The Mondale Trap

Anticipating the upcoming presidential debates, I'm wondering which candidate might fall headlong into the same trap set AND sprung by candidate Walter Mondale in 1984 when speaking honestly about the need for "increased taxes" in the face of a faltering economy and recession.

Since the days of Nixon's unapologetic mendacity, Carter's sanctimonious piety and Mondale's politically ill-advised but decent relationship with the truth,
politicians have apparently taken up the mantra that "honesty and politics do not make for successful campaigns."  A flagrantly casual relationship with the truth has certainly been on display throughout this presidential campaign season with demagoguery, instead, taking a more prominent role.

Sadly, the American voter just doesn't seem to give a damn.

Take Medicare.

The reality of Medicare is bleak. In its current state, the entitlement program is simply unsustainable. Anyone with half a brain and rudimentary math skills sees the writing on the wall ~ this might also (perhaps generously) apply to most politicians currently kissing the collective American ass for votes.  Yes, some politicos are willing to occasionally dispense modest lip service to the reality of Medicare when questioned but one will also notice how most of these uncomfortable conversations are quickly put to rest with pithy, tired charges as to the "unworthiness" of their opponents.

No, Americans won't hear politicians honestly discuss Medicare solvency until after the November 6th election.  I'm not altogether certain we would listen if that truth WERE told.

For example, most voters don't know that President Obama has met privately with House Speaker Boehner to discuss hundreds of billions in difficult cuts to Medicare as an opening salvo in the attempt to secure its solvency. While the cuts he proposed during this private meeting disproportionately affect suppliers, he also acknowledged the necessity of increasing the age of
eligibility which, in the end, would have a direct affect on beneficiaries.

Like it. Don't like it. It doesn't really matter. This is a fact … and it is important.

Despite any subsequent burden such negotiations might eventually place on current or future beneficiaries, fiscal reality is finally coming home to roost; the promise of Medicare will not be sustained absent tough, austere choices and change.

If one were to also take a good look at the sequestration legislation looming over the lame-duck session following the election, our Representatives in Washington all know, in addition to the much publicized extensive cuts to the DOD, there are billions in additional cuts to Medicare in the offing.

Again, it's all true.  Do your homework if you don't believe me. It's also necessary.

Medicare as our Grandparents knew it will soon be nothing more than a memory. And the irresponsible era when Congress somehow got away with forestalling difficult decisions in the name of political expediency may finally be forced to meet its end. At least, it should.

The American voter is owed an intelligent, honest conversation from both the right and left about the real future of Medicare and our country as a whole. But politicians remain loathe to communicate the truth because they understand, like Mondale, this path is fraught with peril.  Republican and Democratic politicians, alike, also seem to know the American voter better than we know ourselves.

In these ever more polarized, intellectually lazy political times we inhabit, most conversations I overhear revolve around regurgitated "facts" from "unbiased" talking heads, Op-Ed columnists and, worse yet, Comedy Central comedians. And it has become increasingly mind-numbing and painful to listen as most of these "intelligent discussions" invariably degenerate into sophmoric taunts of, "'my' guy is never wrong and 'your' guy is a blithering idiot who sits just right or left of Satan or Attila the Hun!"

Our two presidential candidates are much better than their campaigns.

The slothful enmity and healthy disrespect of our democratic political process emanating both from politicians and voters alike is palpable, unconscionable and, in the long run, destructive.

Walter Mondale's campaign for the White House was finished the day he dared utter the truth in 1984.

In my opinion, it has become painfully clear that Americans sadly "can't handle the truth," to borrow from one of Jack Nicholson's iconic movie personas.

Worse yet, I fear most of us simply choose not to.

Mr/Senator/President Obama's Truth

I seem to be in the minority of Americans when writing that I have yet to muster much excitement over President Obama's announcement Wednesday that his thoughts had finally evolved into an unprecedented, full-fledged presidential endorsement of same-sex marriage.

I have seen numerous clips from the ABC interview with Robin Roberts and, as best I could tell, the President seemed sincere when describing both the process he used to arrive at the decision as well as his fulsome support.

But when compared to the gushing hyperbole of the infotainment talking-head celebrities that followed the statement, my personal reaction was clearly left wanting. Blitzer, Matthews, Sawyer and Williams fell all over themselves exalting the President's courage in making "The Decision" amid metaphoric shouts of "Hallelujah!"

My empty reaction left me wondering, despite my great love of politics, if I had simply become too cynical or jaded when it comes to politicians.  Regardless, there remains a nagging sense that the events of this past week may have been more about politics than presidential evolution.

The week that began with an apparent gaffe by the Vice President admitting he was "absolutely supportive" of same-sex marriage eventually ended up making the White House look as if it was scrambling for a unified message; before Mr. Biden's interview was complete, the White House machinery was fast at work backing away from his remarks only to be followed in short order by yet another oddly-timed statement by Secretary of Education Duncan publicly pledging his support.

Before Wednesday's landmark interview, the White House had settled on the position that President Obama's opinion was in flux ~ that it was "evolving." But, in light of what would surely be seen as a defeat for the White House if the looming North Carolina Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative banning both same-sex marriages AND civil-unions were to be passed on Tuesday, it also seemed reasonable to posit that the collective "gaffes" and subsequent machinations might very well have resulted more from political orchestration than mere coincidence might have allowed.

Mr/Senator/President Obama's official paper trail on the subject of same-sex marriage is rife with well-documented changes-of-heart:

1996 ~  while running for a State Senate seat in a liberal suburb of Chicago, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire stating, "I favor same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

1998 ~  when asked about the subject again during his second run for the seat, Senator Obama backtracked a bit when he replied, "he'd have to look into it."

2004 ~ just as state Senator Obama was hoping to make the leap to national prominence with a run for the United States Senate, the candidate essentially re-affirmed his opposition to gay marriages by abandoning the word "marriage" while "embrac(ing) civil unions and full rights for gays and lesbians."

2010 ~ President Obama lobbied successfully for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." To be certain, no one in official Washington believes absent successfully striking down DADT that the President would have ever come to support same-sex marriage; it was "a meaningful building block to get to a meaningful discussion about marriage."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just had an "Ah-Ha!" moment; something has finally registered with me.

It's amazing what writing does for my mind; throwing down words sometimes allows me to eventually ferret out my true feelings and untangle lingering confusion; the little "light bulb" above my head has now stopped flickering.

I DO believe the earnestness of Mr. Obama, the man's, statement on the matter of same-sex marriage.

I also can't help but feel that he, the Senator and the President truly felt this way all along.

It leads me to suspect that once the mantle of high office is achieved, political expediency as well as a primal drive for survival takes hold of all politicians.  Democrats, Republicans and Independents surely understand that politics is not a game for the timid; it seems to demand a small Faustian-like bargain of at least a part of one's true self in order to continue "playing the game" successfully ~ a story not unfamiliar to the lives of many Americans.

I could personally not care less if Mr/Senator/President Obama or Mr/Governor Romney have waffled over time; authentic growth and change is an essential component of our lives.  But it can also not be denied that a legacy of political "waffling" lends itself to more confusion and division among the electorate especially when subjectively reported by the media.

Sadly, I honestly don't believe Jimmy Stewart's "Mr. Smith" would survive in the Washington of today; perhaps it was never realistic. But for whatever it's worth, I do wish we had a system in place that would allow decent men and women who serve as our representatives to merely speak the truth as they see fit without fear of the constraints of political maneuvering, party arm-twisting or blatant obfuscation. 

This is not about a solitary political wedge issue for me; naive or not, all of us should demand nothing less from our representatives.

I am satisfied that Mr. Obama, the man, finally had the strength of conviction to speak his truth this past Wednesday … and, for once, a President agreed.

I believe that alone warrants a little smile!

"Love A Goat, For All I Care!"

As everyone knows, Vice President Biden let loose with another (seemingly) unsanctioned comment this past weekend on NBC's Sunday morning talk show,"Meet the Press," when he replied that he was "absolutely comfortable" with the thorny topic of same-sex marriages as well as supporting parity with rights accorded to those in "traditional" marriages.

Within minutes, the offices of both the President and Vice President went into hyperdrive in an attempt to walk back his off-the-cuff comment by releasing statements hoping to assuage various potentially untenable voting blocks.

In the two days since the Biden interview, Press Secretary Carney has been inundated with question after question from the press hoping to elicit salacious information for columns purporting potential rifts within the administration.

His steadfast reply, despite the single-minded stream of consciousness of the reporters, is "the President's stance on same-sex marriage is evolving."

This is one of the facets of politics that drives me bonkers.

Vice President Biden, in my opinion, may have answered the question honestly ~ as average citizen Biden might have done if asked. But during a crucial election year, no White House can afford having one of the President's minions going off the reservation by making rogue, unsanctioned comments. Once the wheels of a Presidential campaign are in full motion, every syllable and turn of phrase is vetted and tested by pollsters before any candidate or spokesperson utters a word. Modern Presidential candidates don't enjoy the luxury of being spontaneous or brutally honest with the end result being that their true beliefs are often intentionally blurred so as not to offend an essential voting demographic.

Rest assured that President Obama and former Governor Romney, like Mr. Biden, each has a definitive view of same-sex marriage; I suspect the public will not be privy to an airing of the victor's unvarnished opinion until after the election in November ~ unless the comments by Biden quickly followed by those of Secretary Duncan (Education) were intentionally fed to the media as part of an overall strategy by the Obama campaign.

Being neither the President nor a candidate running for office, I am free to offer my view on the subject.

When it comes to matters of privacy, my general credo is this:

When the day comes that the affairs of my house are completely in order; when I have no pressing problems or indebtedness; when there remains no single task which demands my attention, then and only then will I allow myself the luxury of even considering if I should involve myself in the private lives of others.

I have often told friends that when it comes to matters of the heart, my personal opinion is that a person can "love a goat for all I care!" There is "an edge of truth to my jest." It has never been nor will it ever be my prerogative to involve myself in the matter of whom others should or should not love; the choices people make for the sake of their personal happiness and in the name of love is not for anyone to judge.

Can I say I have never harbored concerns about an individual a friend might be dating. Yes. Have I always agreed with the ultimate choice a friend or family member has made in a life partner. Absolutely not! However, when push comes shove, it has never been left to me to determine who is best suited for whom when choosing a spouse.  Thank God.

As for this business of same-sex marriages, people are entitled to their fundamental disagreements and concerns. One might be justifiably opposed to same-sex marriage on the basis of a strongly held religious belief or even a personal sense of morality. Or, one might simply be homophobic, bigoted or wholly ignorant about the actual world that ~ like it or not ~ exists outside of every closed mind and door; even these individuals, sadly, have the right to their opinion. I will never hold someone's opinion against them so long as their views are expressed respectfully and intelligently without vitriol or malice.

At this writing, some thirty states have enacted laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And the state of North Carolina, just moments ago, passed a statewide ballot initiative which has resulted in ratification of a State Constitutional Amendment to protect a ban already in place from being usurped by the judgement of a lower court in the future.

Despite these significant efforts as well as hundreds of newspaper articles and op-ed pieces I have read over the years, for the life of me I have yet, to my satisfaction, been given one sound explanation as to how a private decision between two adults of the same sex who decide to marry one another somehow adversely affects society.

As best I can tell, there hasn't been a demonstrable uptick in petty or violent crimes committed by these couples in states which have sanctioned the marriages. And unless I am grossly misinformed, malevolents like Richard Nixon, Bernie Madoff and Osama bin laden were never married to men.

I would honestly welcome reading a well-articulated, reasoned social justification for banning same-sex marriages (that doesn't invoke the tired arguments of old).

In the meantime, each of us has enough on our private plates to last a lifetime; tend to your home, your loved ones, your problems … or even your goat if that makes you happy.

Everyone else, in my opinion, should just mind their own business! 

Senator Obama meet President Obama

I am a political junkie.

I truly enjoy the biennial cycle of primaries culminating in the November elections. With cable twenty-four hour news cycles, and nearly 800 channels from which to choose, I am seldom at a loss to find a panel of biased pointy-headed politicos discussing the latest polls while trying to somehow convince the television public how all of it relates to an event that is still months away.

It is stupid and a colossal waste of time. But I am resolutely unmoved.

When I was a kid, I only knew the damned political ads and conventions interfered with many of my favorite programs; politics were nothing but a meddlesome inconvenience not to mention boring.

But, with 795 fewer channels from which to choose as well as parents who held dominion over the television "console," I eventually was left with no choice but to watch many a party convention as well  the frenzied circus that was election night coverage.

Hey, it was better than a book. 

Only coming to understand our Constitution and the established process for elections later while in high school, I did at least manage to grasp the big picture while watching the tedious, program-interrupting programs:

Someone wins. Someone loses.

While that basic tenet hasn't changed, it does seem our politics has changed dramatically from when I was a child. Despite my adult obsession with all things political, I am increasingly exasperated by the growing ugly influence of political strategists, polls, money bundlers, PACS, as well as infotainment personalities passing themselves off as "journalists" presuming to educate us "simple folk"as to how we should think and vote.

As I watched a beautifully produced political video today featuring a statesmanly former President Clinton extolling the success of President Obama in making the tough call to terminate Osama bin Laden, instead of feeling a patriotic sense of pride in that accomplishment of one year ago, I found myself disappointed and frustrated.

To be frank, like so many other political ads, this video just seemed inappropriate to me.

None of us will ever appreciate the true nature of the burdens that rest on the shoulders of any person who ascends to the office of the President; sending young women and men into harms way, to put their lives on the line in the duty of our country surely cannot be cavalierly carried out by any man. 

Love George Bush or loathe him, no one but he will ever truly know what it was like to sit in that chair behind the Resolute desk within the Oval Office following the events of our nation's day of horror in 2001.

And to be President Obama, sitting in the Situation Room, surrounded by his Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all waiting for him to single-handedly make the decision to selectively assassinate another human being, even an Osama bin Laden, must surely have been extremely difficult on at least some level.

No one of us will ever truly understand.

And, every Presidency experiences highs and lows; one takes historic credit for the good and, unfortunately, must also suffer the hardships of the bad that comes on his watch.

President Obama will forever be rightfully credited for ridding the world of bin Laden; at least, he and a select few brave Navy Seals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYykD6_OHO0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Simply put, as regards the ad, what I personally found disappointing was the ultimate carry-away message, "What would Romney have done?" The clear implication, supported by a couple of random campaign quotes made previously by Romney, that he would not have supported the decision to take out bin Laden, to-wit:

"Mitt Romney criticized (candidate) Barack Obama for vowing to strike Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if necessary." Reuters August 7, 2007

"It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Associated Press April 26

This line of reasoning, while convenient, is also intentionally misleading, disingenuous not to mention hypocritical.  It also plays on an assumption of our collective ignorance or stupidity ~ take your pick.

No one ~ not candidates Clinton, Bush, Obama, or a Romney ~ can ever be held inviolately accountable for every word ~ quoted in context or not ~ made during the course of campaigns or even while in office.

Life is always in flux:

President Bush famously made the ultimate decision to exert Executive Privilege by making interim recess appointments which immediately set opponents declaring it an abuse of the powers of the Executive Branch; then-candidate Obama roundly rejected the use of such tactics.

Four years later, President Obama has now famously made the ultimate decision to exert his Executive Privilege by making similar recess appointments and pushing through facets of reform stalemated by a stubborn Congress.  Don't be shocked but his opponents on The Hill are now loudly decrying this abuse of his Executive privilege.

This is the reality of the Presidency; in this case,

Four years ago, Candidate Obama knew nothing about nor could he begin to understand the man who would eventually be President Obama; they are two vastly different people ~ out of necessity and as a matter of reality.

So it is that after watching this political video, I was truly disappointed President Obama allowed his personal stature as well as that of his office to be diminished by approving such derivative garbage.

I have great faith in our system but am growing increasingly tired, as I write ad nauseum, of the grossly contentious and fractious posturing of our political parties, as promulgated by their handlers.

Even Ariana Huffington, an ardent liberal supporter of President Obama, expressed her contempt for the ad when she wrote "any man ~ even Jimmy Carter ~ would have made the same decision!"

You can bet the inconvenienced and bored kid of my youth, if granted the vision of foresight, could have even told you this brand of politics as practiced by all parties doesn't elevate anyone; it diminishes each of us and our country in turn.

Political Theater

On April 25, the United States Supreme Court will take up the emotionally-charged topic of illegal immigration when the nine justices hear oral arguments in the matter of Arizona v United States; specifically, SB 1070, the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law enacted in 2010 that set out to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal immigrants."

The expected decision this summer should determine if the law as enacted is, indeed, Constitutional or if it violates the purview of the Federal Government.

Arizona must convince the high court that by allowing millions of immigrants to live in this country illegally, the current Federal Immigration System has been derelict with regard to enforcement and that, ultimately, the States have "inherent policing powers" when it comes to undocumented immigrants.

Senator Obama, while campaigning in 2008, made assurances to the Latin community that he would seek passage of far reaching immigration reforms early in his administration that would include a "path" to legalization in addition to tightened enforcement. Unfortunately, all such efforts failed to materialize fully or were stalled.

The position of the Administration regarding SB 1070 is essentially that the law "legalizes discrimination" when police are forced to act on a "reasonable suspicion" when coming upon a person of "questionable" origin. Additionally, the Solicitor General will argue that the States do not have the inherent right to make decisions on matters of immigration.

I am no legal scholar and admit to having no specific solution ~ as if anyone cares ~ to tamping the tinderbox that is immigration.

My problem again rests with any number of esteemed Representatives and Senators of every political persuasion; today, my ire is directed at Senator Chuck (who's never met a camera or open mike he hasn't loved) Schumer, (D-NY).

Whether one accepts the arguments of the government regarding SB 1070 or not, Sen. Schumer affirmed, yet again, the belief that many duly elected representatives seem to hold the Federalist System, as established by our Founding Fathers, in utter disdain; Washington, Jefferson et al deigned that the "central government" would have a select set of enumerated powers extended by the Constitution while the individual States would retain all other powers for self-governance distinct from the Federal Government.

So it was that I was truly embarrassed as I watched Schumer make a fool of himself today when announcing that he will preemptively offer a Bill in the Senate that will proscribe States from enacting further immigration reforms with the cynical anticipation of the law being upheld by The Supremes. Schumer's plan is to offer the Bill before the case of Arizona v United States is even heard by the high court and months before a ruling is forthcoming.

Regardless of one's political persuasion or position on the matter of illegal immigration and SB 1070, I am of the belief that everyone should be at a breaking point when it comes to the continual parade of "silliness" that pervades official Washington.

This "action" on the part of Schumer is pure theatrics for the consumption of a "lazy and gullible electorate." Sen. Schumer knows damned well that the Bill stands no chance of passing muster in the Senate by members of either major parties. But he will proceed, as many have done before him, with this carnival sideshow, consuming valuable time and fortune, content in the arrogant self-assurance that the move will, most importantly, secure more Latino votes for "his team" come November.

As one solitary voter, I am sick of the posturing and games from both sides of the aisle. The times we are traveling together call for serious work and solutions forged by serious people.

My hope is that every qualified voter will assume the mantle of responsibility and vote his/her conscience this Fall. And regardless of where one lands politically, I pray we might finally send a message to The Hill, through our vote, that the "age of silliness" and apparent contempt for the American voter is finally put to rest.

I also pray that the American Electorate is more intelligent and engaged than many members of Congress would allow.

Vote The Man, Not His Tie

Over the next two weeks, whether reading a newspaper, listening to a radio, or watching TV, no one living outside of a cave will avoid the mudslinging that has become a predictable component of most campaigns for public office.

I hate to break it to the political guru’s but spending piles of campaign cash on expensive television airtime is a colossal waste of money as far as this voter is concerned. These campaigns are exactly why the Gods invented the DVR; I have been spared most of the divisive drivel.

At the onset of each election cycle, politicians make lofty promises to stick to the “high ground.” Underneath the sanctimonious veneer, however, is the sure knowledge that there will eventually come a time when they “approve” ads replete with sordid half-truths, parsed statements, and blatant lies regarding their foes.

And it apparently doesn’t matter if the political landscape appears gloomy or bright for candidates in the final weeks and days before an election; once campaign managers and pollsters have crunched the numbers, the day finally arrives when every politician comes out fighting. And once the white gloves come off, all pretense of “playing fair” goes the way of the morning trash.

I suppose the political machines can present reasonable arguments for such decisions; after all, the tough choices aren’t created in a vacuum and are vital for political survival. Right?

And, in line with my continuing effort to believe the best in everyone, I remain hopeful that most people seeking the prestige and power attendant to high office do so while guided by a moral compass, of sorts. But the trouble I run into while observing many a politician is that I am often left scratching my head – not at all certain as to the direction in which magnetic North actually leads them.

I know. There are apparently no hard and fast rules demanding “morality” from our politicians.

But there is a decidedly ugly stench that follows in the wake of many of these politicians as they crisscross home turfs doing just about anything to vanquish opponents in order to win coveted seats on Capitol Hill.

This reality of politics, at least to my way of thinking, is nothing but unseemly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I secretly listened to many adult conversations late at night as a child, I became convinced that voting practices were directly tied to ancestry. The grownups, sitting in smoke filled rooms around tables while playing cards, would pontificate about many of the important issues of the day as well as their proud family traditions of voting the party of either FDR or Lincoln. I eventually concluded that even the thought of casting a vote which didn’t comport with those long held traditions was anathema to them.

“Vote the party, not the man.” This was their mantra.

Much has changed during my lifetime.

While an adversarial electoral process is central to our democratic republic, the years following the fall of Nixon have been marked by a progressively ugly turn in the collective political discourse.

Watching many of the powerful people running for office, as well as those already tasked with carrying out the “people’s business," often conjures images in my mind of politicians who are no more dignified than a mob of frothy-mouthed, rabid squirrels on a peanut.

The thirty six years since Watergate have brought a decided worsening of bipartisan tensions, increased vitriol, and harboring of political grudges made only worse during the sixteen years of Bill and GW.

And now as we approach the first mid-term elections for the sea change President who enjoyed across the board election night popularity of 72%, there is a nearly incomprehensible and feverish anti-incumbent, anti-Washington sentiment looming large across the country, the likes of which I have certainly never felt.

Citizens could spend days or weeks passionately debating the various factors that have led to this dramatic shift. Unfortunately, the time for such discussion has drawn to a close; suffice it to say, there is certainly enough blame to go around for everyone. As we complete the chapter on yet another ugly tale of modern election history, my (naïve) hope is that voters will deliver a serious statement come November to those who work for us on the Hill that the “silly seasons” of politics must finally be put to rest.

One of the best bits of advice I have read recently comes from the learned, P Cooney DDS MD, who wrote:

“Americans need to stop voting for the guy who has the nicest tie.”

“As a nation, we can no longer afford to simply vote along strict party lines, or make clarion calls to simply, ‘Vote the Bums OUT.’”

We each have a responsibility to familiarize ourselves with the very serious issues at hand, and to make every conceivable effort to learn as much about prospective office holders and their positions before stepping foot into the voting booths.

And, I don’t agree with many of the pundits who have effectively declared Americans to be brain dead, lazy or apathetic.

For those who don’t live in the bubble of DC, the everyday exigencies of life often stand in the way of using precious time studying candidates and issues. But, seriously, what has official Washington done lately – other than seek campaign contributions – to encourage the voting public? Hell, it’s somehow no longer embarrassing for a representative to publicly admit he doesn’t know the substance of the Bills for which he votes. And, at least once this past year, we were all famously told to calm ourselves – they would cast their votes, leaving us to merely be content learning the consequences of the watershed Bill later.

As for any charge of apathy, I do fear many voters have sadly resigned themselves to a nearly certain, inglorious fate. This isn’t apathy but, rather, speaks to the absence of hope. Who can honestly blame these citizens for feeling as they do? We are all effectively bystanders – even victims – to the apparent lack of seriousness on Capitol Hill; whatever decisions they make, good or bad, we are all forced to simply accept whatever comes. And, I have too many friends who are now irrevocably convinced that their representatives have but one genuine concern – their own political survival.

I, for one, have had enough.

This isn’t a Red or Blue issue for me.

No matter the crush of time weighing down on my everyday life, or even a sense that my vote might not count, I am committed to doing my due diligence before the November elections. I intend to learn as much as I can about the prospective candidates in my district before making an informed decision.

But my work will not stop after submitting the ballot.

Without rancor or regard for partisanship, I pray this election will have the effect of finally driving home the important message to current and future House and Senate members alike:

There is no safe seat on Capitol Hill; no one is indispensable.

As my father once told me, quoting DeGaulle,

“The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

Please cast an informed VOTE this November.

(And say a prayer of thanks for your DVR).

If You Build It ...

FACEBOOK is an interesting “space.”

At any given moment, acquaintances and friends can learn more about you than they may have previously cared to know. People “Check In” to restaurants, bars, airports, even restrooms; chirpy morning greetings are usually met with long “threads” of pleasant “tit-for-tats;” acerbic or ironic comments, pictures, or cartoons almost always result in a flurry of “Likes” as well as “Comments.”

Most everyone enjoys a good laugh; that’s always good.

But what happens when one crosses the FACEBOOK Rubicon attempting to discuss subjects that are topical, challenging, and emotionally charged?

As if these posts were salmonella tainted eggs, I have learned that most of the entries go untouched. It’s a curiosity to me.

I truly enjoy a good conversation with just about anyone so long as personal invective and emotions are left out of the mix. Give me a reasonable argument for most any position and I will respectfully hear you out; I am, after all, still open to expanding my views. And while I understand that engaging in serious conversation doesn’t seem like an entertaining use of valuable time for some, people today seem to genuinely loathe stepping into almost any controversial fray.

I just don’t get it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The debate surrounding the Park 51 development, a mere 600 feet North of Ground Zero, is consuming the thoughts, passions and energies of many. There are those who insist this is nothing more than a “ginned up” controversy manufactured so as to fill airwave and newspaper space during an otherwise boring “dog days of summer” news cycle. There are equally great numbers of vocal, partisan foes on the other side of this fence who protest the project solely on the grounds that its concept is, at once, “insensitive,” if not wholly un-American.

To my way of thinking, it doesn’t matter that opinions are often labeled “right” or “wrong;” it’s more important to me that those who are moved to embrace a subject, come to what they consider to be reasoned (if not flawed) opinions and then allow their voices be heard.

It’s how I grow as a person; I welcome such opportunities.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

AMY FACEBOOK: “As far as I know, none of the 9/11 hijackers or their co-conspirators have applied for a building permit. And as far as I know, the zoning of lower Manhattan allows building of places of worship. And as far as I know we still have that First Amendment thingy that says Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion”

Most of us don’t recall that the process of drafting and ratifying the United States Constitution by all participating states took up most of nearly five years. Soon after Vermont became the thirteenth state to affirm the Constitution in December of 1779, the state of Virginia proposed and ratified ten amendments to the same Constitution that would eventually become known as the Bill of Rights.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”

These sixteen words represent the first two conditions set forth in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; they are most often referred to, respectively as the “Establishment” and “Freedom of Expression” clauses.

The Establishment clause strictly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, religion over non-religion, and, later, religion over irreligion.

ROB MARVIN: “Absolutely, Amy. Free exercise of religion is the cornerstone of the freedoms laid by the founding fathers; every Muslim, Hindu, Jew and Christian is allowed to (or not) practice his religion as he chooses. What I don’t understand is how this public outcry against construction of a mosque at such close proximity to Ground Zero somehow represents a forfeiture of that right? I know of no reasonable person or group who has called for such an infringement.

Lately refusing to enter the political deep end of most any shark infested pool, Speaker Pelosi(o) recently declared this issue to be “local.”

If this is true, then Imam Rauf, who is spearheading the project, might be wise to listen to the overwhelming majority of NYC citizens surveyed ~ Muslim and Non-Muslim alike ~ who have asked only that serious consideration and empathy be accorded to the feelings of the family members who lost so much on 9/11. To many, erection of the cultural center and mosque at this site would be no less abhorrent than allowing the Japanese government to erect a Shinto Shrine or tourism bureau two blocks from the rusting hull of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

The entire debate, for me, defies logic.

If the intent is solely to construct a cultural center and prayer facility cum mosque, then by all means build it. The interested parties need only consider relocating the facility to a different site. If the intent is truly not to make either a political or religious statement, there are plenty of other properties available for his consideration; Governor Patterson has previously offered as much. To do anything less, indeed to be intransigent, only serves to inflame the fears of many as to an “actual agenda.”

I can’t help but concur with the majority opinion of New Yorkers who feel that continuing with this complex, as proposed, is little more than an exercise in ‘poor taste.’

And, at its worst, the project is disturbingly provocative”

THE NINETEEN GUYS OF 9/11

AMY FACEBOOK: “Islam is a religion of peace and love, and is practiced as such by billions of people. Not unlike Christianity. There are a few extremists and nut-jobs who claim to represent a faith. Those who exploit that religion, or falsify the beliefs of that religion, as a motivation for murder. To persecute all for the actions of a few is a mistake.”

The men who hijacked the four planes which ultimately resulted in the death of thousands of innocents were clearly, as Charles Krauthammer recently wrote, “at the edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists with cells that exist on every continent, with global financing as well as theological support complete with large media and propaganda arms, and an archipelago of local sympathizers, such as those in NW Pakistan who protect and guard them.”

“Why is America fighting Predator Wars over Pakistan and in Yemen, surveilling thousands of conversations and financial transactions every day, and engaged in military actions against radical Muslims from the Philippines to Somalia?”

“Is America doing that because of just 19 crazed Muslim terrorists who died nearly ten years ago?”

“No.”

The radical factions of Islam most certainly do not represent a majority sampling of Islam. “But, when you consider the financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers ~ by any conservative estimate, these numbers command some 7% of all Muslims.” That amounts to some 80 million Muslims engaged in such activity.

“These numbers represent a “very powerful strain within Islam.”

Memorial Footprints

ROB MARVIN: “The action of these men and umbrella organizations has altered the course of the world, and has personally affected the lives of millions, Amy. I am sure many would like to pretend the world is still a completely happy place in which to live but the reality of 9/11 changed this ideal for everyone. For myself, the numbers are staggering; I can no longer afford to look at this world through “rose-colored glasses.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Resistance to this project represents nothing more than “metastasized anti-Semitism.”

These were the words spoken recently by the wife of Imam Rauf.

“It’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.”

Like it or not, Mrs. Khan, Ground Zero will always be the “site of the most lethal attack of the worldwide radical Islamic movement, consisting entirely of Muslims, acting in the name of Islam, and deeply embedded within the Islamic world.”

I have great sympathy for everyone who suffered from the attacks of 9/11; my sympathy also extends to the peace loving Muslims of the world who have watched helplessly as their faith has been bastardized by so many.

Ask almost any German citizen if the stigma of Hitler’s atrocities during WWII still reverberate today; even those not alive during the War will attest to the great legacy of guilt which still hangs over the country some sixty years later.

The stigma of that day in September of 2001 will surely haunt the good Muslims of the world for generations to come; I believe the greatest gift the Imam could bestow upon the city of New York ~ and the country as a whole ~ would be to demonstrate “understanding and compassion” by moving the project to a different location.

Such consideration might truly move mountains.

Arizona: YOU DECIDE?

In the aftermath of Arizona’s passage of its Immigration law, Mayor Bloomberg issued a blunt assessment that the United States is “committing suicide” by the failure of the federal government to implement comprehensive immigration reform. “The failure of lawmakers in DC to act on the issue” forced the hand of Arizona in their desire to secure a remedy.

The Arizona Immigration law will apparently grant policemen broad powers to detain those “suspected” of being in the country illegally as well as prosecuting and potentially deporting those who subsequently fail to prove either their immigration or citizenship status.

Asserting his view that the government would never seek to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants, Bloomberg alternatively recommended the Federal government act quickly to grant “Permanent Status” to these individuals until such time as they meet overall standards for citizenship.

As a citizen, I am now compelled, as should Congress, to seriously consider the issue of illegal immigration and the potential ramifications brought about by the passage of Arizona’s new law as well as other suggestions, such as those from Mayor Bloomberg.

As I begin the process of coming to my own conclusion, one consideration appears rudimentary:

When anyone travels abroad, ALL countries demand to review, at minimum, one state-sanctioned proof of citizenship for every traveler before leaving the airport – not to mention the hotels which require the surrender of a passport at check-in. As of January 2007, the US Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative established the requirement that all travelers entering or re-entering the United States by air present a valid passport; this includes travel to and from Mexico, and the Central and South America’s.

At home, most would agree it seems nearly impossible to get through a normal day without being asked for one form of government issued identification or another.

Asking the interested reader to put aside such issues as the Tenth Amendment (States vs Federal rights); the Commerce Clause; the harrassment and discrimination of legally situated residents of hispanic origin; arguments for skilled work forces; outsourcing of jobs; notions of fascism, etc., I would appreciate some help with answers to a fundamental question at play:

“When one considers the day to day demands placed on legal citizens of the United States for documentation at home and abroad, is Arizona technically misguided in asserting its prerogative for the “on demand” surrender of documents in order to verify immigration or citizenship status of individuals?”

Let's Pretend

I don't know what to believe anymore.

I am also apparently too stupid to understand what is actually going on up on Captiol Hill in Washington, DC.

But mainly, I am in sensory overload.

"Deem and pass;" Reconciliation Bill; CBO Scoring; Deficit Reduction; Double-Counting Medicare Cuts; New Entitlements based on taxes already pledged to other programs; Cornhusker Kickback; trolling for votes.

One fact I know for certain is that the pharmaceutical giant, Walgreens, moments ago announced they will no longer accept new Medicaid patients come June.

The decision by Walgreens takes this process well beyond politics; the reality of the proposed Health Care legislation has officially landed at our doorsteps.

The Slaughter Solution

Otherwise known as "Deem and Pass," this is the proposed unconventional method expected to be used so as to enact the tenuous Health Care package. Essentially, it would allow the House to "deem the previously approved Senate bill passed" even with amendments and without a conventional vote -- none of which is proscribed by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

So, what?

When Professor Alan Morrison of GWU Law School was asked to define the word "Deem" as it relates to this process, he replied, "In class, I always say it means 'Let's Pretend.' "Deem" means, it's 'not true.'" He went further to advise anyone considering use of the procedural maneuver in passing this landmark legislation "not to do it;" the Slaughter Solution would certainly raise Constitutional issues sufficiently credible for intervention by the Supreme Court -- as it has done in the past.

The high Court has ruled at least twice in the past twenty-five years holding there is but one way to enact laws under the Constitution -- identical Bills (same text) must be passed by both Houses of Congress and then signed into Law by the President.

And curiously, the 1998 Supreme Court decision which struck down the "Line-Item Veto" specifically spoke to this "same text" voting requirement; interestingly, two "friends of the court" briefs in favor the "same text" language were written by both Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter.

Now, the self-same Rep. Slaughter, currently the House Rules Committee chairperson, has proposed using this "self-executing" procedure to craft a rule 'deeming' the Senate Bill -- even with the different (amended) language -- enacted without the need for a direct vote.

Our congressmen/women would be wise to remember the classic rebuke by the high Court in past rulings which warns "repetition of an un-Constitutional process does NOT make it Constitutional."

I absolutely have a vested interest in the pending legislation as a medical professional; at this time, absent the specifics of the reconciliation bill, however, all of us are left to simply speculate as to what will emerge with the passage of this legislation. And while I don't know what specifically prompted the decision by Walgreens, I am fearful that passage of this Bill -- especially with the stench of procedural wrangling -- will lead to further erosion in our collective confidence in elected officials and the democratic process, as well as the evolution of a potential avalanche of adverse effects for countless thousands in the months and years ahead. Walgreens may only be the beginning.

More important than my role as a physician, or even consumer, is my position as citizen.

Personally, I see this desperately flawed process, put into action so as to finagle passage of the Health Care Legislation, as an affront to the intent of our Founding Father's and as disrespectful to each of us as citizens. Let me be clear, if there is truly an urgent need to craft legislation that assures every citizen adequate medical coverage while maintaining fiscal responsibility, I am completely in favor of our elected Representatives and Senators working tirelessly toward that end. But I write this remonstration out of disappointment for the shameless move proposed by the House; circumventing the Constitution by enacting this massive Bill through the use of a clever -- if not un-Constitutional -- procedural maneuver is both reprehensible and ill-advised. The old adage reminds all to "be careful what you wish for;" rest assured, this debacle will morph into a never-ending and contentious battle for years to come.

This is not about Red or Blue. To my mind, this is simply about right and wrong. We can do better and deserve more from our Representatives.

Regardless of your point of view, I agree with even the most strident voices asserting each of us has a responsibility to make our opinion heard. The legislation will be enacted this coming Sunday; I implore everyone to take the time (and considerable patience) to make your views known to your Representatives.

Toll Free: 877-762-8762. Otherwise: 202-224-3121

Slinging Mud

I spent one summer during college working as a roughneck on an oil rig. Please suspend your disbelief as it is completely true.

At that time, all students pursuing Chemical Engineering degrees were strongly encouraged to engage in hands-on research before graduating. During the summer before my Junior year, I stumbled upon a fantastic opportunity to work for one of the leading oil research companies at that time, Dresser Magcobar.

I spent those three months on a rig wielding 36-inch wrenches alongside full-time roughnecks in sweltering Texas heat, within spitting distance of Astroworld, while conducting mud flow studies for a prototype drill bit. It was extremely demanding work.

Most of the time ….. well, at least occasionally.

Our main responsibility as summer interns was to babysit the rig and flow apparatus during the studies. My research partner and I – mutlitaskers before the term had ever been coined – spent most of our time on the rig ably manning all the controls while simultaneously mining more sun (and money) than actual data. It wasn’t that we were lazy so much as the studies were slow and tedious; any given flow study took several days to produce usable data. If the cynic thinks less of the imprimatur of “roughneck” as it applied to our work, let it be written that we were at least always at the ready with our 36-inch wrenches. For myself, I also took the opportunity to read a lot of books.

By July, the workaday roughnecks with high tattoo to teeth ratios finally came to accept the two “college boys.” We eventually would routinely gather in one of the air conditioned offices during protracted lunch breaks to eat, rest, and generally “shoot the breeze.” It was during one of these sessions that I was first made fully aware of “tabloids” and the genuine sway they hold over thousands of readers.

Putting down my copy of Plato’s “Republic,” I was amazed to learn that many people actually read the tabloids so as to glean day to day information just as others might depend on the NY Times or The Wall Street Journal. My only prior exposure to tabloids had been while passing through grocery store lines, the copies replete with cover stories of aliens and soon-to-be-divorced celebrities. While I will admit to being lured to pick one up occasionally as a result of some salacious headline, our time together always ended abruptly so as to avoid anyone actually seeing me with the offending item in hand. My notion was that these “rags” were produced for the amusement of someone – haughtily, someone NOT me. Treading lightly given I was a mere guest for the summer, I distinctly remember listening raptly as two of these weathered roughnecks relayed the truths contained in the tabloids.

Skipping to the present, I still love to read. I am currently making the supreme effort to get through more of what someone has deemed to be the classics, but my tastes generally lean toward history, historical biographies, and some fiction. At any given time, I generally have two or three books at the ready, reading each of them in piecemeal fashion; I get bored.

Over the past few years I have added yet another category of books to my list of favorites: Current Events. This grouping of literature seems to center mainly on current political intrigue; I am not certain of the requisite timeline so as to be labeled “current,” but assume most of these eventually find a final resting place among the myriad tomes of history. What I truly love about this genre of books is that reading them affords me, a true political junkie, the opportunity to belatedly insert myself into their world; every page is a backstage pass to conversations, strategies, personalities, conventions, and – frankly – the intrigue which the political process engenders. Additionally, these books very often address unanswered questions which tend to vex me during and long after the election cycles end.

Game Change; Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime

The book covers the Democratic and Republican primary and general electoral seasons which culminated in the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. (Just in case you didn’t know.)

The book presents a well constructed, understandable outline of the process each of the candidates slogged through on the way to victory and/or defeat. In the end, the two authors offered their version of the events thus providing me with yet another perspective of the main actors, their strategies, and the political timeline in general.

All told, it was a very good read.

BUT, (as in, however):

The first thought that crosses my mind on finishing the book is the old adage, “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

Not intending to make an indictment of the book, its credibility, or even the authors, but “Game Change” is heavily laden with page after page, chapter after chapter of prurient, gossipy re-enactments of private and not-so-private conversations, tantrums and tirades between all the candidates, their spouses, and members of their individual staffs.

And, I couldn’t put it down!

Throughout the book, there were also numerous accounts of all the candidates spewing epitaphs in every direction to one degree or another; a particularly crazed vignette has a respected candidate doubly flipping his own wife the bird(s) while letting loose with a fusillade of the F-word invective that – if redacted – would have closely resembled the Nixon Oval Office “Expletive Deleted” transcripts of old.

I am not naïve about politicians; I had the opportunity to witness, first hand, the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Most vivid to me was the day when the articles of impeachment were approved. Sitting in the public gallery, I was mesmerized by Democrats and Republicans performing for the C-Span cameras. Hour after hour, I watched as staunch allies came in succession to the defense of the President during two minute rebukes of particular members of the opposition. And, almost without fail, once the speaker was finished and out of camera range, the two foes would engage in conversation or even an embrace. It was pure theater.

All politicians are human – for good or for ill. The obvious may read as insipid, but I had to learn this on my own during the fall of the impeachment proceedings and the lesson is reinforced every time I immerse myself in the elections or read one of these books. There is, most certainly, a part of me that still would like to hold elected officials to a higher standard but life and reality seem to always get in the way.

On finishing the book early this morning, I went to bed and fell asleep only to be awakened shortly by my own voice uttering a clearly audible and sibilant “it.”

As I had drifted off to sleep, I remember reflecting on my carnal fascination with the various permutations of crazed political behavior manifested by every one of these political masters in the book. I was forced to ask myself if my interest is prurient in nature or if I read these books seeking a better understanding of the psyche of these immensely complex – if not, egomaniacal – people?

As I awoke with a start at my own utterance, I suddenly realized that my thoughts had turned to memories of my roughneck buddies and their insatiable appetite for the tabloids.

It then dawned on me that none of us had ever truly been as different as I may have originally thought.

If completely honest, there exists within most of us some fundamental appetite for – well, a little gossip or “dirt” from time to time. There has hardly ever been a day during my professional life within a given operating room or ICU when someone hasn’t stopped to pass along some “juicy” tidbit about one person or another. I am not sure what this says about us as people; I would assume it may very well be an inextricable component of our natures.

John Edward’s staffer, Andrew Young’s new book concerning his former boss’ tawdry affair is being pushed into the market early this Saturday as a result of the events of the past week. While a copy of the hardbound book will probably cost $30 or so, you can bet my old friends from the rig probably paid only a couple bucks for the same information and learned most of the details months or even years ago after passing through a grocery store line.

Go figure.