up and imprison anyone he or she chose without reason or justification. The Bush Administration argues that these detainees are not US citizens and are not "persons" to who we should extend protections of the Constitutions. Setting aside the fact that international law also engenders principles of habeas corpus, we must also remember that this country has traveled down this road before is the case of slavery. By denying human beings the designation of being "persons" it was contrived that they should be denied basic human rights. The Bush government can accept the fundamental principle that "all men are created equal" as long as they get to decide who are "men" and who are not.

The principle of habeas corpus does not seek to determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of the prisoner. It simply seeks to challenge and require the government to show that there is at least an arguably legitimate basis for holding the person captive. History has shown us that there are ample and relatively simple reasons why a person may be wrongfully held.

In the first instance, a simple error in identification could result in the wrong person being arrested and held captive. Habeas corpus would enable the detainee to show that he or she is not the person that the authorities intended to capture. Yet prisoners have been held in GITMO for years without this basis safety mechanism. The Bush government apparently contends that it would be a "threat to national security" to allow a wrongfully detained person to prove that the government made even a simple administrative error.

A related problem has arisen when vengeful neighbors have falsely “informed” on others upon various ulterior motives and caused the wrongful arrest and detention of prisoners. In one example, an informer owed a substantial amount of money. To avoid the debt, he “informed” on the person he owed money to and falsely claimed that the merchant had terrorist affiliations. The merchant was arrested and held without any right to challenge his accuser or the basis for the charges. Obviously, the debtor “informer” successfully avoided paying a just debt by abusing the system. Sometimes the false informant has wrongfully accused a neighbor simply because "reward" money was offered and his family was in dire economic straits.

On the other hand, the government has undoubtedly rounded up and detained some individuals who have been involved in activities that could threaten the safety of US citizens and possibly have plotted or conspired with others to conduct acts of terrorism. Our system of justice has survived for hundreds of years, albeit with imperfections, and justifiably detained malefactors intent upon crime and disrupting the public safety. The system has been corrupted most egregiously when attempts have been made to use shortcuts and to dispense with the founding and guiding principles of our system of jurisprudence.

What harm is there in requiring the government to put forward evidence to show that they have detained the person they sought to imprison? Would it imperil our country to require the government to show that there is credible and corroborated evidence to support a finding of probable cause? Is it too much to ask that the government put forward some credible basis for the accusation that the person has committed or was in the process of planning the commission of a serious crime? These steps are done hundreds of thousands of times across our country each day and the country has survived. Why is the Bush government afraid of practicing the principles of justice that he contends that we are fighting the “terrorists” to protect?

In World War II, the US government rounded up people of Asian ancestry and held them in prison camps based upon hysteria and bigoted assumptions having nothing to do with evidence of culpability for crimes or actual threats to the public safety of American people. Decades later, we are still trying to live down the shame associated with that blight on the American character.

During the “McCarthy” era, people were accused of communist conspiracy and their lives were destroyed on the basis of coercion, hysteria and the abandonment of the fundamental principles of justice that our system is based upon. People still refer to that period and that process with a sense of scorn and shame as one of the lowest points in American history.

Another aspect that bears consideration is the fallacy in the Bush Administration argument for detention of “enemy combatants.” In situations where such concerns are properly applied, there is a defined conflict and a defined enemy. The dispute is typically of some determinate period and when it is resolved the combatants reach an armistice and the “enemy combatants” are released to return to their lives. In the present scenario, the purported “enemy” is terrorism and there is no way to determine when the conflict is over and no opponent or enemy with who to negotiate an armistice or peace treaty. Thus, the concept of “enemy combatant” is being distorted and abused for political purposes. The victims of this fraud are the detainees and the system of justice itself.

Will the “GITMO” era be likewise judged in our history as another nadir in the cycle of American jurisprudence? Will we look back at this as a period of insanity and yet another example of when the country lost its way? Will we wonder how we managed to lose or abandon our moral compass and trash the very principles upon which we have claimed that the strength of our system of government and justice is founded? At bottom, the right of habeas corpus is not about granting rights or privileges to the purported “enemy” or to the detainees. The procedure is a tool for self examination, a self-diagnostic to determine whether our system is functioning in accordance with the basic principles of freedom and democracy. Unless we can summon the courage and strength to look in the mirror without blinking, then the entire exercise of the “American Experiment” is pointless. There is no rule of law, there is no principle of justice and there is no democracy. We simply have a system of convenience to be exploited by any demagogue and blown in any direction that the prevailing wind happens to choose for the moment. Is that what we wish to see when we look in the mirror? In light of the current situation and the Supreme Court currently packed with possible political sycophants instead of principled legal scholars, dare we look in the mirror?

A Question In Need Of Asking ... Are You Nuts?

The question for the day is…exactly how out of touch with reality and just plain nuts does one have to be before a genuine examination of one’s mental state is warranted? The question has come up in several contexts where the failure to intervene has yielded disastrous results.

In West Virginia, a young man with deadly weapons at his disposal was recognized as having a history of irrational and bizarre behavior. He took those weapons and walked on campus and killed several people. In retrospect, the officials questioned whether earlier and more responsible intervention as to his mental state would have prevented the disaster.

In New Hampshire, a man that had a history of mental issues walked into the Clinton campaign Headquarters and held several people hostage before finally surrendering to police. He not only had access to weapons, but rigged a fake bomb to his chest. The event ended peacefully, but not without serious psychological trauma to those held against their wills.

Yesterday, President George W. Bush stood before press representatives and TV cameras to announce that, in his mind, a National Intelligence Assessment report that confirms that Iran had halted its program for the development of nuclear weapons back in 2003 represents a warning sign that Iran is a present nuclear threat.

The report is based upon thorough analysis by the entire intelligence expert community. It states that even if Iran decided to restart a nuclear weapons program, it would take a minimum of two years for the country to produce enough weapons grade nuclear fuel to create a nuclear weapon. In addition, such a timetable would have to assume that Iran could proceed without any significant technical problems or interruptions. In addition, the country would have to divert its current resources and expert personnel devoted to producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes [a substantial current investment] to a weapons program. The clear consensus of the experts based upon all available tangible evidence is that such an event is very unlikely.

The assessment reportedly was issued and made public directly to prevent an end run or manipulation by the White House. As we now know the White House twisted and misrepresented the conclusions of a prior National Intelligence Assessment in order to dupe Congress into authorizing a military invasion of Iraq. That concern and distrust is valid in light of the repeated calls from Vice President Cheney for a military strike against Iran. The purpose of such a unilateral attack would be to shut down a nuclear weapons program that the NIA report states has been defunct for over 4 years.

It is very difficult to comprehend how any rational person with a stable mind and emotional balance could read the National Intelligence Assessment and interpret the report as evidence of an immediate threat from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Undoubtedly, Iran, Japan, Panama, Sweden or any country could theoretically or hypothetically decide to start a nuclear weapons program and develop such capacity to threaten the United States years from now. However, to suggest that Iran or any other such hypothetical future nuclear power presents an actual current and serious threat is nothing but the raving of a paranoid and perhaps delusional person. However, when that paranoid person has the deadly arsenal of United States at his disposal, someone should be asking the question…..

And if someone someone should summon the courage to exercise that ounce of prevention, to intervene early, think of the hundreds of thousands of lives that could be saved. How many American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and others have been killed, maimed or had their lives destroyed because of the failure to intervene and examine the mental balance of George W. Bush prior to the Iraq invasion. An attack on Iran would be far more destructive and far more costly in terms of human lives. Please call the men in the white coats before it is too late.

Knowing When to “Shut Up” – And When Not to

An interesting exchange occurred during an open session of the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago yesterday [Nov. 10] with King Juan Carlos of Spain chiding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to “just shut up.” No doubt many share the same annoyance at times regarding Chavez's proclivity to speak his mind in a manner that is often “undiplomatic” to say the least. The exchange came after Chavez had referred to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a “fascist.” Aznar, a Conservative party leader, is a close Bush ally and had backed the US invasion of Iraq against the sentiments of a large faction of the Spanish people. When Aznar was ousted following a popular election, Spain pulled back troops and the country promptly withdrew its support for the US led occupation of Iraq.

Blunt public references are nothing new to Chavez. He referred to US President George W. Bush as the “devil” during an open session of the United Nations, sparking strong criticism. So his negative reference to Aznar, who supported Bush in Iraq, was not totally unexpected. When the current Spanish Prime Minister sought to tone down the rhetoric by stating that Chavez should be more respectful of duly elected officials, despite clear political differences, Chavez attempted to interrupt. His microphone was cut off, and King Juan Carlos expressed agitation by suggesting that Chavez should “shut up.”

An interesting point in these exchanges is that those responding to Chavez do not directly state that Chavez is out of line in the substance of his beliefs, but rather that he is radical and impolitic in his manner of expressing his views. In effect, the major criticism of Chavez lies in his lack of diplomacy. In response to the criticism by current Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, Chavez did not respond to King Juan Carlos, but later commented on Zapatero's speech stating that the legitimacy of a leader derives not only from his plebiscite or having been elected by the people, but from whether that leader’s actions are legitimate uses of authority. Chavez has long contended that the Invasion of Iraq was an illegal and illegitimate abuse of power by Bush and his allies. Chavez has also railed against the US abuse of power in bullying South American nations through exploitive trade policies and through unfair and discriminatory World Bank policies that the US effectively controls.

Chavez is currently on a bit of a tightrope in his own country as well. Current civil unrest in Venezuela over a push by Chavez and his supporters to name him President for life under a new constitution highlights questions of his standing to challenge the overreaching by other political leaders. While admitting that Chavez has done many good things in his own country and for the good of other South American nations, primarily through use of Venezuelan oil resources, his opponents challenge that maintaining regular democratic elections in Venezuela is essential to the country’s forward progress. Centralization and consolidation of power in one person, they argue, is an open invitation to the abuses of power that are a painful characteristic of the nation’s past.

Ironically, Chavez seems to be heading unwittingly down the same road to self-destruction that Bush has traveled. By taking actions to consolidate and abuse power in his own country, Bush undercut his own legitimacy to challenge or criticize others for allegedly “undemocratic” governmental actions. Chavez risks undermining the moral authority that he does wield, albeit undiplomatically, in his insistence upon speaking truth to power. As my grandfather used to tell me, when you point a finger, remember that there are several fingers on your hand pointing back at yourself. Chavez needs to heed that admonition and consider whether his own personal actions and political aspirations are consistent with the principles he applies to others in his public statements.

GOP + Giuliani = MOS

The qualities, judgment and character of the pretenders to the throne of the US Presidency pose vital questions for our future, and the American public must decide whether they want more of the same – MOS. As the run up to the 2008 election continues, the media and the press seem to be improving performance of their basic responsibilities to the public, the job of providing information upon which the public can try to make an informed decision. The task for the voters is to sift through the mountain of information, decipher the biases inherent in the news sources, and make an intelligent choice. These past years of cronyism, incompetence and corruption, which have been the hallmarks and will be the legacy, of the George W. Bush Administration are not times that bear repeating if the “Great Experiment” is to survive. Yet the GOP seems to be positioning a frontrunner who suggests that MOS is its preference.

GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani is the close friend and mentor of Bernard Kerik, the former New York City Police Commissioner. Mr. Kerik was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges of accepting costly renovations to his Bronx apartment and failing to disclose a $28,000 loan to help buy it. Mr. Kerik is now facing a 16-count federal indictment including allegations that a construction company with suspected organized crime ties paid for the renovations hoping that Mr. Kerik would help it obtain a city license. The indictment also charges that Mr. Kerik failed to disclose a $250,000 loan financed by an unnamed Israeli businessman and did not report as income more than $200,000 in rent paid by a developer on an Upper East Side luxury apartment.

Those actions show a blatant disregard for the principle that public office is a service and that officials must be held to a higher standard of responsibility and conduct. The venal abuse of office for personal enrichment is unfortunately not that uncommon in our times. This is especially true under the Bush Administration, where high officials from Treasury officials to the World Bank President have been ousted upon disclosure of their illegal self dealing. We must also keep in mind that President Bush nominated Kerik for the position of head of the Department of Homeland Security. His candidacy was withdrawn only after his corrupt dealings came to light and were made embarrassingly public.

Although lamentably too common, such conduct is not something to which we should aspire in the selection of public servants in high office. As someone mentored by the aspiring Presidential candidate Giuliani, we have to ask whether Rudy deliberately chose someone of such low character to mentor and whether Kerik’s conduct is a reflection of the standards of the candidate himself. Alternatively, we should question whether Giuliani is simply a lousy judge of character and his mechanisms for selecting his “team” are so flawed that they cannot ferret out the corrupt and the incompetent. In either case, Giuliani presents the clear prospect of following in the footsteps of George W. Bush. As the campaign manager for Presidential candidate John McCain (a candidate with credibility problems of his own) stated: “A president’s judgment matters, and Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly placed personal loyalty over regard for the facts.”

Giuliani rides a wave of popularity based upon an almost mythical public image of leadership following the Twin Towers disaster of September 11 in the city he governed. Yet the image is more myth than reality. Although it is true that Giuliani took charge immediately after the attack and helped to coordinate rescue operations, his role looked larger than life more because of its contrast with the ineptitude of President Bush than because of any extraordinary action of Giuliani himself. Following the disaster, history shows that more than 5 years later the huge amounts of charitable funds raised for the benefit of victims have still not reached the intended recipients, much having been diverted by opportunistic public and private schemers. The proposed memorial to those who died in the attack and the rescuers who gave their lives attempting to help survivors is still unfinished.

How great, then, are the actual talents of Presidential candidate Giuliani? Are we being fed a candidate of substance, of another figure that is essentially no more competent that Bush and similarly surrounded and supported by hype, cronies, incompetent loyalists and “spinmeisters?” Will the public again fall for the GOP formula that amounts to MOS?

Politics Over Principle - The Shame of Democrats

Politics Over Principle

The news that two Senators on the Judiciary Committee have now agreed to support the nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey as the next US Attorney General is a clear example of placing politics over principle. The controversy surrounding the nomination, and the issue that has caused a number of Democratic Senators to oppose the nomination, has been the unwillingness of the nominee to state unequivocally whether the “waterboarding” technique of “aggressive” interrogation constitutes “torture” that is unacceptable under the laws of this country as well as international law. The technique is intended to coerce the prisoner to reveal information through the experience of extreme pain and psychological pressure – the sense of death by drowning. There is no evidence of any beneficial use of the procedure for any therapeutic purpose.

It appears that all GOP senators are in support of the Attorney General nominee because he was put forward by the President, regardless of his qualifications to hold the position as top law enforcement official in the United States. One has to wonder whether a candidate like Josef Mengele would have been an acceptable nominee to these senators if President Bush had put such a person forward. Party loyalty and politics seem more important that any moral standards.

The argument put forward by Bush, that the nominee has not been “briefed” on the use of his Administration’s interrogation techniques is a senseless and facile one. In the first place, the Administration reuses to brief ANYONE on the techniques it uses. Second, the nominee is in a position to respond to the question whether he views waterboarding as torture precisely because he has not been briefed on specific instances. Had he the awareness of specific cases that might come before him, he would be obliged to decline comment. But the current question is asked in general and as a matter of moral judgment and principle in order to gauge his character and philosophy. These are legitimate questions to assess the fitness of a person to hold such an important position.

Does placing a plastic bag over a prisoner’s head and tightening it until the prisoner passes out from asphyxiation rise to the level of torture? How about use of the ancient “dunking” chair process used against reputed “witches” to force them to confess their possession by evil spirits – not entirely dissimilar to waterboarding – as a form of torture? How about electrode shocks, attack dogs, simulated execution by injection of solutions that the prisoner believes are lethal? If the nominee has an internal moral compass and a line that he draws regarding what he deems inhumane treatment, the Judiciary Committee is entitled to probe for an understanding of his character and philosophy before recommending him to the full Senate for confirmation.

That these Democratic senators have shirked their responsibility to press the nominee to disclose his beliefs and moral standards is lamentable. Unfortunately, in the US today we cannot rely upon elected officials to take a stand on principle rather than bow to political pressure. These days, when our elected representatives do take a stand and insist upon doing something because it is “right,” [based upon internationally accepted principles of human rights and decency] rather than because it is convenient or popular, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

“None So Blind As He Who Will Not See”

President George W. Bush, in one of his typically occluded public observations, announced that he sees “progress” in Iraq as the Iraqi people are “slowly but surely” reclaiming a “normal” society. He claims credit for this progress as a result of his troop buildup. Although even field commanders in Iraq have deemed the “surge” to be an abject failure in terms of its intended purpose, Bush still attempts to spin progress out of failure. Relying consistently upon the old P. T. Barnum maxim – “Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public” – Bush once again places his confidence in the stupidity and ignorance of the American populace. What remains unclear is whether Bush has become so accustomed to and comfortable in his lying mode that he cannot discern the truth from falsehood and fiction. Any objective view of the status of the populace and conditions in Iraq would lead inexorably to the conclusion that the state of Iraqi society is far from “normal” in any sense of that word.

Bush’s assertion that Iraqi society is slowly normalizing ignores that essentially human trait and instinct of adaptation. History has shown us that humans can adapt to very hostile and adverse conditions when necessity imposes those conditions. It is a survival instinct and not optimization as Bush would have us believe. The Japanese Americans adapted to the internment camps that they were forced to live in during World War II. Their conditions were adverse and they were not in any sense living in a “normal” society. Yet they adapted to daily life in imprisonment, carrying on such educational, social and recreational activities as they could under circumstances that violated international human rights precepts and the Constitution of the United States.

To contend that Iraqi society is normalizing is about as valid as calling Jewish society in the Nazi concentration camps or the daily life in Mogadishu or Darfur to be “normalized.” It is only when you adopt a very distorted and self-serving definition of normal, rather than an objective and honest definition, that you could begin to describe Iraqi society as returning to “normalcy.” The infrastructure of the country remains in a shambles, despite billions of dollars spent to allegedly rebuild. Basic services of water, power, education, health and public safety are unreliable, if available at all, in many areas. The country is in the throes of a civil war with tribal and ethnic factions fighting for control and territory.

Bush’s current claim, of course, ignores the fact that “normal” - status quo ante -must be compared to life under the dictator Saddam Hussein. Bush found that governance so abhorrent that he duped the US Congress into authorizing his violation of international law to unilaterally invade Iraq and install a US occupation force in Iraq. Any “progress” would have to be measured by whether the condition of the Iraqi people is improved over the conditions under which they lived under the prior regime. Even a blind man who can at least listen to the outcries from the Iraqi people for the US to get out of their country and the daily explosions from bombing of innocent civilians and periodic unprovoked slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US mercenary squads would have to concede that the situation is not better than before the US arrived. George W. Bush seems to be worst than blind. “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”

Attention: This just in…….. Pentagon numbers say we are winning in Iraq!

Attention: This just in…….. The numbers say we are winning in Iraq!

Recent Bush Government reports from the Pentagon through Associated Press [So they must be reliable, right?] show that the US military losses [deaths only - injuries, maiming and psychological damage don't count] so far this year are only 853. In contrast, the government reports that about 875 Iraqi civilians have been killed during just the month of October. We know that around 10-15% of the Iraqi civilians killed are the work of the mercenary Blackwater brigades, so the US military cannot really take full credit for the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Nevertheless, when added to the slaughter of over 1000 Iraqis in September, the statistics show that the US is killing more Iraqis every month than American troops the Iraqi “enemy” has killed in almost a year. Therefore, we must be “winning” in the eyes of the Bush Government. No less than Robert Gates declares that the war effort is succeeding.

This report does not claim to be a complete body count. For example, many of the civilian women and children that our troops kill in Iraq are not counted (or at least they are not credited as whole number kills – a three year old might only be worth a credit of a ¼ kill by Pentagon statisticians). So the advantage of slaughter for our side is even greater. Of course, the Pentagon also does not include the deaths of employees of private contractors who supply the troops as that would unnecessarily inflate our statistical losses and unfairly suggest that the human cost of the war is greater than the Bush Administration is justified. They are not really soldiers, after all.

At the current rate of US military effectiveness, we are able to destroy the population of several Iraqi villages each year. The Bush Administration plan to continue the war effort for the next 20 years or more should enable the US military to decimate the Iraqi population. At the very least, the Iraqi civilian population will be driven into the major population centers. And military experts indicate that when grouped together in close quarters it is easier to slaughter more civilians with a single offensive strike. This not only increases our body count, but conserves ammunition.

Unless the noisome backlash of protests from some American activist groups who are still clinging to some “antiquated” notions of "morality" and "international standards of human rights" are able to derail the Bush Administration plans, the US should be able to succeed in annihilating or severely weakening the Iraqi population in the next two decades. That would enable the US government to step in and seize the Iraqi petroleum resources to feed the unabated demand for oil in the US. "The public relations side of things do present some challenges," say Pentagon officials. There is still some grumbling about whether it is appropriate to unilaterally invade a sovereign country and destroy its infrastructure and population. To date, however, no such moralistic or diplomatic factions have been very successful in interrupting the military mission.

PS - Who's next?

There is considerable speculation about who the next nominee for US Attorney General might be. Among the candidates touted, the name of Larry Johnson seems to surface repeatedly. A former Justice Official in the Bush Administration, Johnson now serves as General counsel for Pepsico. Johnson also happens to be Afro-American.

While Johnson is undoubtedly talented, it is to be hoped that he is also smart enough to retain a sense of pride and self preservation. It may be that this would be his only opportunity to hold the top law enforcement position in the United States, if Bush were to offer the appointment. Yet if ethnicity and history mean anything to Johnson, much less personal integrity, he would decline consideration. To take on the top position in a seriously dysfunctional Justice Department that has been subjugated to the Bush White House and thereby lost all credibility and respect would be a thankless and largely unproductive stint. To take on the position as first Black Attorney General after Alberto Gonzalez has disgraced his heritage by abject failure and dereliction of duty as the first Hispanic Attorney General would be a grave tactical error.

Johnson would be remembered as the guy brought in during the lame duck portion of the GW Bush presidency to "clean up" after the mess that an incompetent and morally compromised Gonzalez had made. He would not likely be permitted to truly correct the mistakes made during the Gonzalez tenure because the White House would not allow it. In short, no real good could come of such an appointment. Yet men have been known to act against self interest and stoop to useless acts when presented with appeals to their vanity intead of their intellect and good character.

Of Right and wrongs - Alberto Gonzalez & Bush

The United States is caught in a moral and ethical vacuum, a plight recognized by the rest of the world but to which too many Americans seem oblivious. Any objective observer who examines the course of events within the United States of America and elsewhere at the instigation or insistence of the US government is aware how ill conceived and simply wrong the decisions and direction of the country are. Yet with this blindingly manifest wrongdoing, the so called leadership of the US government persists with an obstinate conviction that it is acting out of righteousness. The Bush administration, having lost the confidence of a majority of the populace in the world now turns to empty sophistry and claims that "history" will judge him more kindly.

As a famous philosopher stated, however, “in the long run, we are all dead.” It is the damage that we do while alive that truly matters to the living. And therein lies the rub of the moral vacuum. To do the right thing, it is necessary or at least very helpful to know the difference between virtue and evil. The ability to distinguish between true public service and self serving venality can guide policies and actions with potentially global impact. President Bush seems to lack the capacity to distinguish, or if he has the capacity he does not care to use it.

Moreover, the current Administration has been infested with sycophants and cronies who suffer from the same debility. Without any functional moral compass to guide them, they search for or concoct the policies and plans that seem to them expedient. This flies into a conundrum because “expedience” simply connotes a faster or easier means to desired ends, regardless of the consequences befalling victims along the path. When those “ends” are morally bankrupt and fashioned by persons without knowledge, experience or wisdom, the methods used are likely to be flawed and misguided as well. Thus the methods may be "expedient" but toward no useful goal or purpose except perpetuation of misguided and dysfunctional policies.

In so many cases during the past five years we have seen example after example of misconduct that ranges from petty pride and blind arrogance to blatant and felonious behavior conducted by members of the Bush Administration. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in many respects typifies the kind of ethical corruption and moral paucity that characterizes the Bush Administration. The man appointed to be the chief law enforcement officer and principal protector of democratic and Constitutional freedoms has repeatedly shown a disregard for that responsibility. Gonzalez helped craft a memorandum that gave support to the use of torture by US government agents, claiming that the principles of international law embodied in the Geneva Conventions were “quaint and obsolete.” He saw nothing wrong with taking such a position contrary to the highest principles of global justice. Gonzalez rushed to the sickbed of a seriously ill and heavily medicated Justice official seeking to coerce approval of an unconstitutional domestic spying program that the White House wanted, and saw nothing unethical in such conduct. Gonzalez came before Congress and perjured himself about a White House backed plan to fire US Attorneys for purely political reasons, yet insists that he has done nothing wrong.

The President was reluctant to accept the resignation of Gonzalez from his post as Attorney General, or so it is reported. Bush also believes that his good friend and ally has done no wrong. Certainly, a devoted counselor who advised the Administration top officials on methods for violating international law and humanitarian precepts while avoiding prosecution for war crimes should be applauded and not condemned, right? An Administration loyalist who deliberately looked the other way while White House functionaries openly violated the Presidential Archives Act by conducting business through a clandestine e-mail system operated by the Republican National Committee and included communications with high Justice Department officials is to be rewarded and not roasted. Indeed, President George W. Bush assessed Gonzalez as a “man of integrity, decency and principle” who had been hounded from office for political reasons. It is not quite clear what the “political” reasons might be when top Republican Judiciary Committee members opined that the lack of honesty and integrity displayed by Gonzalez bordered on the criminal.

The crisis that the United States of America currently faces is not simply the lawlessness and venality that has been taking place at the expense of American freedoms and its public fisc. The true crisis is the lack of moral consciousness of its leadership that fosters and encourages corrupt decisions and actions. In Psychological parlance, the condition would be deemed “sociopathic.” One who is without regard for social norms of right and wrong and acts without regard for the adverse and potentially lethal consequences of his or her actions on others is a sociopath. How else to rationalize the conduct of Gonzalez, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Libby and others?

Perhaps the greater danger and worst potential damage arising from the present crisis lies in the failure of Congress to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to hold these malfeasors accountable and block their further destructive conduct. Instead of forcefully blocking harmful and counterproductive actions and policies, Congressional leaders seem content to tolerate the Administration’s continued prosecution of illegal and ill conceived policies and operations. Treating the Bush Administration in this fashion is a bit like treating Jesse James and Al Capone as wayward children who just liked to steal things and maybe kill a few people if they got in the way. Any responsible and rational person knows different and would deem it necessary to stop such conduct and hold the transgressors accountable.

Is It Any Wonder?

The progress of the “Mission” in Iraq, or lack thereof, has many Americans wondering who is truly in charge of the mission and the current disaster that has been created. The White House insists upon pursuing as a matter of policy if not principle. Clearly, the President has shown his lack of experience and competence to actively direct the mission. His assiduous avoidance of any substantive contact with actual military duty or training and his consistent record of unsuccessful management of any major enterprise prior to his election as President are public record. Bush is the Commander in Chief and the civilian leader of the armed forces, but that role rarely translates to actual battlefield command. Expecting George W. Bush to undertake direct command of the military mission would be unspeakable and negligence.

The military is founded upon the principle of rank and "chain of command." Soldiers are tasked to execute orders as directed by their superiors. Under this structure, at least in theory, the responsibility for the development of strategy and delivery of orders for the soldiers to follow lies with the top brass. When the stakes are extremely high and the movement, coordination and direction of a complex group of military personnel and equipment is involved, lower level soldiers cannot reasonably be expected to determine policy while facing the dangers of their daily duties. Unless the soldier has deliberately disobeyed a direct order, the responsibility for execution lies with the chain of command. At the same time, the expenditure of billions of dollars from the public treasury and the loss of thousands of soldiers’ lives demands that the military be accountable to the American people. The theory is that the power to command troops and vast resources is accompanied by the responsibility for how the mission is carried out and the actions of soldiers under one's command.

Congress has been investigating a relatively minor military incident that has rather large implications for the military and for the American people. Pat Tillman, an all-American athlete with an all but guaranteed lucrative NFL career chose to enter the military rather than play professional sports after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Whether or not Tillman was misguided because of the Administration lies that led the US into the Iraq mission, he nevertheless believed that he was committed to a patriotic cause and serving his country by enlisting. Unfortunately, his service ended as a result of a botched mission and “friendly fire,” meaning that he was shot down by US soldiers and not the “enemy.” These events alone would be tragic. The tragedy was grossly compounded when the Army, the Department of defense and the White House trumpeted his death as an act of heroism based upon asserted death at the hands of Al Qaeda extremists. His death was used as a public relations gemstone for the President’s Iraq mission.

In fact, the Army knew that Tillman had not died as publicly announced. Other soldiers present at the battlefield incident were admonished to keep their mouths shut. False reports were submitted and news of the real circumstances was conveyed to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Yet the Pentagon and the Bush Administration continued to lie to the Tillman family and use them cynically and publicly to promote public support for the Iraq Mission. More than five weeks later, the Tillman family was finally alerted to the fact that the initial reports were untrue. No member of the top brass was willing to acknowledge that the facts of Tillman’s death were suppressed in order to exploit Tillman’s death for political purposes.

And this is where the larger implications arise. Secretary Rumsfeld publicly acknowledges that mistakes were made and that the system that he was responsible for directing failed. Yet he denies that he has any personal responsibility for the cover up of facts and failure to disclose the truth to the Tillman family. Retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of the friendly fire nature of the incident toward the end of April but claimed that it was not his responsibility to inform the White House or the Tillman family. Retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Gen. Bryan Douglas Brown, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command also testified before a Congressional Committee also testified that they had no personal responsibility for what happened.

The seemingly obvious question would be, if the top civilian and military leaders charged with commanding the troops and operation of the military mission in Iraq believe that they are not responsible for the execution of the mission, including errors that are committed under their command, who is responsible? In addition, can the American people place any real faith in any President or Congress that places individuals with such lack of integrity and sense of responsibility in such high positions Is it any wonder that the situation in Iraq has devolved into such a quagmire and that there is no sense of clarity in the mission or accountability for its failures when these types of individuals are in command? Is it any wonder that hundreds if not thousands of committed and patriotic soldiers who have seen action in Iraq are refusing to return even at the cost of potential military court martial or loss of their military careers?

Irony in “US Aid” or Another Kind of “String Theory”

Irony – Thy name is “US Aid” or Another “Kind of “String Theory”

Here is a riddle: Why does it make sense to support sending unrestricted billions of dollars in money and equipment each month to Iraq to cause destruction and loss of military and civilian lives without any clear plan to improve the long term situation for the local populace, yet at the same time block spending $35 million dollars to support a clearly established foreign aid plan for construction of a local irrigation system in a drought stricken region in Africa and temporary food shipments to prevent starvation while the irrigation project is built?

Unfortunately, the answer to this riddle is something that can come only from a terribly misguided and confused Congress so caught up in special interest hypnosis that it cannot even think through the policies that it publicly claims to support. The Kenyan government approved the local irrigation project that would enable people in the drought region to turn 1000 acres of arid land into farmland capable of supporting the local populace. It objected, however, to importation of American corn to feed the local population when there was a surplus of corn on the Kenyan market. The American aid laws, however, prohibited purchasing the corn in Africa [at a lower prices, mind you] to supply the locals with sufficient nourishment while the irrigation project was built. The apparent reason for the restriction was that the US farm belt state legislators demanded that all aid money be used only to buy American products for export, even though the stated purpose of the aid bill was to help distressed foreign projects, not as a domestic subsidy for US farmers [provided by a separate farm Aid Bill]. Beyond this irrational policy implementation, the squabbling to begrudge starving people trying to survive by building a self sustaining source of food of a mere $35 million while shipping billions of dollars in bombs and military equipment to sustain an occupation force that has no demonstrable purpose seems a misguided priority, if not totally absurd.

UN World Food Program revealed in a recent report the ability to provide 75% more actual food aid to distressed and starving people in Africa by purchasing the food in Africa and redistributing it where the hunger and famine existed. The major obstacles contributing to loss of life in famine and drought stricken regions seem to be lack of infrastructure, ineffective distribution of existing resources and political instability. This suggests that prudent money management would require the US Administration to maximize the effectiveness of aid dollars by purchasing the necessary food products where the lowest available price coincides with the lowest transportation and importation costs. The Kenyan government could be faulted for not redistributing the food within its own country to address the starvation problems. However, even that effort requires money.

If the US government were to give the same aid dollars to the Kenyan government for the purpose of buying food locally for the aid project there would still be greater effectiveness than trying to import American corn. Acknowledging that potential of corruption could divert funds from the intended purpose, the Kenyan government would permit the internationally respected World Vision charity to achieve its humanitarian mission by purchasing corn on the Kenyan markets to support the irrigation project. But then the statutory restriction on US aid dollars prevented those local purchases. The result is that promises were broken and women and children died of starvation while the irrigation project was being built. It now supports farming that allows local farmers to distribute excess produce to the needy in the area. This is progress. But the cost of unnecessary loss of life from cruel and agonizing starvation could have been avoided had special interest blinded legislators released the choke hold on the aid and allowed the money to be used most effectively to achieve the intended purpose.

"Support Our Troops" – Let’s Start With Being Honest

In the vitriolic public debate about the quagmire resulting from the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, the phrase “support our troops” is frequently tossed about. Quite frequently it is used as a talisman to fend off any careful and rational discussion of an appropriate strategy. Supporters of the Administration argue that any criticism of the US involvement in Iraq fails to support or even undermines the US troops fighting there. Their reasoning is that once troops are deployed, any critique or criticism of their mission is disloyal and may be disheartening to the troops. They argue that such discussion is advocacy for "surrender" and that the US must stay and "win" the conflict. This argument is both facile and dishonest. It is possible to support the men and women serving their country admirably in the field of battle and still question the basis for their deployment and the reasons for their being placed in harm’s way. Moreover, if there is not discernible strategy or prospect for success, then talk of "winning" is a deception or a delusion.

One fact that seems to be missing in the use of the “support the troops” argument is that the job of soldiers is to execute orders, not to make policy. The fundamental basis for the “chain of command” structure that underlies military discipline is that soldiers are required to follow orders and not to question the policy decisions that resulted in those orders. In addition, refusal to follow orders or dissention on the field of battle could cause dangerous situations with potentially lethal consequences. After all, the battlefield is an inherently dangerous place. During the Viet Nam conflict, the public made a serious tactical and philosophical error by blaming the foot soldiers for the results of the orders that they carried out. The American public does not appear to be buying into that same mistake with regard to the Iraq situation.

The broad and firm consensus of the American people is that US military troops stationed in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter, should be provided with the tools that they need to accomplish their assigned mission. No proponent of any legislation offered in Congress has suggested that US military troops be deprived of equipment and resources to carry out their orders. There have been measures introduced in Congress and discussed in the media that fault the Bush Administration for failing to adequately equip troops that the administration deployed in Iraq. The true question is not about providing equipment and funding support for the troops. The issue is whether the equipment and funding should be expended on a mission in Iraq that seems to have no clear strategy, has shown very little if any progress and has shown no reason for optimism that such progress will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

The shifting dialogue is turning toward the question whether huge sums of public funds and, more importantly, mounting numbers of US military casualties should be expended in Iraq. Thus, the properly stated question is “how” to support the troops. Are the US troops best supported by a strategy and continuing orders from the Commander in Chief to remain in Iraq and struggle to bring stability to a civil war among competing Iraqi factions, all of whom want the US to leave Iraq? Or, alternatively, are the US troops best supported by a different strategy and orders to redeploy outside Iraq in a manner that enables any necessary response to support allies and legitimate regional interests should the Iraqi internal conflict spill out beyond the current internal civil strife. The sincerity of the Bush Administration's call for support for the troops is belied by the Administration's failure to provide adequate medical care and treatment for the military personel returning from deployment in Iraq. Some would argue that spending a fraction of the iraq budget on universal healthcare would do more to support our military personel [and all Americans] than continuing to pour money into a failed mission that has no military solution.

Using US military personnel as pawns in the political debate is both unfair and disingenuous. While deployed, any public comment by soldiers that challenges the Iraq “mission” could be viewed as a basis for military discipline. Regardless of what an individual soldier may think about the Iraq mission and orders, he or she is duty bound to carry out orders to the best of that soldier’s ability. In fact, many soldiers who have served in Iraq and their families have spoken out publicly [once removed from the battlefield] that they do not believe that the US presence in Iraq is based upon any clear or winnable strategy. They say that without a clear mission and the support of the Iraqi people, the US should withdraw its troops.

In simple terms, if we do not know what we are doing or why we are doing it, we should step back and re examine the mission. If we continue to lose soldiers in a poorly directed and ineffectual venture, there is no reason for staying. This is a justifiable analysis that is based primarily upon function and common sense. As was the case in Viet Nam, the Administration that ordered the troops into battle had no clear idea what the specific mission was or specific objectives to be achieved. "Halting the spread of communism" is a convenient political slogan, but an extremely flawed and useless military strategy. Fighting terrorism is a similarly useless military strategy or justification for deployment of soldiers. That the Bush Administration continues to assert a demonstrably false link between Saddam Hussein or Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on the US World Trade Center to support its call for loyalty to its Iraq venture demonstrates the absence of any realistic and cogent strategy.

If one looks beyond the sloganeering to the concrete actions, a plausible conclusion would be that the purpose of deploying US troops in Iraq is to establish some measure of permanent control over Iraqi oil reserves. Despite the fact that the current military effort seems to be failing in that effort as well, the rationale and strategy would explain many of the Bush Administration actions relating to Iraq and a stubborn refusal to reconsider or debate its professed "mission." Such a strategy would explain the move to build permanent military bases in Iraq. It would also explain US demand for Iraqi approval, as a “benchmark” of progress, of an “Oil Sharing”agreement drafted by US representatives with far less favorable terms to Iraqis than any agreement currently in place with any other Middle East oil producing nation. The “Support” that the Bush seeks is not really support for the troops, but rather support for his agenda for establishing a permanent presence in Iraq.

However, as long as the Bush mantra continues to be “support our troops,” more and more Americans will continue to question why the best way to support our military personnel is not to remove them from harm's way in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. This group of Americans from all political walks is growing at such a rate that its presence and momentum has created a political crisis that the Bush Administration is having a very difficult time contending with.

Dear Uncle (Clarence) Thomas

I am writing this letter with all due respect because your ramblings of late seem to indicate that the weight of your responsibilities or the ravages of advancing age seem to have caused your mind to slip more than we, your kin, have noted in the past. We also realize that the rigors of actually trying to construct an opinion for the Supreme Court is more of a burden than you have typically been able to carry for some time. Nevertheless, your opinions in the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding education have caused more than a little embarrassment not only for us, but for you as well.

You have declared in your recent integration related opinion that you do not believe that either children of color or the institutions that serve them benefit from the diversity that derives from integration. In your view, American is the land of freedom and equal opportunity and there is absolutely no reason to consider race in the administration of publicly supported education. To suggest that race may be an appropriate factor in creating balance and diversity, you say, is to demean the Black children by suggesting that they would not be equally successful in segregated schools. This reasoning was previously known as the “separate but equal “doctrine that was struck down by the Supreme Court a half century ago. You also decry the admission of poor Black students to professional schools through any type of affirmative action [like the program at Yale Law School to which you were admitted under a minority set aside]. You complain that such opportunities deceive these Black scholars into thinking that they might be able to compete with their White counterparts. The result, should they fail, would be a devastating emotional blow from which your approach would shield and benevolently protect them.

While I am sure that in your mind [failing though it may be at this point] is convinced and your heart is well meaning, there are a few discrepancies in your reasoning and view of the facts that we feel compelled to point out briefly here. The most obvious would be your own appointment to the Supreme Court, which was clearly driven by race based considerations. No other justice currently on the bench was appointed in the face of compelling evidence of illegal sexual harassment and discrimination against a female subordinate. Your prior career of performance at the EEOC and your prior judicial decisions were less than stellar. Thus, it would be fair to say that you may not have been the most qualified and untarnished candidate for the High Court. Yet the need to fill the seat vacated by the only justice of color apparently carried the day despite your moral and intellectual shortcomings. Your attendance in higher education was a result of a discriminatory family decision to deny your sisters educational opportunity so that you, the male child, could advance your education. Your educational financing was supported by government programs designed to enhance educational opportunity for young poor students of color. But of course, these events are in the past and to be overlooked or forgotten.

So let’s turn to the logic of your current opinions. The programs utilized by the school district in Louisville were not designed nor did they operate to apply admission decisions that single out an individual upon the basis of race. The problem that the system was attempting to address is an historical and complex one that involves demographics of school attendance and residential demographics. Louisville is a metropolitan school district. As a result, the older and less maintained school buildings in the inner city were gradually abandoned for newer buildings in more economically stable or affluent areas. This transition required some measures to balance the assignment of students to different schools in order to avoid creating segregated schools. Their solution involved creating thresholds above which they would apply race as a factor in balancing the demographics of schools, rather than allowing a school to become segregated. In other words, students were not denied admission to the Louisville School System, but were not allowed complete freedom to choose which school they could attend in those limited situations where the school system policy of balance and diversity would be undermined.

With all due respect, your reasoning harkens back to the “separate but equal” doctrine and the prevalence of de facto segregation that perpetuated the deficiencies of deliberate racial discrimination in educational opportunities. The Chief Justice was being intellectually dishonest in suggesting that devices such as geographic school boundaries would solve the problem in a Constitutionally acceptable manner. Recent Supreme Court cases involving gerrymandering of voting districts in the fashion suggested by the majority for school attendance have been viewed as dubious at best. In a world that has become more globally interconnected and in which the ability to comprehend and interact with people of different backgrounds and cultures is imperative, the idea that returning to segregated educational systems is better for Black children is unrealistic if not downright knuckleheaded [respectfully, of course].

Your paternalistic argument that would protect poor Black scholars from the risk of disappointment should they gain admittance to higher education through affirmative action is also flawed. These students’ failure to obtain admittance through “traditional” admissions processes may not be because they are less capable, but rather because the criteria traditionally used have been constructed and applied in a manner that was biased in favor of more affluent white students. In addition, every student of any ethnic background who fails to make the grade in law school is disappointed, many are devastated. But the opportunity to succeed must also be accompanied by the opportunity to fail. Your logic would deny Black students the opportunity to succeed because of the risk that they might fail. Which philosophy is truly more presumptuous and demeaning?

In a perfect world, without the vestiges and the current operation of racial prejudice and exclusionary policies, the opportunity for quality education would be open to all on an equal basis. However, you would need to emerge from the darkened cloak room with your good buddy Scalia in order to notice that the rest of us do not live in such an Eden. The public school system, with all of its flaws and imperfections, is one of the cornerstones for the establishment of the primacy of this country. In the real world, the public educational system has to confront and interface with political system changes and ideological opportunism, with taxation and funding issues, with real estate market realities and with constantly changing and increasing demands for elevated services to provide competitive general education. None of these issues were adequately contemplated by the original drafters of the Constitution, and no amount of “strict constructionist” sophistry can yield a useful and meaningful response to current problems without recognizing the real world facts. Honor the basic and fundamental principles, but you must not do so in a manner that is deliberately ignorant of the real world to which the decisions must be applied.

While your intent may be well meaning, albeit weak minded, the agenda and intent of your colleagues Scalia, Alito and the Chief Justice are far less benign. If you cannot see the weaknesses in your logic and the disconnect with the real world, then perhaps you should honor your own philosophy and consider stepping aside to allow a more competent jurist to take your place, regardless of his or her race.

The New Palestinian Authority – Washington, DC

Beware of rogue nations that seek to export their brand of nationalism through military force, unilateral regime change, economic blackmail and intimidation. Such nations are a threat to world peace and a cancer upon the global society. They violate the very principles of democracy and sovereignty that lie at the foundation of a stable international community. [UN Speech concerning Col. Khadafy of Libya.] This caution is just as valid today. As to naming these present day rogue nations, it is sufficient to state that: “If the shoe fits, wear it.”

Today the United States formally announced that it was restoring full governmental relations and lifting embargoes and sanctions against the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas. In reality, only the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank will see these changes immediately because the Gaza Strip is now controlled by the Hamas faction of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas, in a legally questionable move, called for the dissolution of the Palestinian government and expelled the duly elected Hamas representatives to set up a new government controlled completely by the Fatah faction. The US has thus anointed its “leader” of the Palestinian people.

It is a reasonable question to ask whether or not the Palestinian people might be better off under the new government. The Palestinian Authority failed for years to break the deadlock with Israel concerning a durable peace or progress toward a two-state solution. However, the question misses a crucial point of democracy. If it were possible to state with certainty that the Palestinian people would be “better off” under the current government [it would depend upon whose viewpoint is considered] , it still would not excuse or cover up the manner in which the government came to power. The current coup d’état or regime change suggests that the President of the United States is better qualified to choose leadership for the Palestinians that the Palestinians themselves.

Hamas has shown little expertise for controlling its internal factions, serving the needs of the Palestinian people or making progress toward a lasting Peace with its neighbors. That party came to power because of frustration with the internal corruption and impotence of the Fatah led Palestinian Authority. Hamas has handled that opportunity with ineptitude and has failed to achieve substantial progress in making the lives of average Palestinians more secure or healthy. The militant wing of Hamas has often refused to follow the lead of the diplomatic wing with tragic and counterproductive results. But one does not need to laud Hamas to justify criticism of the current change in government. Democracy does not guarantee that the people will choose the “best” government [the US electoral system has proven that truth], but rather that the people will have the government that they themselves choose in a free and fair election. Paternalism is not democracy.

This is not new territory for US policy. It does not take a long memory to recall the Fatah leadership of Yassir Arafat to understand that installation of a US backed puppet faction creates an unstable alliance. At some point those puppets are deposed and burned in effigy by the people they rule, or they cut their own strings and turn against their former master puppeteer. Consider Khadafy, Noriega, Osama Bin Laden, Ferdinand Marcos and their ilk as example and object lessons. But George W, Bush was never a good student of anything, and history would definitely be one of his weaker subjects.

The basic point concerns the basic values of the American people? Do we embrace the belief that the ends justify the means and that might makes right? If so, then the US can act without caution or remorse when duplicitously proclaiming itself a “champion of freedom and democracy.” The truth of what we tell others is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that the US acts with force to impose the President's view of what is best for those most directly affected or what is in the US' own self interest [not necessarily in that order]. The US can praise the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair election, and then act to depose the people’s chosen government [that the US President does not like] “for the Palestinian’s own welfare.” It makes the business of government less messy than in a true democracy. After all, if Abbas does not do what the Bush administration tells him to do, they can just as easily remove him without bothering to consult the Palestinian people.

The world and international relations would be so much simpler if it would just accept the President of a rogue nation as World Dictator [or is the "Decider"] , or else!

Bush’s Middle-East Bungling and Bankruptcy

No one doubts the tragic and senseless loss of life now taking place on the Gaza Strip in the Middle East as a result of the armed factional fighting and power struggle between Hamas and Fatah. In one sense, only the militant factions themselves are to blame for their inhumane reaction to their current plight and the resort to ruthless violence. It is a struggle to be "King of the Hill" in a situation where the "hill" is not worth conquering, certainly not at the cost of so many lives. Yet the conditions that have led to this crisis are a product of actions on a larger geopolitical scope.

"Five years ago this month, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and laid out a vision for the Middle East that included Israel and a state called Palestine living together in peace. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," the president declared." [Washington Post, 6/15/2007].

Within that declaration can be found the duplicitous intent marking the Bush Administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush may have given lip service to a “two-state” solution, but there has been no demonstrated commitment to actually achieving or promoting that objective. Bush called upon the Palestinians to conduct a free and fair election. They did so, but favored representation by the Hamas Party. Bush and the Israeli government really meant that the Palestinians should have a free election – as long as they chose to elect leaders that Bush and Tel Aviv considered preferable.

For their part, Hamas was probably as surprised as anyone by the outcome of the vote. They admitted that the Hamas Party was more of a reactionary community defense organization that had few seasoned “politicians” trained and ready to take the reins and govern the Palestinian Authority and to engage in foreign policy processes. Hamas reached out to Fatah for a coalition. But for the meddling intervention by the US and Israel, there might have been a chance for real progress. However, without at least trying tp respect the democratic vote of the Palestinians, the US and Israel immediately declared the Palestinian plebiscite illegitimate and refused to work with Hamas. Instead, they imposed harsh economic sanctions and withheld sorely needed taxes legitimately due the Palestinian people, pressure apparently intended to force the Palestinians to change their mind and make the "correct" choice about their elected representative.

Thus, through bungled attempts at threat and intimidation, a potential opportunity to foster a pragmatic moderation of Hamas views and behavior was ignored. The Bush Administration only reinforced the sense of injustice and oppression that led the Palestinian people to turn in desperation to Hamas in the first place. Now, after years without demonstrable progress and continued disrespect and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel and the US, Hamas has taken the position that a coalition with Fatah has been a failure. If Hamas joined with Fatah to obtain a sense of international legitimacy and to support diplomatic initiatives, experience seems to indicate to them that Fatah has failed to deliver the promised goods. Keep in mind that Israel has continued to arrest attack and kill Hamas leaders even when they have no evidence that the individuals attacked have actually engaged in any terrorist actions. Therefore, why bother to allow Fatah to control the Palestinian Authority any longer when Hamas is the duly elected representative? While this thinking and change of position is unlikely to improve the situation for the Palestinian people, the true victims in this debacle, the frustration of Hamas is at least understandable.

The Bush Administration is prone to simplistic labels and sound bites, rather than careful and thoughtful analysis. The Administration seems unable or unwilling to embrace pragmatic policies that require hard work and courage. Rather than just label Hamas a “terrorist” organization [even though the military wing of the Hamas Party has shown proclivity for indiscriminate violence], the Bush Administration could have done the hard and honest work of analyzing why the Palestinian people turned to Hamas. The severely depressed economic conditions they have lived in, and the treatment from Israel that President Carter characterized as akin to “apartheid” policies, has fostered a deep sense of despair and frustration among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead of approaching the situation in a thoughtful and constructive manner, Bush simply declared the democratic choice of the Palestinian people to be WRONG, and that the US would refuse to respect that choice. Bush encourages and supports Israel in its continued economic strangulation of the Palestinians.

Hamas portrayed itself as the only “champion” of the people. Whether or not that was an honest representation of Hamas motives, it was the best option or perhaps the only option that the Palestinian people could see on the horizon. When you have no hope, you tend to focus on today rather than tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Palestinian factions have turned on each other in their despair and sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Equally unfortunately, there are always opportunists who are ready to supply weapons in such situations rather than real aid and support. Guns are easier and more profitable to deliver than medical and humanitarian assistance.

Israel legitimately complains about rocket attacks by Palestinian militants and insurgents. These attacks are wrong, unjustifiable criminal acts. The current situation in Baghdad clearly demonstrates that when you have a near total breakdown of infrastructure, economic systems and political cohesion it is nearly impossible to control and eliminate rogue militant insurgent attacks. The situation in the Palestinian territories is not much different. To pretend that either Fatah or Hamas has complete control of such activities is like declaring that the streets of Baghdad are safe because Nouri Al-Maliki has been installed as the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is a foolish assertion.

The response by Israel of sending in attack helicopters to blow up buildings or tanks to kill children does more to worsen the problem than to decrease the bloodletting. There certainly is no leadership, pressure or encouragement from the Bush Administration counseling less reactionary measures. The decades of blood feuds and an ironic sense of complacency about chronic conflict provide limited constituency in Israel for supporting sustained peace initiatives at this time. And to do so is admittedly very difficult when it is hard to identify a reliable negotiating partner with whom to build a trusting and respectful relationship. Yet no such negotiating partner is likely to emerge unless the economic and humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people improves to the point where they perceive some hope for the future. And as long as the US encourages and supports military reactions rather than diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives, the situation will only deteriorate further [if that is even possible].

“After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state. “ [Washington Post 6/15/2007]

It is a further tragedy that Bush has no more political capital and has no clue as to why his inept foreign policy has contributed to the worsening state of affairs . The level of incompetence of the Bush Administration on so many fronts is truly astounding.

BLOGITOS: June 13, 2007

GUN REGISTRATION LAW: The House of Representative just passed a measure that will not only require states to automate and share information regarding individuals disqualified from legally purchasing handguns, but also provide limited funds to support the process of state level automation and information sharing. The FBI already maintains a database [NICS] of individuals barred from legal gun purchases. However, states do not routinely forward such information, for reasons of politics or antiquated record systems. So background checks are not terribly effective or reliable.

The gunman [terrorist?] in the Virginia Tech massacre was deemed mentally unstable and should have been prohibited from purchasing the two guns he used in the shooting. The unfortunate aspect of the measure is that it took a tragedy for Congress to act on a measure that is pure common sense and should have been addressed years ago. It is the typical government response of putting up a traffic light only after several people have gotten killed in accidents at a dangerous intersection.

HONESTY ALERT: A recent alert has been raised at the White House due to a major threat to the security of the Administration. It seems that there has been an insurgent movement of officials willing to actually tell the truth in public and for attribution. Despite strenuous efforts by White House functionaries to stamp out this emerging threat, the damage seems to be spreading as the alien menace grows. In a recent outbreak, the attempts by Vice President Cheney to plant false press stories alleging that the US military had caught Iranian agents “red handed” in the act of supplying arms to Iraqi and Afghanistan insurgents were foiled.

Secretary of Defense Gates publicly denied that any such capture had occurred. At best, he said, the interdiction suggested arms smuggling to drug dealers in Afghanistan, but there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the incident to formal or official Iranian government action. The NATO Command supported Secretary Gates and refuted the Cheney disinformation campaign. Unless checked, this outbreak of truth could cripple the Bush Administration apparatus and could even compel the President to deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Political and Psychology Experts seriously doubt that Bush and Cheney have the ability to tell the truth, and this could lead to a serious crisis for the Bush administration.

LET’S STAND HIM ON HIS HEAD: Many bystanders are scratching their heads about the lack of progress being achieved by the Iraqi Parliament toward the “benchmarks” established by the Bush Administration. Some of the confusion could be dispelled and better understanding gained by simply looking a bit more carefully at the specific “benchmarks” involved and the priority that the Bush Administration places on them.

The highest Bush priority seems to be approval of the draft legislation on oil revenue sharing. A fair question might be asked whether this should be the first order of business. The country is in such chaos that pumping and exporting oil is itself a dicey proposition. Is it truly most important how the revenue is dispersed when the revenue itself is under threat of being cut off? Looking behind the rhetoric about “power sharing” related to oil revenues, the real issue is forcing the vulnerable Iraqi Parliament to adopt a US drafted oil deal that grants to US and multinational oil companies rights and concessions far in excess of the licenses and leasing rights granted by any other OPEC nation.

The Iraqi Parliament has told US envoys that efforts to stabilize the country with some kind of unified security forces and to reduce factional violence are more appropriate priorities that oil legislation. But the Bush Administration will hear none of it. Cheney personally told Prime Minister Al-Maliki that the oil deal must pass soon or the US might be forced to withdraw its support of the current government. [Notice that Cheney DID NOT threaten to leave Iraq.] So the pressure to meet “benchmarks” debate is akin to standing the Iraqi government on its head and then kicking it when it falls down. Now doesn’t THAT make more sense?

MAKING THE LIST: Perhaps you cannot make it on the air as a candidate for the next American Idol or America’s Top Model or the like. It would appear, however, that you have a much better chance of making a different prestigious list - The FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. The most recent report indicates that there are now more than 509,000 currently on the List.

Since the US total population is slightly less than 300 million, and more than 1/3 of those are children, the basic math suggests that you have about a 1 in 400 chance of winding up on the Terrorist Watch List. Those odds are far better than any hope of securing a spot on a dream reality TV show. And let’s be frank, the usefulness of any screening list with more than a half million names is in serious doubt. If grabbing that fleeting chance for celebrity is your goal, then perhaps making the FBI Terrorist Watch List is your best hope.