Mosque Mess

The President was correct in his initial remarks in support of the mosque in New York near the site of the trade center. He was equally right when later he appeared to weaken that initial statement. Our nation is now almost violently bifurcated, partly along party lines and partly along racial lines. In his initial statement in support of the mosque's location he was simply reaffirming his faith in our American mythology of equality under the law and absolute freedom of religion. The far right immediately jumped on the opportunity to criticize the President and get in a few digs at him and all democrats. This criticism was immediately met with equally vociferous argument in support for his position.

Then when the President appeared to be softening his original stance on the issue, again the far right jumped in to denounce him for waffling and many democrats also felt that he had at least partially pulled back from his original support. Both groups are completely wrong and looking at the issue from too narrow a perspective. This issue is not about scoring political points. It's about maintaining out democratic ideals.

The President seems to be the only person who sees that he must maintain a calm position as a counter weight to the intense emotions that govern reactions of most everybody else. We need to deal rationally with this problem and the President's latest remarks show that he is thinking like a President, seeing the need to tone down national rhetoric so that we can resolve the problem without further widening the chasm between Americans. In other words, he is thinking like a President. How fully aware he was of the hit he was going to take, I cannot know, but I believe that he knows that a President has to look beyond parochial concerns to larger national interests. In this case, that larger national interest is to foster social and political peace and stability, not aggravate already contentious relations. That is the job of a President. I think this President is filling that role well, taking a punch when necessary but maintaining a calm demeanor and hold a steady course.

History, I think, will show that Obama, abused as was Abraham Lincoln before him, has the self-assurance and inner strength to lead this nation through an equally trying period of our history.

A RIGHT TO ANGER

Blacks have a right to be angry at the treatment they have received in America. That is an important message in Barack Obama's speech yesterday. Brought here in chains to work the white man's plantations, even when finally freed from legal slavery, they suffered personal, economic, and social discrimination not much less bitter than their former condition of servitude. For those reasons Black anger and hostility is understandable and, admit it or not, fully legitimate. The Reverend has a right to be bitter and angry, and his rant is legitimate and fully justified by his experience in America. This a bitter pill, but one we need to swallow.

This is the way Obama put it, "But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

White America needs to accept the legitimacy of Black anger, for without this acceptance, racial peace will not be achieved. It is no longer sufficient to demand that Blacks meekly accept a reduced place in American culture; we have passed beyond a point where that is a functional respsonse to increasingly complex economic and social reality. Clearly, we need to function more efficiently, both socially and economically, if we are to continue to prosper as a nation. Racial conflict is antithetical to efficiency. Hence, if we face this Black anger, accept it, and work our way beyond anger to reconciliation, we will take a giant step toward efficient use of our human resources and an equally giant step toward the "more perfect union" that Obama and the founding fathers aspired to.

SHAKEDOWN

Wanna know the real lowdown on the Larry Craig mess?

First, the legal angle:

It's a shake down obviously. Jurisdictions all over the country are using the police to shake down citizens for revenue. The last few years have brought constitutional revenue raising, that is, taxes into ill favor. In fact, taxes are the biggest bugaboo politicians use against each other to deny funds for common good issues, such as health, environment, or infrastructure repair and to blast their opponents. Yet at the same time that taxes are being denied or selectively reduced, more money is needed just to keep the nation functioning. Combine this refusal to raise taxes with an increased demand for expensive public services and it's not surprising that new schemes for raising money are coming into use.

In my county, an all out effort has been launched to increase the number of citations for violations punishable by a fine. More egregiously, the state now adds additional fees, sometimes up to $3500, to standard fines for traffic violations. Even worse, a county in an adjoining state sent a bevy of policemen to an elementary school to write tickets to students for jaywalking. The children, of course, would have to take the tickets home to their parents, who then would have to pay them. Watch to see if this nefarious practice catches hold!!

This kind of shakedown, I suspect, is what happened to Larry Craig in the men's room at the Minneapolis Airport. Many lawyers say that no crime was committed by Craig in that men's room. Still, most people caught in such a situation would willing pay the $500 fine just to keep everything quiet. I suspect this is just what Senator Craig did, too. At $500 a pop, that men's room was probably a little gold mine for the city of Minneapolis or the Airport Authority.

Frankly, I hope he can beat the rap. This has been an improper use of police power and we need to keep alert to wherever it occurs. If a jurisdiction needs more money, let it seek to raise the money through constitutional means, which is taxes. This gives citizens a voice in whether they're willing to put up the money or prefer to do without some services.

The hypocritical angle:

Larry Craig has been a consistent and long time foe of gays and anybody whose sexual behavior does not agree with what he considers proper. He helped generate an atmosphere of hostility and hatred for those who commit just such acts as he did. Now that attitude has caught up with him and he has to face the consequences of his bigotry. Being hoisted on his own petard is, I think, thoroughly just and appropriate punishment.

My conclusion:

1. Larry Craig should have all the charges against him dropped and his guilty plea to a misdemeanor wiped from the record.

2. Because of his hipocracy and the use of his Senate position to launch unjust attacks on a fairly large segment of the American population, he should give up his seat in the U. S. Senate immediately.

It was impossible not to watch some of the House's session with General Petraeus. Little else was shown on the tube, if one excludes soap operas. It was quite a show, a circus, in fact. Poor dumb politicians stumbling over themselves to fawn over this contemporary icon and Bush's confederate.

General Petraeus, gaily bedighted with row upon row of ribbons descending from the left top of his chest to his belly button, and bangles and wings and ropes hanging from other parts of his torso, became a rock star for a few hours.

It was a pathetic performance. We all knew what would happen. Military officers don't become generals by expressing their true opinions, not even by displaying competence in military skills, but by sucking up to every other officer one grade higher than themselveds. If that other "officer" happens to be the Commander in Chief, the sucking reaches monumental proportions. That is what we saw yesterday.

It is all a part of Bush's pattern of using the military itself to justify maintaining high troop levels in Iraq. He knows that the generals on the ground will strain their guts to always do what the higher rank wants. The generals know that if they fail to tell the President what he wants to hear, that they'll be out of a job before sundown.

Thus when Bush "leaves" the decisions about troop levels to the generals, he guarantees that there will be no draw down in the foreseeable future.

ANOTHER HYPOCRITE BITES THE DUST!

If you put yourself up as holier than other people, then you damn well better be. By setting high standards of behavior for other people, you correspondingly raise the standards they expect of you. There is no getting around that fact. High standards are fine, laudable in fact, but you must be prepared to meet at least the same standard of rectitude as you demand of others. If not, one slight mistake and your comeuppance is inevitable.

The justice in the case of Senator Craig is marvelously appropriate. He devoted his career to abusing gays and minorities, working to restrict their rights as citizens and growth as human beings. With his limited human values and oppersive cultural policy goals, he did all he could to build a cultural attitude of hatred for all who disagree with his neocon views. Now that very culture he helped generate turns against him. It is a satisfying fate to honest Americans. Live by the sword, die by the sword; live by bigotry, die by bigotry. Ironic and appropriate.

HANDICAPPING THE FAVORITES

Who will win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations? Assuming they won't all be knocked out in the preliminary rounds, I boldly handicap the leading contenders as of this date. Wish me luck!

DEMOCRATS

Clinton will hang in and take the lead. She is generally regarded as "safe" among about all groups of democrats. She may not be terribly exciting but she is establishment and stable. I suspect that's what most American voters want.

Obama will also hang in but not win. Potential voters are less certain about who he is and where he stands. They are not comfortable with their knowledge of what he would do under trying circumstances.

Edwards will fall by the wayside. Americans do not like poor people. Whether they're willing to admit it or not, there is among middle and upper classes in America a distinct dislike of poor people. You just have to watch people to see this contempt, really hatred, ooze out in their every face to face contact with poor people. Edwards, in making much of his poor background, unleashes this subterranean opposition. It will catch up to him and cost him the nomination.

REPUBLICANS

Giuliani will drop by the wayside among Republicans. When Americans look at Rudy Giuliani, they see the shadow of a New York ethnic thug. He looks the part, sounds the part, and some of his business dealings reflect the part. Most Americans simply will not be able to support such an image.

Romney, too, will fall aside. Too many Americans are too straitlaced fundamentalist to ever accept a member of a religious group as different as Mormonism from conventional or evangelical Christianity. His money will not buy him enough votes to get the nomination.

McCain has blown his chance. He was once truly a hero. He went through a lot in that Vietnam prision and conducted himself as a man of true character, strength, and courage. We all admire him for that. Unfortunately, he has abandoned that man and lost himself in a mad desire to be President. In that misdirected quest he aligned himself with George Bush and shadowed him like a dog during the 2006 Presidential election, accepting any abuse just to stay in the political spotlight. He has parroted the Bush line ever since. Hooking himself to the wrong star will cost him the nomination.

So who's left for the Republicans to nominate? I simply don't know. No other candidate looks like much of a prospect right now.

Warner Runs Again

We now have an answer to the question as to whether John Warner will run again for Senator . The answer, I think, is yes. Yesterday he made what some claimed to be an earth shattering announcement that we should begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Christmas of this year.

Recall how he made that announcement: He lay the blame for the need to begin drawing down solely on the Iraqi government. Not a hint of criticism of the misguided and failed policies of the Bush administration. It's all the Iraqis' fault.

By couching his statement in this way, he expects to distance himself from the Bush policy without antagonizing Bush supporters in Virginia, whose numbers are legion. In short, he is attempting to appeal to both those who want us out of Iraq and those who want us to stay. This is an old tried and true Warner tactic.

I recall well during the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton that Warner straddled the issues then by voting for conviction on one charge and acquital on the other charge. I was watching the voting and as soon as Warner cast his second vote, I knew that he was positioning himself to run for Senator again. Clearly he was placing himself firmly on both sides of the impeachment issue, expecting to retain support from both those for and those against Clinton's impeachment.

Now, here he goes again, denying contamination by Bush and his Iraq policies on the one hand and with the other giving support to those who want the war over with. He's still catering to both sides on very important issues.