Young Moline Mother Returns to Mexico

photograph by Kuni Takahashi of the Chicago Tribune. Click on the picture to see it full sized.

The woman in the bed in the picture is 28 year old Mariana de la Torre, a Moline resident for two years, until her recent return to her native Mexico. You can still tell, if you use your imagination at little, how pretty and vivacious she was before the cancer and the radiation and the chemotherapy took her hair and her strength.

A little over a month ago one of the oncology nurses at Trinty Hospital in Rock Island told my wife, who was there as a friend and translator for Mariana, that she did not understand why the doctor was treating her so aggressively. "There is nothing more to be done. Why doesn't he just discharge her?" But Mariana had told the doctor that she wanted to go home to Mexico to see her children and family. The doctor ordered one more round of chemo to get her well enough to travel. That got her just strong enough that she could fly home, although she needed someone to go with her to handle the ostomy bags and tubes and ambulances were needed to take her to and from the airplane. The above picture was taken a few weeks ago in Mexico at the hospital Mariana was taken to by ambulance from the airport. The three children are Mariana's. They had not seen each other since December 2006, when she left them with an aunt and crossed the border illegally and came to the Quad Cities looking to earn money that she could send back to Mexico to support her children. She had just left an abusive husband and had no way of earning enough money by herself in Mexico.

The day after this picture was taken the Mexican hospital asked Mariana where she wanted to die and then released her in her brother's care. There was nothing more they could do for her.

There is an article in today's Chicago Tribune about Mariana's situation.

Workers without borders

There is a very interesting op-ed in this morning's New York Times by Jennifer Gordon proposing a change in how we handle immigrant workers.

Despite stepped-up enforcement at the borders, hundreds of thousands of immigrants still come illegally to the United States every year. Raids terrorize immigrants but do not make them go home. Instead, rigid quotas, harsh immigration laws and heavy-handed enforcement lock people in. As the recession deepens, undocumented immigrants will hunker down more. They may work less, for worse pay, but they will be terrified to go home out of fear they can never return.

Read the entire article for her solution.

How much bipartisanship is there going to be in Washington?

Quite a few of the talking heads in the media have been claiming that Obama must be judged to have failed if he cannot get Republicans to support his proposals, even though the voters elected enough Democrats to Congress that legislation can be enacted with no Republican support in the House and only a couple of Republican votes in the Senate. This being the case all Republicans have to do is say 'No' in order to have Obama judged a failure. Of course, if they simply say 'No' to everything they will have sacrificed their chances to accomplish anything positive. Do they care so little about what is good for the country that they would try to scuttle needed legislation just for partisan advantage?

Here is Rush Limbaugh, default head of the Republican Party, on bipartisanship. (From his speech yesterday at the CPAC).

Bipartisanship occurs only after one other result. And that is victory. In other words, let's say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in congress. What they mean is, we check our principles at the door, let them run the show and then agree with them. That is bipartisanship to them. To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we have politically cleaned their clocks and beaten them.

If the Republicans in Congress continue to follow Limbaugh's lead there is going to be very little bipartisanship in Washington.

Who wants to hang with Rush Limbaugh?

On the American Prospect blog Sarah Posner reports:

In his CPAC speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted that conservatives are more "interesting" and "fun" than liberals. Here's his proof: "who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich when you can be with Rush Limbaugh?"

McConnell's comment causes me to suspect that the chasm between liberals and conservatives in this country is immense and unbridgeable. I find it hard to imagine anyone preferring the company of Rush Limbaugh to either Paul Krugman or Robert Reich.

Instant Polls show public liked Obama speech

As reported by Sam Stein of Huffington Post:

Instant public surveys on Barack Obama's address before Congress showed, by in large, that the public was incredibly receptive to his speech, regardless of political party. ...

A CBS News poll of approximately 500 people saw approval of the president rise from 62 percent before the speech to 69 percent afterward.

Meanwhile, a poll on CNN showed that 68 percent of respondents -- who skewed a bit Democratic -- viewed the speech positively, 24 somewhat positively, and only eight percent not positively. Eighty-two percent supported the president's economic plan as outlined in the speech, while 17 percent opposed it.

Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s official Republican response received a less favorable response. Here is how the Fox News panelists, who are usually receptive to the conservative point of view, responded:

BRIT HUME: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”

NINA EASTON: “The delivery was not exactly terrific.”

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “Jindal didn’t have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches, is in a league of his own. He’s in a Reagan-esque league. … [Jindal] tried the best he could.”

JUAN WILLIAMS: “It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was sing-songy. He was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish.”

Republican governors reject federal unemployment aid

The New York Times asks "What part of 'stimulus' don't they get?"

Schwarzenegger's truthfulness

I was just watching California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on This Week with George Stephanopoulos talk about the budget deal just reached in Sacremento which involves tax increases and spending cuts. George reminded Arnold that when he ran for governor he promised never to raise taxes and asked, "Were you wrong to make that pledge?" "No," replied the governor, "because I really hate raising taxes, but this is an emergency."

So when a Republican says "never raise taxes" do they really mean "only raise taxes when the situation demands?" It seems that Republicans are using different standards of truthfulness than the Democrats. Democrats are much less likely than Republicans to say they would 'never raise taxes," not because they hate taxes any less but because they are aware that in an emergency raising taxes may be necessary. Is their different attitude toward saying what they mean and meaning what they say putting Democrats at a disadvantage when campaigning?

Rush Limbaugh says he is no coward

On his show yesterday Rush Limbaugh responded to Attorney General Eric Holder's charge that Americans had been a "nation of cowards" on the subject of race.

I, El Rushbo, am no coward. … In fact, I show bravery on race. I am totally willing to discuss it openly and honestly. How does one show bravery on race as I have? You talk about media bias, you talk about slavish media coverage of Black quarter backs in the National Football League. Then see what happens. Then watch all hell descend upon you from every quarter of this nation’s media. From print to broadcast to internet. … I show bravery on matters of race.

Watch it:

Limbaugh is referring to his very brief stint in 2003 as football commentator for ESPN. The Philadelphia Eagles quarterback, Donovan McNabb, had a couple of bad games early in the season. Rush Limbaugh proclaimed on a national broadcast that McNabb's poor performance was because he had never been that good to begin with and had only been proclaimed a great player because the media was eager to promote black quarterbacks. I believe Rush Limbaugh was fired just a couple of days after that broadcast.

The way I remember the incident the general feeling among football fans was that he was fired mainly because his comment was so totally wrong it would be absurd for him to continue posing as a football expert. The comment showed he was a racist, but the main problem was that his racism was causing him to be wrong in his football judgments. After the slow start that season Donovan McNabb went on to have a great season, as if to demonstrate just how wrong Rush Limbaugh had been.

Since Rush Limbaugh had really wanted to be a television football commentator, he views the incident as him being forced to sacrifice for his (racist) truth. But there is no need for those of us who do not share his racist views to see any nobility in his actions. He was and is just stubbornly wrong.

Conservative Stimulus Bill humor

This is a cartoon which was published yesterday in the New York Post. A lot of people were appalled by it. I have read the opinions of several right-wingers who claim it is no big deal and point out that Bush was occasionally portrayed as a chimp in cartoons. Of course, Bush was never depicted as a violent, crazed animal that had to be shot by the police. When I described the cartoon to my 85-year-old father he thought it was a hilarious comment on what he took to be the Keystone Cops-like circus surrounding the writing of the stimulus bill. Of course, unlike most Americans, my father is facing no financial uncertainties -- his state pension and Social Security are unlikely to be impacted by whatever happens or does not happen in Washington.

My opinion of the cartoon? I am shocked and appalled that any newspaper would publish such a thing. It is becoming clear to me that the more competent and successful Obama and the Democratic Congress are the more violent and angry the Conservatives will become.

President Obama invites us to track the stimulus spending.

If you are not on President Obama's email list you may not have heard about a new websites that have been set up to allow the public to track how the stimulus money is spent and a website for posting and reading stories of how Americans are coping with our current economic challenges. Here's an excerpt from an email I just received from President Obama:

The recovery plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs, provide tax cuts for working and middle-class families, and invest in health care and clean energy.

It's a bold plan to address a huge problem, and it will require my vigilance and yours to make sure it's done right.

I've assigned a team of managers to oversee the implementation of the recovery act. We are committed to making sure no dollar is wasted. But accountability begins with you.

That's why my administration has created Recovery.gov, a new website where citizens can track every dollar spent and every job created. We'll invite you and your neighbors to weigh in with comments and questions.

Our progress will also be measured by the tens of thousands of personal stories submitted by people who are struggling to make ends meet. If you haven't already, you can read stories from families all across the country:

http://my.barackobama.com/yourstories

Your stories are the heart of this recovery plan, and that's what I'll focus on every day as President.

With your continued support, we'll emerge a stronger and more prosperous nation.

The secretive Bush Administration never invited us to track how they were spending our money or provided tools to allow us to do so. This is change I can believe in.

What kind of liberal are you?

I just took the quiz and this is what I scored. What kind of liberal are you?

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

Terrorism committed by white people

A few days ago James Adkisson was sentenced to life in prison for killing two people during an armed assault at the Knoxville, TN Unitarian-Universalist church last July. Just after he was sentenced he released to the Knoxville News a four-page handwritten "manifesto" which was to be his suicide note if things had gone as he planned . The note can be viewed here. Some excerpts:

Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."

I thought I'd do something good for this Country Kill Democrats til the cops kill me....Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals.

It is clear that his act was a terrorist act with the same motives and purposes as other acts of terrorism, such as the 911 attacks or the embassy bombings -- to try to achieve political ends by killing innocent civilians. The only possible reason for not classifying his attack as an act of terrorism is if you define terrorism in a way that excludes the acts of white Christian Americans. Keep that in mind when you hear people claim that there have been no terrorists acts in this country since 911 or that terrorism is the exclusive province of Middle-Eastern people and/or Muslims.

Post-racial America

If you want irrefutable evidence that the election of Barack Obama does not mark the end of racism in this country take a look at this. It is an editorial cartoon that actually ran in the Ashville (North Carolina) Citizen Times newspaper on Monday, February 9, 2009. The ideas embodied in the cartoon and the decision to publish it are about as pure expressions of racism as can be imagined.

Republicans on parade.

Karl Rove responds to Obama's criticism of Republicans who offer 'more tax cuts as the only answer to every problem we face.'

Republicans using homophobia against each other.

Andrew Card thinks the most important way of showing respect for the Constitution is wearing a jacket in the Oval Office.

Although he disdained bipartisanship when he was in charge of the House, Newt Gingrich criticizes Obama for not being bipartisan enough.

Why the President will not mention local blog

Local conservative blogger, QCExaminer, pleads with President Obama to "diss" her. I think she is missed something important about why the president advised Congressional Republican "you can't listen to Limbaugh and get things done." It wasn't just because Limbaugh is a conservative. It was because Limbaugh was telling Republicans to oppose Obama, not just when they thought his proposals were wrong and would not work, but all the time, especially on proposals that, if passed, would work. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, not because his ideas would fail, but out of fear that his proposals would succeed. The success of Obama's policies, in addition to being good for America, would clearly demonstrate to the vast majority of voters that it is in their interests for Democrats to be elected.

That is the reason the President told Republicans in Congress they cannot listen to Limbaugh and "get things done." Is QCExaminer saying anything that the President needs to comment on? Not so much.

Magic Tax Cuts

Ellen Beth Gill at Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog discusses the amazing Republican claim that tax cuts are a better stimulus than government spending. Why would increasing after-tax profits for businesses automatically create jobs in the current business climate? Are they Magic Tax Cuts?

Off-the-grid living

The fellow pictured above is John Wells. He is experimenting with living disconnected from the energy grid. You can get an overview of what he is trying to do on his website.

You can keep track of his daily progress by following his blog. He posts about once a day. The last few days he has been completing his shower, in which the water is solar heated in a collector he designed and has been building. Fascinating reading. Much more uplifting than the websites some other local blogs are spotlighting

Why give a mother of six fertility assistance?

My brother Dan's thoughts on the recent birth of octuplets:

How very very sad yesterday was the news of octuplets born into a family already overflowing with six children. My initial feelings of sadness, however, were soon overcome with stronger feelings as I pictured unregulated, profit motivated, fertility “doctors” artificially creating a family with 14 children, as I pictured a most likely scenario of a woman with six children taking artificial measures to have an extreme multiple birth in hopes of becoming famous like the couple with sextuplets on TV.

I see this as yet one more tragedy in a cascade of tragedies resulting from the Reagan, Bush,& Bush scheme of weakening governmental regulators and governmental agencies while creating a propaganda blitz claiming unregulated profit motivated industries were good for Americans. The human fertility industry that grew up in this climate would of course be without moral, ethical, or governmental checks and balances. We have already seen the tragic results of an unregulated Wall Street, of unregulated Banks, of an unregulated housing finance industry, and a war machinery industry with the inside power to control the CIA and the White House to create a series of wars to kill our children. Now we see further tragedy as eight babies are artificially inserted into a “family” that can at best be described as “overwhelmed ” A tragedy created by an industry that, by all indications, is motivated simply by selfish profit.

A baby elephant named Obama

Vital Stats:
Birthday: 1/19/09
Time: 11:50 p.m.
Sex: Male
Height: 39 inches
Length: 41 inches
Birth Weight: 250 pounds

Suspecting that many readers of this blog are not on the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey mailing list I felt that I had to pass along this announcement I just received from the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Baily Center for Elephant Conservation.

IT'S A BOY!

On behalf of the entire Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey® family, I’m thrilled to announce the birth of our first Asian elephant born as a result of artificial insemination. A healthy male born on the inaugural eve of our 44th President of the United States, the calf named Barack, is a living tribute of our ongoing commitment to help save this magnificent yet endangered species.

The worldwide elephant population is declining, which means the overall mortality rate is increasing. That is why at Ringling Bros. we are working around the clock to bring practical solutions that are helping to care for and to save these majestic animals. Since 1999, Barack is just the fourth elephant in North America to be successfully born from artificial insemination. We are proud of the unwavering efforts that our veterinary and elephant husbandry teams provide to support the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation and its global preservation programs.

Barack’s arrival is the 22nd in what has already become the largest herd of Asian elephants in the Western Hemisphere and I’m excited to share this significant milestone with all of you.

>Photo Gallery of pictures of Obama and his Mama

>More information

>Send a Greeting to Our New Calf

Iraq War costs higher than many expected

According the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – Suicides among Army troops soared again last year and are at a nearly three-decade high, senior defense officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

At least 128 soldiers killed themselves in 2008, said two officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data has not been formally released.

The final count likely will be considerably higher because more than a dozen other suspicious deaths are still being investigated and could also turn out to be self-inflicted.

The new figure of more than 128 compares to 115 in 2007 and 102 in 2006 — and is the highest since record keeping began in 1980.

Obviously we are going to be paying a very high price for our war of choice in Iraq for a very long time, indeed.

Our State Senator has doubts

The only state senator we have in this part of Illinois has been signaling he might vote to not remove Govenor Blagojevich from office. According to an article in today's Quad City Times:

After hearing FBI recordings presented at the Senate impeachment trial Tuesday and the testimony of FBI agent Daniel Cain, state Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, said he still was not convinced the 52-year-old chief executive has done anything illegal.

“Today, they just decided it was criminal,” Jacobs said. “I haven’t quite heard (pay-to-play) yet.

“I don’t think the case is as strong as people would have you to believe.”

While I could be persuaded that it is unfair for other Illinois politicians to say Rod Blagojevich was uniquely unsuited for office, for Mike Jacobs to claim that the tapes we all have heard do not prove "pay-to-play" makes him sound somewhat daft. Also his suggestion that he needs to hear evidence of criminality beyond a reasonable doubt is disingenuous. In an impeachment trial each Senator decides for himself or herself what constitutes grounds for conviction.

There are reasons why a senator would vote to acquit even in the face of obvious criminality. If Mike Jacobs does vote not to remove the govenor from office I hope he gives us his real reasons rather than this nonsense about a lack of conclusive proof of "pay-to-play".

Ridiculous argument for the "gag rule"

It is not surprising that anti-choice activists would oppose Obama's lifting of the "gag rule" which prevented US foreign aid from going to agencies which offer abortions or referrals for abortions as part of their family planning services. What is kind of surprising to me is that some of the arguments they use are deceitful and insulting to our intelligence. Take, for example, the following by Laura Hollis at townhall.com.

What are we to make of the first African-American president who is so blind to the devastation abortion has wrought among African-Americans? African-Americans make up less than 15% of the U.S. population, but over 35% of abortions are performed on African-American women. To get some sense of the magnitude of this impact, consider that, according to the Center for Disease Control, nearly 293,000 black Americans died in 2005. The single largest cause of death was heart disease, which claimed over 74,000 lives. By comparison, the 1400 abortions of black babies daily in the United States is over 438,000 African-Americans destroyed every year. Upwards of 13 million abortions have decimated the African-American population in this country. This is a holocaust, and one that cannot be prettied up under the rubric of "reproductive freedom."

While I can admire a skillful playing of the race card this is just pathetic. The disproportionate use of abortion as a means of family planning is much more associated with low social-economic status (poverty) than race. And to compare woman using abortion to prevent having babies before they can adequately care for them or to limit the size of their family to the Nazis trying to completely eliminate European Jewry is insulting to our intelligence. White people in the developed world have been limiting the size of their families to an average of less than 2 children for the last 50 years or so, using abortion as a last resort, without the results looking anything like a Holocaust.

4230 Tiny Flag-Covered Coffins

Please click on the photo to see it full-sized.

There are 4230 tiny flag-covered coffins in the room which has a floor about 10 feet square. The small (about 1.5" X 3/4" X 3/4") cardboard boxes each with a tiny flag on its top and sides are arranged in a rectangle 60 boxes across by 70 boxes down, a rectangle about 8 X 5 feet.

If the actual coffins for the 4230 American servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq were gathered together and arranged like this (assuming coffins 7' X 3') they would require a space 140 yards long and 70 yards wide, half again as long as a football field.

The tiny coffins are part of a War Memorial created by Rock Island, Illinois artist Jay Strickland, entitled "Arrival at Dover." (Dover, Maryland is the place where most of the flag-draped coffins arrived back in the United States from Iraq.) The walls of the room are covered floor to ceiling with a listing of all the 4230 service people. With each name there is a brief description of how that individual died, whether in combat or on duty, from injuries sustained from IED’s or while being treated in medical facilities for their injuries.

The memorial is currently on display at the Davenport Unitarian Church. It can be viewed Wednesday, Jan. 28 from 5pm - 8pm or Sunday Feb 1 from 1pm - 5pm.

I hope Obama fixes this

According to a story in today's Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald newspaper:

AN AUSTRALIAN family on a mercy dash to a dying relative in the United States were detained without food or water before being sent to a detention centre and forced to spend the night with criminal suspects. Their ordeal finished with them being deported.

Read the entire article.

This happen on January 13th and 14th, before Ohama became president. I hope changes have already been made so this sort of thing won't happen again. Treating famililes visiting the US with valid travel visas, passports and return tickets badly cannot possibly make us safer in any way. In fact it makes people hate us and makes it more likely that Americans will be treated badly when they travel overseas.

Limbaugh's head explodes

To Barack Obama's supporters the actions he has taken in these first few days of his presidency are not particularly surprising. After all, they are reflections of themes he stressed during the campaign. For example, his executive order instructing "federal agencies to handle requests for information from the public and press under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] with an eye toward disclosure, not refusal" is just a return to the pre-Bush Administration policies regarding FOIA requests. But what most Americans view as a return to the status quo after 8 years of lawlessness has some Bush supporter's heads exploding. Here is Rush Limbaugh's reaction:

LIMBAUGH: What I’m afraid of is that what Obama did with this executive order is actually make it easier for the media to go get Bush documents. Because you know Pelosi and some of the guys over in congress are talking about war crimes trials and charges and so forth. […]

What I’m afraid of is what Obama’s done here is made the gathering of the information for this kind of stuff– This is not American. This is not America. This is not what America does. We don’t– This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.

The idea that obeying the law and allowing citizens to hold the government accountable for their actions makes us "a banana repubic" is pretty bizarre. Even more bizarre is Rush Limbaugh's view of who has been exhibiting racism lately:

You know, racism in this country is the exclusive problems of the left. We’re witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds; that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever; because his father was black, because this is the first black president. We’ve got to accept this. The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign.

It is hard for me to make any sense of this. He says that he and people who think like him are being told they have to "accept this" but it is not clear what "this" is. It surely cannot be that Obama has a black father or that Obama is the first black president. He surely cannot be objecting to being expected to accept those facts. No, it must be that he objects to the assumption that we all agree that it is good that we finally have a black president. Amazingly, he is claiming that it is racist of us to expect him to be glad about that.

President Obama is re-administred the oath

Chief Justice Roberts came to the White House last evening and re-administered the presidential oath. Since Obama had repeated the words of oath slightly out of order during the official Inauguration doubts had been raised about whether he had actually taken the oath. Read more about it in this New York Times article.

You may have missed any mention of this in your local newspaper, if your local newspaper is not a big city paper with independent national reporting. The Associated Press is apparently boycotting this story and several other first day of the new administration stories in a dispute about their right to take their own White House photos rather then just distribute photos released by the Obama Administration. Read the Associated Press's take on it here. Notice how even in this story mention of the retaking of the oath is downplayed.

I can publish the above photo since it is an official government photo and therefore belongs to all the people. If the only photos of the event had been ones taken by the news organizations then there would have been no photos that I would have had rights to use.

The Grown-Ups are back in charge.

My main reaction, listening to Barack Obama's Inaugeration speech, was that grown-ups are back in charge. We are no longer being told, for example, that we can have a war without sacrifice -- fought by volunteers, paid for by oil revenues from the invaded country, while the rest of us get tax cuts and are encouraged to go out shopping. The Obama Administration will not claim that we can solve our security problems by torturing people or eliminate our enemies by holding people we have captured indefinitely without charges.

This seems to be driving the few remaining Bush Administration loyalists crazy. Consider Mona Charen's column in today's newspapers for example:

That much having been said, it would be salutary in the midst of all this effervescence to reflect that many of the difficulties faced by the United States are not — the left's animadversions notwithstanding — the fault of George W. Bush.

I agree with that. Probably Dick Cheney is more to blame.

It is, for example, nearly universally agreed that America's supposed unpopularity in the world will be erased by the simple fact of Barack Obama raising his right hand and swearing to uphold the Constitution.

Nearly universally agreed that our unpopularity would be erased simply by swearing in Obama?!? Who, other than Ms. Charen, has suggested such a thing? And what does she mean "supposed unpopularity." She must not have done much traveling outside the United States lately.

Why we all should celebrate the first African-American president

As part of the Moline Dispatch newspaper's 'What Obama Means to Me' feature Jan Anderson of Moline had the following to say:

...Because Barack Obama is an African American does not make him any more or less important than any previous presidential candidate and I question The Dispatch and their offer to the public to "be part of this historic event."

Every inauguration is historic but it seems that the media, including The Dispatch, has for some reason blown this one way out of proportion. Whatever happened to fair and balanced reporting?

She seems to be claiming that celebrating Obama as the first African-American president is unfair. Unfair to whom? I would have to guess she means unfair to white people.

Apparently Ms. Anderson sees no advantage to her that Americans of color can now join white Americans in realistically believing that their children can grow up to be president. She must not see it to be in her interests for all Americans to have reason to fully buy into the American dream and to have a stake in our nation and economy working well. Her limited and narrow understanding of what is and is not to her advantage and "fair" to her must interfere with her ability to choose what is truly best for her and for the nation. We can only hope hers is an extreme minority opinion and that she will eventually see the light. Perhaps President Barack Obama will have found the right words and phrases for his speech today to open her eyes to the opportunities this moment has for all Americans.

Bloody Kristol not only wrong but dishonest

It was not surprising to me that in his column today in the New York Times, William Kristol is completely and thoroughly wrong. Everything he says is totally and demonstrably false. What surprised me was how thoroughly dishonest the column is, especially the following excerpt:

In synagogue, right after the prayer for our country, there is a prayer for the state of Israel, asking the “rock and redeemer of the people Israel” to “spread over it the shelter of your peace.” As we recited this on Saturday, I couldn’t help but reflect that a distressingly small number of my fellow Jews seem to have given much thought at all to the fact that President Bush is one of the greatest friends the state of Israel — and, yes, the Jewish people — have had in quite a while. Bush stood with Israel when he had no political incentive to do so and received no political benefit from doing so. He was criticized by much of the world. He did it because he thought it the right thing to do.

Read the entire column

As William Kristol knows very well polls show that the vast majority of America's Jews have great misgivings about the wisdom of the sort of military solutions to Israel's disputes with the Palestinians that Kristol and his fellow neocons, including President Bush, support. It is not through some oversight or lack of thought that most American Jews are not celbrating President Bush as a savior of Israel.

Equally dishonest is Mr. Kristol's amazing claim that it is of no political benefit to an American politician to be a strong supporter of Israel's government, and therefore the politician must be doing it because of a personal conviction that it is the right thing to do. After the injury of AIPAC having hijacked our political process on this issue so that almost all our politicians are forced to blindly support Israel's every policy mistake this insult is almost too much to bear. Kristol's assertion that Bush is acting against his political interests in supporting Israel is chutzpah of the highest order.

Forced to Prosecute

In a very interesting article in today's New York Times, reporter Scott Shane reports that the Obama Administration, simply by acknowledging the obvious truth that waterboarding is torture, could be forced to prosecute those responsible for torture as war criminals, despite Barack Obama and Eric Holder's protestations that they are disinclined to do so.

In the view of many historians and legal authorities, Mr. Holder was merely admitting the obvious. He was agreeing with the clear position of his boss-to-be, President-elect Barack Obama, and he was giving an answer that almost certainly was necessary to win confirmation.

Yet his statement, amounting to an admission that the United States may have committed war crimes, opens the door to an unpredictable train of legal and political consequences. It could potentially require a full-scale legal investigation, complicate prosecutions of individuals suspected of committing terrorism and mire the new administration in just the kind of backward look that Mr. Obama has said he would like to avoid.

The article goes on to point out the difficulties in prosecuting the low level people who carried out the orders.

Two obvious obstacles stand in the way of a prosecution: legal opinions from the Justice Department that declared even the harshest interrogation methods to be legal, and a provision in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that grants strong legal protections to government employees who relied on such legal advice in counterterrorism programs.

Although the article does not say so, it seems to me that this defense should not and would not work for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell although it should absolve everyone below them in the chain of command. Picture Bush and Cheney being prosecuted for war crimes, claiming that as a result of legal rulings they directed the Justice Department lawyers to draw up, their orders to torture people were legal. Would such a defense have worked for the Nazis and Japanese Generals in the war crime trials following World War II?

This Miracle Brought to You by America's Unions

Marcy Wheeler has an excellent post up at the emptywheel blog:

They're calling it a miracle--the successful landing of a US Airways jet in the Hudson and subsequent rescue of all 155 passengers. They're detailing the heroism of all involved, starting with the pilot and including cabin crew, ferry crews, and first responders. What they're not telling you is that just about every single one of these heros is a union member.

There's the pilot:

Sullenberger is a former national committee member and the former safety chairman for the Airline Pilots Association and now represented by US Airline Pilots Association. He--and his union--have fought to ensure pilots get the kind of safety training to pull off what he did yesterday.

....

There are the ferry crews:

They're represented by the Seafarers International Union. They provide safety training to their members so they're prepared for events like yesterday's accident.

Read the entire post.

Thank goodness that plane did not come down in a river somewhere out in one of those red-state rural areas of this country that Sarah Palin likes to call the "real America." Those highly-trained and skilled blue-state New York City policemen, firemen, Coast Guard and commercial ferry crews are as real American heroes as you will ever need.

Wouldn't it be great if everywhere in this country we had as competent and highly-trained union professionals responding to disasters as they have there in New York City?

Violent crimes committed by G.I.s back from war

Today's New York Times has an article about violent crimes being committed by soldiers returning home from multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He's not a drop-out. He's taking corresponence courses.

According to numerous press reports:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says her future son-in-law Levi Johnston is not a dropout as the press is reporting, but is enrolled in high school via a correspondence program. The former Republican vice presidential candidate also said daughter Bristol, is enrolled in regular high school and has taken correspondence courses. The 18-year-olds are the parents of Sarah Palin's first grandchild, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, born Saturday.

My brother Dan, the school teacher, just emailed me his take on that:

Doesn't nearly every kid who has dropped out of High School claim to be taking correspondence classes? By the nature of those sort of programs, it is hard to claim who is or is not a student until they start to actually earn credits in the program on a regular basis. Otherwise ALL dropouts are not dropouts but simply waiting or delaying attendance. I don't see how "dropout" has any meaning if it doesn't mean all students who are not making measurable and steady progress toward graduation.

Quad Cities linked to Christmas Eve tragedy

We now find out that Bruce Pardo, the Southern California man who killed 9 members of his ex-wife's family and then shot himself on Christmas Eve, had an airline ticket and plans to come to the Quad Cities on Christmas Day. Well, if somehow he had come to see his options as having narrowed to either going to a place where the temperature was 0 degrees F with lots of snow and ice or killing a bunch of people and himself, I guess the tragic outcome was inevitable.

Do not allow Bush to slink quietly out of town

In his column in today's New York Times, Bob Herbert sums up the last 8 years.

When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don’t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantánamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool’s gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

Read the entire article.

Where was all this media suspicion in 2003?

What in heavens name are all these "unanswered questions" and suspicions about possible Barack Obama involvement with the Blagojevich scandal that so many media types have been talking about? From the very beginning of public awareness of the alleged crime, when Patrick Fitzgerald announced the arrest of Govenor Blagojevich, he made it clear that there was nothing on the wiretaps suggesting that the President-elect was in any way complicit in the crime.

All the media suggestions that there might be some Obama involvement have been based on no facts whatever. Where was all this media suspicion when Bush and Cheney were making the case for invading Iraq in 2003?

Should Caroline Kennedy be appointed U.S. Senator

I have been so busy preparing for the holidays I have committed blogging malpractice -- I've had opinions and not blogged about them.

Concerning the possiblity of Caroline Kennedy being appointed U.S. Senator from New York: That would make it look like you needed to be the wife or child of a former president in order to be a U.S. Senator from New York. Would that mean that in this country a child from humble origins, born to ordinary parents, has a better chance of growing up to be President of the United States than Senator from New York?

What kind of change was Obama promising?

When you heard Barack Obama promise to bring change to Washington what kind of change did you imagine? Did you take your cues from his criticism of our decision to invade Iraq and his promises to bring the troops home in 18 months to understand Obama to be promising change away from the Bush Doctrine of preventive wars of choice? Did Obama’s willingness to talk to any foreign leaders, including ones the Bush Administration refused to meet, indicate to you that he meant change toward a less belligerent and militaristic foreign policy? Did Obama's emphasis on the environment and sustainable energy suggest to you a change in the way those issues are handled? Did you also hear indications that Obama would be appointing and hiring people based on competence and ability rather than the loyalty standard used by the Bush Administration?

If so, then you are probably as surprised as I was by the following lead paragraphs of an AP story in today’s newspapers:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The inauguration committee of President-elect Barack Obama, who ran on a platform to change the way business is done in Washington, is selling four-day packages of four tickets to his historic swearing-in ceremony and parade plus some extras in exchange for $50,000.

The deal does represent a change. President Bush charged $250,000, selling his supporters a much bigger menu of inaugural goodies that featured candlelight dinners.

Does the writer of this article really believe that the change Barack Obama was promising was to not do fund-raising? That seems unlikely since Barack Obama did the most successful fund-raising in history during his campaign. No, it seems more likely to me that the writer of that article knows exactly what kind of change Obama was promising but is trying to persuade her/his readers to forget.

Madonna causing lustful, impure thoughts

According to Yahoo News, Madonna is turning heads down in Chile.

Roman Catholic Cardinal Jorge Medina criticized the flamboyant singer during his homily at a Mass in honor of the late dictator Augusto Pinochet, who oversaw the deaths of some 3,200 dissidents during his 1973-1990 rule.

"This woman comes here and in an incredibly shameless manner, she provokes a crazy enthusiasm, an enthusiasm of lust, lustful thoughts, impure thoughts," said Medina, the cardinal who was chosen to announce the election of Pope Benedict XV.

It almost sounds as though the Cardinal was hired by Madonna to hype the show, doesn't it? I've always wondered about the source of her appeal. Apparently her act goes over particularly well with the sexually repressed.

Voting for Auto Bail-Out will require Political Courage

The Democrats in Congress who are going to vote next week to bail out the Big 3 American automakers are probably going to pay a political price for doing so. The polls and word on the street make it clear that most of the public hates the idea of bailing out well-paid union workers and fat-cat corporate executives.

But economists warn that in the current financial climate bankruptcy for any one of the Big 3 automakers would most likely not lead to reorganization, restructuring or new ownership, but in liquidation, which would cause a cascade of closures among part supplies and associated industries which would in turn force the other 2 automakers out of business. Economists are talking about a difference in 10% unemployment if the American automakers are kept in business or a Great Depression level 25% unemployment if they disappear.

Once Congress decides to do something, such as bailing out Detroit, there is no way to know for sure what would have happened if they had not acted. People opposed to the bail-out, probably a majority of the voters, will look at the 10% unemployment and say that after giving away all this money we still have lost a lot of jobs. They will feel that their tax dollars were given away for nothing. There will be no way to prove that it would have been much worse if the auto makers had gone into bankruptcy.

It will be interesting to see which politicians in Congress put the good of the country ahead of their own reelection chances and vote for the bail-out next week. Does anyone have any guesses about the relative percentages of Democrats and Republicans who will show political courage? My guess is that despite their rhetoric, there are very few Republican left in Congress who actually put country first. I predict that those voting for the bail-out will be over-whelming Democrats.

Odetta 1930 - 2008

Odetta sings Careless Love

A young Odetta sings Water Boy

Read a good article about Odetta's life in today's New York Times.

David Brooks now says neo-con ideas passe

Conservative David Brooks’ column in today’s New York Times claims that the Barack Obama’s foreign policy is not change but really is continuity of ideas developed by people in the Bush Administration.

[Defense Secretary Robert] Gates does not talk about spreading democracy, at least in the short run. He talks about using integrated federal agencies to help locals improve the quality and responsiveness of governments in trouble spots around the world.

He has developed a way of talking about security and foreign policy that is now the lingua franca in government and think-tank circles. It owes a lot to the lessons of counterinsurgency and uses phrases like “full spectrum operations” to describe multidisciplinary security and development campaigns.

Gates has told West Point cadets that more regime change is unlikely but that they may spend parts of their careers training soldiers in allied nations. He has called for more spending on the State Department, foreign aid and a revitalized U.S. Information Agency. He’s spawned a flow of think-tank reports on how to marry hard and soft pre-emption.

The Bush administration began to implement these ideas, but in small and symbolic ways. ...

Read entire column.

The clear, at least to me, implication of what David Brooks is saying in this column is that electing neo-cons John McCain and Sarah Palin would have meant a return to a the foreign policy of the first few years of the Bush Administration, to ideas and attitudes that the foreign policy wing of the Bush Administration led by Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates had realized years ago were failures and mistakes. Why didn’t David Brooks mention this before the election?

William Kristol's answer to terrorism - patriotism

It is no surprise that William ”The Bloody” Kristol‘s column in today’s New York Times is wrong. Everything he said has turned out to be wrong. But this column’s wrong-headedness is immediately obvious. No need to wait for events to unfold to prove it false.

In India’s long and bloody battle with Muslim terrorism the one thing the non-Muslim majority of Indians has not lacked is patriotic and emotional fervor and intensity. The recent attacks by Muslim terrorists on hotels in Mumbai may have revealed possible deficiencies in police and military preparedness, communications, coordination, planning and leadership but they revealed no lack of patriotism among the common citizens.

So what is Kristol’s analysis of this situation?

In nations like India (and the United States), governments will have to call on the patriotism of citizens to fight the terrorists.

Think about that for a second. How would increased patriotic feelings among the ordinary citizens of Mumbai have prevented the recent attacks or decreased the number of Indians killed or brought the situation to a close sooner? What could ordinary citizens do in the face of AK-47s and grenades, no matter how patriotic they felt? The idea is absurd. It is so mind-numbingly false it boggles the mind how someone paid to provide expert commentary in a national forum could write such a thing.

Phil Hare proposes increased help for soldier's families

Here in the Quad Cities, those of us who have Mediacom cable tv see 5 minute interviews with local newsmakers which are shown every hour or so on the CNN channels. I just saw an interview with our congressman Phil Hare. I was very pleased to hear him talking about a bill he is sponsoring to greatly increase the amount of psychological counseling and other support for our soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families.

In my opinion one of biggest under-reported scandals of the Bush Administration is how little support they have provided to our returning military people who have suffered physical and psychological damage in war. Those of us who were around in the 1970s and 1980s remember the thousands of homeless Vietnam War veterans who were unable to productively return to peacetime society because they had been psychologically damaged by their wartime experiences.

There are reasons to believe that there are greater levels of damage being inflicted on our soldiers in Iraq than occured in Vietnam. Very few soldiers served multiple tours of duty in Vietnam and those who did return for a second tour volunteered to do so. Most of the soldiers being sent to Iraq are serving multiple tours, creating unprecedented levels of psychological pressure on the soldiers and their families. The Bush Administration has allocated far too few resources to healing the damage they have caused, exacerbating the problems we will face in the future.

As a society we will be paying for years to come for this misguided "war of choice." I am glad to hear that Phil Hare is on the case, trying to get the help they need to our soldiers and their families.

Did Jdimytai Damour die for your sins?

Temporary Wal-Mart employee Jdimytai Damour of Queens, New York was trampled to death Friday morning when an estimated 2,000 shoppers desperate for bargains broke down the doors of the Wal-Mart store in Valley Stream on Long Island at a 5 a.m. sale. How culpable are you for his death?

If you had been there, hoping to find bargains before they were all snatched up, would you have been part of the group that pushed the store doors off their hinges? If you had seen people laying on the floor beneath the feet of the crowd you were a part of as you entered the store would you have stopped to help them or would you have kept running toward the bargains as did most of the mob?

Do you value life more than bargains? Will you join me and many others who have been refusing to shop on Black Friday as part of the loosely organized Buy Nothing Day Protest? Will you choose life and boycott shopping the day after Thanksgiving next year?

War on Christmas, 2008 edition

In his Wall Street Journal column on Nov. 20 Daniel Henninger opined:

And so it will come to pass once again that many people will spend four weeks biting on tongues lest they say "Merry Christmas" and perchance, give offense. Christmas, the holiday that dare not speak its name.

This year we celebrate the desacralized "holidays" amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say "Merry Christmas" is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.

If your tolerance of ignorance and stupidity is strong enough go ahead and read the entire column. Henninger claims that his concern is that people are turning their backs on religion and all its virtues when they choose to say ‘Happy Holidays’ rather than ‘Merry Christmas.’ That is an incredibly stupid and ignorant argument, but I am calling Henninger dishonest rather than ignorant and stupid because I don’t think he really cares very much about religion.

First, no Christian is refraining from (or being asked by others to refrain from) saying ‘Merry Christmas’ at home, in church or when addressing non-strangers they know will not be offended. Second, it would be hard at this point for any Christian to ‘desacralizing’ Christmas any more than it already is. Read this for more about that.

I think Henninger’s real concern is that being forced to modify his speech and actions to accommodate other people’s feelings will drain him of his vital forces and undermine his will. He thinks that for America to remain strong militarily and economically he and people like him must not turn into wusses and pansies, which he thinks would be the result of having to censor his speech out of concern for anyone else.

How can Henninger claim that acting out of a concern for the feelings and sensibilities of your neighbors is turning away from Christianity and the virtues of responsibility and restraint? Well, as I said earlier, I don’t think he is really very much concerned with Christianity or with honesty, either.

Trend setting Professor Krugman

Just now, as I write this, on the Rachel Maddows show guest host Alison Stewart started her interview with Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman by thanking him for coming on the show. Professor Krugman responded, ‘Sure.’

That caught my attention because a few weeks ago someone wrote into either Dear Abby or Ann Landers complaining that some young people today have no manners because they do not respond to ‘Thank you’ with the polite and proper response of ‘Your welcome.’ That got me thinking about why that is the only correct response. There is no objective reason why the words ‘your’ and ‘welcome’ are any more appropriate a response to a statement of thanks than any other word or phrase. It is just something we have all agreed to. There is no reason we couldn’t or shouldn’t undo that agreement and agree on something else.

For reasons that I cannot explain I would love for ‘You betcha’ to become the new polite and correct response to ‘Thank you.’ But if Nobel Prize winners are going around responding ‘Sure,’ then I suppose that response has the best chance of being adopted as the new standard . Oh well.

Clinton was a tougher opponent for Obama than McCain

I just finished listening to the podcast of the November 10 edition of NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross. She was talking to Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker Magazine, who has been covering the Obama campaign for the last 2 years. Terry asked Ryan what the Obama campaign insiders now say about the effect on their campaign of the long and tough primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Lizza said that everyone in the campaign was unanimous about the overwhelmingly beneficial effect of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy on their eventual victory. Having potentially damaging issues, such as Rev. Wright, brought up during the primary season made them easier to deal with than if they had been brought up for the first time just before the general election. Also the Obama Campaign’s internal polling showed that, thanks to the lengthy primary campaign, by the time of the nominating conventions the public had a much clearer picture of who Obama was than they did of McCain, who had an easier and shorter path to the nomination.

Back in February many blogs, including this one, were worried that Hillary Clinton, by continuing her doomed campaign, ran the risk of lessening Barack Obama’s chances of winning in November. It now appears that we were wrong about that. Mea culpa.

Of course we were not the only ones that had worries at that time that turned out to be unfounded. Remember that Hillary Clinton and her supporters were claiming the McCain and the Republicans would be tougher and have more damaging and more difficult-to-deal-with attacks against Obama than he was currently facing from her in the primaries. That turned out not to be true. McCain refused to allow his campaign to even mention Rev. Wright, because he did not want to play the race card.

Miriam Makeba 1932 - 2008

The New York Times reports

Miriam Makeba, a South African singer whose voice stirred hopes of freedom among millions in her own country though her music was formally banned by the apartheid authorities she struggled against, died early Monday after performing at a concert in Italy. She was 76.

Read complete article

Here is a video of Miriam Makeba singing Pata Pata

As we remember her, listen to her music and watch recordings of performances such as the one above she will live forever and be with us always.

New taxes and restrictions on auto sales?

Because of economic woes many American industries, including automobile manufacturing and sales, are hurting but the firearms business is booming. According to the Guardian:

Starting in the days before the election, gun shops have been mobbed by buyers who fear that Obama and a larger Democratic majority in Congress will restrict firearm sales.

Many were stocking up on things such as assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and handguns that they think would be the most likely targets of new laws, though practically everything related to shooting has been selling more quickly.

"It's been an absolute madhouse," said Trey Pugh, a manager at Jim's Pawn Shop in Fayetteville, which is selling 15 to 20 AR-15 assault rifles a day. "I'm getting guys come in and say I always wanted that gun, and give me that one too and that one and, oh, I need a gun safe, too."

New restrictions on gun sales have not been something Barack Obama has proposed and there is little reason to think that this issue will be on the agenda of the Barack Obama presidency or the Democratic majority in Congress. So gun buyers’ concerns appear to be irrational fears fueled by unfounded rumors, being spread (and perhaps originated) by the gun retailers themselves.

As an employee of a company that sells to automobile dealers and is being negatively impacted by the drop in automobile sales I would like to warn the public about the possibility of new restrictions and taxes that may be imposed on the sales of automobiles, perhaps in an attempt to combat global warming. [There is little objective evidence that this could happen but who knows what the future holds?] In order to avoid new taxes and price increases that could happen in a future that no one can predict I think the public would be well advised to make their automobile purchases sooner rather than later. Be sure to pass this advice on to your friends and neighbors.

Republicans praise Rahm Emanuel

Barack Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff has drawn some criticism from people claiming Emanuel has been partisan and divisive. Some Republicans who have worked with Emanuel in the Congress disagree with that assessment.

According to the Washington Times Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel 'wise' and added that:

Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted retiring Representative Tom Davis, R-Va:

I can't think of a better choice. What's the old saying? You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose? (Rahm) understands the poetry, but he can translate it into prose. He is a practical guy who understands politics as well as policy.

Bloomberg.com quoted retiring Illinois Republican, Ray LaHood:

This idea that Rahm is a guy who can't get along with Republicans is just not true. The truth is in politics, you can count your friends on one or two hands, but he's been a true friend… The idea that he's just a trash-talking, hard-core Chicago pol does not reflect who the man really is.

So if these Republicans who have worked with Emanuel in the Congress say that he is perfectly capable of working amicably and productively with Republicans why are others saying something different?

Fear of an Obama Presidency

My brother, who is a sixth grade teacher in the public schools in the Rockford area, just emailed me about what happened in his classroom the day after the election:

The majority of students in my class, those whose parents voted for Obama, could not enjoy a moment of glory because two students who were strong Republicans were terribly distressed, telling fellow students that they were going to have to leave our school and flee with their parents to Canada when President Obama started destroying our country. Other students were concerned and sympathetic to the fear felt by their fellow students.

I saw that this fear, pressed upon these children by ****** parents, was real, lasting, and not a ploy or act on the student's part.

In his Concession Speech Tuesday evening John McCain seemed to be trying to put back into Cassandra’s Box all the unwarranted fear and hatred of an Obama presidency that his campaign had unleashed, but obviously it is not going to be that easy. Of all the damage that has been inflicted onto this country the past 8 years, this unreasonable and unwarranted suspicion and fear of Obama held by those who drank the McCain/Palin Campaign Kool-aid may turn out to be among the most destructive of all. If this distrust of Obama cannot be overcome it will undermine the unity needed to get the country back on track and solve our dire and urgent economic, environmental and international security, prestige and moral authority problems.

Candidate defends himself against baseless smears

Thank God the election is over. We all heard candidates being accused of being unpatriotic, friends with terrorists, Muslims and socialists. I have just become aware of an even more astounding accusation. Out in Montana Republican gubernatorial candidate Roy Brown had to defend himself against accusations that he was a vegetarian:

"I am disgusted by the baseless allegation that I am a vegetarian and that my personal eating habits should somehow be construed as opposed to the economic interests of Montana's livestock industry."

Brown did say that he and his family temporarily cut back on their consumption of meat and dairy products 25 years ago when they were caring for a dying loved one who couldn't eat those products.

2008 Mexican Day of the Dead, Figge Art Museum

[click on photo to see it full sized.]

An altar honoring victims of domestic violence. The altar was created by the group "Healing Waters," director Shelley Guy, for the 2008 Mexican Day of the Dead Altar Display at the Figge Art Museaum, Davenport, Iowa.

[Please click on photo to see it full sized.]

An altar honoring womean murdered during a wave of murders in Mexican border towns in recent years. The altar was created by artist and college professor Jesus Pastor of Cortazar, Guanajuato, Mexico who has been a visiting artist in the Quad Cities for the past month.

Members of the Quad Cities Ballet Folklorico perform as part of the 2008 Mexican Day of the Dead Festival on November 2 at the Figge Art Museaum

'Palling around' with terrorists

Check out this memoir from a progressive public health professional about how he ended up "palling around" with Weather Underground terrorists in the late 1960s.

Bad news for Obama?

As of October 31 the polls show that all the states where Barack Obama has more than a 9% lead add up to 264 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. That list includes New Mexico (+10%), Iowa (+12%), Pennsylvania (+11%) and New Hampshire (+13%). Assuming that Obama will win those states (a fairly safe assumption, it is hard to imagine a shift of 10% in 4 days) then John McCain would have to win almost all the states where Obama has less than a 10% lead in order to win the election. To get to 270 John McCain would have to win all the states where he leads in the polls plus Ohio (6% Obama) and Virginia (7% Obama) and North Carolina (2% Obama) and Florida (3% Obama) and Missouri (1% Obama). Any one of those 5 states would put Obama over the top – McCain has to take them all. Source: electoral-vote.com

With that reality in mind take a look at the spin McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis is putting on recent developments in a memo to McCain’s supporters yesterday:

Expanding the Field: Obama is running out of states if you follow out a traditional model. Today, he expanded his buy into North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona in an attempt to widen the playing field and find his 270 Electoral Votes. This is a very tall order and trying to expand into new states in the final hours shows he doesn't have the votes to win.

Yes, according to the McCain Campaign the fact that the formerly solid Republican states of North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona are suddenly in play and being contested by the Democrats is bad news for Obama.

Charlie Gibson thinks early voters subvert the process

I was watching the ABC evening news and was amazed to hear Charlie Gibson tell George Stephanopoulos that a troubling thing about early voting was that people were voting before the campaign was over. Voters who waited until election day to make their selection had more information than the early voters, Charlie fretted.

My immediate reaction was that Gibson must think that political campaigns are like movies and voting is a way of rating or judging the campaign in the same way that reviewers rate films. Charlie Gibson must think that early voting is like writing a review of a movie even though you had not seen the whole thing.

What a ridiculous way to view the process by which we select our leaders, as if the whole purpose was to select the candidate with the best campaign rather than the best candidate or as if we assumed the best campaigner necessarily would be the best office holder, or something.

But after mulling it over for a while I realized that Charlie Gibson was just reflecting the world view of the Advertising Industry which pays his salary. Modern political campaign, with their highly paid professional consultants, are just an extension of that industry. Charlie Gibson is serving the interests of those who pay his salary by trying to convince the public to vote for the candidate who has spent the most money hiring campaign professionals.

"Tell me how you keep this straight?"

Oh dear. Once again we in the Quad Cities are presenting ourselves to the whole world, which is closely following this presidential race, as ignorant bumpkins. Here is an actual letter to the editor published in today's Quad City Times:

I am confused how anyone could consider voting for president of the United States a man who has lived in Jakarta, Indonesia, had a Muslim stepfather and attended a Muslim school half a world away.

What we are taught as children during our formative years continues to influence us the rest of our lives. This effect troubles me. In fact, even his name confuses me at times. I have a difficult time remembering if his name is Obama or Osama?

Perhaps you could tell me how you keep this straight?

Michael Elmore

Bettendorf

Since you asked, Michael, my guess is that you have been listening to right-wing talk radio and that is the source of your confusion. It is quite simple, really. Barack Obama is a Harvard Law graduate, United States Senator, running for president who drew crowds of more than 100,000 people in recent rallies in St. Louis and Denver. He will be on your presidential ballot, listed as a Democrat. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi national, who at last report was living in a cave in or near Afghanistan. He will not be on the ballot. If someone tries to confuse you again on this matter, my advice is to stop listening to them.

Write to Marry Day

In honor of my California in-laws I want to urge every California voter to go all the way down the ballot and vote No on Proposition 8!

Right wing hacks repeat discredited lies

A local conservative blog is again making reference to claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and that the Hawaiian birth certificate his campaign has released is a forgery. This is only a “continuing controversy” because right wing hacks continue to repeat these baseless claims in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

As repeatedly documented by Media Matters:

...the Obama campaign has posted a copy of Obama's birth certificate on its "Fight the Smears" website and reportedly provided the original to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 21 post that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." A Hawaii Health Department official also reportedly confirmed to PolitiFact.com that Obama's birth certificate is valid.

Even right-wing sites like WorldNetDaily have looked into this and concluded that the claim that the birth certificate is a forgery has been discredited.

Why do people continue to read and listen to blowhards who knowingly repeat lies? Does the concept of credibility even exist anymore? By any reasonable standard these false rumor-mongers should by now be so thoroughly discredited that they would have sunk into richly deserved obscurity never to be heard from again.

Why pro-life Conservatives should vote for Obama

I had been wondering if there were any true Conservatives anymore. You know, ones that think traditional Conservative principles like small government, fiscal responsibility, distrust of government power, etc. are more important than being partisan Republicans. I think I may have spotted a few in this video.

I was especially struck by the fellow that said he was pro-life but was putting that on hold for this election and voting to save the country in hopes that the pro-life/pro-choice thing can perhaps be worked out some time in the future.

Maybe the best thing the pro-life movement could do would be to make a public show of voting for Obama on that basis. What good does it do them to go down to defeat with McCain/Palin? If enough of them publicly state that they are voting for Obama in order to be able to continue the pro-life fight in the future then an Obama victory is no longer a defeat for the pro-life cause. Think about it.

A video from the Creativity Campaign

Have you seen this yet?

Vote Barack!

Sarah Palin is McCain's chief liability

Nothing shows how disconnected John McCain’s supporters have become from the majority of Americans than their enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. According to one recent poll 47 percent of Americans view her negatively and only 38 percent positively. As pointed out by AmericaBlog.com, in the just released NBC poll when likely voters were asked their biggest concern about John McCain 34% responded that their chief worry is that Sarah Palin is not qualified. A distant second in the list of concerns, 24% worried that John McCain will continue George W. Bush’s policies. The choice of Sarah Palin is a greater liability for John McCain than George W. Bush!

And yet McCain’s supporters think Sarah Palin is just the greatest! How weird is that?

Seeing racism in Powell's endorsement

The above cartoon is by syndicated conservative cartoonist Gordon Campbell who said that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because he “wishes to see someone who looks like himself in the White House.” Others who dismissed Powell's stated reasons and confidently told us that race was the only factor were Rush Limbaugh, George Will and Pat Buchanan.

It is hard to imagine what more Colin Powell could have done during his lifetime of service to this country and to the Republican Party to prove that he does not see the world through a prism of racism. It is hard to imagine what more Colin Powell could have done to have deserved to be taken at his word now, especially by the Republicans he has so self-sacrificingly served. If Powell is more offended by racist attacks on Barack Obama and on Muslims than are most white Americans because of his lifetime of experience as a black man, as I have doubt that he is, that is not racism. Colin Powell stated his reasons for breaking with the Republican Party in this election. He deserves to be taken at his word.

The racism that Gordon Campbell, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Pat Buchanan and others have detected in this situation is their own.

Artifical Intelligence and the Turing Test

While reading a blog entry about Artificial Intelligence this morning it suddenly struck me how the Turing Test, a commonly advocated test for determining whether a computer program has achieved intelligence, is like supreme court judge Potter Stewart’s test for pornography, “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.”

In the Turing Test a computer program converses by teletype with a human being who does not know whether it is a human or computer on the other end of the line. The computer program passes the test if the humans with which it interacts thinks they are talking to another human being.

It is strange and telling that no better test for intelligence has been proposed, since this is a test for imitating human beings rather than intelligence itself. On the original Star Trek television show an alien named Dr. Spock was portrayed as much more intelligent than humans in many ways but his lack of human type emotions and experiences was a constant barrier between him and the rest of the crew. It is obvious that as intelligent as he was he would never pass the Turing Test. As much as he desired to have a good relationship with the other crew members his inability to simulate human emotions enough to pass was a constant irritant.

As a computer programmer I know that completely understanding the task to be programmed is necessary to successfully create the program. The less completely you understand the problem and its possible solutions the less successful your program will be. It is true that in some situations you can start off without complete knowledge and learn more about the problem as a result of trying things that fail. Eventually you may gain enough knowledge through repeated failures to finally succeed but at that point you understand the problem and solution thoroughly.

When we fully understand intelligence and consciousness we will be able to create computer programs that are intelligent and conscious and not one minute before. When we reach that point I am sure that we will have much better tests for intelligence than the Turing Test. There is much more to intelligence than acting like a human being.

Who won last night's debate?

I would have thought that the only conceivable basis for judging who “won” last night’s presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain was which candidate converted the most undecided voters into supporters. On that basis it was no contest. Barack Obama overwhelmingly won. See here for a good analysis of how undecided voters' reacted to the debate.

But the tv network talking heads who provided instant analysis immediately following the debate must have had some other criteria. If you figure out what that was could you let me know?