CNN IS OFTEN FAIR DESPITE MY VIDEO CRITICISM TODAY
I posted a video commenting on the situation in Gaza and I was particularly critical of a few CNN commentators. Now I have just seen other commentators and they covered a wider range of views.
The big problem remains that Israel often ends up the bad guy whenever it fights to defend its citizens. A UN-brokered cease fire means that the Israelis stop defending themselves and the Arabs then have free reign to kill as many Jews as they like. There never are UN emergency meetings when the Arabs are killing Jews. That is seen as the natural order of history.
Yes, they do, but they need a little nudge from ordinary humans. The
Israelis are lauding the fair coverage of their campaign in Gaza. [See
here.] This is amazing news and it comes in part from the more intelligent
-- though brutal -- Israeli battle plan and in part from their smarter use
of the Internet and modern communications technology. We shall see what
impact all of this has on the long run because the Palestinians have voted
to support a suicidal and terrorist set of leaders in Hamas. How sad that
ordinary Arab kids and other civilians have to die in this utterly
unnecessary war declared by the subhuman savages who lead Hamas. Gaza
should by now be a garden spot on the sea visited by thousands of peaceful,
happy tourists from Israel and around the world. The Arab leaders spend
their time and effort in hate and killing rather than in productive
educational and commercial pursuits. They are truly suicidal in all senses
of that word.
I would like to start the new year with more hope but the facts do not
support it. The Arabs -- that is, those in leadership positions and those
who support them by the hundreds of millions -- seem determined to continue
to wallow in hate and misery. The Gaza Arabs voted in Hamas and there is no
doubt that they knew what they were getting -- perpetual war and death in
the name of defeating and killing the Jews. All that appears likely now is
that the Jews will keep fighting them rather than be annihilated and the
Arabs will continue to do the same and never surrender to the hope of a
brighter peaceful future. In this atmosphere a two-state solution is a pipe
dream. The Arabs have chosen misery. Please God, I fervently hope I am
wrong and that 2009 starts to prove me wrong and that righteous Arab leaders
miraculously emerge.
However, at least one Israeli writer does seem to agree with my pessimism.
No country in the world would tolerate a neighboring country firing thousands of deadly missiles into its territory and no country in the world, other than Israel, would be so severely criticized for doing something about such a situation. Even the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank and the Egyptians acknowledge that the blame for the current death and destruction ultimately lies with Hamas.
David Brumer, a member of the executive committees of StandWithUs/Northwest & the Seattle chapter of the American Jewish Committee, has written an exceedingly strong vindication of Israel’s right to self defense. Among other things Brumer answers the frequent charge of “disproportionate response” by saying that,“proportionality is defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has actually produced. Currently, Israel's objective is to cripple the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and prevent Hamas from launching further attacks against Israelis. Since it is the primary responsibility of any sovereign state to protect its citizenry, the Israeli government should be expected to do nothing less. In fact, many irate Israelis, especially those in missile distance from Gaza, believe the enactment of this fundamental governmental responsibility has been long overdue.”
John Studer comments on two of my recent messages including the one on the coverage of the Gaza situation. He observes that the Gaza coverage is typical of media bias and that no better example can be found except the stories on Bush's exercise habits as compared to those dealing with Obama's. Outrageous comparisons. Here is Studer's
message to me yesterday: The current Gaza coverage? No better example of media bias…unless it’s this: Tale of Two Presidential Workout Fanatics.
The rules are simple. Even though the Israelis handed Gaza to the Arabs as
a peace offering, the Western media gets upset only when Israel responds to
thousands of Arab attacks on its citizens. The Arabs have a right to incite
hatred of all Jews and a right to seek to kill them all, men, women,
children and babes in arms, starting with those in Israel. Any response by
the Israelis is always disproportionate. What a weird world! It is best explained by Melanie Phillips here.
Young girls living in Kurdistan are commonly forced to have their genitals injured in a painful procedure where the clitoris and often the outer labia are cut off. Sometimes the vaginal opening is nearly sewed shut. The practice can be fatal and regularly results in continuing pain and other health problems for its victims. The Washington Post has run an article, by Amit R. Paley, on the extensive religious practice of female circumcision in the American occupied country. She reports that, “Kurdistan is the only known part of Iraq --and one of the few places in the world--where female circumcision is widespread. More than 60 percent of women in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have been circumcised, according to a study conducted this year. In at least one Kurdish territory, 95 percent of women have undergone the practice, which human rights groups call female genital mutilation.”
Bernard L. Madoff is accused of bilking investors out of $50 billion in an elaborate and long running Ponzi scheme. Unfortunately many of the organizations and people who were severely damaged had been using their money to help numerous charitable causes. Other people were left destitute.
However, those sad occurrences may not be the only misfortune Madoff has brought upon our society. It seems that the way the mainstream media is covering the story could be producing an increase in anti-Semitism, expressed though both thought and action. An AP article on the subject quotes the American Jewish Committee's executive director, David A. Harris as writing that, “yes, he is Jewish. We get it. But was this relevant to his being arrested for cheating investors or so key to his evolution as a businessman that it needed to be hammered home again and again?"
The Associated Press is reporting that George Bush has issued another 19 pardons. Among those receiving clemency are three people with nonviolent drug crime convictions.
However, the most noticeable pardon is a rare posthumous one for Charles Winter who was fined $5000 and sentenced to 18 months in jail for violating the Neutrality Act. His “crime,” was providing the Israeli Air Force with two bombers during their fight for survival in 1948. The articles states that “Winters, a non-Jewish Miami businessman who exported produce, worked with others to transfer two converted B-17 ‘Flying Fortresses’ to Israel's defense forces. He personally flew one of the aircraft from Miami to Czechoslovakia, where that plane and a third B-17 were retrofitted for use as bombers.” Well done President Bush.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has issued a report, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2009, concerning the state of free speech at American schools of higher education. Their press release tells us 364 colleges and universities were studied and that, “approximately 74 percent of schools surveyed maintain policies that clearly restrict speech that, outside the borders of campus, is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
It is being treated as a big joke and a great way to demonize George Bush again, all over the Arab world but also among the opinion leaders here. In my view this was an attack on all Americans and on all of our values. Barack Obama should show his ivy league education and sense of ethics by making an urgent defense of our president. Perhaps he has but this is being written late at night and I have not seen any recent statements from Obama. He might point out that Mr. Bush was elected twice by democratic processes and he represents the American people, all of us, even those who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. I voted against Mr. Bush twice but I claim not to suffer from the syndrome. Unless we defend him from these dangerous insults the world will indeed believe that we have gone soft and mushy. I do not believe we have to defend the Iraq war or all of Bush's policies but we must defend him as our duly elected leader or we will keep sliding down the slope toward irrelevance.
We might also point out that had that Iraqi journalist thrown a shoe at Sadat or even Saddam Hussein when he was in power, he would be dead by now, or wished he were.
I am writing this late at night because of my sense of outrage and I intend to return to this subject in the days ahead.
Mr. Goldberg is a powerful critic of the media. Read this and weep. Goldberg writes that, "The mainstream media, or the so-called mainstream media, is always going to have its thumb on the scale because it's always rooting for the Democrat over the Republican. But this year, it was different. This year, the media jumped the shark because this year, without any embarrassment, they embraced one of the candidates running for president. They took a politician – a politician from Chicago, no less – and deified him. They turned him into St. Barack. This time around, they weren't content merely, merely, being a witness to history; this time, they felt that they had to make history because this time they had a noble cause – not just to elect a Democrat, not just to elect a liberal, but to elect the first black man in our nation's history." Of course, I am now delighted that Mr. Obama is in office but like Bernie Goldberg I am appalled at the prostitution of power in the press.
CIA QUESTIONNABLE ROLE IN SHOOTING DOWN PLANES WHICH MIGHT ... ?
The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, has revealed that when it comes to the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs such formalities as evidence and a trial are not necessary before an execution. Between 1995 and 2001 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) helped the Peruvian Air Force shoot down 15 small civilian aircraft in the name of fighting drug use. According to Hoekstra, “many of the shoot-downs were made without warning within two to three minutes of the planes being detected.”
Whether or not there were any drugs on these planes will probably never be known because their charred wreckage is lost in the vast South American jungle. The CIA’s “Airbridge Denial Program” only ended in 2001 because one hit plane managed an emergency river landing and the world learned that an American missionary and her daughter had been killed.
By every standard, the terrorist monsters won. The best explanation of this
awful fact was penned by Steven Emerson, a courageous expert on the subject.
Read this and weep -- but then please get angry and demand intelligent action on the part of the American government, the media, and opinion leaders.
In the last four years only Iraq has lost more people to terrorist attacks than India. National syndicated columnist Rich Lowry gives his analysis of the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai. As he sees it, “coming just weeks after Barack Obama's election, the massacre explodes the left's most reductive explanation of Islamic terrorism: that President Bush and his provocations, including the Iraq war, dangerously inflamed Muslims and fueled terror. With a security agreement setting a goal of a U.S. exit from Iraq by 2012 and Mr. Bush leaving office, jihadists are still at their monstrous handiwork. They have an ideological goal larger than any one conflict or any American president.”
The case against drug prohibition is overwhelming. It is racist, unjust, costly, and it does not do what it purports to do, stop people from using the currently illegal drugs. In this coming time of limited resources it more important than ever that politicians listen to experts like retired Vancouver police officer, Tony Smith. After telling us he is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) Smith asks, “we all believe that drugs are not good, but it is ‘the War on Drugs’ that is causing most of our problems. This war costs 2.5 billion dollars a year in Canada and 10 times that amount in the United States. WHY?”
He is correct in noting that the Swiss are apparently ready for medical heroin but not for marijuana in any modality. Thanks to Al for pointing this out.
Amity Shlades, a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, discusses Barack Obama’s plan to spend the nation out of our current economic downward spiral from an historical perspective. The intellectual foundation underlying the president-elect’s proposed course comes from the work of economist John Maynard Keynes. However, Shlades points out that is “problematic. For Keynesian solutions often fail to deliver good or even acceptable results.”
She gives a number of examples of Keynesian failure such as the stagflation the followed Johnson’s Great Society program and most recently the Bush stimulus checks that were sent out. After noting that the data shows consumers saving those checks rather then spending them, Shlades argues that, “one reason consumers don't want to spend is that they don't react instantaneously, as Keynes posited they would. They follow, rather, the theory of an economist oft-presented as the anti-hero of the moment, Milton Friedman. Friedman's permanent-income hypothesis said that consumers consider their entire future, and not just their mood, when they shop. If expectations of lifetime earnings drop, then so will spending.”
Perhaps the most important problem that America faces today is the inability of so many people to think critically about issues. Therefore in modern higher education a turn towards emphasizing the skill of critical thinking is now prominent. However, do the words match the deeds?
In an essay by Temple University professor, Stephen Zelnick he describes classes and textbooks that supposedly support development of critical thinking. He finds them to be presenting an exceedingly one sided viewpoint. Zelnick writes that, “if colleges really want students to be able to think critically, they could start by insisting that professors not use books in which all the authors are pushing the same message, that students should be unfailingly hostile to our culture and institutions. Teaching students to regurgitate anti-American sentiments is not the same as teaching them critical thinking skills.”
Thanks for the link to the Zelnick essay on critical thinking. You might be interested in a related essay by Victor Davis Hanson at this link.
One key paragraph:
Traditional colleges and universities aren’t about to die, of course. But their attractions—and especially the enticements of the Ivy League schools, Stanford, Berkeley, and such private four-year colleges as Amherst and Oberlin—will largely derive from the status that they convey, the career advantages that accrue from their brand-name diplomas, and the unspoken allure of networking and associating with others of a similarly affluent and privileged class. They are becoming social entities, private clubs for young people, certification and proof of career seriousness, but hardly centers for excellence in undergraduate education in the classical sense. For all the tens of thousands of dollars invested in yearly tuition, there will be no guarantee, or indeed, even a general expectation, that students will encounter singular faculty or receive a superior liberal arts education—let alone that they will know much more about their exceptional civilization than what they could find on the Internet, at religious schools, or on CDs and DVDs.
COLD REALITIES ON IRAN FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT
Obama harped on the failure of Bush to pursue peaceful meetings with Iranian leaders. We now learn, thanks to Steven Rosen and the Middle East Forum, that there have been at least 28 major meetings between top level US officials and their counterparts in Iran. Results: negligible. Rosen claims that the easy options are gone. Our new president will have to face these cold facts, as I have repeatedly predicted. The choices are terrible on all sides.
One of the consequences of our government’s prohibition of heroin use is a black market for the drug where the strength of any individual dose is unknown. This leads far too often to problems with an overdose. Also, because heroin is illegal when someone does have a problem the people around them are often reluctant to seek help not wanting to put themselves in legal jeopardy.
Both of theses factor came into play in suburban Fairfax County Virginia where 19-year-old Alicia Lannes overdosed on heroin and died. The Washington Postis reporting that when her “boyfriend, Skylar Schnippel, realized Lannes was in trouble, he didn't call her parents or 911. He dialed some buddies and asked them to check on her, said her father, Greg Lannes. Schnippel's friends crept to the family's windows about 4 a.m. March 5 and saw that Alicia was unconscious. They went to a pay phone and made an anonymous call to 911.”
If heroin were legal and regulated then the chances are that Alicia would not have taken an overdose. However, even if she had overdosed under a legal regime those around her would have sought official help immediately and greatly increased her probability of survival. No doubt those who support and benefit by the illegality of heroin will exploit the sad death of Alicia Lannes to bolster their position but the reality is that if drugs were legal she would most likely be alive today. We as a society may not like heroin use but it should not be a capital offense.
That is an important question. According to Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance, the answer is not a happy one. All who care about this matter should heed his advice and oppose the choice of a cave dweller for that position.
OBAMA SENDS SIGNAL DRUG WAR TO CONTINUE AT FULL SPEED
By Keith Halderman
One of the strongest constituencies to support the election of Barak Obama was the drug law reform community. His victory has been seen as a good opportunity to advance the agenda of a more sensible legal regime. However, these hopes have suffered a significant setback with the announcement that committed drug warrior Eric Holder Jr. will be the new Attorney General.
In a misleading article published by The Washington Post, attributing increased violence to marijuana rather than its real source marijuana prohibition, Holder is quoted as asserting that, "we have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," as he advocated more active enforcement along with stiffer penalties for marijuana offenses. Also, The Washington Timesreported that, “Eric Holder yesterday said he will seek to make marijuana distribution in the District a felony and reinstate mandatory-minimum sentences for convicted drug dealers. Mr. Holder … said the D.C. Council's vote a year ago to repeal mandatory minimums was ‘misguided,’ leading to a backlog in the court system. He also warned that the city is on the verge of an explosion in violence associated with the sale and use of marijuana.”
The war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the most racist institution in modern America. How ironic and sad that our first black president has appointed as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer another black man who so enthusiastically supports the racism inherent in drug prohibition.
In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Jerome Taylor, a writer for The Independent Of Britain, has an essay titled Cocaine is destroying Colombian rainforest. In it he describes damage to the environment done by cocaine producers. He asserts that, “on top of the vast tracts of rainforest that are destroyed to make way for coca fields millions of tons of herbicides and fertilizers are washed into Colombia's rivers.”
Taylor also notes efforts to convince users of cocaine that they are responsible for these bad effects. He quotes Colombia's Vice-President, Francisco Santos Calderon as arguing that, "every time you consume one gram of cocaine you are destroying 4.4 square meters of Colombian rainforest."
All of the problems described by the author would be mitigated or disappear if the coca plant were legal. The reason people plant coca deep in the rainforest is because it is illegal. The reason the chemicals used to make cocaine are just dumped into the nearest stream is because the industry is outlawed and therefore unregulated. Also, let us remember that the herbicides mentioned in the piece are there because of governmental efforts to eradicate the coca plant. If the drug was legal people would be able to partake without causing any more environmental damage than other crops do, so it is clearly not the user’s fault. The blame lies with drug prohibition and anyone who cares about the rainforest environment should be advocating an end to war on people who use certain kinds of drugs.
The Baltimore Sun is reporting another case of political correctness infringing on reasoned academic discourse. Some members of the Loyola College of Maryland Economics Department signed a letter apologizing for the racial and gender insensitivity contained in a guest lecture given by economist Walter Block. In his very interesting and detailed account of this incident Block notes that the school is in the process of changing it name to Loyola University of Maryland. He goes on to say that, ”it takes more to make a University, worthy of the name, than number and quality of students, publications of faculty, physical facilities. It also requires a certain openness to ideas, enthusiasm to tolerate different opinions, civility, politeness, willingness to dialogue instead of shutting down debate. Attempts to squelch support for free enterprise and laissez faire capitalism, by smearing adherents as 'racists,' or 'sexists,' is simply incompatible with being a great institution of higher learning, worthy of the name ‘University.’”
Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute Charles V. Peña discusses the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority plan to begin randomly searching its passenger in the name of fighting terrorism. Do these searches make sense? Are they constitutional? There are some strong arguments to the effect that they do not. Peña points out that, “because the searches will be random, the odds of catching anyone are low. Let’s assume that 700,000 people ride Metrorail on any given day and that ridership is evenly distributed between all 86 stations. Let’s also assume that searches are being conducted at half the stations. That means 350,000 people would be subject to search. If 1 in 10 persons are searched, only 35,000 out of 700,000 total riders (about 5 percent) will be searched. If there are 10 possible terrorists amongst 700,000 riders (an almost infinitesimally small percentage of the population), the probability of catching even a single terrorist as a result of a random search is near zero. In other words, it amounts to a finding-a-needle-in-the-haystack operation with odds that are only slightly better than winning a million dollars in D.C.’s Powerball lottery.”
In addition, the effort will take an enormous amount of manpower thereby degrading the ability of the transit police to fight ordinary crime such as robbery and rape. Not only will riders be unconstitutionally inconvenienced but they will be less safe too.
YES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA WHEN THE PEOPLE HAVE A SAY
This last election the voters in Michigan approved a ballot measure legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes by a margin of nearly two to one. The Bay City Timesreports that measure passed with 63% of the vote, winning in every county. The paper quotes Everett Swift executive director of MIHEMP as saying that "the large margin of victory only goes to show how out of touch the Michigan Legislature and governor are with the people of Michigan."
This morning she expressed a thought that bears listening to -- America
throws long. Indeed, and we are not sure if the new guy can catch the ball.
At the same time I remain very impressed with him and like almost everyone
wish him well. I also remain apprehensive and wonder what he is going to
do.
The ancient Mayans believed that the dead must travel a road filled with horrors such as sharp knives, jaguars, bats, and rivers of blood. Now, it is being reported in a fascinating story that, “a Mexican archaeologist using long-forgotten testimony from the Spanish Inquisition says a series of caves he has explored may be the place where the Maya actually tried to depict this highway through hell.”
The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has posted a chart showing the overwhelming success of ballot initiatives dealing with marijuana on Tuesday’s election. Nine out of nine questions directly involving marijuana passed with eight of them having over sixty percent of the voters in support.
They also see other reasons for optimism in the election results. In a fund raising e-mail MPP points to numerous changes in the make up of Congress which favor their positions. In addition they quote the Obama campaign as asserting that, "many states have laws that condone medical marijuana, but the Bush Administration is using federal drug enforcement agents to raid these facilities and arrest seriously ill people. Focusing scarce law enforcement resources on these patients who pose no threat while many violent and highly dangerous drug traffickers are at large makes no sense. Senator Obama will not continue the Bush policy when he is president."
Your website has become part of my regular reading, Arnold.
Enjoyed your video commentary, thank you. I did not vote for Obama, but like you, in these precarious times, I sincerely wish him nothing but the best.
I also share your concerns, especially in the foreign policy/national security sphere. I am reminded of the old joke about the Secretary of State rushing to the airport with an emergency “lights and sirens” escort. He is driven out on the tarmac to his plane and dashes up the steps. He is met at the door by the pilot, who asks, “Where to?” “Anywhere,” replies the Secretary. “We got trouble all over.”
I applaud your comments on the deranged demonization of the Bush administration. I note in passing that Bush himself seems perfectly willing to await the verdict of history.
I do not think that the Bush administration, whatever its flaws, is viewed by our enemies as wishy-washy on national security. But I do remember Kennedy’s near-disastrous first year and the effects of his perceived lack of strength. We of course do not need to remember the effects of the Carter administration’s failures with Iran and Afghanistan , because we still live with them. And during another recent administration—in many respects admirable, but often referred to as a “holiday from history”—the chief executive said “pass” on bin Laden.
Like you, I pray that Obama is tough enough, that he chooses wise counselors, and that he can learn from the mistakes of past administrations without repeating them.
NO JUSTICE FOR TAXPAYERS
The Associated Press is reporting that the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac includes an obligation to pay the legal bills of any of their executives who are prosecuted for illegal acts. It writes that, “with the Justice Department investigating companies involved in the mortgage and financial meltdown, executives around the country are hiring defense lawyers. Like many large companies, Fannie and Freddie had contracts promising to cover legal bills for their executives.”
WE HAVE TREATED OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT WITH UTTER HATE
I did not vote for Mr. Bush and worked very hard against him but unlike much
of the country I do not hate him. The intensity of the attacks has hurt the
country and emboldened our enemies. For shame. Look at a longer essay on
this subject here.
I was overwhelmed by my own feelings and by those of the people who appeared on the television screens last evening. Obama was magnificent and so was McCain in his remarks. I came to vote for Obama after much agony as I reported on this site but I am glad I did and I am delighted he was elected.
On the other side of the discussion, this interchange on Morning Joe is a vital part of the whole reality. It is a plea for open minds by everyone, especially those who were on the winning side yesterday. This is must-see television!!
In the previous post there was a link to an essay by Linda Chavez. She wrote that, “all fair-minded Americans understand race should not be a factor in choosing our next president, so why should race continue to play a role in deciding who gets into college or receives a government contract or is hired or promoted in a government job? It makes no sense to argue we're supposed to be colorblind in the polling booth but color-conscious in so many other areas.” Apparently, the voters in Nebraska listened to her type of arguments and passed a ban on the consideration of race in admissions decisions by public colleges and universities.
It is election day, 2008. By 10:30am I had voted for Barack Obama. In a suburban Maryland county, not far from Washington, almost everybody is voting for him. In fact almost everybody I know anywhere is voting for him. And almost all of them are white voters. There is every likelihood that he will be elected.
As I said yesterday on this site, I voted for His Hopeness for a wide range of reasons along with a prayer that he will be able to overcome the many challenges that now confront him. As I explained, he will soon find out that many of the actions George Bush took were not based on personal whims but on hard realities. I predicted that he would be greeted as a hero by much of the Muslim word and by the mushy left in the West but when he eventually responds with military force to some jihadist threat, many of his former admirers would feel utterly betrayed. As the perceptive Hirsi Ali just wrote, " much of his popularity would vanish. Perhaps it would even fall to the level of George W. Bush."
There are many other issues President Obama must deal with, not least is the issue of affirmative action and diversity in employment and the college application process. On election day, Linda Chavez wondered how we take the position that race should not be considered in voting for a president but that it should be a factor in deciding who gets into college and who gets a job. Obama the candidate seemed to say that he would expand the reach of affirmative action. Will he be able to get away with that when he was elected as the equal opportunity candidate?
The greatest challenges to our new president lie of course in the area of national security. What will he do when Iran announces it will eliminate Israel within a few days? Hold hands with the mullahs and sing cumbayah? Dispatch troops and aircraft to the Golan Heights? As I have said I will pray that our new president shows the wisdom to meet these challenges but I remain quite worried. Anybody who is not, is, I submit, a fool.
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT -- WITH MY HEART IN MY MOUTH AND A FERVENT PRAYER
I am happy to report that the agonizing is over. Of course I know that the world wasn't waiting for the end of it, but here it is. I will vote the Obama-Biden ticket tomorrow and believe that it will be best for the country if it wins.
I remain fully aware of all of the problems with Obama as president, not the least being his associates of so many years, including especially Wright and Farrakhan. It does not bother me that some of his associates are called radical or socialists or extremists. My Dad voted for Eugene Debs for president when he was in jail in, I think, 1920. He was of course the Socialist candidate.
My chief worry about Obama in the Oval Office is that I do not think he is tough enough in his approach to the monsters that rule many of the countries full of people who hate us. John McCain on the other hand will be tough enough and will scare the monsters more than a bit.
Then why in the world have I come down on Obama's side? First and foremost because if Obama is defeated it will be a crushing blow to millions of African-Americans while the defeat of McCain will be less of a blow to his supporters. Moreover, Obama's election will be a great boost to those same African-Americans and to many Americans of other races who worked emotionally for his victory. His election will indeed be transformational in that it will allow commentators like me to continue to argue that we have truly reached a post-racial era and that American blacks must shed other leaders who thrive on the victimhood claim.
One of the greatest problems in this country is the extent of black crime. It is the holocaust in our living rooms which most black victimhood racketeers, like Jesse Jackson and All Sharpton and Cornel West, deny and make a living from. My hope is that President Obama, the former Chicago community organizer, can start making serious inrods in the horrific level of black crime, starting with the murder rate in Chicago.
For perhaps the first few months, much of the Muslim world and much of the mushy left in the West will be delighted with President Obama. Soon, however, he and they will realize that the actions of American presidents are dictated not by their personal whims but by hard historical and political facts on the ground. When commander-in-chief Obama directs the first tough military response to a jihadist challenge, millions of people around the world will be shocked and outraged. That is fine with me because so much of the world hates us because we are free. We must continue to be free and to accept the hate of those parts of the world that are not free.
There is also the fact that I was part of the civil rights movement and still am. In my heart of hearts I too am delighted to see a black man enter the oval office. Only in America!
The real purpose of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is to make a moral statement. After all, there is abundant evidence that this intense and often violent government activity does not only fail to halt drug use but in some cases actually encourages it. Drug prohibition can only be described as a luxury. Now though, with the current failures of our economic system it is a program the state can no longer afford.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has just published an editorial calling for government to rethink the drug laws. We can expect many more such editorials from around the country in the coming days. The question becomes will the politicians listen to such wisdom and serve the public interest or will they continue to serve special interests such as the prison guards union?
Already in California Proposition 5 will reform the prison system diverting large numbers of individuals from costly imprisonment to much less expensive drug treatment thereby savings the taxpayers a substantial amount of money. However, many politicians such as Senator Diane Feinstein and Jerry Brown have decided that the political support of the prison guards union is more important than the state’s roads, schools, and other necessary programs, which need the funds that will be saved by Proposition 5 changes. Is it too much to ask that in 2010 the voters will remember this betrayal?
Sarah Palin had some very specific criticism of Barak Obama’s widely broadcast infomercial. Accusing him of neglecting issues surrounding the nation’s safety in his television program, she said that, "in times of economic worry and hardship — crisis that we're in right now — someone is attempting to put those concerns aside on Election Day — national security issues."
There are many reasons why thinking Jewish-Americans could vote for
McCain-Palin. Lori Lowenthal Marcus lays out a persuasive case for this
action, which very much appeals to me. I am still not sure, however, just
how I am going to vote in a few days. Much personal agonizing sill going on
-- but I am leaning heavily in the direction of this writer.
INTERESTING COMMENTS BY NETWORK JOURNALISTS ON OBAMA
Fascinating events from the networks. Campbell Brown on CNN observed that Obama took in massive amounts of money in large part because he broke an open and solemn promise to take only government money. And Joe Scarborough stumped an Obama supporter as to the most important legislative accomplishment that Obama achieved. The supporter was stumped and was reduced to generalities. Ol Joe then observed on air that this guy has done nothing but run for president since he graduated from Harvard Law School. Apparently, some television journalists are starting to realize that they must live with themselves when this biased campaign is over.
It has been reported more than once that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) anti-drug ads are ineffective and there is strong evidence that they have a reverse effect actually increasing drug use. In December the issue of the American Journal of Public Health yet another study will be published proving the above facts to be true.
The investigation was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communication and the Drug War Chroniclequotes the authors as saying that, “The evidence does not support a claim that the campaign produced anti-marijuana effects. There is little evidence for a contemporaneous association between exposure to anti-drug advertising and any of the outcomes... Non-users who reported more exposure to anti-drug messages were no more likely to express anti-drug beliefs than were youths who were less exposed.” They went on to assert that, "Despite extensive funding, governmental agency support, the employment of professional advertising and public relations firms, and consultation with subject-matter experts, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign had no favorable effects on youths' behavior and that it may even have had an unintended and undesirable effect on drug cognitions and use."
Senator McCain has said he wants to take an axe to the federal budget while Senator Obama has said a scalpel is needed. Axe or scalpel, this useless and often slanderous program needs to be eliminated.
With the vapid mainstream media concentrating on length of time in office, wardrobe cost, family issues and reading habits there seems to be very little time devoted to how Sarah Palin actually performed as Governor of Alaska. Fortunately, Byron York of The National Review has investigated the question. After reading his comprehensive article one can only conclude that Palin did a very good job especially on the issues of ethics and energy policy, most certainly areas of national concern.
MELAINIE IS HORRIFIED AT THE THOUGHT OF BARACK IN THE OVAL OFFICE
And so are many other people. I do not think I am now horrified just
agonized over how I will vote. Still. Melanie's argument is worth carefully reviewing. It fits with Krauthammer's
column today.
The seven hundred billion dollar bailout for Wall Street bankers also included a lucrative gift for psychiatric self-interest groups. An amendment to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 requires health insurance companies to cover the treatment of mental illness and addiction in the same way they handle cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. This is called parity.
However, Jeffrey A. Schaler and Richard E. Vatz point out in the pages of The Baltimore Sun that this backdoor change to the nation’s medical care system is both controversial and very expensive. They write that, “Quietly slipping the parity requirement into the financial bailout bill legislatively resolves a half-century of contentious debate over the definition of ‘mental illness,’ whether ‘psychiatric disorders’ are medical disorders, and the nature of addiction. What it does not resolve are the many valid objections to the whole concept of parity - objections that have never been satisfactorily answered.”
LATIN AMERICA SEEKING TO ESCAPE U.S. IMPOSED DRUG PROHIBITON VIOLENCE
As reported in this space Mexican President Felipe Calderón has introduced legislation to decriminalize drugs in his country. Both Venezuela and Bolivia are engaged in conflict with the United States over drug policy. And, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has also advocated the decimalization of these substances.
The latest leader to add his voice to this enlightened chorus is Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. During a meeting with drug ministers from 32 Latin American and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, held in Tegucigalpa, Zelaya called for an end to the criminalization of drug use. He prefaced his advocacy of this policy change with the statement that, "the trade of arms, drugs and people ... are scourges on the international economy, and we are unable to provide effective responses.” Zelaya went on to argue that, "rather than continue to kill and capture traffickers, we could invest in resources for education and training," One can wonder if education and training will make much of a dent in the minds of drug traffickers but it may do more good than guns and bullets in at least a few cases.
The countries on earth whose governments’ come closest to practicing classic socialism are located for the most part in Northern Europe. When the history of socialism is taught at major universities the overwhelming focus is on white males. No dictionary definitions of socialism ever mention blacks. Instead they describe an economic system that is racially neutral. Yet, Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Startells us that in fact socialism is really a racist code word, what nonsense. Frankly this constant finding of racial motivation in everything that anyone says or does has gotten very old rather quickly. It has now become a parody of itself.
THE MONSTERS OF RADICAL ISLAM MUST BE UNDERSTOOD ... AND FOUGHT WITHOUT ANY RESPITE
Read this story and you begin to understand the evil -- yes, pure hateful evil -- that civilized people face in the world. Whole national societies
as well as hordes of American university professors and students claim that to criticize this "noble freedom fighter" (who with a co-terrorist bashed a little girl's skull in with a rifle butt simply because she was Jewish) is bigotry. Our entire society is in danger of collapsing unless we realize the nature of the challenges we now face. The war on terror and on Islamic fascism is not a hoax perpetrated by George Bush but a vital part of our effort to save Western Civilization.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has recently defied the Bush Administration and addressed the racist disparity between sentences for crack as opposed to sentences for powdered cocaine. According to syndicated columnist Tom Teepen they are planning to recommend other reforms. Because the states are now spending $44 billion a year on prisons and keeping people incarcerated is their fastest rising expense our current economic situation may present an irresistible argument for money saving change.
Teepen tells us that, “candidates tangled in a long bidding war to see who could propose the most draconian sentences for the most offenses. Even legislators who knew better went along with the frenzy for fear of being ripped by opponents in the next election as soft-on-crime saps. The fad for mandatory minimum sentences rewrote federal and state criminal codes.” Perhaps now the absolute need to use limited funds wisely can finally overcome the mindless and misguided desire to be seen as being tough on crime.
The Red Sox did push the series to the very end, to game 7. And then they
ran out of miracles. The Tampa Bay Rays created a few miracles on their own part in going from the worst team last year, by some standards, to perhaps the best this year. Hats off to them.
We all have to be proud of the events at the Al Smith dinner last night with both presidential candidates and many other bigwigs being kind and having fun at each other's expense. How civilized.
YES, VIRGINIA THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS AND YES OTHER KINDS OF MIRACLES ALSO HAPPEN
I went to sleep last night in about the seventh inning of the Rays-Red Sox
game. The Rays showed a massive amount of talent and ability. Never have I
seen a ball club so powerful and relaxed in their wining ways. The Sox were
down 7-0 in that seventh inning, an impossible situation for them.
Therefore, I wrote a message congratulating the Rays and expressing regrets
for the Sox. That was about 10:15 or so last night. It remained on the
site as can be plainly seen. When I got up this morning I did not believe
the story that appeared on the Red Sox site. The Sox had come back and won it in the ninth inning 8-7. By any standard that is impossible and yes a miracle. Tell the children that there is a Santa Claus and that all things are possible if they try and do not give up.
As this is being written the Tampa Bay Rays are truly crushing the world champion Red Sox. There are a few innings yet to go but the outcome seems certain. The Rays will be the American League Champions, a remarkable achievement for a team that has consistently been the worst in the league. Hats off to them and my condolences to the Red Sox and all of their loyal fans around the world. Of course, I remain one of those loyal fans.
After November 5, 2008, the first step of the new leader should be to initiate
proceedings to repeal the First Amendment. It clearly has no place in this
country any more as is reflected in this story from The Washington Post about the lack of freedom of expression in the Washington area. Then we should create an Established Church with Mr. Obama as Pope.
THE FAILURE OF THE MSM MAY BE THE GREATEST LOSS IN THIS CAMPAIGN
A lot has changed in this camapign season. It seems that we have lost a
belief in many institutions, one of the latest being in the Mainstream Media
(MSM). While I do not always agree with the harsh criticism leveled by
Michelle Malkin I believe she is right on target in nailing the bias of the
MSM on reporting on the rage directed at the conservatives as compared to
that directed at the liberals. Lets hope President Obama rises above all
this bias and hate.
JESSE JACKSON SAYS PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL DOWNGRADE ISRAEL AND ZIONISTS
In a major speech and an interview with vast -- even explosive -- political import Rev Jesse Jackson declared that when Obama enters the White House the practice of
putting Israel's interests first will cease and the influence of the Zionists who allegedly control American policy will be lessened. It is difficult to think of a more biased set of remarks coming several weeks before the election and on the eve of the last presidential debate. Get ready for the mainsteam media to either ignore the remarks or explain them
them away. It will be interesting to see what Obama himself says.
My question is whether or not Jackson is intentionally trying to defeat the man he said he wanted to castrate. Of course, this is a form of political castration.
In the recent presidential debates nary a word has been said about drug prohibition and the millions of people in American prisons and the next one promises more of the same. As investigative journalist Silja J.A. Talvi points out, in an authoritative and inclusive article posted on AlterNet, that would not be the case if these encounters were being held in Mexico. The widespread and incredibly brutal violence now happening there would demand attention.
After Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006 he deployed 30,000 troops in an attempt to break the country’s drug cartels and the Bush Administration has responded with an offer for $400 million more American tax dollars to support the effort, a 20% increase in the Mexican anti-narcotics budget. The result has been 3500 drug related murders as opposed to the 2500 that took place last year and in a poll published on October 4th “40% of Mexicans felt less secure since Calderón's drug war offensive began. Another poll published by the Mexico City daily, Reforma, showed that more than half of Mexicans believed that the cartels, not the government, were winning the drug war.”
However, it appears that change may be coming as on, “October 2, Calderón proposed legislation that would decriminalize drug possession, ostensibly for personal use. Not just for marijuana, as one might have expected in a country where pot smoke has not been demonized to the same degree as in the U.S., but for cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, as well.” This new direction in policy found support in the previous administration of Vicente Fox but the Bush drug war apparatus managed to stifle it. Therefore the question becomes has the level of violence risen enough to overcome the U.S. government’s support for said violence?
In 2002 the Bush Administration committed itself to reducing drug use in America by 25% within 5 years. On The New York Times Science Blog John Tierney declares the effort a stark failure. He draws upon a report published in The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform by Jon Gettman, a senior fellow at the George Mason University School of Public Policy, to make his case. This accounting was sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and it evaluates the same database used by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to make an opposite claim.
Gettman comes to three main conclusions: "1. The Bush Administration has failed to reduce or control marijuana use in the United States. Marginal changes in marijuana and other drug use have been distorted to support false claims that incremental progress in reducing marijuana and other drug use has been achieved. Marijuana use is fundamentally the same as when the Bush Administration took office and illicit drug use overall has increased. Drug use data do not support Bush Administration claims that its policies have had a significant impact on illicit drug use in the United States.
2. Increases in drug treatment admissions for marijuana (often cited by officials as "proof" of marijuana's dangers) are driven by criminal justice policies rather than medical diagnosis. These policies increase public costs for providing drug treatment services and reduce funds for and availability of treatment of more serious drug problems.
3. Bush Administration documents acknowledge and document the failure of their national drug control strategy."
MELANIE PHILLIPS' TAKE ON OBAMA: STUBBORN TROUBLING FACTS
While I do not like the use of the phrase "far-left" and so on, I find the
facts she cites against Obama and for PALIN to be very powerful. I remain very uncomfortable with Obama and with the liberal nutcases by the millions who are drinking the hysterical Kool-aid to elect him. He may turn out wonderfully when in the Oval Office but that is a complete crap shoot. We do not know what he stands for.
I'm not sure what McCain stands for, either. One minute he's saying he won't increase or create new taxes, the next he's saying we need to help foreclosed homeowners with a bailout--which means either borrowing more $ from China et. al. or...more taxes. Also his whipping his supporters into a frenzy a la Jerry Springer over such non-starters as Bill Ayers--if he's so dangerous, why ain't he in Camp X-Ray with all the other "terrorists?"--and then back-pedaling and telling those same supporters that they don't need to be afraid of an Obama presidency.
As to Sarah Palin? I'm sorry, she may be a nice lady, but her refusal or inability to answer questions, plus her fudging of her record (e.g., supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" before it became politically expedient to oppose it) and her phony cornpone "Doggone it, Joe, say it ain't so" dialogue (you knew she was just waiting for an opportunity to wedge that in during the VP debate) sets my teeth on edge.
Anyway, I've decided to vote for Ben Bernacke. He's the one who's really in charge at this point, anyway. And let's face it--the Demoplicans and Republicrats could merge and become the Business-As-Usual Party. Which they already are.
THE ATTITUDE OF SO-CALLED LIBERALS TO ANYONE NOT FOR THE MESSIAH
I can testify that the attitudes seen here dominate the liberal view of
anyone not enthusiastically for Obama. While I do not agree with all of the
written comments on the screen about leftists -- since I am one -- I can
assure anyone who will listen that the hate for anyone even questioning
about voting for Obama is truly reflected here. That hate also infects the
media. How sad. Look at this video carefully and share it. Again, I do not to this day know who I am going to vote for but this video leans me to vote for those who are hated.
Over at Townhall.com Debra J. Saunders presents some interesting observations on how the race card will play out this year. She maintains that, ”of course, racism exists in America and there are white voters who will not vote for a black candidate, but there are also many white voters who would love to see an African-American in the White House.”
A question on many people's mind is what role will race play in the up coming contest? Here is more support for my previous argument in a column that Obama's race may help him rather than hurt him in the election. On the Gallup website Frank Newport informs us that, "while 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account."
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), John Walters, is upset because videos depicting drug use are appearing on the internet. Even though a study conducted by the research firm Nielsen Online found that only 5% of the 6000 teens surveyed had seen such videos on sites like MySpace and YouTube, the Drug Czar still thinks parents should be worried enough to spy on their children.
Perhaps, Walters fears competition in the business of encouraging drug use among the nation’s youth. After all back in 2006 USA TODAY, while covering a General Accounting Office study on the program, reported that the “$1.4 billion anti-drug advertising campaign conducted by the U.S. government since 1998 does not appear to have helped reduce drug use and instead might have convinced some youths that taking illegal drugs is normal.” Also, for all the Drug Czar knows these new videos showing people high and acting stupid will actually discourage drug use.
Lastly, since a great deal of the time, effort and money spent in the government’s war on people who use certain kinds of drugs has always been directed towards demonizing and censoring those with opposing views, Walters’ statement that "Nobody's talking about censorship over the Internet here, what we're talking about is legitimate parental supervision” is likely disingenuous at best.
For those who want to take their minds off much more important matters, here
is a good description of how the Red Sox beat a great Angels team in the bottom of the ninth inning. With apologies to Yankee and Angels fans and to
my overseas friends who do not share my addiction to the Bosox.
The headline should read ADDICTION CONTINUES INDEFINITELY, NO CURE IN SIGHT.
I truly wish that I did not care if the Red Sox win or lose but I do. It is a mystery to my friends in other countries that I keep checking the news for baseball results. It is a mystery to me as to why I keep watching their games. For me and for millions of other Americans, baseball loyalties outweigh almost all others. It is plain nuts. However, there it is. I lose sleep watching them on the west coast and elsewhere. I will probably loose sleep for weeks in the future now that they have won at the first level. What fools these mortals be. There are so many more important things to worry about but there it is.
Never during my long life do I remember any economic situation as bad as the current financial meltdown. Many experts are urging a retreat from stocks into treasury bonds and into gold -- really into anything but the stock market. For some this may make much sense. For most my untutored and inexpert advice is to hold tight and to keep all of your holdings exactly where they are, including in the stock market. Of course if you happen to have some truly bad stocks get rid of them. Otherwise, hold your positions, be cautious in all actions, and wait for the amazing American economic system to come to its senses. And one other thing. If you can swing it, buy some good stock. I just did. A small number of Google shares. How can I go wrong with that?
Considering it came from a columnist for The New York Times, David Brooks’ review of Sarah Palin’s debate performance is surprisingly positive. He states that, ” She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative.”
Former marine and Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, F. J. "Bing" West, is the author of No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah and The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq. In the pages of The Atlantic he offers a detailed explanation of the recent U.S. success in Iraq. West asserts that, ”the foremost reason for the turnaround is that the Sunni population switched from attacking American (and Iraqi Army) soldiers to aligning with them against al-Qaeda. What prompted that switch was the behavior of the American soldiers contrasted with that of the al-Qaeda fighters.”
Just to make the record clear and to calm my relatives and friends and readers down, I am thinking of voting for the Republican team for president but I have not made up my mind. Thinking, get it? To repeat my reasons in a nutshell: Obama and the Dems seem wishy washy on all kinds of threats, domestic and foreign. Obama keeps changing his mind on vital issues. Yet, in the first debate Obama seemed the much nicer person while McCain seemed mean and superior. In a world in which we face monsters leading nations that want to destroy us and Israel, who do you want in the Oval Office, a nice, cerebral guy who knows not of war or a mean, unblinkered SOB who has fought in a war? On this day at the end of September, not many days before we all have to vote, I am not sure of my answer. If you, my dear readers are sure, I wonder if you have weighed all the risks properly. Are you simply voting your traditional loyalties and emotions, which may have nothing to do with the cruel realties we all face now? I may end up voting my traditional values and for Obama and Loose Lips, but if they win, that may well mean the end of Israel and the end of ....?
To paraphrase Anatole France: when intellectuals do a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.
I know Obama doesn't have the experience. Joe Biden helped create the Drug Czar. John McCain, for all his great service to this country, is not my friend. But he is one heart attack away from turning over the country to a 1/2 term Governor who prefers weasel-wording and mockery to informed, logical discourse, whose idea of education was a degree in communications. This qualifies her to be a news anchor, not a Vice President. None of these four seem to have much respect for civil liberties or the Bill of Rights. I don't trust Bob Barr's virtual overnight conversion to respecting civil liberties. And Nader et.al. don't have a chance.
So who the Hell do I vote for? I'm thinking about it too. Which makes me and you elitists, according to the writer Harlan Ellison: "Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing."
Arnold Trebach replied:
Well said. I am still agonizing as are you apparently. Lets hope our research and reflection comes up with some good answers soon.
EDUCATED AMERICANS FOR SARAH
Here is an antidote to all the superior dissing of Palin. This is on
Steyn's web site and is a must read. I particularly liked the reaction of the lawyer who served on the Harvard Law Review, including some time with His Eminence, and as a result has switched parties from Dems to Repub. He intends to vote for McCain-Palin largely because of Palin. As for me, I often find Harvard lawyers a bit too precious for common words. A few examples below:
Bryan P. Jones wrote: "As Sarah said about Harry Reid's 'can't stand John McCain' being the best endorsement possible, I cannot think of better endorsements than irrelevant Canadian and snotty Euro-lib women also hating her. She is getting more perfect by the minute!"
Ezra Marsh wrote: "Our elitist media (honorable mention here to David Frum) provide a reminder that certain friends alleviate the need for enemies. If any of these media dunderheads worked for the DNC, Howard Dean would have fired them by now. 'Let's diss hockey moms!' 'No, let's diss soccer moms!' 'No, let's diss women in general!' 'Let's diss small towns, people who devote their evenings to PTA meetings, hunters, gun owners, Alaskans!' 'Let's diss special needs kids!' But poor Howard can't fire them, he can't advise them and he can't control them, so all he can do is sit with his hands folded while they drive the Democrats' experiment in participatory busing right off the cliff."
Jerry Cline wrote: "I was a Ron Paul supporter with little enthusiasm for McCain - until Palin. I was once a 'downscale' white person, the son of a Teamster. I'm now an 'educated white voter' and will be casting my vote for Palin in November."
After citing this modified William F.Buckley quote: "I would rather be governed by the first 500* names in the Wasilla, AK phone book than by the editors of The Harvard Law Review."
Joe S. from Toronto wrote: "I couldn't agree more. While I never have been to Alaska, I was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (overlapping His Eminence himself for a short time). All I can say is it's hard to imagine how the good citizens of Wasilla (including the children) could be less mature or more lacking in judgment than that self-revering collection of resume builders. I came to Harvard a Democrat; having the experience of being governed, literally, by the editors of the Law Review, I haven't voted for their ilk again."
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is accusing the Obama Campaign as well as “St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Senator Claire McCaskill" of having a plan to use law enforcement to intimidate critics of the Democratic presidential candidate.
MY VIEW OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WAS ON THE ISSUE NOT DISCUSSED
On the whole I thought both candidates did quite well and I would rate the debate, which just finished, a draw. In that case, since McCain probably is behind in the polls, it must be rated a narrow victory for Obama. Yet, my main attention was not on the issues under discussion. My age and memory came into play. During the fifties and sixties I can remember being in the South and protesting racial bigotry which was often backed up by violence. As a federal civil rights offical I often investigated violent actions that stopped Negroes from exercising their civil rights. During 1962, I was in Mississippi on a federal investigation while federal troops were in Oxford, not far away, to put down the riots that ensued because one black man was about to be enrolled in Ole Miss. Violence and fear dominated those areas.
Then I sat there tonight and watched a black man up on the stage debating a white man in an auditorium at Ole Miss and there was a large mixed black and white crowd in attendance. The black man may well be the next president of the United States. And it was all peaceful! When I say that we have made enormous progress in this country and that we are in a post-racial era, the event tonight proved it once again. That is true whether or not the black candidate wins. It was all civilized and peaceful and decent. And in the best traditions of democracy. That is what kept flashing through this old mind and memory. We all should be proud.
Hello again, Arnold . Just revisited your website. Very even-handed of you to print Suzannah Sloan’s comment. But I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the last two sentences of your essay: "If I vote for McCain it will not be because of Obama's race but for many other reasons based upon objective analysis. That, I assure you, is not racial bigotry."
What part of this didn’t she understand? I wish that she had been kind enough to enumerate your “code words,” as she says, because even after two degrees in English, 6 years of college-level teaching, 5 years in trade-magazine journalism, and 20-plus years in technical and corporate print communications, I don’t have a damned clue what she’s talking about.
I fear that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) has morphed into ODS. The derangement of Obama’s opponents, some of whom appear to believe that he’s the Antichrist, is exceeded only by that of his acolytes, for whom anything short of a hosanna is prima facie evidence of bigotry. That derangement blinds them to the simple truth of your comments today about last night’s debate. Best wishes.
A SAUDI CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER
I feel so stupid and ignorant. I never heard of this organziation right here a few miles from me. Wow. Talk about courage. I will pay attention to their work from now on. Everyone should.
The following essay was published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
By Arnold Trebach
Now that Barack Obama is slipping somewhat in the polls the cry has gone out in the land that if indeed he is defeated, it will be the result of racial bigotry.
CNN's Jack Cafferty summed up the thinking of many when he observed that the differences between the two candidates could not be better defined: "Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense ... Unless it's race." Read "racial bigotry." Michael Grunwald of Time magazine agreed and said race is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.
However, I want to talk about it. To get to the bottom line right now, all of those doomsayers are wrong on many counts.
Remember that Obama has not been defeated as yet and the odds remain that he won't be. He is an incredibly talented speaker with a wonderful resume. He won a grueling primary victory over Hillary Clinton through the votes of millions of Americans, most of whom will show up on Nov. 4.
Yet, there is no doubt that racial bigotry will play a role in the final result and that multitudes of people will vote against him simply because he is an African-American. On the other hand, there are other multitudes who will vote for him precisely because of his race. Those positively inclined multitudes are composed of at least two major groups.
The first major group would be the blacks who view his candidacy as a vindication of centuries of abuse and as a matter of healing grievous wounds that still fester in the hearts and souls of the black experience in this country. The second major group is composed of whites, mainly liberals, who believe that this nation must demonstrate to the world that America has put its bigoted past behind it and welcomes with open arms its first nonwhite chief executive.
Those positively inclined voters greatly outnumber the bigots. If they did not, how did Obama create that tsunami of votes that swept him into the nomination? That tsunami of nonbigoted voters demonstrated something that is yet another elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss.
We have to face the happy fact that America has evolved into a largely post-racial society. This positive fact runs counter to the standard victim catechism spouted by liberal university professors, such as Cornel West at Princeton, my alma mater, and by many racial entrepreneurs, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
The fact that Obama won the Democratic nomination in a fair and open election proves my point. If he fails to win the final election, this will not disprove my argument that this country is in a post-racial era. What would his defeat prove? It would demonstrate primarily that millions of people, for whatever their reasons, were convinced that he was not the best person for the job or that they liked the other candidates better.
I suspect that my own angst about voting for him is characteristic of many other voters who have not made up their minds. Never, in a long and happy life, have I ever, drunk or sober, voted for a Republican presidential candidate.
Yet, I am thinking of doing so now because I believe that the nation is in such danger from Islamic extremists and from national leaders who encourage them, especially Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and also the leaders of Saudi Arabia. I want a tough leader in the Oval Office to confront them and their ilk, such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Moreover, I want an American leader committed to the survival of Israel, our major ally in the world.
John McCain seems the toughest of all four candidates. The Democrats and Obama leave me wondering if they have the guts to face the political monsters of the world. I suspect that McCain, even with a naïve vice president at his side, is more likely than Obama to courageously confront the great threats facing our nation. If I vote for McCain it will not be because of Obama's race but for many other reasons based upon objective analysis. That, I assure, you is not racial bigotry.
The comments of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s readers can be viewed here.
I saw it in the PI, and also saw the “comments of a different nature.” That’s what you get for not following the official party line, Arnold !
Those comments stimulated me to search (fruitlessly) for your email on the AU and SPA sites, since I didn’t want my brief comment to get buried in the diatribes on the PI. But your website of course came right up on google.
Christopher Hitchens made a point similar to yours in an essay earlier this year.
His final paragraph: "I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice." The full essay can be found here.
Thanks again for your essay. As far as those other comments go, Non illegitimati carborundum!
Suzannah Sloan sent this comment:
If your guest opinion in a recent issue of the Seattle P-I shined any light on the presidential contest at all, it made very clear that race will indeed be a determining factor in the election. You have never voted for a Republican, but you might vote for McCain because he would courageously confront the great threats facing our nation? Give the world a break! Do you think we’re stupid? Do you think we don’t recognize code words? Do you think we need you to enable us?
I am a lifelong moderate Republican who cares so much about my country that I am for the first time in my long and happy life voting for a Democrat. Why? Because I don’t want that undereducated senile hothead (or a dimwitted neophyte) within ten miles of the nuclear button. The last eight years have been painful enough, and I am ashamed to have played even my small part in allowing them to happen. I want a cool head running things for a change.
Only a bigot would make the statements you made. Only a bigot would put this country at enormous risk by elevating an unstable, flip-flopping idiot to the position of dealing with state leaders. You, sir, are most definitely a racial bigot. It’s time to stand up like a man and admit it.
PERHAPS SARAH IS NOT SUCH A LIGHTWEIGHT BIMBO AFTER ALL
It would seem that Gov. Palin has learned a few things about international
politics in the last few weeks. It also seems that she knows how to at
least make the right sounds when it comes to the monsters that threaten the
world. She certainly sounds tougher than many Democrats and much like
McCain. Is this just sound and fury meaning nothing or... ?
A study undertaken by the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Mo., the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Association of State Attorneys General has been published in the journal Pain Medicine. It claims that the government’s war on doctors who prescribe opiate based pain relief is an illusion .They base their conclusion on data which shows that between 1998 and 2006 the number of doctors prosecuted or sanctioned by state medical boards for over prescribing narcotics was 725 or 0.1 percent of all physicians. The study asserted that, “the widely publicized chilling effect of physician prosecution on physicians concerned with legal scrutiny over prescribing opioids appears disproportionate to the relatively few cases.”
Much of my work over the past 35 years has dealt with examples of the bad effect that the threat of criminal prosecution has on doctor's willingness to prescribe pain medications. This applies to my books, articles, and consulting work in the defense of doctors wrongly accused of mis-prescribing. Clearly, the purpose of the government’s campaign against the prescription of pain relief is not to put doctors in prison but rather to be in charge of their practice of medicine.
Indeed, The New York Timesarticle reporting the study includes information calling the findings into significant question. First off the, “study’s authors acknowledged that their review, while extensive, did not account for prosecutions against doctors brought by state and local law enforcement officials.” This is a serious omission, as Cato’s Radley Balko has pointed out that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has been a partner with state and local law enforcement. While the federal effort has been extensive it is only part of the endeavor He also argues that doctors are an easier target for law enforcement and that many physicians have been subject asset forfeiture before they even come to trial. None of these instances of punishment are covered by the new study.
Additionally, one of the study’s authors, Dr. Scott M. Fishman a pain specialist and professor at the University of California, Davis, reveals that arrest is not the only method of control. He tells us that “one has to temper the interpretation of the data with all the other phenomenon of how physicians perceive the heat of regulators. Most of us have had visits from the D.E.A., and I can tell you that it can be a scary thing.”
Sadly, it seems the campaign has been successful despite what the above study says. Doctor’s offices now display signs announcing that no OxyContin is prescribed here. The Village Voicereports that medical schools now, “advise students not to choose pain management as a career because the field is too fraught with potential legal dangers.” And, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has advised its members not to prescribe opiate based drugs.
While what has been done to physicians is appalling, we also should take a moment to consider their patients. The Village Voice essay quotes a women suffering from the aftermath of a broken back and unsuccessful surgeries. She says “You worry every day that the medicine won't be available for much longer, or your doctor won't be there tomorrow because he's been arrested by the DEA." From her perspective the new study is deceptive at best.
Sadly, Charles Whitebread, respected legal scholar and one of the foremost authorities on the history of marijuana, has passed away. He co-authored The Marihuana Conviction perhaps the most comprehensive history of marijuana prohibition in the United States, A tireless advocate of marijuana law reform Whitebread wrote, ”Law may be rooted in fiction as well as fact. Indeed, a public policy conceived in ignorance may be continuously reaffirmed, ever more vehemently, so long as its origins remain obscure or its fallacy unexposed." His wit, insight, and dedication will be sorely missed.
AN INSPIRATIONAL LESSON FOR THE KIDS AND FOR ALL OF US: LESTER'S NO HITTER
In the midst of all the awful news and predictions of doom in the world, it
is good to stop periodically and look backwards a bit and at something other than war and elections. Yes, the Boston Red Sox and any other team that catches your attention. Lester was a young player who came down with a bout of cancer, recovered, and within two years had done the impossible. He
pitched a no hitter in Fenway Park. When anyone is down, or pessimistic, think of that amazing accomplishment, even if you are a Yankee fan. Watch the last out and the reaction of his team mates especially his boss, Coach Terry Francona. All of you can do the impossible.
Yes, I agree with Melanie. Most of the American Jews I know would indeed
vote for Caligula's horse if it were a candidate of the Democratic Party.
Same for most of the non-Jews I know. Liberals! I may end up voting for His
Holiness from Harvard but not because I hate the other party's candidates.
And it will be a reluctant vote because I truly believe that the Republican
ticket will be tougher on the monsters of the world while His Holiness
will...? What? Nobody can be sure because his position on everything
important keeps changing.
One hopes that the conditions Melanie Phillips describes in this alarming
commentary on the UK do not reflect the situation in the US -- but one
cannot be sure.
Carlos Alberto Montaner, an advisor for the Center on Global Prosperity and President of Firmas Press, in an excellent article is arguing that the after effects of Hurricane Gustav in Cuba are likely to persist for decades. Cuba is especially vulnerable to these huge storms and was hit by hurricanes more severe than Gustav in 1926, 1932, and 1944. In all of these cases recovery from the storms occurred within six months. However, forty-five years ago, after Castro took power, Hurricane Flora hit the island and Cuba still has not recuperated from that storm. People who lost their homes then are still living in “temporary” shelters.
Montaner explains the disparity by stating that, “in the highly state-driven socialist societies (legendarily unproductive, all of them), there is only one center with a supply of resources (notoriously limited, always) that is capable of making decisions and executing them. That generates a chain of arbitrariness, corruption, and inefficiency that often translates into a creeping paralysis of the recovery process. Simply put, the functionaries who make the decisions are not the victims themselves but an intricate skein of apathetic bureaucrats who couldn’t care less if a house or a bridge is rebuilt because their responsibility—in the best of cases—is to parsimoniously distribute the few resources
