A Supreme Noogie

Joe Wilson behaved himself last night. Sam Alito did not. Not to excuse Mr. Wilson’s behavior last year, but he was at least in his own chamber (which, come to think of it, makes his behavior even more ghastly - he disses his guests), and Joe is a member of the "loyal (to what) opposition." He was a partisan, responding in a partisan manner.

But even though he used his Library of Congress voice, Sam Alito’s mouthed outburst of "not true" to the President, in response to the President’s criticism of a recent SCOTUS decision, strikes me as an even greater breach of civility. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. While it’s obvious that the Justices, being human (we are told), have political leanings. But in their behavior while acting as a member of the Court (and sitting in the front row at a Presidential Address with television cameras on them would count), they are supposed to be above the partisan fray. Last night, however, Alito behaved as though he was a kid back in New Jersey, exchanging volleys of "Uh hu" and "Nah ah" with his sister. I expect better behavior from a full-grown Supreme. In fact, most of the time at a State of the Union address, the Justices sit on their hands, to avoid an appearance of partisanship. And while they might smile or frown, I am pretty certain no Justice has ever face-mimed "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" in a joint session of Congress.

Maybe Alito’s response to the President was based on a heart-felt belief that the Citizens United decision was so obviously The True Law of The Land, that any disagreement with it is unbearable, and requires immediate correction. But even that benefit of the doubt does not hold up. If Alito truly felt so strongly and passionately about any difference of opinion, then when is his own "home territory," Justice Alito at least should have been shaking his head the whole time Justice Stevens read his fiery dissenting opinion from the bench. Maybe stuck out his tongue. As far as I know, he did not do either. If he had, I’m sure Nina Totenberg would have mentioned it.

So I take Alito’s behavior as nothing less than another signal that the Supreme Court is not only activist and partisan, it is now jack-bootedly so. The conservative Justices do not truck outside dissent, to the point that at least one of them will behave like a kid playing basketball in Aunt Tilly’s living room: so focused on their own view of the world, that they lack any courtesy whatsoever when invited to someone else’s house. At Aunt Tilly’s house, that’s just bad manners. On the world stage, that’s usually played out as totalitarianism.

During the State of the Union, at least one member of one of the Cabinet is selected to sit it out. In the event that some disaster wipes out the U.S. Capitol Building, and all inside, we would have at least one "designated survivor" who can take the reigns. The Congress usually picks a few members to sit it out, as well. The Supreme Court does not traditionally do this. They are usually all there, and seated in the front row, as honored guests. But maybe it’s time that they leave Sammy home for the next one.

Then again.... If a disaster did occur, the surviving Judicial Branch would be made up entirely of: Sam Alito. So strike that last thought. Next time, Sammy, try to behave more like a Supreme Court Justice, and less like a pesky kid who cannot let a dissenting comment pass without responding with the Washington DC equivalent of a school-yard noogie.

A Nobel Gesture

I heard the news at 4:00 AM. I often awake early, and turn on the radio to help me drift back to sleep for another couple of hours. But I was wide awake this morning, and this news clinched it for me that I would not be returning to Dreamland.

I am a hopeful supporter of our President. I believe he's the right man at the right time. I am counting on him to pull us back from the precipice. At the very least, his election has stanched the hemorrhaging of our civil liberties and our national honor. I am relieved he's in charge. But when I heard that he’d won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was puzzled. Really? Now? Why?

I had no doubt that in the future, Mr. Obama will have earned the honor without any question. And I did think that thus far in his nascent presidency, he has managed to put a whole new spin on the course of our planet. But on the heels of Saturday Night Live's opening sketch last weekend ("Look at what I've accomplished with majorities in the House and Senate... jack squat"), I wondered: what was the Nobel committee thinking? Obama has not brokered any ground-breaking handshakes. He hasn't torn down any walls, caught any Nazis, or granted any micro-loans. He has not even assembled an Oscar-winning Power Point presentation.

What has he done?

As the day wore on, I took breaks from work to listen to the radio, and to visit Google, and I found my perspective on Mr. Obama’s resume evolving. He has actually accomplished a few things in his 47 years:

1. Instead of seeking a job with a cushy law firm (his resume certainly would have opened doors for him), he sought out the opportunity to be a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. That changed a few lives for the better.
2. He stood up to the entrenched power structure by questioning the "war" in Iraq, the violation of civil liberties, and the eroding of America's respectability in the world community that was happening under President Bush. That "call to arms," starting with his campaign for the Illinois state senate, is pretty much what got him elected President.
3. He has returned the US Presidency to its role as an active participant in efforts to reverse global climate change and end nuclear proliferation.
4. He enacted a financial bail out which - all other criticisms aside - has kept the world's financial system from total collapse. For now.
5. He has called for, and is trying to referee, the reform of our health insurance system.
6. He has reversed some of Bush’s more disastrous environmental policies.

Not bad for a rookie. By this time, his predecessor had already managed to lose the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and some real estate in rural Pennsylvania. But I also had to ask myself: What has he not done?

1. He has not closed Gitmo.
2. He has not stopped renditions.
3. He has not reversed the PATRIOT Act.
4. He has not yet fully awakened to the reality of the morass in Afghanistan.
5. He has not issued an order to stop "don't ask, don't tell," to halt the expulsion of gay military personnel.
6. Oh, and that Olympics thing.

These are not criticisms. OK, some of them are. But he's been in office only a few months, so to expect him to have accomplished much more would be a bit unfair. And as I have noted, he certainly could have done worse. But it takes more than not being Bush to get the attention of the Nobel committee. So I dug deeper, and by the end of the day, I had a different perspective on his accomplishments. He’s done a bit more with his time in office than hold a "Beer Summit."

Most impressive to me was that in his short tenure as the leader of the free world, he appears to have steered us away from a collision with nuclear holocaust. Last month, he chaired a United Nations Security Council summit meeting, at which a resolution was passed calling for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s a sure bet that his predecessor would not have offered support to any discussion of nuclear disarmament, especially if it was tied to a UN resolution. And to be the first US President to chair a UN summit meeting, let alone one on this particular issue - former UN ambassador John Bolton must be having the vapors. In fact, there are those on the right who saw Obama’s participation in the UN proceedings as a violation of the Constitution, and an abdication of US sovereignty. The Nobel committee, however, apparently sees it as a sign of hope that we as a species may live long enough to see the world population more threatened by climate change than by nuclear disaster (a good news/bad news proposition if ever there was one).

But if he stopped right there, he will have fallen short of expectations, even those held by his supporters before this morning’s announcement. I hope that this honor gives a boost to Obama's "political capital," so that he can fulfill that promise. I hope it makes him more Presidential, and perhaps a bit less Senatorial. And ok, I have to add: I hope it gives Misters Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck severe heartburn. Maybe this will at least dampen some of the "foreign-born socialist fascist Nazi Death Panel Dictator" rhetoric we've had to endure lately. Unfortunately, not even the RNC can manage to be grown-ups about this. Instead, the committee issued a petulant press release saying "It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." Perversely, they just cannot pass up an opportunity to find fault with our President, even for being the recipient of an award he did not seek, and that he himself has said he does not feel he deserves. One would hope that at least a few of them might take their cue from Sen. John McCain, who graciously put "Country First" in saying that "as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."

I am indeed proud.

I do wonder if the Nobel Committee has given Obama more of a burden than an honor by laying on him this mantle. The President did not seek it, and it should not reflect ill on him because he's the recipient of an honor. He is perhaps muttering under his breath "Thanks a heap, guys!" Still, if nothing else, the Nobel folks have set the bar pretty high, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Split Personality

A while ago I created my first blog. I billed it as "Rants and reflections from Way Out West." I have now come to the decision that the rants and the reflections each deserve their own playground.

So I will be in the process of transferring my Rants to PolySigh101 - a play on the classic freshman college course "Political Science 101," but with a deliberate misspelling that means "many sighs."

OK, you get the point.

So I have formally recognized my split Gemini nature in communicating with the world in two blogs. This one is the "Rants." The posts that follow are ones of a political bent, which have been imported from my blog "Kingston Kay." For the "Reflections," my poetic side (although rarely an actual poem), please visit my original blog http://kingstonkay.blogspot.com/.

Heeeere we go...

Bye-Bye to the Myth of "Bipartisan"

No, I have not been kidnapped, in a coma, or otherwise put out of your misery. But my "day job" seems to be recession-driven. I have, however, had it with the current noodle-spined majority leadership. I have the following questions for the Democrats:

How can anything be "bipartisan," when one of the partisans insists that it’s all or nothing?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has defined a "bipartisan" health care bill to mean "no public option." Hmmmm - no public option, which certainly also rules out "single payer." That equals..... WHAT WE HAVE NOW! So Sen. Grassley is saying "We, the minority party, get everything that we want, or we won’t even consider it." Not only is that not bipartisan, it’s not "reform." (And from their behavior during the stimulus bill debate, we’ve learned that even if they DO get what they want, they still won’t vote for it.)

The "bi" in "bipartisan" means "having two parts." The GOP’s insistence that any health care bill lack a public option takes the "bi" out of "bipartisan." The GOP does, however, have a handle on the concept of "bi" as in "bipolar." Their argument against the public option has a split personality: 1) The public option will be awful because the government can’t run anything right. 2) The public option will be so good, it will drive private insurance out of business. I won’t even get into all the things the GOP thinks the government does right (the military, and reading our private email, for starters), or the completely anti-free-market premise they are endorsing in wanting to protect the private insurance companies. The contradictory nature of these two talking points alone is enough to give you whiplash (treatment of which will cost you a $20 co-pay).

There is nothing bipartisan in the minority’s demands that they will get what they want, or they will take their toys and go home, but it is sooooo very GOP. Today, Sarah Palin resigned as Alaskan governor, because she could not put up with being a lame duck. Well, there’s public service for you! There’s bipartisanship! There’s maturity! That is, if you consider "maturity" to be one step above holding your breath until you get your way.

So grow a spine, Harry. Break some heads, Nancy. You were not put in the majority to assure that we continue steering toward the same cliff the GOP leaders have had their eyes on for the past eight years. Do what the American people put you there to do. And don’t do such a "bipartisan" job of it, that it ends up being ineffective and maybe even harmful. Just do it, and do it right! Yes, you run the risk of going down in flames. But the "bipartisan" course you are currently plotting all but guarantees that same self-immolation.

Farewell to George W. Narcissus

Last week, George W. Bush waved his official Bye Bye to all of us UnDeciders. What strikes me most about Bush’s farewell address is that it seems to be a plea to the American people to like him, even just a little bit. Because, as we've all been told time and again over the past eight years, it is all about the W.

He’s had a grand old time in office. Oh, yes, there was that 9/11 thing, but "This has been a joyous experience being the President.” When I heard that, it sounded to me like a kid saying that it was a lot of fun riding in the fire truck and ringing the bell. I got to be a fireman! I got to be President! Yippee!!

Oh, it's not all been fun. Oh, well, mostly it has. When asked in 2006 whether he was frustrated about the course of events in Iraq, he answered “Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy,” followed by, ah, “but war is not a time of joy.” No, not for most of us. Some high-profile media outlets edited out the happy talk from that sound bite. (CBS, NBC, I’m looking at you...)

And Bush has spoken of how grateful he is for the families of fallen soldiers. Because they make him feel better. How very sweet.

So in his farewell address, Bush’s vision remained firmly affixed on the reflection in the pool. “While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack.” Really? What world do you live in, W? If you measure “gravest threat” by those things that loom largest for most of us - things Bush has never personally had to worry about - we are not safer. The gravest threat to most of us is more likely food poisoning from an ineffective USDA, or the side effects of a new drug fast-tracked by a bought-and-paid-for FDA, than a terrorist attack. How about the loss of a job, or health care, or both? Half a million Americans will die in a single year from cancer, far more than have ever died from terrorism. That's pretty grave. What do you suppose the National Cancer Institute could do with the War on Terror’s annual budget of $370 billion? But for Bush, never mind any of that. He’s the Decider. So terrorism is not just a threat. It’s not even just a grave threat. It is “the gravest threat,” because that’s the only way he’ll have any kind of legacy worthy of a Presidential Library.

Bush further reflected that “Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks.” “I have experienced setbacks.” Not “we as a nation,” or even just “we.” “I.” That message has always been clear: “This is my Administration, not yours. You just sit back and think about your next shopping trip.”

But mostly he wanted us to know that his intentions were - well - intentional. “You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.” He wants us to appreciate that he was willing... to... do... what? What does “willing to make the tough decisions” mean? What the Hell does being President mean, if not a willingness to make the tough decisions? Isn’t that an entry level requirement for the job? So he’s saying “I hope you can agree that I was willing to be President.” Yes, George, I have to agree with you on that. And I’m willing to drive the fire truck and ring the bell, but that does not make me a fireman.

Finally, W wrapped up his self-congratulatory monolog with a touch of plagiarism (thank you, Ronald Reagan): “And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other - citizen of the United States of America.”

And we will be honored to let you return to that status. Not to mention quite relieved.

While the fat cats play, the mice will pay

GM CEO Rick Wagoner gets a salary increase, to make up to $2.2 million (plus stock options), while his company is losing money, so much so that we now need to bail them out.* (OK, it’s a LOAN, but it’s government assistance nonetheless.) As part of this deal, Wagoner does not have to give up his millions, but the workers have to promise not to strike, and to take a pay cut. Chrysler has a similar no-strike provision in its loan agreement. Ironically, it is the workers, in the form of taxpayers, who are giving the loan to Mr. Wagoner and Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli. Yes, those "greedy workers," who are finally getting what's coming to them for asking their company to honor the contract to which the company agreed. If the auto companies have to continue honoring their contracts with the workers, how are Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Nardelli supposed to feed their koi?

In truth, even if the CEOs do work for the much trumpeted single dollar, the money saved would not rescue GM and Chrysler. But if nothing else, the pressure on the UAW to bear the brunt of this bailout, while allowing Wagoner and Nardelli to keep their jobs - even for a dollar - just looks bad. Maybe it’s a done deal, but if there is anything that can be changed before this agreement goes into effect, then it should be changed. And if it can’t be changed, then there should be hearings on how this came about, so it won’t happen again. Otherwise, the conservatives will get exactly what they want: an end to the UAW, and the beginning of the end for unions in general, all courtesy of the US taxpayer, who are being asked to foot the bill for their own financial demise. This is taxation without representation, which, if I recall, was the basis of a revolution some years ago. In the name of enlightened self-interest, Congress and the millionaire Detroit CEOs might want to ponder that point.

* See:

Detroit News: "Strikes would imperil bailout funding"
Raw Story: "Bush Admin. to bar autoworkers from striking against GM"

Eight Years Later - Told Ya' So!

In 2000, I wrote to the Seattle Times editorial board, after they endorsed G.W. Bush over Al Gore for President (original Times article). What follows is my letter to them. In reading it again, it amazes me that so many of the pudits and political prognosticators have been caught off-guard by the death, destruction, and economic devastation of the past eight years. I had lost the letter since then, but finally found it today. Here it is, followed by an email I sent the Times in 2004, after they endorsed Kerry.
___________________________________

RE: Seattle Times endorsement of G.W. Bush for President
October 4, 2000

I was beyond "surprised .. disappointed, [and] dumbfounded" (Mindy Cameron) at the Times' endorsement of G.W. Bush for President. I have been consistently dismayed by the media's focus on the "exaggerations" of Mr. Gore, many of which have in fact been exaggerations by the press regarding what Gore said and what he meant (see "Will Pseudo-Scandals Decide the Election?" at http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-21/wilentz-s.html).

But for the Times to state that this decision is based upon an "overpowering need for integrity and civility in office, for a realistic balance between government and commerce, for a new, bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation" is naive at best, and ignorant at worst. Integrity and civility? Obviously the Times has been paying as little attention to this "compassionate conservative" as the rest of the "liberal media." This is a man who has been investigated for securities fraud. The SEC took no action - it was passed off as ignorance on Bush's part. This makes the Times' endorsement even more distressing. A man who had graduated from Harvard Business School, took his business through two mergers, and touts his business savvy, still managed to miss not one but FOUR SEC filing deadlines, and finally saw his business fail at the expense of just about everyone but himself. (Please see Times/AP article of September 07,2000 "Bush says Gore waffling on debates; candidate's ads suggest that vice president can't be trusted" by Laurie Kellman, and Eric Alterman's "The scandal no one cares about," found at http://www.msnbc.com/news/477199.asp). In light of this history, the Times' assertion that"Bush understands the dynamics of taxes, regulations and enterprise that form a successful business" is eery, if not downright frightening. Maybe Bush's foibles in this area were not intentional, maybe they were. Either way, I hardly want to trust this nation's future to a man who would either bungle things this badly or would intentionally defraud stockholders. By the way, the SEC was chaired at the time Richard Breeden, a former aide and appointee of the senior Bush. The SEC denies any favoritism. Of course they do. Who investigates the SEC?

That Bush would bring us "a realistic balance between government and commerce" is an interesting endorsement for a man who has a history involving the taking of private property for public use. Take a look at Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, through which Bush and his pals managed the expropriation of some 270 acres of private land, used less than 20 acres of it for his ballpark, and parlayed the rest into commercial ventures which apparently put quite a bit of change in his pocket. This is not to mention the cash he walked away with after getting his ballpark. A state judge later ruled that the amounts paid to the property owners involved was far below market value, and a settlement was paid. I obtained much of this information from very limited sources (including a Times/Knight Ridder article of May 27, 2000, "How Bush made his fortune" by Chris Mondics, and again Alterman's above-noted article at msnbc.com). All of this is certainly part of public record, court documents, etc. I've looked for it, but have found little from my computer in Kingston. But I'm a civilian. I count on the media to ferret these things out and inform the public. I'm very frustrated that this hasn't happened.

The Times also based their endorsement on a need for a "bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation," later stating that "Bush promises to bring a sense of bipartisanship to the White House and has shown that ability with Democrats in the Texas statehouse." Has the Times bothered to interview Democrats in the Texas statehouse? I have heard interviews with these supposedly happy bipartisans, and they are NOT all that happy. I dare the Times staff to dial the phone numbers of a few legislators in Texas with "D" behind their name and see how much cheer and goodwill comes through over the telephone line. Contrary to his implication that he brought harmony to the patient's bill of rights debate, they will tell you he was dragged kicking and screaming to the issue. He did not support it, and he did not sign it. The bill only became law because he declined to veto it, knowing he would be overridden. Ask these happy Texans about Bush's role in hate crimes legislation. He did not back it, but he was eager to take credit for its implementation in Texas. Bush accuses Gore of exaggerations and lies - go to Texas and meet with these people and see how jolly a bipartisan bunch they are. THEN tell me that Bush is the man to bring bipartisanship to Washington DC.

And while you're at it, reassure me that Bush's party won't have more to say about things in a Bush White House than Bush himself. To reassure those of us who question his qualifications for President, he has promised he will surround himself with people who know what they're doing. Most of these people - if not all - will be of the party that brought us one of the most partisan periods in recent memory over things that mattered little to most of the rest of us. Is Bush strong enough in his convictions to override his keepers and impose his will? And what are his convictions, anyway? In the Times' endorsement it is stated of Gore that "He equivocates on nearly everything." But the same statement could easily be made of Mr. Bush, as he artfully dodges the issue of abortion. This is the most distressing issue of all in reflecting on the Times' endorsement of this man. This is not just one election. This is not just one possible Supreme Court nomination. This is a possible four nominations. This one election could cost women dearly in the years to come in their right to control their reproductive decisions. We already live in a time when the right of a husband to decide to end a pregnancy to save the life of his comatose wife has been challenged in court by a complete stranger. We live in a time when a woman has been prosecuted for opting to undertake natural childbirth rather than undergo a caesarian section as recommended by her doctor (and both mother and child were healthy after natural childbirth, by the way). We are hanging on to our reproductive rights only by sweat and vigilance. The editorial staff of the Times can wait for some other election to have a romance with "free-flowing" talk and illusions of integrity. With these possible nominations in the balance, I am horrified that the Times would endorse, using words like "clear choice" and "superior candidate," a man with whom they admittedly disagree on this important issue. And with the endorsement of a man so obviously flawed and ill-prepared for the most powerful station in the world, these words cause me to question the integrity and credibility of the Times itself.

___________________________________

September 7, 2004:

RE: Times Endorses Kerry - So what were you thinking four years ago?

The Times has seen the light - finally! Following your 2000 endorsement of Bush for President, I strongly objected, arguing (with documentation) the following:

1) The Times saw an "overpowering need for integrity and civility in office." I expressed serious concerns, including an SEC investigation of Bush for securities fraud. Although the investigation was later dropped, I pointed out that either Bush was incompetent, or he had committed fraud - neither quality is something I wanted in a chief executive. And judging by the company Bush keeps (Enron, anyone?), I'm not buying the ignorance defense. Now, in 2004, the level of "integrity and civility" - from lies about Iraq to Cheney's potty mouth (telling Sen. Leahy on the Senate floor to go f*ck himself) - is probably not what the Times had in mind. (Bush used the same naughty word in a 1999 interview with Tucker Carlson, evidence of his "integrity" I missed in my 2000 rant to you.)

2) The Times hoped Bush would bring "balance between government and commerce." I suggested you look into Bush's expropriation of 270 acres of private land, using a few acres for his ballpark, and parlaying the rest into profitable commercial ventures. Once President, Bush granted inflated no-bid contracts to his oil cronies. Old habits are hard to break.

3) The Times also hoped Bush would bring the same "sense of bipartisanship to the White House [as] with Democrats in the Texas statehouse." I dared you to call some Texas Democratic legislators, and check their "goodwill" level. You would have heard how Bush's "trophy" bills (hate crimes, patient's rights) became law despite Bush's opposition. Now under this "uniter," the country is more divided and polarized than ever in my lifetime. Surprised? I'm not. But then, I was paying attention in 2000.

Oh, there's more, much more, but I'm limited to 200 words (already exceeded). So here are my final three:

Told ya' so!