Maybe it is because I am getting older, but I have been thinking more about the past than I do about the future.
As a young man, I prided myself on not having any regrets, but “to be an adult is to accumulate regret,”[i] and as I grow older and I become more reflective I realize I do have regrets.
One day, when I was thirteen and living in Quebradillas, Puerto Rico, I had the unfortunate luck of playing a full court basketball game, after a game in which an opposing player was held scoreless. His teammates promised to prevent someone from scoring in the game I was playing. I was selected as the object of revenge.
At the time, I was an average basketball player for my age, but I was the youngest person on the court, and most of the other players were bigger than me.
I was not naive. I knew the opposing team’s intentions. My teammates tried to get me scoring opportunities, but the best player on the opposing team was guarding me. He was several inches taller than me, older, and a better basketball player.
On fast breaks, the opposing players held me, preventing me from taking advantage of scoring opportunities. At times, I was double and triple teamed. I cannot remember which team won the game, but I was held scoreless.
After the game, I was mocked and ridiculed and told I was the worst basketball player. I stood there taking the abuse, and when it ended I went home – angry.
I did not like being embarrassed. Not from having a bad basketball game. I was not that accomplished. It was the mocking that made me angry.
I was still angry when I went to bed. I had trouble falling asleep. I swore I would never play another basketball game as long as I lived.
I cannot remember how many days I was able to keep my oath, but I eventually started playing basketball. I was determined to become a better basketball player. I practiced on my dribbling, and jump shots. I did not become a great player, but I did get better. I developed the ability to score 20 points in a full court game by the time I left Puerto Rico in 1979.
With determination, I could overcome any obstacle. It is a lesson I would soon forget.
In the summer of 1979, my mother, two sisters and I came to New York for summer vacation, but we eventually decided to stay.
Getting enrolled in a high school became a problem. I was in the process of enrolling in Charles Evan Hughes High School, but I became frustrated with the process, threw a temper tantrum, and walked out of the school before completing the enrollment process.
I enrolled in Seward Park High School in October 1979. I was interviewed by the chairpersons of the departments, and it was determined that I belonged in the bilingual program.
The faculty asked, “what is your name,” and “where do you live.” From my facial expressions, they determined I did not know English. The reason my face was contorted was not due to a lack of understanding. I thought they were idiots because they asked stupid questions to an English dominant 15 year old.
The Seward Park faculty also decided I had to repeat the tenth grade.
I did not like Seward Park High School. I was angry because I was forced to repeat the tenth grade. I was not comfortable with the students I shared classes with. I was having trouble making friends. After a prolonged battle, I was placing in the eleventh grade, but that accomplishment did not improve my morale. Annoyance led to frustration and that led to cutting classes and I ultimately dropped out of high school.
I often wonder if I gave Seward Park High School a chance. I definitely did not demonstrate the same resolve I did on the basketball court in Puerto Rico.
At least, I could have finished the school year, then transferred to a better school, or accepted my family’s suggestion to attend a Catholic High School. Instead, I quit.
I got a GED. It is ironic that I got my GED diploma in the mail before Seward Park High School’s graduating class of 1981 got their diplomas.
With the help a college guidance counselor, I was accepted to City College of New York. I wanted to major in English, become a journalist and become a sportswriter. It was more of a fantasy, to have a career writing about baseball, but I thought I had good writing skills. I thought.
I really did not have a high school education. I had to take remedial classes during my freshman year. The English professors were encouraging. I thought I was a good writer. I thought.
I enrolled in an advance writing class in my sophomore year. I wrote three or four essays. The essays had one thing in common. They were graded C-/D+. The last essay I wrote was about my favorite television show – Barney Miller. In the essay, I described the characters and the plots. I got the usual bad grade, but the professor wrote “monotonous” on the margins. He wrote other comments, but monotonous hurt.
I had enough. I was concerned about passing the course. I did not want to fail a class in my second year. I decided to drop the class. The professor thought I was being hasty, but I did not want a D or an F on my college transcript.
From that point, I avoided English classes. I no longer wanted to be an English major. I avoided classes that required writing term papers. I was a student without a major by sophomore year.
The boycott ended in my junior year. I was enrolled in political science classes that required term papers instead of exams. The writing improved, mostly because I had better material to write about. I stopped avoiding classes that required term papers.
On April 15, 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya. The bombing was a retaliatory strike against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s involvement in a terrorist attack in a West Berlin disco that killed two American servicemen.
The bombing of Libya prompted something I had never done before. I wrote an essay condemning President Reagan’s decision.
The essay was not an assignment. I did not receive a grade for it. I was satisfied with the essay, but felt the need to share it. I submitted the essay to The Campus, the student newspaper of the City College of New York. The essay was published in the April 21, 1986 edition.
I went to the office of The Campus. There was only one person the room. A young man was sitting at desk, talking on the telephone. The young man asked if I needed assistance.
I told him I was looking for more editions of The Campus. I wanted them as souvenirs because an essay I wrote was published in the school newspaper. He wanted to know which article. “The article about the bombing in Libya,” I said.
“You wrote that?” he asked. He ended the telephone conversation, got up from his desk, walked over to me, and shook my hand. He liked the article. We talked for a few minutes. He gave me a stack of papers and I left.
I was proud to have written something that was published. The essay was published in its entirety. Nothing was subtracted or added. I was a little upset that the editor changed the title of the essay and my last name was misspelled, but I felt regret over not taking advantage of writing for the school newspaper.
I was over my writing phobia. I read Hemingway for the first time. I also read Elements of Style by William Strunk and EB White. I developed a new writing style, staccato rhythm, shorter sentence structure, eliminated redundancies, and improved my editing skills.
I became a better writer after I graduated from City College. Writing term papers and a thesis was fun when I attended Brooklyn College.
But writing requires discipline, something I lack. Over the years, I started and restarted a novel I hoped to publish.
I’ve had good ideas for articles, but not written them because I did not believe the articles would be published.
I thought about publishing a newsletter. I intended the Nihilist Papers to be a monthly newsletter. I actually completed two editions, but stopped, mostly to a lack of discipline.
After September 11, 2001, I wrote an angry essay about the relationship between the Middle East and the west. I shared it with a few friends.
But it was not until the advent of Blogs that I finally found an opportunity to publish essays.
Last year was productive. The primaries and presidential campaigns produced a wealth of material to write about.
I still struggle with discipline. Writing is a constant struggle, to properly express a thought, to convey an idea in an interesting style that readers will appreciate.
Writing is hard. Not every essay flows easily like the articles about the Libya bombing or September 11.
Sometimes, I’ll write a thousand words, read them and not be satisfied with the result. The temptation to quit is great, but I force myself to persevere.
The article I wrote last year about Mayor Giuiliani’s failed presidential campaign is an example. I was unhappy with the first draft, so I wrote a completely different article.
Sometimes ideas become obsolete because news cycles change rapidly. Good ideas become old news.
Live long enough and you will have regrets. I have not lived long, but I am beginning to regret some of the decisions I have made.
Regarding writing, I wish I had demonstrated the same perseverance I demonstrated on the basketball court when I was teenager in Puerto Rico.
The article that was published in The Campus is titled, “The Politics of Stupidity – A Layman’s View.” It is the article published below this essay on this blog site. I resisted the temptation to make corrections.
[i] Randy Cohen, New York Times Ethicist.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Politics of Stupidity - A Layman's View
"We have done what we had to do," explained the president last week as he rationalized the military option he chose, namely to bomb Libya. He claims that this military act was carried out as an act of self defense, and that this military action will hopefully deter Qaddafi from sponsoring, or taking part in, future acts of terrorism. What the president fails to realize is that Qaddafi will most likely react in an even more severe manner than ever before (I am assuming that Qaddafi will continue to act as he has done in the past). If Qaddafi retaliates, then Reagan will be forced to counterattack (Again, I am assuming that Reagan will act as he has claimed he would in the past). What we are witnessing is the possibility of of a relatively minor war beginning with the Gulf of Sidra incident, escalating into a full scale war with scores of civilians being the most likely victims.
By attacking Libya, President Reagan has converted American tourists into military targets. Europe will most likely witness countless bombings that will target innocent American lives, and will most likely endanger the lives of many innocent European civilians. This is probably one reason why the continental European nations refused to participate in this, the latest of the president's military adventures.
Americans abroad are not the only civilians in danger. We, the people who live in the United States will most likely become the target of terrorist attacks. The likelihood of this scenario occurring depends on the seriousness of damage suffered by Libya. If the damage is indeed serious, then many of the major cities of the United States will face the wrath of international terrorism. The likely targets will be government buildings, or places in which there are masses of people gathered together at one time (a stadium, or a mass transit system during rush hour), or any big city financial district. President Reagan has blindly rushed into a situation that could eventually cost the lives of innocent Americans at home as well as abroad.
What did the United States accomplish by bombing Libya? The United States destroyed several military installations, an airport, and training grounds for terrorists. Is this physical damage permanent? Absolutely not. Libya can, and most likely will, rebuild that which has been destroyed. Will this military exercise deter international terrorists? Absolutely not. Terrorists now have a new source of inspiration, and will have an even stronger desire to attack the United States and Americans. In fact, this military act will mostly likely inflate the ranks of international terrorists. Mr. President, you will soon realize that you accomplished nothing, that you made a big mistake. The future will prove that your choice of action was the wrong one. Your decision will not deter terrorism.
The bombing of Libya brought about some unforeseen circumstances. The Arab nations have denounced this military action, as well as the western European nations. Predictably, the Soviet Union opposed the Reagan air raid, but they have also threatened to cancel the summit meeting that was going to be held later this year. The Reagan administration has succeeded in alienating Arab countries, isolating the United States from its European allies in the fight against terrorism, and angered the Soviets to the point that they are refusing to hold discussions involving a much greater concern to world peace, and that concern is nuclear war.
Regardless of what the goals of this unenlightened military action were, one thing is almost certain, the Libyans will retaliate. The United States will then be placed in a position of backing up its tough rhetoric (to eliminate terrorist madmen), and it is likely the United States will be pushed into a limited war. "We have done what we had to do. If necessary, we will do it again." I've got news for you Mr. President, you will have to do it again.
Reprinted, originally published in the Campus on April 21, 1986.
By attacking Libya, President Reagan has converted American tourists into military targets. Europe will most likely witness countless bombings that will target innocent American lives, and will most likely endanger the lives of many innocent European civilians. This is probably one reason why the continental European nations refused to participate in this, the latest of the president's military adventures.
Americans abroad are not the only civilians in danger. We, the people who live in the United States will most likely become the target of terrorist attacks. The likelihood of this scenario occurring depends on the seriousness of damage suffered by Libya. If the damage is indeed serious, then many of the major cities of the United States will face the wrath of international terrorism. The likely targets will be government buildings, or places in which there are masses of people gathered together at one time (a stadium, or a mass transit system during rush hour), or any big city financial district. President Reagan has blindly rushed into a situation that could eventually cost the lives of innocent Americans at home as well as abroad.
What did the United States accomplish by bombing Libya? The United States destroyed several military installations, an airport, and training grounds for terrorists. Is this physical damage permanent? Absolutely not. Libya can, and most likely will, rebuild that which has been destroyed. Will this military exercise deter international terrorists? Absolutely not. Terrorists now have a new source of inspiration, and will have an even stronger desire to attack the United States and Americans. In fact, this military act will mostly likely inflate the ranks of international terrorists. Mr. President, you will soon realize that you accomplished nothing, that you made a big mistake. The future will prove that your choice of action was the wrong one. Your decision will not deter terrorism.
The bombing of Libya brought about some unforeseen circumstances. The Arab nations have denounced this military action, as well as the western European nations. Predictably, the Soviet Union opposed the Reagan air raid, but they have also threatened to cancel the summit meeting that was going to be held later this year. The Reagan administration has succeeded in alienating Arab countries, isolating the United States from its European allies in the fight against terrorism, and angered the Soviets to the point that they are refusing to hold discussions involving a much greater concern to world peace, and that concern is nuclear war.
Regardless of what the goals of this unenlightened military action were, one thing is almost certain, the Libyans will retaliate. The United States will then be placed in a position of backing up its tough rhetoric (to eliminate terrorist madmen), and it is likely the United States will be pushed into a limited war. "We have done what we had to do. If necessary, we will do it again." I've got news for you Mr. President, you will have to do it again.
Reprinted, originally published in the Campus on April 21, 1986.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
A Defector You Can Believe In
Species need to adapt to the environment in order to survive. Failure to adapt could lead to extinction.
Moderate Republicans are on the verge of political extinction. However, President Obama and the Democratic Party are not the catalytic force behind the threat to eliminate moderate Republicans from the political landscape.
Conservative Republicans want to purify the party of moderates and liberals. To conservatives, it is moderate and liberal Republicans who caused the backlash against the party.
Detecting political extinction, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his allegiance from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party this week. He was overcome with a moment of clarity. Senator Specter changed parties because he did not think he could defeat a conservative Republican in a primary in 2010.
The demographics changed in Pennsylvania. “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats.” With his political career in jeopardy, Senator Specter discovered his “political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”[i]
“I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate — not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” said the Pennsylvania Senator at a press conference.[ii]
Instead, Mr. Specter went forum shopping, hoping a change in political affiliation would preserve his political career.
Senator Specter desperately wants to win a sixth term to the United States Senate, but the Republican Party continues to shift the right with conservatives attempting to consolidate power, or in their words – to purify the party.
Mr. Specter deserted the Republican Party’s obstructionist position because he voted for President Obama’s stimulus package. Senator Specter believed the stimulus package was “necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession,” but supporting President Obama “caused a schism which makes [the] differences irreconcilable.”[iii]
He also supports abortion rights and stem cell research. He opposed the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.[iv]
Senator Specter’s moderate voting record made him a target of Club for Growth, a conservative Political Action Committee (PAC) “who have financed primary challenges against Republicans they consider to have strayed too far from conservative principles.”[v]
Former Republican Pennsylvania congressman Patrick Toomey was Senator Specter’s rival for the nomination in 2010. He formerly led the Club for Growth PAC. He almost defeated Mr. Specter in the 2004 Republican primary.[vi]
The Club for Growth would rather lose a general election with a conservative candidate, than win with a moderate or liberal Republican candidate.
Republican voters, in a recent Quinnipiac public opinion poll, “preferred Mr. Toomey over Mr. Specter, 41 percent to 27 percent, with 28 percent undecided” – with a margin for error of plus/minus 5%. “The chairmen of both the Pennsylvania and national Republican parties have said they were open to backing a challenger, an unusual slight to a five-term incumbent.”[vii]
Mr. Specter preferred changing political affiliation rather than convincing conservatives that voting for the stimulus bill was the correct decision.
Vice President Biden is credited with persuading Mr. Specter to defect from the Republican Party.
President Obama and the Democratic Party were happy with Mr. Specter’s defection. The President made a commitment to support Mr. Specter in the Democratic primary because he was “appreciative of the support [Senator Specter] gave on a number of things, the stimulus package being one of them.”[viii]
In a press conference, President Obama said Senator Specter was liberated from the Republican Party, is free to vote his conscience, and will no longer be intimidated into voting with the Republican Party’s obstructionist tendencies.
In addition, President Obama “would campaign for him and raise money for him if necessary.”[ix]
In the Senate, Democrats will control 60 seats, when Senator Elect Al Franken from Minnesota overcomes the court challenges against his Election Day victory. With 60 seats, Democrats could theoretically prevent Republicans from filibusters, thus enabling President Obama to enact his ambitious agenda.
Welcoming and supporting Senator Specter is a mistake. Mr. Specter will not automatically support President Obama’s agenda.
Senator Specter intends to vote against the Employees Free Choice (Card Check) Act. Pennsylvania is a blue collar, pro-union state. Unions support the Employees Free Choice Act.[x]
He will not support Dawn Johnson who is President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
Senator Specter, with 11 other Democrats, voted against S. 61: Helping Families Save Their in Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009. The purpose of the bill was to give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to prevent home foreclosures. Homeowners would have greater flexibility to renegotiate their mortgages.[xi]
Senator Specter voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
Mr. Specter is the creator of the “Magic Bullet” theory. The Warren Commission used this theory to justify the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as President Kennedy’s assassin (I’m not about to forget that one).
Presume Patrick Toomey defeated Senator Specter for the Republican nomination. The Democratic primary winner would have defeated Mr. Toomey in the general election.
Pennsylvania is a blue state. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The Democratic candidate would have run a campaign supporting President Obama’s agenda.
If President Obama maintains his approval rating throughout 2010, then the election would have been a referendum on the president. A candidate supporting a popular president would have defeated a candidate opposing a popular president.
The Democratic candidate would be more loyal to the president’s agenda than Senator Specter who clearly stated he would not be an automatic vote for President Obama.
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party should allow a viable candidate to run against Mr. Specter in 2010. Let registered Democrats decide if they want Mr. Specter to represent their interests.
Maybe Mr. Specter is right. He would have defeated a Democratic rival in the 2010 general election. Maybe his only obstacle was losing to a conservative in a primary.
But Mr. Specter is not entitled to be a United States Senator. He wants to continue his political career by taking the path of least resistance.
He is cynically manipulating the political system. Democrats and independents will be forced to choose between a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican.
Mr. Specter was part of the political problem from 2001 through 2008. He does not deserve an EZ Pass to the Senate.
Besides, what’s to stop him from switching back to the Republican Party if Governor Sarah Palin becomes the 45th president in 2012.
[i] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[iii] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[v] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vi] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vii] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[ix] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[x] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[xi] Patrick Rucker, “U.S. Senate Rejects Easing Mortgages in Bankruptcy,” Washington Post, April 30, 2009.
Moderate Republicans are on the verge of political extinction. However, President Obama and the Democratic Party are not the catalytic force behind the threat to eliminate moderate Republicans from the political landscape.
Conservative Republicans want to purify the party of moderates and liberals. To conservatives, it is moderate and liberal Republicans who caused the backlash against the party.
Detecting political extinction, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his allegiance from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party this week. He was overcome with a moment of clarity. Senator Specter changed parties because he did not think he could defeat a conservative Republican in a primary in 2010.
The demographics changed in Pennsylvania. “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats.” With his political career in jeopardy, Senator Specter discovered his “political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”[i]
“I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate — not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” said the Pennsylvania Senator at a press conference.[ii]
Instead, Mr. Specter went forum shopping, hoping a change in political affiliation would preserve his political career.
Senator Specter desperately wants to win a sixth term to the United States Senate, but the Republican Party continues to shift the right with conservatives attempting to consolidate power, or in their words – to purify the party.
Mr. Specter deserted the Republican Party’s obstructionist position because he voted for President Obama’s stimulus package. Senator Specter believed the stimulus package was “necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession,” but supporting President Obama “caused a schism which makes [the] differences irreconcilable.”[iii]
He also supports abortion rights and stem cell research. He opposed the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.[iv]
Senator Specter’s moderate voting record made him a target of Club for Growth, a conservative Political Action Committee (PAC) “who have financed primary challenges against Republicans they consider to have strayed too far from conservative principles.”[v]
Former Republican Pennsylvania congressman Patrick Toomey was Senator Specter’s rival for the nomination in 2010. He formerly led the Club for Growth PAC. He almost defeated Mr. Specter in the 2004 Republican primary.[vi]
The Club for Growth would rather lose a general election with a conservative candidate, than win with a moderate or liberal Republican candidate.
Republican voters, in a recent Quinnipiac public opinion poll, “preferred Mr. Toomey over Mr. Specter, 41 percent to 27 percent, with 28 percent undecided” – with a margin for error of plus/minus 5%. “The chairmen of both the Pennsylvania and national Republican parties have said they were open to backing a challenger, an unusual slight to a five-term incumbent.”[vii]
Mr. Specter preferred changing political affiliation rather than convincing conservatives that voting for the stimulus bill was the correct decision.
Vice President Biden is credited with persuading Mr. Specter to defect from the Republican Party.
President Obama and the Democratic Party were happy with Mr. Specter’s defection. The President made a commitment to support Mr. Specter in the Democratic primary because he was “appreciative of the support [Senator Specter] gave on a number of things, the stimulus package being one of them.”[viii]
In a press conference, President Obama said Senator Specter was liberated from the Republican Party, is free to vote his conscience, and will no longer be intimidated into voting with the Republican Party’s obstructionist tendencies.
In addition, President Obama “would campaign for him and raise money for him if necessary.”[ix]
In the Senate, Democrats will control 60 seats, when Senator Elect Al Franken from Minnesota overcomes the court challenges against his Election Day victory. With 60 seats, Democrats could theoretically prevent Republicans from filibusters, thus enabling President Obama to enact his ambitious agenda.
Welcoming and supporting Senator Specter is a mistake. Mr. Specter will not automatically support President Obama’s agenda.
Senator Specter intends to vote against the Employees Free Choice (Card Check) Act. Pennsylvania is a blue collar, pro-union state. Unions support the Employees Free Choice Act.[x]
He will not support Dawn Johnson who is President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
Senator Specter, with 11 other Democrats, voted against S. 61: Helping Families Save Their in Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009. The purpose of the bill was to give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to prevent home foreclosures. Homeowners would have greater flexibility to renegotiate their mortgages.[xi]
Senator Specter voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
Mr. Specter is the creator of the “Magic Bullet” theory. The Warren Commission used this theory to justify the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as President Kennedy’s assassin (I’m not about to forget that one).
Presume Patrick Toomey defeated Senator Specter for the Republican nomination. The Democratic primary winner would have defeated Mr. Toomey in the general election.
Pennsylvania is a blue state. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The Democratic candidate would have run a campaign supporting President Obama’s agenda.
If President Obama maintains his approval rating throughout 2010, then the election would have been a referendum on the president. A candidate supporting a popular president would have defeated a candidate opposing a popular president.
The Democratic candidate would be more loyal to the president’s agenda than Senator Specter who clearly stated he would not be an automatic vote for President Obama.
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party should allow a viable candidate to run against Mr. Specter in 2010. Let registered Democrats decide if they want Mr. Specter to represent their interests.
Maybe Mr. Specter is right. He would have defeated a Democratic rival in the 2010 general election. Maybe his only obstacle was losing to a conservative in a primary.
But Mr. Specter is not entitled to be a United States Senator. He wants to continue his political career by taking the path of least resistance.
He is cynically manipulating the political system. Democrats and independents will be forced to choose between a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican.
Mr. Specter was part of the political problem from 2001 through 2008. He does not deserve an EZ Pass to the Senate.
Besides, what’s to stop him from switching back to the Republican Party if Governor Sarah Palin becomes the 45th president in 2012.
[i] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[iii] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[v] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vi] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vii] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[ix] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[x] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[xi] Patrick Rucker, “U.S. Senate Rejects Easing Mortgages in Bankruptcy,” Washington Post, April 30, 2009.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Wasted Opportunity
Curt Schilling retired from baseball last week. His career spanned 20 years. He played with the Baltimore Orioles from 1988 to 1990; Houston Astros in 1991; Philadelphia Phillies from 1992 to 2000. He was traded on July 25, 2000 to the Arizona Diamondbacks. He pitched for the Diamondbacks from 2000 to 2003. In November 2003, he was traded to the Boston Red Sox. He played with the Red Sox from 2004 to 2007. Curt Schilling was unable to participate in the 2008 season due to an injury.
It is customary to debate whether a recently retired baseball player is worthy of being inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling was considered a big game pitcher. He participated in 12 postseason series, including three World Series. He won eleven postseason games, and lost only two. His World Series won/loss record in 4-1, with a 2.06 earned run average (ERA).
In his twenty-year career, Curt Schilling won 216 games, lost 146. He made more than 30 starts seven times in his career. His winning percentage was 59.7% and ERA was 3.45. He won more than 20 games three times, and won 15 to 19 games five times. In 12 years, Curt Schilling won less than 14 games in a year.
Curt Schilling struck out 3116 batters, ranking 15th on the all time strikeout list. He struck out over 200 batters five times. In three of those seasons, he struck out over 300 batters.
An average Curt Schilling season would consist of 21 games started, 10 wins and 7 losses, and 155 strikeouts. These are not Hall of Fame numbers.
Tom Glavine’s baseball career closely parallels Curt Schilling’s career. He started pitching for the Atlanta Braves in 1987. Glavine does not throw as hard as Schilling, but in 22 seasons he won 305 games, lost 203, and has a 3.54 ERA.
Tom Glavine won more than 20 games five times. He started more than 30 games 17 times. He won the Cy Young award twice. Schilling never won the award.
Glavine has not been as successful as Schilling in the postseason. Glavine was on one World Series championship team. Schilling was on three championship teams. Glavine’s postseason record is 6 wins, 10 losses, but his World Series record is 4-3.
An 11-2 postseason record is not a sufficient enough achievement to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling’s ability to win big games is admirable. Red Sox fans will never forget Schilling’s performance in game six of the 2004 American League Championship Series against the New York Yankees – forever known in baseball lore as the “bloody sock game.”
But Curt Schilling had the ability to be a dominant regular season pitcher. He could throw as hard as Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson. It is ironic that in the steroid era Curt Schilling was not durable.
He earned over $114 million in salary, but if Curt Schilling were honest with himself, he would realize he squandered an opportunity to become one of the great pitchers of his generation.
It is customary to debate whether a recently retired baseball player is worthy of being inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling was considered a big game pitcher. He participated in 12 postseason series, including three World Series. He won eleven postseason games, and lost only two. His World Series won/loss record in 4-1, with a 2.06 earned run average (ERA).
In his twenty-year career, Curt Schilling won 216 games, lost 146. He made more than 30 starts seven times in his career. His winning percentage was 59.7% and ERA was 3.45. He won more than 20 games three times, and won 15 to 19 games five times. In 12 years, Curt Schilling won less than 14 games in a year.
Curt Schilling struck out 3116 batters, ranking 15th on the all time strikeout list. He struck out over 200 batters five times. In three of those seasons, he struck out over 300 batters.
An average Curt Schilling season would consist of 21 games started, 10 wins and 7 losses, and 155 strikeouts. These are not Hall of Fame numbers.
Tom Glavine’s baseball career closely parallels Curt Schilling’s career. He started pitching for the Atlanta Braves in 1987. Glavine does not throw as hard as Schilling, but in 22 seasons he won 305 games, lost 203, and has a 3.54 ERA.
Tom Glavine won more than 20 games five times. He started more than 30 games 17 times. He won the Cy Young award twice. Schilling never won the award.
Glavine has not been as successful as Schilling in the postseason. Glavine was on one World Series championship team. Schilling was on three championship teams. Glavine’s postseason record is 6 wins, 10 losses, but his World Series record is 4-3.
An 11-2 postseason record is not a sufficient enough achievement to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling’s ability to win big games is admirable. Red Sox fans will never forget Schilling’s performance in game six of the 2004 American League Championship Series against the New York Yankees – forever known in baseball lore as the “bloody sock game.”
But Curt Schilling had the ability to be a dominant regular season pitcher. He could throw as hard as Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson. It is ironic that in the steroid era Curt Schilling was not durable.
He earned over $114 million in salary, but if Curt Schilling were honest with himself, he would realize he squandered an opportunity to become one of the great pitchers of his generation.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Illusion of Change
In the wake of the outrage over the lavish Wall Street bonuses, the House of Representatives passed a tax bill designed to punish extravagant executives.
The government wants to tax 90% of the income from the bonuses of companies that received “at least $5 billion in bailout money,” retroactive to January 1, 2009.[i]
The retroactive tax is intended for the bonuses of “traders, executives and bankers” who earned more than $250,000.[ii]
“Employees at 11 institutions – including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase” are the focus of the legislation.[iii]
The Senate’s version of the bill seeks to tax bonuses from companies that received $100 million in bailout funds.[iv]
American International Group (AIG) instigated the public outrage when it was disclosed that $165 million in bonuses were distributed to 418 of their employees – including “$33.6 million for 52 people who left the failed insurance conglomerate.”[v]
In addition, AIG paid more than $1 million in bonuses to 73 employees who created the financial instruments that caused AIG’s financial crisis.[vi]
The United States government owns almost 80% of AIG because the troubled conglomerate “has received nearly $200 billion in federal bailout funds.”[vii]
President Obama supported the effort to recoup the bonuses. The President wants “Congress to deliver a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”[viii]
AIG executives argued the bonuses were necessary to keep their gifted employees. In addition, AIG did not want to renege on a contract. The beleaguered company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. Also, AIG wanted to avoid lawsuits from disgruntled employees.
Former President Bush left an indelible mark on the political culture in the United States. The current AIG bonuses fiasco combines two of his worst features, his poor reading habits and disdain for the Constitution.
Article 1; section 9 of the United States Constitution states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
An ex post facto law "is passed after an action in order to retroactively change the legal treatment of the action to the disadvantage of the actor.”[ix]
Furthermore, Congress cannot pass laws directed at a group of individuals.
Congress wants to enact a law taxing income after Congress has considered the income to be unfairly earned. The United States government wants to punish federal bailout recipients because the government did not have the foresight, or courage, to insert regulations in the initial federal bailout legislation prohibiting the use of bailout funds for bonuses.
The government is about to engage in a legislative process that could ultimately be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Ignorance cannot be the reason Congress and the President are wasting their time pursuing this potentially futile attempt at retroactively restoring justice and fairness.
Enacting laws is their vocation. Our government must know this tax law is potentially unconstitutional. Otherwise, we have elected fools to govern us.
Sometimes politicians are nothing more than carnival barkers. The government’s response to the furor over the bonuses is their way to appease the public. It is an illusion to distract us from their incompetence and greed.
“Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” said Jesses Unruh, the former Speaker of California’s Assembly.
Politicians are as greedy as Wall Street executives because the latter contribute to the political campaigns of the former.
Taxing executive bonuses is a charade to cover up the collusion between Wall Street, the government and the mainstream media.
The federal government issued $700 billion to troubled financial institutions. The Obama administration passed a landmark $800 billion stimulus package to stimulate the national economy. There is $1.5 trillion that is not circulating in the economy. Someone is hoarding money for a special occasion.
It will be interesting to witness, in the midst of a depressed economy, how much money financial institutions contribute towards political campaigns in 2010.
[i] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[iii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[v] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[vi] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[vii] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[ix] Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, West Publishing Company, 1996, page 245.
The government wants to tax 90% of the income from the bonuses of companies that received “at least $5 billion in bailout money,” retroactive to January 1, 2009.[i]
The retroactive tax is intended for the bonuses of “traders, executives and bankers” who earned more than $250,000.[ii]
“Employees at 11 institutions – including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase” are the focus of the legislation.[iii]
The Senate’s version of the bill seeks to tax bonuses from companies that received $100 million in bailout funds.[iv]
American International Group (AIG) instigated the public outrage when it was disclosed that $165 million in bonuses were distributed to 418 of their employees – including “$33.6 million for 52 people who left the failed insurance conglomerate.”[v]
In addition, AIG paid more than $1 million in bonuses to 73 employees who created the financial instruments that caused AIG’s financial crisis.[vi]
The United States government owns almost 80% of AIG because the troubled conglomerate “has received nearly $200 billion in federal bailout funds.”[vii]
President Obama supported the effort to recoup the bonuses. The President wants “Congress to deliver a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”[viii]
AIG executives argued the bonuses were necessary to keep their gifted employees. In addition, AIG did not want to renege on a contract. The beleaguered company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. Also, AIG wanted to avoid lawsuits from disgruntled employees.
Former President Bush left an indelible mark on the political culture in the United States. The current AIG bonuses fiasco combines two of his worst features, his poor reading habits and disdain for the Constitution.
Article 1; section 9 of the United States Constitution states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
An ex post facto law "is passed after an action in order to retroactively change the legal treatment of the action to the disadvantage of the actor.”[ix]
Furthermore, Congress cannot pass laws directed at a group of individuals.
Congress wants to enact a law taxing income after Congress has considered the income to be unfairly earned. The United States government wants to punish federal bailout recipients because the government did not have the foresight, or courage, to insert regulations in the initial federal bailout legislation prohibiting the use of bailout funds for bonuses.
The government is about to engage in a legislative process that could ultimately be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Ignorance cannot be the reason Congress and the President are wasting their time pursuing this potentially futile attempt at retroactively restoring justice and fairness.
Enacting laws is their vocation. Our government must know this tax law is potentially unconstitutional. Otherwise, we have elected fools to govern us.
Sometimes politicians are nothing more than carnival barkers. The government’s response to the furor over the bonuses is their way to appease the public. It is an illusion to distract us from their incompetence and greed.
“Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” said Jesses Unruh, the former Speaker of California’s Assembly.
Politicians are as greedy as Wall Street executives because the latter contribute to the political campaigns of the former.
Taxing executive bonuses is a charade to cover up the collusion between Wall Street, the government and the mainstream media.
The federal government issued $700 billion to troubled financial institutions. The Obama administration passed a landmark $800 billion stimulus package to stimulate the national economy. There is $1.5 trillion that is not circulating in the economy. Someone is hoarding money for a special occasion.
It will be interesting to witness, in the midst of a depressed economy, how much money financial institutions contribute towards political campaigns in 2010.
[i] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[iii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[v] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[vi] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[vii] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[ix] Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, West Publishing Company, 1996, page 245.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Lunatic Is On The Air
Syd Barrett was the founder; lead singer and lyricist of the seminal British rock group Pink Floyd. According to Pink Floyd mythology, Syd Barrett took a hit of LSD, went on a psychedelic trip and never returned to sanity.
Syd Barrett’s abuse of LSD affected his ability to perform. He acted unpredictably and erratically on stage, once playing one note throughout an entire performance. During another concert, he detuned his guitar to the delight of the audience. Sometimes, he stood on stage in a catatonic state. During a video recording of the Pat Boone Show, he refused to lip sync the song “See Emily Play.”
Currently, another man who uses a microphone for a living is exhibiting erratic behavior. He also had a drug problem. The drug abuse may have affected his ability to think lucidly.
He is not an artist. He talks for a living. From the liberal political spectrum, he spews nonsense.
In October 2003, Rush Limbaugh admitted to his listeners on his widely syndicated talk show that he was addicted to the pain killer medication Oxycontin. Sadly, Rush Limbaugh went on an opiate induced trip and lost his sanity.
In January 2009, he was asked to produce a 400-word essay to an American publication indicating his hopes for President Obama. He offered a four-word reply. “I hope he fails.”[i]
According to his drug induced brain-damaged mind, Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail because “liberalism is the problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?”[ii]
Rush Limbaugh’s mind was damaged due to abusing Oxicontin. He is unable to comprehend reality.
President George Bush was president for eight years. The Republican Party controlled the executive, legislative and judicial branches of American government for six of those eight years.
The Republicans had a firm grasp of the presidency from 1968 to 2008. But liberalism was the problem according to Mr. Limbaugh.
Liberalism ignored the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,” Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist network Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.
Liberalism launched a preemptive war against Iraq based on the false assumption Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Liberalism deregulated the bank and finance industries, which led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Maybe Mr. Limbaugh is having a withdrawal-induced flashback to 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson initiated the Great Society programs. Conservatives loathe the Great Society programs as much as they loathe the New Deal.
It is not just Rush Limbaugh rooting against President Obama that makes me question his sanity. It’s Mr. Limbaugh’s solution that concerns me.
“I am a guy on the radio and I am not, by any means, an official leader of the Republican Party,” Mr. Limbaugh said during a January 2009 broadcast. “I‘m a conservative. The official leaders of the Republican Party are fighting over who their ultimate leader is going to be—hint, hint, it‘s Sarah Palin.”[iii]
Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail. He wants current Alaska Governor and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to lead the Republican Party to victory in 2012.
Mr. Limbaugh believes Governor Palin can solve the problems unresolved by President Obama.
Imagine if a man stood on a soapbox on any street corner of any American city and said he hoped President Obama fails. Furthermore, he argues Sarah Palin is the only person who is capable of leading the United States through these difficult times.
The speaker would be dismissed. Pedestrians would assume the speaker was crazy or high on drugs. Rush Limbaugh lost his mind because he abused Oxycontin. “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind,” to quote former Vice President Dan Quayle.
Rush Limbaugh is a millionaire because he broadcasts his opinions. He is white. He is conservative. He is rich, but the Republican Party is making a mistake taking directions from his opinions.
Does the Republican Party really want to take advice from a former junkie?
The Republican Party will not survive if they continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The GOP cannot sustain itself as a party that caters only to southern whites who are against abortion, against civil rights, and against gun control.
Although it would be ironic if the Republican Party became extinct. Conservatives do not believe in evolution. Republicans would become a Darwinian casualty, facing extinction because they were unable to adapt to a changing political environment.
[i] “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/09.
[ii] “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/09.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 1/30/09.
Syd Barrett’s abuse of LSD affected his ability to perform. He acted unpredictably and erratically on stage, once playing one note throughout an entire performance. During another concert, he detuned his guitar to the delight of the audience. Sometimes, he stood on stage in a catatonic state. During a video recording of the Pat Boone Show, he refused to lip sync the song “See Emily Play.”
Currently, another man who uses a microphone for a living is exhibiting erratic behavior. He also had a drug problem. The drug abuse may have affected his ability to think lucidly.
He is not an artist. He talks for a living. From the liberal political spectrum, he spews nonsense.
In October 2003, Rush Limbaugh admitted to his listeners on his widely syndicated talk show that he was addicted to the pain killer medication Oxycontin. Sadly, Rush Limbaugh went on an opiate induced trip and lost his sanity.
In January 2009, he was asked to produce a 400-word essay to an American publication indicating his hopes for President Obama. He offered a four-word reply. “I hope he fails.”[i]
According to his drug induced brain-damaged mind, Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail because “liberalism is the problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?”[ii]
Rush Limbaugh’s mind was damaged due to abusing Oxicontin. He is unable to comprehend reality.
President George Bush was president for eight years. The Republican Party controlled the executive, legislative and judicial branches of American government for six of those eight years.
The Republicans had a firm grasp of the presidency from 1968 to 2008. But liberalism was the problem according to Mr. Limbaugh.
Liberalism ignored the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,” Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist network Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.
Liberalism launched a preemptive war against Iraq based on the false assumption Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Liberalism deregulated the bank and finance industries, which led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Maybe Mr. Limbaugh is having a withdrawal-induced flashback to 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson initiated the Great Society programs. Conservatives loathe the Great Society programs as much as they loathe the New Deal.
It is not just Rush Limbaugh rooting against President Obama that makes me question his sanity. It’s Mr. Limbaugh’s solution that concerns me.
“I am a guy on the radio and I am not, by any means, an official leader of the Republican Party,” Mr. Limbaugh said during a January 2009 broadcast. “I‘m a conservative. The official leaders of the Republican Party are fighting over who their ultimate leader is going to be—hint, hint, it‘s Sarah Palin.”[iii]
Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail. He wants current Alaska Governor and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to lead the Republican Party to victory in 2012.
Mr. Limbaugh believes Governor Palin can solve the problems unresolved by President Obama.
Imagine if a man stood on a soapbox on any street corner of any American city and said he hoped President Obama fails. Furthermore, he argues Sarah Palin is the only person who is capable of leading the United States through these difficult times.
The speaker would be dismissed. Pedestrians would assume the speaker was crazy or high on drugs. Rush Limbaugh lost his mind because he abused Oxycontin. “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind,” to quote former Vice President Dan Quayle.
Rush Limbaugh is a millionaire because he broadcasts his opinions. He is white. He is conservative. He is rich, but the Republican Party is making a mistake taking directions from his opinions.
Does the Republican Party really want to take advice from a former junkie?
The Republican Party will not survive if they continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The GOP cannot sustain itself as a party that caters only to southern whites who are against abortion, against civil rights, and against gun control.
Although it would be ironic if the Republican Party became extinct. Conservatives do not believe in evolution. Republicans would become a Darwinian casualty, facing extinction because they were unable to adapt to a changing political environment.
[i] “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/09.
[ii] “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/09.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 1/30/09.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Can't Spell Worst Without W.
The Bush presidency was not a total abject failure. He did manage one notable accomplishment. President Bush had the unenviable challenge of explaining in five words or less why the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 and he managed to exceed expectations. He used four words. Al Qaeda attacked us because “they hate our freedom.” Only a creative genius could manage to explain a catastrophe and at the same time fit the explanation on a bumper sticker.
“As the years passed most Americans were able to return to life as much as it had been before Nine-Eleven,” President Bush said in his last presidential address to the country. “But I never did. Every morning, I received a brief on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.”[i]
This was a “tell.” President Bush was subliminally admitting he did not read the August 6, 2001, Presidential daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” He certainly did not act on the threat.
He was on vacation in Crawford, Texas at the time. The ominous memo did not interrupt his vacation. Meetings were not held. Law enforcement agencies were not alerted. The Federal Aviation Administration was not warned. The country was not aware of the threat to national security.
President Bush displayed terrible leadership instincts. He was unable to prioritize. An emergency was placed on his lap and he did nothing.
In contrast, President Bush interrupted his vacation on March 21, 2005, flew from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to Washington DC, to sign bill S.686 into law - the“Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Protection Bill.”
Terri Schiavo was a Florida resident who collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990 after experiencing respiratory and cardiac arrest. Mrs. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage. She was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for several years.
Her husband, Michael Schiavo, wanted to remove the feeding tube that kept his wife alive, thus ending her life. Mrs. Schiavo’s parents objected. The matter was taken to the Florida courts. The state court was about to rule in Mr. Schiavo’s favor.
Republicans in the United States Senate intervened with bill S.686. The purpose of the bill was to transfer jurisdiction from the Florida state courts to the federal courts. President Bush interrupted his vacation to sign bill S.686 into law.
In August 2001, President Bush was notified the country was about to be attacked and did nothing, but in March 2005 President Bush interrupted his vacation to interject himself into a family dispute. President Bush failure to prioritize is just one example of his failure as president.
Failing to act on the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief led to other failures. Once lives were lost, President Bush began to overcompensate, to overreact. President Bush established the “Preemptive War Doctrine,” also known to everyone, except Governor Sarah Palin, as the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine is as simple as the bearer of the doctrine’s name. Attack a country before it attacks you. Do not wait for a country to become an actual threat. President Bush launched an attack on a sovereign country based on a hypothetical threat.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. His regime murdered thousands of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The war with Iran lasted eight years. Saddam Hussein also invaded Kuwait in 1990. In 2002, Saddam Hussein became a threat to world peace.
The Bush administration argued Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was a threat to world peace because he was evil. Vice President Cheney argued Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. If Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, then he could conceivably furnish Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda was a threat to the United States; therefore Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. The hypothetical threat had to be resolved.
The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, but weapons of mass destruction were never found. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda never existed.
President Bush attributed the absence of weapons of mass destruction to poor intelligence. It is more likely that President Bush could not tell the difference between good intelligence and bad intelligence.
For example, Vice President Cheney hyped CIA intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein purchased aluminum tubes. The aluminum tubes could be used as “rotors that spin at extraordinarily high speeds in gas centrifuges that turn uranium into highly enriched uranium – the material needed for a nuclear weapon.”[ii]
Except that the Department of Energy concluded the aluminum tubes did not meet the specifications required for centrifuges. Instead, the aluminum tubes met the specifications for rockets.
The Bush Administration did not allow facts to get in the way of their propaganda. The Mainstream Media cooperated with the Bush Administration. A unnecessary war was launched against a sovereign country that was not a threat to the United States.
A president is a like a football coach. A good coach could identify the abilities of his players, and put his players in the best position to succeed.
It was bad enough President Bush initiated a war against Iraq. His poor judgment was exacerbated by the lack of preparation when the United States military actually invaded Iraq.
President Bush wanted to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States. He wanted to overthrow the Iraqi regime and replace it with a pro western liberal democracy.
Did he place the troops in a position to succeed? No, he did not. He invaded a sovereign country that was not a threat to the United States. Iraq disintegrated into a violent, sectarian civil war. American soldiers were caught in the middle of warring factions.
Did President Bush use sufficient number of troops to accomplish the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power, then protecting Iraq from chaos? No, he did not.
President Bush liked to say that he listened to the generals, except for four-star army general Eric Sinseki who testified before Congress and said that several thousand soldiers would be needed to invade and secure Iraq.
The logic behind the numbers was to compare Iraq, in size and population, with another territory. Iraq is the size of California with a population of 24 million. If you need 150,000 law enforcement personnel in California, a territory that is not facing disruption, then the number of soldiers needed to secure Iraq would have to be four to five times greater than in California because Iraqi society would be greatly disrupted.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disagreed. He thought the mission could be accomplished with one hundred thousand troops. President Bush listened to Rumsfeld instead of a four-star general.
Were the troops given the equipment needed for the mission to succeed? No, they were not. For example, the vehicles used in the Iraq War did not have enough armor to protect the soldiers. Soldiers had to use scrap metal to secure their vehicles.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was criticized, but his answer was that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you need.”
Using the football analogy, President Bush put five football players on the field, without pads and helmets, to play against eleven fully equipped players.
President Bush put American troops in a difficult position where success was dubious, did not send enough troops to secure Iraq, and he did not give the troops the equipment needed to succeed.
President Bush’s overreaction to the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was not limited to the invasion of Iraq. Our laws regarding torture were also compromised.
President Bush became too sensitive. He was given information and did not act on it; therefore he needed more information to prevent another attack. In his simplistic world, the best way to obtain more information was to beat it out someone. Torturing people was necessary in order to prevent another attack.
In addition, the Bush Administration eavesdropped on telephone calls, and monitored emails without probable cause, without warrants. The legal process was a nuisance, preventing President Bush from protecting America.
The Bush Administration proudly proclaimed that the United States, at the expense of civil liberties, was not attacked – since September 11, 2001.
President Bush’s two terms were eventful. The United States lost the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack in 2001, a natural disaster incapacitated New Orleans in 2005, and an economic meltdown in 2008. President Bush failed to respond to each of these calamities.
The Bush Administration went on a publicity tour to defend its legacy. The Bush legacy can be described with one word – sloth.
President Bush was a lazy administrator. He prided himself on not reading. He delegated authority, trusting staff to make sound judgments.
We may never know the identity of the person who initially read the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, but history will reflect President Bush failed to act when the United States was threatened.
President Bush believed torture was the best way to obtain valuable intelligence. Obtaining warrants was an annoyance. Finding a target to investigate took too much time. Instead, the government spied on everyone.
President Bush’s failure to read or act on the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief is just one example of his failure as president of the United States. This specific failure led to other failures.
Suppose the Bush Administration succeeded in disrupting the September 11, 2001 attack. Preemptive war might not have been compulsory. President Bush would not have had an excuse to invade Iraq. Civil liberties would remain intact. The imperial presidency would not have weakened our democracy.
Hopefully, the real legacy of George Bush will be the rejection of another late bloomer.
Hopefully, Americans will reject an individual who is not qualified to be president regardless of how amiable that person is.
Hopefully, intelligence will matter. Someone who never demonstrated practical intelligence in the past will not suddenly become intelligent once elected president.
Hopefully, Americans will be suspicious when the vice presidential candidate is clearly more qualified than the presidential candidate.
Unfortunately, the real Bush legacy will be the belief that if someone as incapable as George W. Bush could be president of the United States, then I can be president of the United States.
I guess we will find out the true meaning of the Bush legacy when Governor Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012.
[i] Text “President Bush’s Last Televised Address,” New York Times, January 15, 2009.
[ii] Michael Isikoff and David Corn, “Hubris,” Crown Publishers, New York, 2006, page 37-38.
“As the years passed most Americans were able to return to life as much as it had been before Nine-Eleven,” President Bush said in his last presidential address to the country. “But I never did. Every morning, I received a brief on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.”[i]
This was a “tell.” President Bush was subliminally admitting he did not read the August 6, 2001, Presidential daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” He certainly did not act on the threat.
He was on vacation in Crawford, Texas at the time. The ominous memo did not interrupt his vacation. Meetings were not held. Law enforcement agencies were not alerted. The Federal Aviation Administration was not warned. The country was not aware of the threat to national security.
President Bush displayed terrible leadership instincts. He was unable to prioritize. An emergency was placed on his lap and he did nothing.
In contrast, President Bush interrupted his vacation on March 21, 2005, flew from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to Washington DC, to sign bill S.686 into law - the“Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Protection Bill.”
Terri Schiavo was a Florida resident who collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990 after experiencing respiratory and cardiac arrest. Mrs. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage. She was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for several years.
Her husband, Michael Schiavo, wanted to remove the feeding tube that kept his wife alive, thus ending her life. Mrs. Schiavo’s parents objected. The matter was taken to the Florida courts. The state court was about to rule in Mr. Schiavo’s favor.
Republicans in the United States Senate intervened with bill S.686. The purpose of the bill was to transfer jurisdiction from the Florida state courts to the federal courts. President Bush interrupted his vacation to sign bill S.686 into law.
In August 2001, President Bush was notified the country was about to be attacked and did nothing, but in March 2005 President Bush interrupted his vacation to interject himself into a family dispute. President Bush failure to prioritize is just one example of his failure as president.
Failing to act on the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief led to other failures. Once lives were lost, President Bush began to overcompensate, to overreact. President Bush established the “Preemptive War Doctrine,” also known to everyone, except Governor Sarah Palin, as the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine is as simple as the bearer of the doctrine’s name. Attack a country before it attacks you. Do not wait for a country to become an actual threat. President Bush launched an attack on a sovereign country based on a hypothetical threat.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. His regime murdered thousands of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The war with Iran lasted eight years. Saddam Hussein also invaded Kuwait in 1990. In 2002, Saddam Hussein became a threat to world peace.
The Bush administration argued Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was a threat to world peace because he was evil. Vice President Cheney argued Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. If Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, then he could conceivably furnish Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda was a threat to the United States; therefore Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. The hypothetical threat had to be resolved.
The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, but weapons of mass destruction were never found. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda never existed.
President Bush attributed the absence of weapons of mass destruction to poor intelligence. It is more likely that President Bush could not tell the difference between good intelligence and bad intelligence.
For example, Vice President Cheney hyped CIA intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein purchased aluminum tubes. The aluminum tubes could be used as “rotors that spin at extraordinarily high speeds in gas centrifuges that turn uranium into highly enriched uranium – the material needed for a nuclear weapon.”[ii]
Except that the Department of Energy concluded the aluminum tubes did not meet the specifications required for centrifuges. Instead, the aluminum tubes met the specifications for rockets.
The Bush Administration did not allow facts to get in the way of their propaganda. The Mainstream Media cooperated with the Bush Administration. A unnecessary war was launched against a sovereign country that was not a threat to the United States.
A president is a like a football coach. A good coach could identify the abilities of his players, and put his players in the best position to succeed.
It was bad enough President Bush initiated a war against Iraq. His poor judgment was exacerbated by the lack of preparation when the United States military actually invaded Iraq.
President Bush wanted to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States. He wanted to overthrow the Iraqi regime and replace it with a pro western liberal democracy.
Did he place the troops in a position to succeed? No, he did not. He invaded a sovereign country that was not a threat to the United States. Iraq disintegrated into a violent, sectarian civil war. American soldiers were caught in the middle of warring factions.
Did President Bush use sufficient number of troops to accomplish the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power, then protecting Iraq from chaos? No, he did not.
President Bush liked to say that he listened to the generals, except for four-star army general Eric Sinseki who testified before Congress and said that several thousand soldiers would be needed to invade and secure Iraq.
The logic behind the numbers was to compare Iraq, in size and population, with another territory. Iraq is the size of California with a population of 24 million. If you need 150,000 law enforcement personnel in California, a territory that is not facing disruption, then the number of soldiers needed to secure Iraq would have to be four to five times greater than in California because Iraqi society would be greatly disrupted.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disagreed. He thought the mission could be accomplished with one hundred thousand troops. President Bush listened to Rumsfeld instead of a four-star general.
Were the troops given the equipment needed for the mission to succeed? No, they were not. For example, the vehicles used in the Iraq War did not have enough armor to protect the soldiers. Soldiers had to use scrap metal to secure their vehicles.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was criticized, but his answer was that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you need.”
Using the football analogy, President Bush put five football players on the field, without pads and helmets, to play against eleven fully equipped players.
President Bush put American troops in a difficult position where success was dubious, did not send enough troops to secure Iraq, and he did not give the troops the equipment needed to succeed.
President Bush’s overreaction to the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was not limited to the invasion of Iraq. Our laws regarding torture were also compromised.
President Bush became too sensitive. He was given information and did not act on it; therefore he needed more information to prevent another attack. In his simplistic world, the best way to obtain more information was to beat it out someone. Torturing people was necessary in order to prevent another attack.
In addition, the Bush Administration eavesdropped on telephone calls, and monitored emails without probable cause, without warrants. The legal process was a nuisance, preventing President Bush from protecting America.
The Bush Administration proudly proclaimed that the United States, at the expense of civil liberties, was not attacked – since September 11, 2001.
President Bush’s two terms were eventful. The United States lost the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack in 2001, a natural disaster incapacitated New Orleans in 2005, and an economic meltdown in 2008. President Bush failed to respond to each of these calamities.
The Bush Administration went on a publicity tour to defend its legacy. The Bush legacy can be described with one word – sloth.
President Bush was a lazy administrator. He prided himself on not reading. He delegated authority, trusting staff to make sound judgments.
We may never know the identity of the person who initially read the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, but history will reflect President Bush failed to act when the United States was threatened.
President Bush believed torture was the best way to obtain valuable intelligence. Obtaining warrants was an annoyance. Finding a target to investigate took too much time. Instead, the government spied on everyone.
President Bush’s failure to read or act on the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief is just one example of his failure as president of the United States. This specific failure led to other failures.
Suppose the Bush Administration succeeded in disrupting the September 11, 2001 attack. Preemptive war might not have been compulsory. President Bush would not have had an excuse to invade Iraq. Civil liberties would remain intact. The imperial presidency would not have weakened our democracy.
Hopefully, the real legacy of George Bush will be the rejection of another late bloomer.
Hopefully, Americans will reject an individual who is not qualified to be president regardless of how amiable that person is.
Hopefully, intelligence will matter. Someone who never demonstrated practical intelligence in the past will not suddenly become intelligent once elected president.
Hopefully, Americans will be suspicious when the vice presidential candidate is clearly more qualified than the presidential candidate.
Unfortunately, the real Bush legacy will be the belief that if someone as incapable as George W. Bush could be president of the United States, then I can be president of the United States.
I guess we will find out the true meaning of the Bush legacy when Governor Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012.
[i] Text “President Bush’s Last Televised Address,” New York Times, January 15, 2009.
[ii] Michael Isikoff and David Corn, “Hubris,” Crown Publishers, New York, 2006, page 37-38.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
