Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Defense Attorney Is Wrong



An Omaha woman was convicted Tuesday of abuse of a vulnerable adult in connection with the death of her disabled 23-year-old daughter. The woman had used a bed sheet to tie the door to her daughter's bedroom shut from the outside. The daughter died over a week after injuries she sustained in a fire while her mother was out of the house.

The mother had no intent to kill her daughter. The mother's goal was to keep her daughter from getting out of the house and wandering around the neighborhood in a motorized wheelchair (to which the daughter had been confined after being injured in a 2003 auto accident). The mother told her sixteen-year-old son she was going to be gone for about 20 minutes, but she did not return till more than 8 hours later. The teenager said he'd checked on his sister a couple of times but left the house for dinner just before 7 p.m.

The defense attorney claimed (1) that the statute in question didn't even apply in this case; (2) that since the mother's motive was to protect her daughter, not harm her daughter, there was no intent to abuse, therefore no abuse; (3) that the daughter could have escaped from another door in the room; (4) that the daughter probably started the fire herself to get attention.

It was a bench trial. The judge rejected the defense attorney's first and second arguments, agreed with the prosecution that the other door was no escape route, as it had had its knobs removed, so the only way to get it open was to jimmy it, which the daughter from her wheelchair could not do, and ignored the claim that the daughter started the fire herself.

The mother was thus convicted but is out on bail. Her attorney is still claiming all 4 of the claims he made at trial and has vowed to appeal the judge's verdict.

Here's the real skinny: EVERYTHING THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAID IS IMMATERIAL. It's all irrelevant. The fact that the mother locked her daughter in by tying the main door shut and then left her alone for more than 8 hours in itself is sufficient to convict her of the crime for which she committed. Telling a teenager she was going to be gone for only 20 minutes but not coming back till more than eight hours later was irresponsible and unreasonable on its face. Leaving the care of someone unable to care for herself in the hands of a sixteen-year-old boy, even if it had been for only 20 minutes, is simply irresponsible. The law doesn't say the defendant had to intend to hurt the victim; the law says the defendant had to do an act that abused a vulnerable adult. That there was another door was immaterial, as for all practical purposes it, too, was locked--which the mother knew. Finally, saying the daughter probably started the fire herself is simply blaming the victim and is no valid argument against the mother's conviction.

I am perfectly well aware that all criminal defendants are entitled to make the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I am perfectly well aware that the defense attorney in this case is just doing his job to the best of his ability. None of that changes the fact that some of the things he alleged are contemptible and the rest are outright lies. It's no wonder people are losing faith in the legal system. The attorney's ethical charge is to do what's in his client's best interests, not to get his client acquitted at any cost. Sometimes serving the client's best interests should be accomplished by giving the client a reality check.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Alphabet Soup, N-Z


"N" is for "no," as in "No Child Left Behind." Apparently the name of the Dubya administration education legislation has proven to be a rich source of humor. Many people want to change the name of the law to something more serious, to give it more credibility--or to something more humorous, to reflect its ineptitude. Suggestions are welcomed and are being accepted on a blog at www.eduwonk.com, according to an article published in Sunday's Omaha World-Herald. Send one in!

"O" is for "Oscars," as in the Academy Awards ceremonies Sunday night. Some random observations: (1) Either too many women went to the same designer, or the variety of ideas among designers this year was especially paltry. At least three women were dressed in variations of a one-shoulder blue dress with a black sash/scarf/belt thing. Appalling! (2) I don't know why Will Smith didn't come up in discussions for best-dressed male in the post-Oscar fashion reviews. His tux was exceedingly well-tailored. He looked plenty sharp to me. (3) I greatly enjoyed Hugh Jackman's big production number, with top hat and tails . . . I'm just glad he didn't include a snippet of "Puttin' On The Ritz." If he had, I would have snorted my hot cocoa out my nose. [Remember Young Frankenstein? 'Nuff said.--Ed.]

"P" is for "penny," as in the new series of Lincoln cents, to be released throughout this year to honor the bicentennial anniversary of Lincoln's birth. I hope the US Mint doesn't get rid of the penny. As a purely practical matter, I know they are more of a pain to deal with than they are worth, but I like them, and I think I'm not alone in that. Besides, when I lived in Germany, none of the US facilities used pennies--they were too expensive to ship overseas and back--everything was rounded to the nearest nickel. It probably came out about even in the end, but most of the Americans I knew over there could not escape a vague suspicion that we all were being ripped off.

"Q" is for "quarters," as in this year's release of 6 quarters to recognize US Territories and other unique geo-political entities, such as Washington, D.C. It's a supplement to the 10-year program (that ended in 2008) of quarters honoring each of the 50 states. I just wish there were a way to display the new ones with the first 50. I have yet to see a display rack, frame, or folder for the 50-state series that provided spaces for the extra six 2009 mintings. Bummer!

"R" is for "reality," as in "soap operas need a real reality check sometimes." The way soaps present legal proceedings is beyond ludicrous. Hearsay and irrelevant testimony are routinely allowed, rules of evidence are ignored, rulings are arbitrary and capricious, and legitimate legal points are stricken--I suppose all for the sake of dramatic impact. But I worry about the wrong impressions of the legal system that they present to the general public. When will soap writers learn from shows like Law and Order that you can be just as dramatic while being mostly accurate?

And the soaps' presentation of medical procedures and their aftermaths is just as bad. On one soap [which shall remain nameless because I do like to watch it nonetheless--Ed.], a character who's been in a coma for three months and who needed--and got--a heart transplant during her coma has now awoken, was released from the hospital less than a week after the surgery, is not wearing a face mask or taking any other normal steps to avoid post-transplant infections, and is walking around normally even though her character's entire chest had to be cut open to do the transplant. I know we must suspend our disbelief, and I do like watching certain soaps [they are, after all, the modern incarnation of a Dickens serial novel--Ed.], but how hard can it be to pay a modicum of attention to reality when dramatizing real medical procedures? Especially when the same soaps are overtly supporting Women's Heart Health Month--even if most of the support consists of including Campbell's products by name in the dialog?

"S" is for "satellites" and "submarines," as in "Oops! We collided nuclear ones!" Talk about taking atom-smashing to a whole new level!

"T" is for "tax credits," as in will they really work as economic stimulus? Doubtful. What about all the people who do not qualify for them but who nevertheless are teetering on the brink of financial ruin? What if you qualify for enough of them so that you should get a refund, but since the rules tend to say you cannot reduce your taxes owed below "0.00," you get nothing back? And will the reduction in payroll withholding that's going to give the average person $8.00 a week more per pay period make a real difference in how people spend?

"U" is for "Upton," as in Upton Sinclair. His muckraking masterwork, The Jungle, is as relevant to food safety issues today as it was about a century ago when he gruesomely detailed abuses in the meat-packing industry. The Jungle helped spur creation of the FDA. Maybe the salmonella deaths engendered by the deliberate behavior of executives at the Peanut Corporation of America will encourage strengthening or even reorganizing and streamlining, thus improving, enforcement of food safety laws and regulations we already have. One can only hope.

"V" is for "violets," as in the delicate purple flowers of spring. I love their scent. Spring IS coming, despite local forecasts for snow later this week. Bring on the warmer weather! [I just wish we could skip summer altogether. It's too hot and humid for me.--Ed.]

"W" is for "what," as in "What's wrong with this picture?" A recent local TV news item reported that a man accused of two crimes got bail set at a total of $100,000 . . . thus even with a bail bondsman's services, the accused would have to pony up $10,000 to get out of jail. But the breakdown of the bail by crime is what distresses me. For the charge of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, bail was set at $25,000. For stealing a painting, bail was set at $75,000. Tain't right, Magee. To suggest that a girl is worth only 1/3 of what a piece of property is worth is beyond offensive. Why aren't the pro-life activists protesting THAT?

"X" is for "X-rated," as in my reaction to the reasons given on NPR yesterday by South Carolina's Republican governor for his reluctance to take any of the federal economic stimulus money allocated to his state. For one thing, he out-and-out lied about facts. He claimed that we've already spent too much on stimulus that didn't work, conveniently forgetting that the first $700 billion--for the banks--was pressed and passed by the Dubya administration with no strings attached. Considering that the banks are what got us into this mess, the lack of strings is the problem, not the stimulus. Second, he claimed that the billions requested by GM didn't work because GM came back "a week" later asking for more . . . forgetting that (1) GM received only part of the total initial allocation and was required to come back to show its plans to justify receiving more, and (2) that the total allocation itself was far lower than what economists of all political stripes estimated GM would need to survive.

For another thing, by refusing the stimulus funds, he's hurting the people of his own state. Playing politics should NEVER come before doing the public good. At least Florida Gov. Crist (also a Republican) understands that. He campaigned for John McCain last year, but recognizing the economic meltdown's disastrous consequences for his constituents, he's welcoming the stimulus money and correctly proclaiming that some things are bigger than politics. For which he's being excoriated by yet another member of the Bush family, who called Crist a "D-light," as in "Democrat, lite." Boy, irrelevant insults just totally out-argue the facts, don't they--NOT!

"Y" is for "yammering," as what the talking heads of all political stripes are doing to excess. The current and omnipresent 24/7 news cycle requires all these people to talk about something, but hashing and rehashing and rerehashing a few facts and filling the rest of the time with endless speculation is not productive. I for one am tired of hearing 2 minutes of news and 28 minutes of speculating about what the news during the next broadcast will be. SHADDUP, already, all of you! By limiting yourselves to reporting news when there is news, you could actually report additional facts about stories on other topics--topics that now are being largely ignored--and give your audience both broader and more in-depth coverage instead of the continual yelping and endless speculating about a few narrow topics that you do now.

"Z" is for "Zambrano, Carlos," as in the Chicago Cubs' number one pitcher. Spring training has started, and Opening Day is now only a few short weeks away! Hooray, baseball! Hooray, spring! Hooray for the eternal promise of "next year is here!"

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Alphabet Soup, A to M



"A" is for "A-Roid." [Kudos to whomever coined that phrase!--Ed.] Count me among the people who were not surprised this week when Alex Rodriguez's story/apology for his steroid use fell apart almost as soon as he made it. While I respect his prodigious baseball talent, I've never cared much for him as a person. Everything with him always seemed to be studied, calculated, posed. No spontaneity, no genuine warmth. He's gonna get what he deserves.

"B" is for "Burris," as in "Bye-Bye!" So now that he got appointed to what had been Barack Obama's US Senate seat, Roland Burris says (contrary to his testimony under oath at now ex-governor Rod Blagojevich's impeachment trial) he did actually talk about and attempt fund-raising for B-Rod. His defense (and thus justification for not resigning due to his lies) is that his fund-raising efforts were not successful. Current Illinois Governor Pat Quinn as said flat out that Burris should consider resigning. Even President Obama has said Burris ought to take some serious time and "reflect." Sounds like the kiss of death to me.

"C" is for "chimp cartoon," as in "not funny." Almost everything that can be said has been said about the offensive cartoon run in one of this week's New York Post issues, except this: the people, including the cartoonist himself, who still deny that the cartoon is racist or that it meant anything bad (like encouraging people to shoot President Obama) are so entrenched in their racism that they can't see it even when it's put right under their noses. That is beyond sad. It's frightening.

"D" is for "Darwin," whose bicentennial birthday anniversary most of us celebrate. For those who still claim Darwin is wrong: in every way that his "theory" of evolution can be tested by the scientific method, it has never been found wrong. Maybe its details need to be tweaked a bit; that's only natural, and that's what happens to every scientific theory. Reproducible results are what's wanted, and in every instance, Darwin's idea has been vindicated. Disagree with it all you want on religious grounds--your objections are irrelevant, for Darwin never claimed to explain WHY the world evolved as it has. "Why" is the question for religion--it's the question answered by "intelligent design." By definition, it is not scientific. All Darwin tried to do was answer the question "how." And at that, he succeeded. You cannot deny evolution--you see one example of it in action all around you every year in the annual mutation of the flu virus.

"E" is for "energy, green." And what's up with the people who oppose wind power because they don't want the windmills to "spoil the view"? Don't they realize that smog and other carbon-based pollution spoils not just the view but that which is in the view far more than a line of modern windmills ever could?

"F" is for "foreclosures." Fie on those who say we shouldn't help people who are drowning in the middle of the housing crisis--letting them just go down the drain will have the effect of lowering everyone else's property values. Are you sure that's what you really want? I don't think so, especially when your property taxes are not going to go down either as much or as quickly. Besides, we already bailed out the "losers" amongst the banking system, largely because they were "too big to fail." Collectively, letting homeowners continue to go bankrupt with no effort to restructure their mortgages will be just as big a drag on the overall economy. If not bigger.

"G" is for "Gonzo," as in Alberto Gonzales. The disgraced (but to date unindicted) former US Attorney General has said he'll be glad to "cooperate" with congressional investigators so long as their focus is not "political." Note that he didn't define "political." He claims that he has always cooperated in the past. Note that this "cooperation" consisted of answering all questions with variations of "I don't know" or "I can't recall."

"H" is for "hypocrites." Many GOP members of the US House of Representatives and US Senate, who to a person voted AGAINST President Obama's economic stimulus package, sure haven't been shy about taking credit for the money the package will bring into their home districts and states. To quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "You're not fooling anyone, you know."

"I" is for "Indiana Jones Monopoly." Monopoly is my favorite board game, I think because I have always loved playing with the tokens the players use to track their progress around the board. The tokens in this specialty edition are especially wonderful. They are well-made, good-sized, heavy, and like the board and the "fortune" and "glory" cards, reference all four movies. You can choose Indy's fedora, Dr. Jones Senior's Grail diary, Indy's bullwhip, the Grail cup itself, an alien skull, or a mine car. How fun is that?

"J" is for "Japanese (former) finance minister." Did you see the tapes of his appearance at the recent G8 meetings? I agree with Rachel Maddow--I don't care what the man claims about merely having taken too much cold medicine. He was hammered. Totally. In public. He got off easy with his resignation. In the old days, he'd have had to commit seppoku for the loss of face he created for the entire country.

"K" is for "kooky," as in several remarks made by GOP members this week. Michelle Backman [if that's the wrong name or misspelled, please let me know--Ed.], US House of Representatives member from Minnesota, not only erroneously claimed ACORN was getting $5 billion-with-a-B dollars in the stimulus plan (ACORN is getting exactly zero dollars, thank you very much), but complained in a talk-radio interview that "America is running out of rich people" due to Obama's tax policies. Alan Keyes, token black GOP member, perpetual GOP also-ran, and loser to Barack Obama in the US Senate race, claimed that Obama was an out-and-out Communist who had to be stopped--and tried again to raise the thoroughly discredited notion that Obama isn't REALLY the president because we don't know whether he was REALLY born in the USA.

On one hand, these continued outrages irritate me because of their sheer stupidity. [The "he must be stopped" comment also frightens me because I can see someone using that as an excuse to shoot Obama.--Ed.] On the other, I love to see them because they signify that the GOP is becoming so marginalized and so desperate it no longer cares whether it's getting credible attention. Any attention at all seems to be enough. I hope we are well on the way to seeing the end of this perversion of what used to be a noble political franchise.

"M" is for "minor league baseball franchise," which may not be in Omaha much longer. The Omaha Royals have to date refused to sign a contract to play in Mayor Fahey's new downtown stadium [I don't care who gets corporate naming rights. It will always be "Fahey's Folly" to me.--Ed.], and are actively looking elsewhere since the venerable Rosenblatt Stadium will be torn down after the 2010 College World Series. Plans for the downtown stadium have already been cut way back--the retail shopping area that was supposed to help draw the crowds have been scrapped, allegedly because of the current economic situation . . . but really because with only Creighton University games and the College World Series guaranteed to be played there, there's not enough draw and retailers are not interested. The plans were scrapped long before the true scope of the economic meltdown became apparent.

Yet people are dreaming: Sarpy County, south of Omaha's Douglas County, is pushing hard to get the Royals to commit to playing here, and the county will build a stadium to suit. Omahans are dreaming of the Iowa Cubs moving to Omaha, now that the local Ricketts family owns the Chicago Cubs. I think neither of these things will happen. Sarpy County cannot afford to build a suitable stadium, and as far as I know, the Iowa Cubs are perfectly happy in Des Moines. Well, spring is coming, and hope springs eternal, and all that jazz . . .

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Equal-Opportunity Duplicity Is Disgusting Just The Same



The new junior US senator from Illinois, Roland Burris, just "fine-tuned" the statements he made under oath at the impeachment trial of now former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. At the trial, Burris admitted that he had talked to "some friends" about wanting the appointment to the seat vacated by now President Obama. Yesterday, Burris revealed he had in fact talked to Blagojevich's brother, who indicated interest in getting campaign contributions for the governor in return.

Burris insisted that what he revealed yesterday does not contradict what he said at the trial and asserted that the media are making an issue out of a non-issue. All I can say is that Burris learned his spinning lessons well . . . just not well enough. The Illinois state senators who questioned Burris at Blagojevich's impeachment trial asked him specifically if Burris had had any contact or conversations with Blagojevich's relatives. Burris's answer left the clear impression that the answer to that question was "no," because he again referred only to "some friends."

This is a fine kettle of three-day-old fish you've gotten us into, Sen. Burris. It stinks. It is just as wrong and just as disgusting as the GOP members who claim that the economic stimulus bill was passed without any Republican input, that Obama was nowhere to be found during the negotiation process, and that FDR caused the Great Depression. Bald-faced lies, every one.

I hope the Illinois legislature decides to call Burris on his load of crap, so that he can be removed from the US Senate and somebody clean can be appointed by new governor Pat Quinn in Burris's stead. I also hope that the good half of the economic stimulus bill works well enough to silence the liars and the nay-sayers in the GOP--though that's a fool's wish, I know.

Let's face it: the reason statesmen are so rare is because politicians are so common. And common politicians are incapable of rising to the occasion when the occasion demands. More's the pity for the fate of the country. The losers, whose policies have been discredited over and over and over throughout American history, are still trying to run the game when what we need is some true statesmanship.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

An Open Letter To President Obama



Dear Mr. President:

Your reliance on the inspiration and example of Abraham Lincoln is commendable, but in at least one case, it is leading you astray.

I am sure your reluctance to investigate and prosecute the criminal acts of the preceding administration comes straight out of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address: "with malice toward none, with charity for all." It does denote a nobility of spirit on your part--and normally, I am all for pursuing kindness over retribution when it's a viable alternative.

But what was done during the George W. Bush [henceforth "Dubya"--Ed.] administration cannot be compared to the US Civil War. Had Lincoln pursued retribution starting in 1865, fully half the country would have wound up in jail--and for no good reason. Many, if not most, of the Confederate foot soldiers fought because they considered the Union to have invaded their territory. They had no slaves, no economic stake in perpetuating slavery, and no great philosophical quarrel about the concept of "states' rights" vs. the federal government's authority. They were merely defending their homes.

In the Dubya administration, however, specific people at the head of government pursued policies and authorized actions that clearly violated both the US Constitution and international law. You have sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the US Constitution. Part of upholding and defending it is bringing to justice those who violate it, especially when they committed crimes under the ægis of being Constitutional officeholders. Besides, under treaties we have signed, the US is obligated to prosecute war crimes committed by Americans . . . not merely Americans who did not formerly hold high office.

Nor can you compare your inaction to Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. In that case, the crimes were investigated and revealed. Most of the perpetrators were held accountable for their criminal actions. Your apparent intent to give everyone from the Dubya administration a walk does not provide even the partial sense of justice having been done that the American people attained through the post-Watergate trials, however.

The thing that makes America unique is not that we are, or even claim to be perfect, for surely we are not and do not. But when we know of grievous, criminal official activity, we show it to the world--and for that which we cannot undo, we enforce retribution. Besides, the latest polls show that over 65% of the American public wants the criminals in the Dubya administration to be held accountable for their crimes. You simply cannot ignore such a sizable percentage of the population, not if you truly believe (as I think you do) in government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Please, please, please reconsider your intent just to let this matter slide. For not only would your administration's inaction be a disservice to the American people, it would set a dangerous precedent for the future. I don't care whether the president is a Democrat, a Republican, or from any other party affiliation: I don't want ANY president to think s/he can get away with the abuses of power that happened between 2000 and 2008. To let future presidents think they could would obliterate our concept of "the rule of law and not of men." It would mean the death of the very Constitution you swore to uphold, protect, and defend. Don't let that be your ultimate legacy.

Sincerely,

One who cares a great deal about Lincoln and the Constitution, and who has extensively studied--and taught--both

A Smell Worse Than Three-Day-Old Fish

Yes, I am about to address the saga of Nadya Suleman, already a single mother of 6 who just gave birth to 8 more via in vitro fertilization. The initial news reports said the mother of octuplets wanted her rest and privacy, yet suddenly she's all over the media. She says she's never even considered her [obvious--Ed.] resemblance to Angelina Jolie, but within hours, the news is full of stories of the several emails she's sent to the actress. [She's also obviously had a lot of plastic surgery done to increase the resemblance, but until she learns how to sit up straight instead of hunched over in a pile, she'll never even begin to fake carrying it off.--Ed]

She claims to be able to support all her 14 children on her own, but is getting disability payments for 3 of the older ones, and Medicaid is taking care of the expenses engendered by the 8 preemies in the NICU, which according to news reports are over $2,300 per day. She says the same man is the biological father of all 14 but that by her choice, he's no longer in her life in any meaningful way . . . but later news reports suggested he bolted upon learning she was going to have 8 more on top of the 6 she already had. Some reports also suggested that there was more than one father involved.

She says that only one doctor did all the procedures to give her all 14 of her children, but reporters discovered that the doctor who helped her with the first 6 refused to help her have any more. [I am also very glad to know that the doctor who did do the in vitro that resulted in the octuplets is being investigated by medical authorities. I don't know of a single ethical doctor who'd do such a thing for an unwed, unemployed mother of 6. I bet the doctor who did is hoping to jump on the publicity gravy train, too. What has been reported about him to date is rather unsavory.--Ed.]

Her own mother called her decision to have the octuplets "unconscionable," though she's doing what she can to help.

What offends and scares me most about the entire mess, however, is how Nadya talks about her children. She says she will be there for them, will love them and will hug them. This is not how a mother talks about her children. This is how a child talks about her pets.

It stinks, especially for the children. She can't even keep their names straight as it is. The ultimate effect of her sick need to be the ultimate mother is that none of her children are going to grow up feeling loved and secure. They're going to feel as though they've all been lost in the crowd.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Gimme Your Hat--I'm Gonna Puke In It



Hearing about the filthy, rat-infested conditions in the Peanut Corporation of America plants, first in Georgia and now also in Texas, has turned my stomach big time. I am on the verge of swearing off peanut-related products, which will be a major blow to the sales of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Where in the world were the regulators and inspectors?

Nowhere, that's where. Under the Dubya administration, the attitude about both business and banking was "we trust you to do the right thing." ["We don't trust everyday working citizens at all," but that's another story.--Ed.] The result? A nationwide salmonella scare that's more than just a scare--it has already caused nine deaths we know about.

Didn't anyone in the Dubya administration ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Apparently not. Either that, or they didn't take it seriously. Or they drew the wrong lesson from it. The lesson was not that there will always be isolated aberrant business owners and managers. The lesson was that absent sensible AND ENFORCED regulations, the general public was at risk from those whose only concern was making as much money as possible for themselves.

Yet the GOP is still pushing the same tired old agendas. I wonder whether any of the GOP's members listened openly and honestly to President Obama's speech last night at the annual Illinois Lincoln Day Dinner. It was a masterful essay, reminding us that nationwide problems require nationwide solutions, which Lincoln--the first Republican president--knew well. After all, he signed the Homestead Act, the Land Grant College Act, and the Act creating the transcontinental railroad . . . all while other matters threatened to suck up all his time and energy.

I guess it's too much to expect GOP die-hards to shift their attitudes even an iota, and that's a real shame. It is not too much to expect, however, that they get their facts straight. How anyone can claim, as some GOP members have, that FDR caused the Great Depression is inexcusable. The Great Depression started in October, 1929. FDR didn't take office until March, 1933. What made the Great Depression so horrible is that the president in office when it started, the Republican Herbert Hoover, insisted that economic downturns were normal and that the system would eventually right itself on its own. He did precisely NOTHING to help that process along. The upshot? An ever-worsening downward spiral of layoffs, lower sales, more layoffs and business closings, still lower sales, and so on, until eating even The Jungle's hot dogs containing human remains seemed preferable to starving.

Yet some GOP members in Congress now are claiming the current economic meltdown will right itself and we don't have to do anything.

Those who don't know--or who deny--history are doomed to repeat it. But why should those of us who know better be forced to be dragged down with and by them?

* * * * * * * * * *

On a related note: for anyone who still claims financial markets are rational, I have the ultimate proof that even those who say so know better. Marketplace, a very pro-business program aired on NPR, has on its web site an examination of how the Dow Jones and other markets have behaved over time on Friday the 13th.

If markets were truly rational, whether the day was Friday the 13th would not matter. Not one whit. So to recognize that superstitions affect the behavior of market traders is to recognize that markets are NOT, at some fundamental level, rational.

Yet in the next breath, the Marketplace toadies are extolling the virtues of Adam Smith's "invisible hand."

Puh-leez!

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Lincoln's Lasting Legacy


The Abraham Lincoln who is my hero is not the Great Emancipator of myth. Abraham Lincoln the man, with all his faults and flaws, is my hero. And not necessarily for anything specific that he did, but for what the course of his life demonstrated: the infinite human capacity to learn, to grow, to change, and to improve--whether by birth, by conscious decision, or by confluence of circumstances.

[That last is a reference to Churchill's observation that "some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."--Ed.]

I am as impatient with the people who sanctify Lincoln as I am with the people who excoriate him. To this day, I am amazed at how little even declared students of American history really know about the man. As a junior in college, I once took a 400/800 level seminar on the politics of the US Civil War. To this day I remain shocked by the shock of some of the graduate students in the class who did not know, not until the day we discussed it in 1978, that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free a single slave. When I search my memories of learning about Lincoln, this seems to be an unremarkable political fact I've always known. Then again, I started studying Lincoln in earnest when I was in the 4th grade--a personal quest beginning after my 4th grade teacher Mr. Arnold made my class memorize the Gettysburg Address.

I also have no truck with those who call Lincoln a white supremacist and who do everything they can to tear the man's reputation apart. Yes, Lincoln started out as a horrible, if typical, example of typical white, male, mid-19th century thinking about the races. He freely tossed around the "N" word, a word that even in a single usage makes me cringe. In his pre-presidential political career, he asserted over and over that while blacks had equal rights to freedom, they did not have equal rights with whites to participate in the civil and political process. For years, his solution to the "race problem" was to encourage blacks to (voluntarily) emigrate back to Africa.

But what makes Lincoln special is that he went from echoing the sentiments of the crowd [for how else is a politician to be elected?--Ed.] to dragging the entire country along with him as his personal enlightenment happened. By the last days of his presidency, he talked openly about giving educated black men the vote, and thus equal citizenship in the preserved Union. And it's what got him killed.

[Please don't sell him short for restricting which blacks would get the vote. Voting limitations on whites were also so limited in the mid-1860s.--Ed.]

A historian on NPR this morning said John Wilkes Booth got the idea in 1865 to kill Lincoln when he discovered on April 13th Lincoln was going to attend a performance of "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theater the next night. That is not strictly true. Booth may have gotten the idea about where and how to kill Lincoln from that bit of information--but he'd decided on killing Lincoln days before that, when Lincoln made what turned out to be his last public statement on April 9th. Speaking from a balcony at the White House, Lincoln gave official voice to extending the franchise [that's "the vote" nowadays--Ed.] to certain blacks and to soldiers who'd fought in the Civil War.

Booth's reaction to that, according to testimony of his fellow conspirators, was to say that "that meant equal citizenship," and for that, Lincoln must die. For Booth was the real, unrepentant racist in this drama. Indeed, Booth's plan had been to kidnap Lincoln until he realized that Lincoln was serious about extending civil rights to blacks. That realization, plus his knowledge that the War was essentially over after Lee surrendered to Grant, plus his overwhelming ego and desire to be "the American Brutus" are what drove Booth to kill instead of kidnap. Booth thought he'd be welcomed everywhere as the man who struck down tyranny. He totally miscalculated the South's reaction to his heinous act. He was genuinely surprised when he learned that he was virtually universally condemned.

For Booth had forgotten the one thing that North and South had always shared: adherence to the process of the rule of law. It's why the South "came back" after Lee surrendered. It's why the Union was preserved. It vindicated Lincoln's faith in the fundamental sensibility of all Americans, mo matter the region of their birth. Heck, he himself had been born in Kentucky. Americans of every stripe officially adhere to the rule of law above all else [they just aren't always good at spotting when the rule of law has been violated--witness the entire Dubya administration--Ed.], as did Lincoln himself. His arguments against the expansion of slavery into the territories was based on law; his Cooper Union speech in February, 1860, setting forth his reasons for same, is what got him elected president.

Assassination was clearly "out-of-bounds" to the vast majority of Americans. It stunned their collective consciousness and started the transforming of Lincoln into America's secular saint. Despite all the half-truths and misconceptions that have been spewed out as "history" ever since, Lincoln's standing is undiminished. He is America's greatest president. No, he was not perfect--far from it--but he ensured that America could live up to its aspirations as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Me and (not Leon Russell) Dr. John



"I was in the right place, but it must have been the wrong time . . ."

Talk about your déjà vu all over again. I saw an article in this morning's New York Times that gave me a great deal of gratification while at the same time giving me serious regrets.

I refer to the proposal by one Mr. Shai Agassi, former software mogul, to build a worldwide network of car battery-changing stations to accommodate the coming influx of electric cars. I had this idea at least as early as 1990, but I did not have the funds nor the fame to do anything with it, like register it, so once again, I make precisely zip for being ahead of the power curve.

Nonetheless, I am gratified that the feasibility of my idea has been recognized by someone who has the money and the connections to make it work. Mr. Agassi's company is called "Better Place," in tribute to his inspiration for the battery-changing stations. He came up with the idea after asking himself "What can I do to make the world a better place?"

He's already done some studies on what the start-up costs per station would be. He's also signed agreements in Canada and Denmark to being mapping out systems for those countries. He is also working with auto manufacturers to encourage standardization in battery size, power source, shape, and location within the car's engine. His concept is that his company would own the batteries and that people would buy a charge the same way they buy cell phone minutes now.

His vision for how the battery-changing operation would work is similar to that of an automated car wash--the car goes in one end, and is transported through each step of the changing process on a conveyor belt.

I think it's brilliant, and I am all for it. I wish him all the success in the world, for the sake of the world. I just wish I'd been smart enough to copyright the darned idea back when I first had it.

Friday, February 06, 2009

Where Have You Gone, Paddy Chaevsky?



I don't know about anyone else, but I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

I applaud President Obama's attempts to move beyond partisanship in Washington. However, if no one else will play, that goal is unreachable, period. And the GOP, like a spoiled 5-year-old, has threatened to go home and take its ball with it if the Democrats don't cave on the Economic Recovery Act. So far, the Dems are caving. That's what makes me mad.

Have Democrats been out of power for so long that they've forgotten how to wield it? Obama is not blameless in this, either. He should have been making the speech he made today from Day One and using his bully pulpit to pressure the GOP into doing what's best for the country, not what's best for its members.

You cannot reason with fundamentally unreasonable people. I think the Democrats, who won big in November, should not just remind the GOP that the country wants a new direction--they should ACT on it. If the GOP won't vote for the Economic Recovery Act until it's so watered down that it cannot succeed, fine. Take out ALL the GOP's insisted-on tax cuts, restore the true stimulus provisions that the GOP wanted out, and pass it over their heads.

If the bill passes in its presently watered-down fashion, and it doesn't work, it just gives the GOP more ammo for its political agenda. This bill is too important to not just the country, but to the whole world. It must pass, and it must be big enough to be successful in kick-starting the economy. Pass it as you originally proposed it. Pass it despite the GOP. If it fails anyway, then the ammo they get is justified, at least. But if it works, the GOP's influence will be even more marginalized than it is now.

I shouldn't be so upset. I make the same mistake all the time, of expecting to be able to reason with unreasonable people. But I just can't stand this. I keep looking at US history, and I keep wondering how anyone can say with a straight face that (1) the New Deal was a failure; and (2) "spending" is NOT "stimulus." Did no one in GOP even pay attention in Economics 101? Did no one in the GOP even take Economics 101?

I sure hope the House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling the differing versions of the Economic Recovery Act will restore it or make it even bigger. It really is time to stop playing politics, people.

Then again, if the ancient Mayan calendar is right, and the world is going to end on December 21, 2012, maybe we shouldn't even care.

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Arguments--


A QUESTION I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ASK--AND SOMEONE WOULD ANSWER

I watched a PBS "Frontline" program last night about Parkinson's disease. It was at once a family history and a recap of the research history, including the arguments for and against the use of human embryonic stem cells in the context of whether federal funding for same was appropriate. Under the Dubya administration, of course, it was not. President Obama may change that.

During one of the Senate hearings (chaired by Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pennsylvania), a priest argued that respect for human life should preclude the use of human embryonic stem cells in all such research, even though the embryos from which the stem cells would come would otherwise be destroyed and utterly wasted. He drew the analogy to prisoners on death row: they are going to be killed, so why not use them in the meantime? His answer was that it was wrong, plain and simple. Just as respect for human dignity forbids so using prisoners, so should it forbid using embryos.

The question I wanted to ask him is this: isn't the life that's already here worthy of equal, if not more, respect than is a microscopic collection of cells that represent only the potential for life? Note that framing the issue this way puts the lie to the priest's analogy to prisoners on death row, too. Those prisoners are also "life that's already here," so using them for research just because they've already been convicted to death is still wrong.

What phrasing the question the way I have does is acknowledge the human dignity of the life that's already here, the life suffering from diseases [not just Parkinson's, but Alzheimer's and any number of other illnesses, from MS to cystic fibrosis--Ed.] for which cures may be had, and soon. The only embryonic stem cells that would be used are those about to be discarded as medical waste. Where is the human dignity in being thrown away? Far better that they be put to noble purpose rather than just being literally trashed.

I propose a solution: have the donors sign agreements authorizing the use in research of any embryonic stem cells they do not themselves use. That would be no different from someone signing an organ donation card in the case of his/her death. People who do not wish to sign the agreements do not have to do so. Any of their unused embryonic stem cells can be discarded as they are at present. But the stem cells from other embryos, ones pre-authorized for research, can do unmeasurable good in the service of lives already here on this Earth.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Talk About Your Errors In Logic!



One of the GOP's pet ideas for economic stimulus is to offer individuals tax incentives (i.e., credits) for spending money. Such tax incentives won't work, and here's why: you have to have money to spend before you can spend any money.

If people are out of work, I don't care what kind of tax incentives are out there--people are not going to be buying new cars, newly-constructed houses, or much of anything else beyond the bare minimums they need for food, clothing, and shelter. No tax incentive in the world is going to encourage you to spend when you don't earn enough money even to pay taxes, let alone need to get your taxes reduced.

An astute reader's letter to the editor published in last night's Omaha World-Herald revealed the reason for the flaw in the GOP's collective thinking [and I use the term "thinking" loosely--Ed.]: the GOP doesn't recognize that workers and consumers are the same people. They want to reduce not just workers' benefits, but the number of workers at the same time they want consumers to spend more. Let's face it: that's impossible when workers and consumers are one and the same.

But the GOP doesn't get it, for the GOP's concept of "workers" is "beings beneath our notice and subject to our contempt." They honestly think that every penny given to workers is a penny taken from the pockets of their "consumers," who seem to be limited to being the owners, operators, or anyone else in business who makes an annual income of at least six figures.

The tax incentives the GOP pushes are not for people like you and me. They are for the acceptably well-off. The rest of us can go hang as far as the GOP is concerned.

And lest you doubt me, remember: during last summer's presidential campaigning, John McCain himself said he thought middle class people were making $500,000 a year.

The reason this blindness didn't stir outrage amongst those who are relatively poor but who support the GOP nonetheless is that the GOP has convinced them that it is the protector of proper social values, like being anti-reproductive choice, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration (illegal or not), and so on.

The GOP is becoming increasingly marginalized yet its leaders think it needs to move even farther to the right. As far as I am concerned, let it. It's driving itself over a cliff and doesn't even realize it. But President Obama's rightful desire to move Washington away from partisanship may actually be giving the rightest of the right wing a lifeline . . . when what it really needs is a Do Not Resuscitate order.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Bye, Bye, Birde!



Along with most of the rest of the country, I was rooting for the Arizona Cardinals [that still doesn't sound right--it'll always be instinctive for me to say "St. Louis"--Ed.] to beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in yesterday's Super Bowl, while at the same time thinking the Steelers were going to win the game. And that's how it turned out . . . but it wound up being a much more fun game to watch than I expected. The Cardinals scored a touchdown on a long pass and run play to take a 5-point lead with over 2½ minutes left. I confess to thinking at that point that they scored too soon, that they left too much time on the clock for Pittsburgh to come back and retake the lead--which is exactly what happened.

I just hope the Cardinals don't go away feeling bad. They played a great game, but trying to beat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl is akin to trying to beat the New York Yankees in the World Series. Ain't normally gonna happen.

I'm going to rank this game among my all-time favorites. My own #1 favorite will always [until they get back in and win it again, that is--Ed.] be the Kansas City Chiefs' win over the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IV. My dad raised me to be a Chiefs fan (I told you I have lots of bad habits), and I'm not going to apologize for that no matter how badly they've stunk since Len Dawson and Joe Montana retired.

My second favorite is the San Francisco 49ers' win over the Cincinnati Bengals in Super Bowl XVI, not only because it was the start of the Niners' brilliant run as the team of the 80s, but because it, too, was a fun game to watch, what with the Niners coming from behind at the end of the game to win 26-21.

My third favorite is last year's win by the New York Giants over the New England Patriots, because that game played out more like a college bowl game than pro game ever could, right down to the underdog beating the previously undefeated and presumptive champion on a virtually last-minute improbable play.

But yesterday's game is right up there in my own Top 5.

* * * * * * * * * *

The commercials were, in general, less obnoxious yesterday than many in prior years have been, too. The main exception was the GoDaddy.com series, which was incredibly sexist and trashy. I don't care that Danica Patrick is GoDaddy's spokesperson--she's doing a disservice to her "sisters in arms" everywhere. When are GoDaddy's owners going to realize that women watch these games, too, and that they aren't helping their market share by offending a large part of their audience?

I liked all the Budweiser Clydesdale ads I saw this year. The Clydesdale's love affair with the circus horse was the best, though the Clydesdale playing fetch was laugh-out-loud funny. And the one about the grandson of the Clydesdale which emigrated from Scotland was equally humorous, though on a higher level--you have to know about both US history and the geographical origins of the Clydesdale breed to appreciate it fully. I confess to having missed the first five minutes of the game because I was under the impression that kickoff was set for 6 p.m. Central Time, not Eastern Time. So I do not know if there were any other Clydesdale ads which I missed.I did see the Miller High Life one-second commercial and found it amusing, but that's mostly because I like the delivery guy character who's become Miller's spokesman.

The Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head driving in the mountains commercial was funny--though sexist [not as blatantly exploitative as the GoDaddy ones. It was more like a Borscht Belt comic's routine: "Take my wife, please!"--Ed.]--but I have forgotten which product it was advertising, so how effective could it have been? (Was it also a Bridgestone ad? If so, I applaud Bridgestone for its focus on humor--if not, I don't know what to say. Remembering the ad but not the product advertised isn't exactly the point, now, is it?)

The Bridgestone ad with the space aliens stripping the astronauts' planetary excursion vehicle (especially for its tires) was also laugh-out-loud funny. Bravo, Bridgestone!

But Hulu had the best ad of the night, hands down. It made no bones about what Hulu does--by letting you access your favorite videos (TV episodes, ads, whatever)--whenever and wherever you wish, Hulu turns your brains to mush. Self-deprecating honesty is funny, but the Hulu ad had an additional twist that took it to the top: Hulu is run by space aliens who like to eat mushy human brains--and Alec Baldwin is not just Hulu's spokesman, but one of aliens. Bravo, Hulu! It was far and away the best commercial of the night.