Just Opinions

2003-10-24T08:57:00.000-07:00

My wish and speech

I wish a candidate will finally say these things in a speech:

For too long this country has had low expectations of its leaders.

That time should end. Beginning with today. Right now. We should raise our expectations of our leaders because it is time to realize our great nation’s full potential.

3 years ago, this country -- although not with the popular vote nor the will of the people – elected George Bush into office. And under his “so-called leadership” we have seen expectations for ourselves be lowered:

Under his so-called leadership, it’s ok to alienate our friends and allies both abroad and at home.

Under his so-called leadership, it’s ok that the world despises our policy and outlook on international affairs.

Under his so-called leadership, it’s ok that 3 million people have lost their jobs.

Under his so-called leadership, it’s ok that many beliefs and ideas are not represented in his agenda.

Under his so-called leadership, it’s ok for America to settle for mediocrity.

I reject that. I reject everything having to do with that. It’s because I believe that America is, has been, and will be the greatest, strongest beacon of hope and light to our own citizens, and to the world.

It’s about time that we reject mediocrity and embrace greatness once again.

Greatness does not mean using words like “evil-doers” to scare the public.

Greatness does not mean questioning someone’s patriotism who doesn’t agree with you.

Greatness does not mean escaping the big questions by answering with one-liners like “bring em on!”

Greatness entails recognizing the hope and vision of this country and its possibility in this world.

Greatness entails addressing the problems plaguing this country and attacking them head on.

Greatness entails leadership from each and every one of us.

And I know we all can do it. I want to lead you as your president. Yet I want to lead with you, not in front of you. I want to be in touch with your needs and the needs of your family.

In short, I want to be your president. Not a president controlled by his own extreme agenda.

In the campaign a few years ago, we heard the phrase “I’m gonna change the tone in Washington,” over and over again. And 4 years later, that line has proven to be an unfulfilled promise. Actually, it has been proven to be nothing more than deception.

Partisan politics is healthy. An educated exchange of ideas is what democracy is founded upon. Dissent is natural, should be encouraged, and strengthens this nation.

Yet what we’ve seen is an attempt to control the debate – not from an intellectual point of a view, but from a Machiavelliean political point of view.

This administration will go to any length to bury their opponents – even within their own party.

And will, more-or-less, give political and sometimes almost literal death sentences to those who legitimately question their policies. I am referring to the leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent, that could place her and all of her contacts in danger.

Solely because her husband had the courage to ask the question we all want to know: Why are we sending our young boys and girls to die for something proven to be not true.

WHY?

In sum, the President is right, he has changed the tone. He’s changed it for the worse.

This is not leadership. This is a selfish desire for power and control.

And it should stop.

And we should begin anew.

And we should raise our hopes and expectations to levels that we can meet.

And you all should expect more out of your leaders than political one-liners.

I will give you the answers. I will give you the plans. We all will give each other the hope.

I will serve everyday knowing that I am accountable to every one of you – democrat, republican, independent, or none of the above. My policies and plans will not be extreme, but rather a healthy blend of democratic ideals and independent thinking.

I ask you to give me the opportunity to serve you. Please give me the opportunity to meet the highest of your expectations. I know I can do it, and together, we all can move this great nation – not only forward, but to a level of greatness we have never seen before.

Thank you and may god bless these great United States of America.

2003-09-25T07:31:00.000-07:00

Total Recall 2

Bush's approval rating is about to drop under 50 percent. Isn't it time for a recall? Rob Lowe could be a good candidate. Didn't Jeb Bartlet already say he would be President one day? Plus it would certainly be a better career move than that horrible show The Lyon's Den. (Note: I've never actually seen the show, but doesn't it look like a horrible knock-off of actual good shows?)

That's about all I have to say about the California recall, except that I can only imagine the reaction by Republicans if the parties were reversed. Oh, by I forgot. This has nothing to do with politics. I'm sure the voters in California would have used as quick a hook as George Steinbrenner with Gray Davis, even had Republican leadership never pushed for the recall.

Let me digress a little bit here, but thoughts of Schwarzenegger, Bush, a certain former governor of California, and portrayals of prominent politicos on Saturday Night Live, The West Wing, The Daily Show, etc., got me thinking...

In the movie Total Recall (pun intended), the Martian dictator erases Arnold's memory when he tries to lead the resistance. Isn't that a fitting metaphor for the Jedi mind tricks the Republican leadership is continuously pulling on the American voters?

Simply put - why do the candidates that are unintelligent and/or have little intellectual curiosity tend to be Republicans? And we're not talking longshots, of which there are undoutedly plenty of fools on both sides. Granted, what we see on SNL and The West Wing are merely stereotypes of a Republican party that doesn't much care for complexities or nuances. Stereotypes, though, must come from something tangible, and that something has been present in the form of an intellectual divide between Democrat and Republican candidates in numerous recent elections (the aforementioned three being the most prominent).

Sure, the effectiveness of their policies is certainly subject to debate. But there is little question that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were among the least distinguished academics to enter the White House in the modern era, and certainly the least intellectually curious, by all accounts. Both were seemingly hand-picked by the party leadership to carry out a strongly ideological agenda, with highly capable experts composing their cabinet. And judging by the support for Schwarzenegger by Bush Republicans in California, they are more than happy to follow the same model again.

Now, let's be clear first, it is neither a prerequisite nor a sureshot advantage for a President or governor or Congressman, or what have you, to be brilliant. But it certainly shouldn't be considered a negative. Sure, there are plenty of smaller races nationwide where the less intelligent Democrat prevails, but in our nation's largest state, and in the nation at large, why are the intellectual misfits the ones Republicans nominate? There are a couple of possibilities. The first, which is highly implausible, is that Republicans actually tend to be less intelligent than Democrats. Particularly considering the intelligence of many senior officials in the Bush administration, that notion seems ludicrous.

The second possibility is much more likely - that such candidates are all part of a consistent strategy to find a charismatic candidate with a recognizable name and likeable demeanor who will carry out the party's agenda and not think too much when subordinates recommend actions that conform to that ideology. Believing that a sound bite resonates better than substance, decisiveness over careful deliberation, by keeping their candidate "on message" they have been able to cover up (or more accurately, diminish the importance of) any intellectual shortcomings.

Maybe I'm being cynical, right? After all voters are smarter than that, right? The candidate matters. We don't elect a puppet, but the best person for the job, right?

Yeah, I hope I turn out to be wrong too.

2003-09-23T08:28:00.000-07:00

Republicans and Preemption

And boy, I thought I wasn't patient...

Yet the Bush Administration has taken all of this to a whole new level. Never before has an Administration been so disrespectful to policy, practice, and procedure of democratic and international institutions. It is not just a slap in the face to the world, but also to -- as the President likes to utter in all of his fear-inducing speeches -- "peace-loving people."

We should have seen it coming. Some of us did. I think my dad may have been the first. The night of the 2000 election, after they called Florida for Gore, my mom excitedly called me and said "Didn't you say if Gore won Florida, he'd definitely win?" I said I did, when all of a sudden, my dad chimed in, "Something fishy is going on here..." He said that they interviewed the then-candidate Bush who said something to the effect that "I talked to my brother, and he said it's too close to call."

So, it began. Rather than allowing the recount to proceed, this group of politicos - who later became our administration - went to the Supreme Court to preempt it. They feared a sure loss if the recount proceeded. And god-forbid that actual democracy take place!

Speaking of democracy, we can point to the same preemption in California. Once again, the will and the voice of the people are being preempted by Republicans insisting on recalling Gov. Davis. Democracy is being subverted by politics - and no, they are not the same thing. And if anyone believes, just for one second, that this is not all part of a master plan to gain California for Bush to ease an '04 campaign is just plain mistaken.

And this subversion of process through preemption does not only apply to national institutions, but also, and obviously, international institutions. The most striking (pun intended) example of this is what is outlined in the National Security Strategy of 2002. In this radical practice, the U.S. reserves the right to preemptively strike -- even with nuclear (and it's not Nuke-you-lure, Mr. President) weapons -- any state that it feels to pose a threat to our national security.

Today, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke out against this policy, citing it as a threat to world stability. He is absolutely correct. The U.S. loses the moral high ground (which is so important in diplomacy) in handling any situation in which secondary effects to this idea arises. Take, for instance, India-Pakistan. Let's say that India truly believes that Pakistan, which is in possession of nuclear weapons, is giving it to radical Islamists who will then use these weapons in the battle over Kashmir. Afraid of the possible consequences of this action, India launches a preemptive nuclear strike (even a conventional strike could easily turn into a nuclear confrontation). As support, they argue that the United States has this policy, so why can't we? And they also argue that the United States put this policy in effect with regards to Iraq.

How can the United States attempt to calm the parties and be a player in negotiating peace?
Will we then turn to the U.N? The administration called the U.N. "Irrelevant."
Will we turn to European nations for help? Would we want "freedom fries" with that from "old Europe?"

You see the problem of preempting established procedures that are there to guarantee democracy and peace. There can be no going back without groveling and begging. And where in the diplomatic arena does that put the most powerful country in the world?

The Bush Administration needs to think this one through a bit more. And now is the perfect time to do so for them. When is a better time to change one's policies? For the Bush Administration, it comes when there is a need to preempt a further drop in the polls. Some things may never change.

2003-09-22T09:16:00.000-07:00

Throwing Stones from Glass Houses

Just a quick note. In light of my last point, just so no one gets the wrong impression, let me just clarify that I find it very alarming that radicals like Michael Moore are apparently revered over in Europe. Granted this comes is an account from one woman on a train in Austria, but it wouldn't surprise me that an American portraying everything wrong and virtually nothing right with America would be immensely popular abroad. Let me be clear, though. Michael Moore's work is interesting and often eye-opening. But it is NOT balanced. That he is "almost universally liked" in Europe again indicates a dangerous trend of believing there is only one version of the story.

Sure, the US has plenty of chapters of its history we aren't proud of. But let me just remind our friends across the Ocean that we haven't exactly cornerned the market on regrettable acts.

2003-09-22T08:18:00.000-07:00

Fair and Balanced, my *&#

Let me add a book really worth reading to the list: Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Some might be tempted to think the book is nothing more than a liberal's answer to raving radicals like Ann Coulter on the right (in fact, as you may have heard, Fox News actually tried to sue Franken for trademark infringement of the phrase fair and balanced! In actuality, Franken, in my opinion, does for the most part hold true to the title's promise. The book is thoroughly researched by a group of a dozen or so Harvard students at the Kennedy School of government, where Franken was invited to teach last spring.

Anyway, Franken, despite being hilarious, in this, his fourth book, dispels a lot of the myths the Bush administration has been perpetuating for the last 3 years, ranging from tax cuts to the No Child Left Behind Act to the environment, and especially the idea the fashionable practice of blaming Clinton for everything (especially terrorism, where Franken gives a particularly enlightening analysis of the Clinton administration's counterterrorism activities and the Bush team's lack thereof). The book also gets into thorough discussion of the media, arguing that the traditional notion of the liberal media is flawed.

Lest this site turn into Oprah's Book Club, let me use that as a springboard to make a point. I believe the mainstream media does tend to tilt slightly left in its coverage, in that more reporters tend to be towards the liberal end of the spectrum. Now does that mean editors sit around and discuss how they can slant a particular story in a liberal manner? Having worked for a newspaper, I can attest that that isn't how journalism works. It happens in a much more subtle way, such as the decision of what stories to feature, the determination of what issues are important in one's mind. It's natural that any person's description of any story will in some way be affected by their own background, experiences and preconceived notions. But that doesn't mean the news is biased, at least not in the way most people mean when they make that charge. If we consider that every story has multiple ways of being told, then there is no one right way to tell it, no one way that all would consider is "fair and balanced" (hehe, take that Rupert Murdoch and Co.). The true test of whether a news story is biased, then should be the effort made to tell more than one side of the story. Sure the story may still have an angle to it, but again, what story doesn't?

To give you an example, let's assume that shortly after 9/11 a "mainstream" reporter (NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc) does a story on anti-Americanism and terrorist groups. A reporter for one of the more conservative media outposts (Fox, Washington Times, etc.) does a similar story. The gist of both stories, let's assume, is the same: The risk of terrorism looms largely because of a hatred for America, particularly among Islamic extremists. The difference is that while the first reporter delves into the possible root causes of the hatred of America, surveying moderates within the Arab world to find out what it is about our policies they most detest, the second reporter, fortunately not blinded by any liberal biases, just gives us the straight story, knowing that to entertain the notion that there might be any legitimate gripe against America would be to legitimize the terrorists' cause.

Now which one of those stories do you think is biased?

I know that might be too easy an example, but as Franken alludes to (OK maybe we are the Oprah book club) all you have to do is turn on CNN's Crossfire and compare it to one of Fox News Channel's various political "debate" type shows, such Hannity and Colmes, where Colmes, the moderate liberal barely utters a word of disagreement with Hannity, the archconservative, and you'll see my point. Fox is right about the real issue - it's balance, not one's personal bias. They just haven't figured out how to create that balance as well as the mainstream media.

2003-09-21T20:09:00.000-07:00

Just a brief note -- I start work next week and am working on a few books right now.

1) "Waging Modern War" by General Wes Clark
2) "Actual Innocence" by Barry Scheck, et al.
3) "Ultimate Punishment" by Scott Turow

Of course, because not reading before work starts would be a travesty. God forbid I should watch a reality tv show.

Anyway, the writing may become more frequent now...

2003-09-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

Finally

Mark today's date: September 17, 2003. Remember it. It will be the day that everyone will remember as the beginning of a new era for this country.

General Wesley Clark's run for the Presidency began today. And now, nothing will be the same.

I have held off writing about the Democratic nomination, and spoke to it as recently as last week - stating that there were personal reasons for not speaking my opinion. Well, anticipating Gen. Clark's decision was my reason.

Finally, the Democrats have a candidate that combines the best of not only the Democratic party, but America itself: Intelligence. Strength. Determination. Tolerance. An open-mind. Optimism.

Have I made myself clear? More to come in the following days. Sure, there will be some kinks off the start, but give the General some time, and we just may have a better country...

2003-09-10T08:57:00.000-07:00

Misleading (by) Pictures

He looks....nice. There he is, with his two children, one in each arm. The caption says he was happily married. It then says he was an "unlikely candidate for martyrdom." Directly to the right of the picture in a scene of carnage and destruction -- a bus bomb's aftermath. With a torn up baby stroller in front of the bus.

Jeremy and I were in Budapest, Hungary on August 19 when this world witnessed a day of horrors: first the bombing in Iraq at the UN Headquarters, and shortly thereafter the bombing in Israel. Glued to the TV set, watching BBC, we saw what CNN and MSNBC do not show -- the unedited footage of bloodied victims and bodies. As I started writing about the Iraq bombing and how being abroad during an attack like this made me feel "distant and alienated," the news broke about the bombing in Israel. "This is all getting ridiculous," I wrote.

Yet, it's all been ridiculous for a long time.

News coverage always has an agenda. It may be conscious, or not. Sometimes, just covering 'all aspects of a story' can be an agenda in and of itself. It does not have to be a political agenda. So goes the coverage of suicide bombings in Israel. In an attempt to be the news station that "you can count on" or one that is "fair and balanced" many different aspects are discussed. Time, Newsweek, The Times, The Post -- they all do the same.

That is good, and news should not be one sided. However, there is something revolting about seeing the pictures of the suicide bombers in the pages of the weekly magazines. And this nauseating feeling exists on two levels.

First, it seems that when the murderer gets publicity for his (and now, for her) action, it serves a purpose of the bombing to begin with. Many have written that understanding the psychology of suicide bombers is important to stopping their actions. One of the details of this analysis is a lack of hope. The analysis goes as follows: those that live under oppressed conditions feel so hopeless and powerless about making for a better life, that the only way they can achieve a sense of power over their own affairs is by taking this drastic action.

If that argument is correct, then many who may consider strapping dynamite and nails to their gut and walking into a crowded cafe, now not only have the promise of "paradise," but also a sure guarantee that they will personally get some publicity, which amounts to a sick form of honor for themselves and family. Because of that, another goal of theirs will be accomplished.

That coupled with a complete neglect by news media of the victims of the bombings (unless it is a high-powered, world-renown diplomat) seems to shift the focus from the horror of the killings, to the unfortunate conditions that caused the everyday father to become a ruthless murderer.

As if any conditions could justify such acts of horror.

The second wave of disgust hits when I realize just that. Here is a father who acted not as a human being, let alone a father. Who decided that killing -- even children who may be his own children's age -- is somehow justified? How could this happen? What can we do this stop it? Occupation (I use that term generally, not politically, please note) seems to ... well, I refuse to say "cause" ... be the target of such attacks. We see it now more and more in Iraq. Is that the answer? I dismiss it as being way too simple.

So, why show the pictures? Why do it? It completely sickens me, yet I think the news media must show them. Not as a method of proving how the Israelis or Americans drove a man to commit such action (which is a false claim based on a mistaken premise), but rather to show another aspect of the horror of war. I will not claim that the suicide bomber is a victim in the same sense that those he senselessly killed are, but I will say that those two little children who will now grow up without the love of a father, are victims of a different sort.

The shredded baby stroller in front of the bus comes to mind once again. To me, that is more important to show than any other picture.

2003-09-09T19:27:00.000-07:00

Back in DC

For the past month or so, Jeremy and I have been traveling. A lot. After the bar, I jetted off to Europe and hit 16 different cities in 23 days. Then, after returning to the good ol' U S of A , went to a best friend's wedding in Florida, and then home to Chicago.

I tried to keep some notes while I was in Europe to record what I saw, what I heard, and how I felt throughout all of that. I think that produced, what could be, some interesting columns about the state of the world right now. It's hard to lump a continent's people together into one opinion, but there were a few that were commonly expressed:
-- Bush is not so much malicious as he is crazy and intent on kicking everyone's butt who gets in the way of what he wants to do.
-- Michael Moore (of "Bowling for Columbine" fame) is a hero.
-- AC is not needed. Until 13,000 French die from heat.
-- American culture is loved. Even American politics is respected. Yet, this American administration is looked at as a runaway train with no one able to stop it.
-- I heard a couple of times about how the American public did not elect Bush, they elected Gore. So, they are not to blame.
-- Supposedly, America was in "Chaos" during the blackout.
-- Even if you love "soccer" and think you can relate to those that love the sport as well, don't wear your high school soccer shirt around London. You'll get bad looks. They don't care that you played soccer. The fact that your shirt says "soccer" is enough to draw scorn. It is, of course, "football."
-- For all those who think the American media is biased towards the Palestinians, don't watch BBC or read any European news publication. You won't be happy.

Anyway, those are off the top of my head. Tonight, I watched the Democratic candidate debate. Even though I have my favorite, I have refrained, and will refrain, from making any supportive or negative comments towards any of the 9. This is for personal, as well as professional reasons. Yet, it may not be tough, after reading my past columns, to figure out who I would support based on their position.

Over the next few weeks or so, I'll try my best to post some columns again. Stay tuned.

2003-07-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

A Challenge to Us All

In two days, many of my friends and I will be taking our respective states' (or commonwealth's) bar exams. The past two and a half months have not been fun. In fact, at times, they have been miserable. When it all just gets to be too much, it is easy for all of us to forget just why we are doing this, and why we are putting ourselves through this madness. Sometimes we just forget why we went to law school in the first place. And when the times get difficult, this is very easy to do.

But sometimes it takes a little wake-up call to give you that reason once again -- to give you that sense of urgency. Sometimes you need to remember why you decided to embark on this path called the law. What was it that made you go?

For me, it was feeling that the struggle for equality was far from complete; that this country, as great as it is, has a long way to go to ensure the promises of our leaders and the dreams of our peoples. I believed that law school was the best route for me. It could have been policy, it could have been service, or it could have education (I come from a family of teachers). But I decided on the law. And when terms like "fee simple determinable with the possibility of reverter" run across the paper, wow, is it easy to lose perspective.

But, here's the challenge. No, I'm not going to preach that everyone should be involved in civil rights or public interest work. While I think that everyone should aspire to help one another, if this isn't your cup of tea to do as a job, then fine (just make sure you stand for principles of equality in any job you take on). What I am going to say is, don't lose perspective. Don't let big challenges, or big dollars for that matter, cut at the heart and soul of your dreams, whatever they may be. Keep your feet on the path, even if it's one you've blazed yourself, and don't let go of your inner-self, because if you do, that's hard to find again.

So, with that said, good luck and remember, in 3 days (4 for some) it's all over. And every "fee simple" or "accord and satisfaction" question you complete, that's one step closer you are to doing what you've always to do. Whatever that may be.

2003-07-27T14:53:00.000-07:00

As I am completely procrastinating 2 days before the bar exam, here is an index, by subject, of our posts over the past few months...I know we haven't posted much this summer, but as I'm sure you all understand, we have that little pop quiz called the bar exam on July 29 and 30...
Index:
Africa - 7/5; 4/23; "Nigeria's Fragile Democracy" - 4/20; 4/18
Baseball/Family - 4/28
Campaign Finance Reform - 5/3
Death Penalty - 4/24 ; 4/18
Democrats: "Great Expectations" - 4/22
Iraq: "Post Hoc Justifications" - 4/27 ; Homecoming - 4/19
Iran/War on Terrorism: "A Ride Through the Darkness" - 4/29
Free Speech - 4/25 ; 4/15
Middle East: "Will the Car Even Start" - 4/21 ; "Draft of a Speech ..." - 4/17 ; Peres Review 4/15
National Security: "Losing our Balance" - 4/26
Republicans - 4/23 ; and comments "Are they Serious" 4/23
Washington D.C. and American Hopes: "A July Second" - 7/2

2003-07-05T08:36:00.000-07:00

In taking a break from bar exam studying, I wanted to make a couple of quick comments on the situation in Liberia. I support U.S. peacekeeping action in Liberia, and believe that it is necessary to prevent yet another country in that region from falling into chaos and quite possibly descending into a genocidal situation.

It's about time that this country recognize the ills that are plaguing certain nations in Africa. I have always called for a balanced foreign policy approach to all areas in the world. See a column of mine from April 18 calling for exactly this, and long before the situation in Congo was addressed by the United Nations.

Yet, there are those that say we are spread too thin. And there are those that may question my support of this engagement while I opposed action in Iraq.

Answers will come in due time. As soon as I put in another 12 hour study day....stay tuned....

2003-07-02T21:05:00.000-07:00

The following was written 2 years ago to the day. Before 9/11. Before Iraq. Before a lot of things.
It's in 2 parts.

A July Second, Part I

Tonight I watched. And listened. And what I saw and what I heard composed a night that I will never forget. No, it was nothing dramatic, yet the night was emotional. I decided to go to the Lincoln Memorial and spend the evening just reading and looking around. It was a unseasonably cool July night in Washington DC, so I decided to put on a pair of jeans. I also threw a long-sleeve shirt, a book, and a camera into my small backpack.

I ate dinner right next to the Rainbow pool, and where I sat, the full moon just became visible next to the Washington Monument. It was still light out…about 7 or so. From where I was sitting I saw a mother and two boys. Two brothers. They were playing with a frisbee and the older brother, the more vocal one, was telling the little guy where to go. He didn’t really seem to listen or care. He flailed his arms and spun around til he fell. All the time with a big smile on his face. He reminded me of my little brother – my younger brother I should say, and I wonder if the little brother there will grow to be taller than his self-proclaimed older, and smarter brother.

As the flight path took airplanes overhead, my mind bounced to those in the plane who would be seeing the city from the air, and if they were as excited as I once was to see this city. To see how beautifully all of the sites lined up…as if God had created this city himself. I walked through the trees up to the Vietnam War memorial to find it packed with people. The sunlight was still bright, although now you could tell the day was coming to an end. I took out my phone and shut off the ringer, as I always do. I figure it’s the least I can do to respect this area. I am always solemn when I walk the stone and marble path and see my reflection in the Wall. I always think that had I been born 25 years earlier, I may have been just another name that people walk by.

I love to listen to other people’s conversations at the Wall. I thought back to the time I was by the statute of the three soldiers that seem, at least to me, to watch with pity and sorrow at the people who pass the wall. They seem to me to look at the monument with pride, yet with sadness. They seem to be representation of a generation that gave its life for a war that many did not believe was just. Yet they gave their life anyway. There was a family by the statute, and the mom said to a little boy, her son, “who are those people?” And the little boy was silent. “Are they fireman?” The little boy shook his head as only a child could do. “They’re soldiers, right?” He nodded. “What do soldiers do?” She asked. “Fight,” his soft, trembling voice said. “They fight in…wars,” he was able to put together. “Mommy,” he continued, “I don’t want to fight in any wars.” The mother looked at the father in a hesitant way. “Neither do we, honey,” she said sadly. If only every adult that makes decisions regarding war and peace could have heard that exchange and known that, quite possibly a little boy in 1958 said that to his parents, and they remembered that when they saw his name on the Wall.

As I cleared the trees surrounding the wall, the Lincoln Memorial stood in front of me like a colossus pyramid in the desert. I climbed the steps and turned around, looking at the vista that I have seen tens of times. The Lincoln Memorial is probably my favorite place in DC…I always try to imagine what it must have been like for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to give his “I have a dream…” speech in front of a packed reflecting pool. I always try to imagine, but it is so hard to grasp. I sat off to the right of the memorial, facing the Washington Monument and the Capital. I took out my book about Jack Greenberg, who headed up the NAACP Legal Defense Fund after the great Thurgood Marshall, and wondered what people thought when they saw my LDF shirt. I wondered what it provoked in their head. Confusion? As if, why is this white boy wearing a shirt like that? Bigotry? Happiness?

As I let my feet dangle over the white marble, I leaned back against one of the massive pillars, happy to find that my back fit perfectly in the grooves. I started reading about how Jack Greenberg got started in Civil Rights – about how a young Jewish kid helped with the greatest movement this country has seen. I could only hope and dream that I help as many people as he did…that I not just help, but assist in the struggle and a cause I believe effects us all, regardless of the color of your skin or the god that you pray to.

A typical high school band was set up in front of the reflecting pool, and I imagined what their trip to Washington DC was like. If they were from a small town that finally got to see the nation’s capital. They started off with the Star-Spangled Banner, and I immediately got the chills as I heard the music play while I stared at the Washington Monument, the Capitol, and the people on the steps to the Lincoln Memorial. I didn’t know whether I should stand or not, there is no shortage of flags in Washington DC. I thought that if I had brought by University of Illinois hat, I would surely remove it out of respect.

I had taken a few pictures, yet wanted that perfect picture of the vista at sunset. An older man behind me was taking pictures, so I asked him what the best way would be to get that “perfect picture.” He gave me some good advice and told me about the glow that happens about 10 minutes after the sunset. The twilight’s last glare.

I walked around to the back of the Memorial, which I always loved since I was first back there. My favorite spot is right when you can look up the bridge directly up to Arlington Cemetery and Robert E. Lee’s former property. I love sitting back there and hearing the stories that people tell about the area, and more often than not, I actually pick a thing or two up from them.

Amidst this tranquil sunset, there were tourist also trying to get that perfect photograph. They were of all nationalities, and spoke languages I wouldn’t even know. The children were excited, as this was a place they could run, that is, of course, until there parents shouted there name and yelled “get back here!” People were surprisingly friendly and courteous with each other when maneuvering to get that picture in front of the giant statute of this nation’s guardian. He sits there as if he was constantly judging this nation, as if he has to make sure this country never battles itself again.

Yet for many, it’s the thing on the back of the penny…kids want to play on the Great man’s lap…other stand off to the side and read the great words – I think it’s the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address. It’s less complicated if they don’t know that the Emancipation Proclamation really didn’t free any slaves. Maybe they’ll learn that and have to overcome this feeling of being let down a bit by history.

2003-07-02T21:02:00.000-07:00

A July Second, Part II

The sun was finally behind some buildings, maybe even the horizon itself. The sky started to turn a purplish blue, with the sun’s light still reflected off the bright white monument. I snapped a few pictures, not sure how they would come out. My camera is an automatic, and I have never figured out how to take the good pictures that some take with the five dollar disposal cameras. Nonetheless, I kept walking around the monument, with the massive pillars allowing a little bit of light to hit the large marble wall. It was a bit warmer in the sun, and getting cooler as the sun started to set completely.

As the red light turned on at the top of the Monument, I sat down to relax a bit more. As I sat, the band started to play Amazing Grace. Hearing the music and seeing the sky turn a purplish-pink, I got the chills again. I thought maybe this time, it actually was the temperature, so I put on my long-sleeve shirt. I just listened and looked at the sky. I noticed that the moon, which hours ago was a dim, powdery ball in the low evening sky was now a bright source of light above me. It was one of those moments that you get caught up in, you think about possibilities – for yourself, for this country, for this world. I hoped that we wouldn’t need to build anymore memorials to our fallen brothers, that war wouldn’t ravage this world, that ‘all men are created equal’ did really apply to all people, that hate would stop being the predator it is.

After the song ended, I got up and walked down the giant steps. I turned around to see that the Memorial was all lit up with Lincoln sitting there, illuminated in between the pillars. I laughed to myself when I remembered an old lady ask someone she was with if these were the steps that, “...that Rocky ran up?” I looked at the monument as reflected in the pool and wondered if right now was the “glow” that the old photographer was talking about. All the monument were lit, and there was still a glow to the sky. Under the moon, I was able to see Mars, as brilliant as ever, the astronomers have said.

I was going to walk back, but decided to turn around and walk past the Korean War memorial. I turned right in front of the Lincoln Memorial, careful to avoid not bumping into the crowd of tourists, or the band, whose players were now tourists themselves – with their acne covered faces and braces. A man on a long bicycle had a carrying compartment with two little puppies in there...the outside said “Race for the Cure.” People walked by and laughed in surprise when they saw the little dogs with the sunglasses. I walked toward the Korean memorial, and turned around to see the Lincoln Memorial bright yellow against the dark purple sky. I walked past the statues of the soldiers and my mind wondered off to the horror of war again.

People were still coming to see the sights at around 9, when I decided to start to walk back. I passed the POW-MIA booths that line the walkway, and paused to look at the design for the World War II memorial. I passed them, their faces coming into view from the light posts along the way. They were solemn and emotional about why they were out there, and all seemed to exhibit their own unique look. Walking the other way were families, and people by themselves. Some were asking questions, and some were in awe. I started to get near the Rainbow pool when I turned north to walk across constitution. The street lights reflected off the pavement as a family passed by, probably heading to the memorials.

A smile came to my face, thinking that family is on vacation and are enjoying themselves. They are so excited to see the Capital on the Fourth, and will be taking pictures and telling stories about what they saw, when the got back home. My happiness was short lived when I saw the other part of American life – a homeless man sleeping on a steam grate wearing clothes that probably would be better classified as rags. I thought about where his family might be. A palmetto bug ran across the sidewalk, startling me from my observing.

It was the reality of this country that hurt, that amidst all of the monuments and memorial, among all of the patriots and tourists, there were the poor and the homelessness, whom are so easily and conveniently overlooked. It was now completely dark as I thought that maybe the monuments gave people a satisfaction that this country is beautiful and perfect, when, in fact, what this country stands for needs to be fought for more. I thought about how people settle, that there is no incentive for them to take on the problems of this country. People go to see the monuments of great people who fought, and even died for the rights of others, yet who is standing up for the man on the grate?

I wondered what the monuments were to him, and what the 4th meant. What does he see when he looks at the Lincoln Memorial or the Vietnam Memorial. Is he a veteran himself, maybe? Why can’t everyone, who comes to Washington DC, that feels a sense of pride for being an American, that believes America is a special place, use that emotion and passion to help make it a special place for all?

It ended up being a bitter-sweet night, seeing the beauty and tragedy of this country. I thought about the contrast between the laughing little boy and his brother with the Washington Monument in the background, and the man sleeping on a grate next to a sidewalk to stay warm. I thought about how lucky I am to live in this great country, but also about how much greater this country can be.

2003-06-02T07:15:00.000-07:00

It has been a while (a month) since we last posted, and I know we may have lost a lot of you. But, I'm going to try to post frequently again, amidst my studying for the bar exam. Jeremy and I are both relocated - he's in NYC and I'm down in DC. Hopefully we can get some of our loyal readers back, yet if not then we'll continue to post anyway, if for nothing else than an outlet for our own thoughts and ideas. Just know that we're here and for those that have been checking and finding nothing over the past month, we're back...

2003-05-03T14:09:00.000-07:00

Well, we are resurfacing after a grueling final week of exams, papers, and lack of sleep. Jeremy and I both finished up our final requirements and will be graduating from University of Pennsylvania Law School on May 19. So, that is why we've been MIA this past week, and why we'll be back on our games and back in the game starting today. While things will be busy -- with Jeremy's move up to New York, and mine down to Washington, DC, we both intend to keep this site up regularly. Right now I would love to address the decision handed down about the BCRA (Campaign Finance), but really can't muster the 1600-plus pages. So, a good site for insight on election law is Prof. Rick Hasen's blog. While both Jeremy and I have some experience in dealing with CFR and the BCRA, we're gonna punt on this -- at least for the moment.

Also, let me just say that I think it's ridiculous that we all have to wait until tomorrow to watch the Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate. But, it is the first saturday night after my life as a student is finished (until that PhD in International Affairs becomes really tempting), and there really would have been no excuse to stay home and watch C-SPAN...

2003-04-29T20:37:00.000-07:00

There are so many things tonight that I feel compelled to write about: Terrorist stike in Israel, the confirmation of Abu Mazen, the pending fillibuster of Owen, etc. etc. Yet, because I am in the midst of writing two pretty lengthy papers -- one on Cross-burning laws and the other on false confessions, I'm a bit busy. But, this is a column I promised last week...

A Ride through the Darkness

"They dragged me out of my bed in the middle of the night. I was asleep. They took me outside, blindfolded me, and put a barrel of a gun to my head. They told me they were going to kill me. He pulled the trigger and I heard a click. The barrel was empty. This torture was normal."

Not the typical conversation one would expect when they get into a cab on a Saturday night to take them across town. Yet, I sort of like talking to cab drivers. In fact, I really like talking to cab drivers. I figure, there you are, and there is the cabbie, and why not say hi and talk a bit.

And talk a bit he did.

He asked me if I was a student, and I told him I was finishing up law school. This certainly intrigued him and he asked me if I was going to go into politics. Maybe one day, I responded. And then he went into his story. An unbelievable story at that.

According to his word - and I take him for his word. He was a commander - a field commander, not too high-ranking, in the Iranian Army at a time which I believe to be the Iran-Iraq war. He told me how critical he was of the Ayatollah and how he hated all the fighting that the young men were forced to do. A pacifist? I don't think so. Rather, just someone with a conscience.

So, when he challenged one too many things that his government told him to do, he was imprisoned. And tortured. What he described was horrific and the stuff you see in old war movies. Yet, his life was no movie, and he lived the daily beatings. He lived the torture. He lived through the horror.

He said that many others were - and still are - imprisoned in Iran for speaking out against the government. For voicing opposition. For challenging the status quo. Professors, poets, writers, activists, politicians, soldiers - all eliminated for their dissent. And my cab driver was a victim of that. I knew all of these stories and facts before, but it really hit home that night.

One day, the students rose up in opposition to the imprisonment of a famous professor. In order to quell the rising tide of counter-revolution, the regime released some individuals. This cab driver was one of those pawns that were used to appease the movement. He left the country to come to America the first chance he had.

"I love this country," he said. I believe he also said how lucky he was; that family was still over in Iran.

We pulled up to where I was supposed to be going, and I didn?t get out of the cab. I just sat and listened. Before I knew it, another ten minutes had gone by. I started to get out of the cab, and he tried to give me my money back. "Take it, he said, you're a student, you need it." I respectfully refused and left the money on his shoulder, as he refused to take it.

When I got out, I couldn't help but think about what he had said, and the impact it had. He stressed the rule of law - American law, with all of its rights and liberties. He found it amazing, and why shouldn't he? For that matter, why shouldn't all of us?

We live in a country where dissent is a lynchpin to our democracy. Where criticism can be vocalized just as much as support. Where flags can be burned so that points can be made.

So, it is troubling -- actually, let me take that back. It is scary when these rights are threatened. When individuals say that to criticize the Government is to "aid and give comfort to the enemy." When, in the shadow of fear, and in the fog of fright, we believe that the color of one's skin determines one's motives. When, the very rights that are threatened by terror, are scaled back by those who we entrust to preserve it.

This is not a call to go to war against Iran. Nor is this a comparison of wartime America with brutal, oppressive torture. Rather, what the cab driver said serves as a warning. A warning that says: we are America for a reason - for our ideals and for our vision. We shouldn't ever lose that. Because when we do, we will cease to be what we have always desired to be: that provider of light for those who are in the darkness.

For those that were blindfolded and waiting for death.

2003-04-28T19:24:00.000-07:00

If you build it....
Just a note to interrupt the seriousness of our site...this is from an AOL IM exchange between Jeremy and myself this evening, when Field of Dreams was on TBS for the 17th time in 4 days. The best part of Field of Dreams, arguably, is when James Earl Jones gives the "People will Come, Ray" speech.

This is one movie that brings most every guy I know to tears...including me. Here's why: Growing up, we all played catch with our fathers, and when we did, it was some of the most special of times. So, when we're older, this movie reminds all of us of those special times with Dad, and time lost. There's so much of us -- of me -- that would like to go back to 7 or 8 years old and play catch with Dad, who was the toughest, smartest, most loving man in the world.

For some of us, he still is. Call your dad and tell him you love him. I just did.

Shifting gears...Well, we built the site, hopefully people will come here. Ok, that statement was lame -- but check out our archives and drop us a line. We'll be back tomorrow with more joyful news on what's right with this planet.

IM DIALOGUE
Jason: tbs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jason: your speech
Jeremy: it's on?
Jason: YES!
Jason: people will come ray
you're broke ray
the one constant thing////
Jason: ah you missed it you @#$% [edited for the kids]
Jeremy: i saw it
Jeremy: most of it
Jason: karen is choking!
Jason: bring in moonlight!
Jeremy: "People will comeRay, people will most definitely come" is one of the greatest movie lines of all time in its context
Jason: dude the girl would be dead
Jeremy: not right away
Jason: its been almost 5 minutes
Jeremy: nah
Jason: yah
Jeremy: dude, dead ballplayers came out of a cornfield to play ball in this movie and you have a problem with the girl not being dead yet?
Jason: hahahaha
Jason: we should post this exchange
Jason: it would be a light note
Jeremy: Let's do it
Jeremy: Just to show we're not complete nerds
Jason: ok -- I'll post it -- i need a break [from my last law school exam -- Immigration Law]
Jeremy: OK
Jason: i'm taking out our IM names
Jason: and @#$% [edited for the kids]
Jeremy: oK
Jeremy: I'd like us to one day be considered like the Sports Guy [ESPN2 Columnist] with a political conscience
Jason: or Tim Russert with a great sense of humor [not like he doesn't have one...I'm a big fan, everyone relax]
Jeremy: yeah

2003-04-27T19:02:00.000-07:00

Post hoc Justifications

Thomas Friedman gets it wrong today. In his article, entitled "The Meaning of a Skull" he suggests that based on the evidence found in the aftermath of the war, our war was justified. Even if weapons of mass destruction are never found, we were still justified in our actions, or so his argument goes.

I believe he is very wrong. In war, we should never "shoot first and ask questions later." We should follow a legitimate process that the international community can agree upon. Granted, and this is the subject of another treatise, neither Germany nor France behaved like adults throughout the U.N. Security Council meeting. Putting that aside, however, it is a process -- internal or external -- and consistency, that makes action legitimate.

Post hoc justifications for war set a very dangerous precedent. It means that acting based on a gut feeling could be rewarded. I'm sorry, but when lives are put on the line, gut feelings cannot suffice.

We were told for months, even years, that Saddam Hussein posed a threat because of his weapons of mass destruction. We were told that there was a very real chance that either he would use these weapons, or distribute them to individuals that would use it. Why is Iraq such a threat to the United States? Because of their weapons of mass destruction, we were told.

I am not denying for one second that Hussein was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people and terrorized his neighbors. Yet, not to be flip, but there are many leaders out there who fit that bill. There are many other skulls to be found elsewhere. Iraq was supposed to be different because of its weapons that could create millions more of these skulls - and possible in places like New York, Washington, or Chicago.

To let the administration off the hook for this, as some are starting to do, will pave a terrible road for the preemption doctrine. This leads me to my next point - that this war must be viewed in a larger picture. No one will deny that this was a war of our choosing, launched at our time. This was exhibit one in the trial of the preemption doctrine. Do we really want our leaders to justify a preemptive war (with possible nuclear weapons, as the new national security strategy sets out) based on false premises and scare tactics?

Wow, I sure hope not. War must be necessary - a last result after failed diplomacy (note that other cases, like self-defense or to prevent genocide, may immediately pose a cause for war -- those reasons, I do not believe were evident here, and are the subject of another column). There must be diplomacy that was given every chance to succeed, rather than put on for theatrical purposes. War can be justified -- I am not a pacifist -- and unfortunately, it may be necessary. But it should always be thought through with a clear reason and goal in mind.

To change that reason, ex post, is political spin. I beg our leaders - when people are dying in the name of a cause that turns out not to be the case, please do not distract our attention from your misjudgment, in the name of politics. It is an insult to those that serve, and those that gave their lives in the name of freedom.

When I saw the skulls, or saw the reports on the executions, I was horrified. Yet, the sad reality is that it happens many places. Now, it is used as evidence for why we needed to go into Iraq? Well, under that justification, we better be ready to go into China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, and even Cuba. I don't think that this is the doctrine that this administration wants to pursue.

First, we were told that there was an Iraq - al Qaeda link. Then, that was proven to be false (even if that is now found out to be true, once again we found this out afterward - in other words, it was a lucky break for those neo-cons hoping to use that as a justification). Then we were told about all of the weapons of mass destruction. They were not found. Now we're told that they were destroyed, and we may never find them, but, gosh-darn it, they were there! And now, we're also told; that the evidence of why we needed Hussein removed is in what we're uncovering now.

War cannot nor should not work that way. Just come out and say - you think Hussein is evil, and a threat, and a brutal dictator that needs to be removed. I may not support your war, but at least we don't feel like honesty and integrity is another casualty of war.

The media and the public should be critical of our leaders; of those that possess the power to shape the world. This does not matter if they are Republican, Democrat, American, or French. No one should ever be given a free ride when lives, liberty, and history-shaping decisions are at stake. This is why I don't feel like we can justify a war because of after-the-fact evidence and drop our original claims. If this administration is given a free pass on this one, due to things we've stumbled upon after the war is over, then that amounts to a blank check the next time force is contemplated.

The stakes may be higher, and a "hey, you never know what we're gonna find after we destroy them," is not a proper standard or cause to send our men and women, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters off to fight, and possibly die for.

A skull is revolting. Yet, the killing of our boys and girls in a war with a merry-go-round reasoning is absolutely unacceptable. It should never happen again.

2003-04-26T09:05:00.000-07:00

Losing Our Balance

National Security. It's a phrase we hear often from public officials, and it usually signals a perceived need to put some form or another of restrictions on our open society in the name of our protection. A worthy cause, no doubt. This administration, however, in particular Attorney General John Ashcroft, are writing another page in the ugly chapter of American history in which civil liberties are curtailed far too much at the mere mention of that powerful phrase. In his latest move, Ashcroft has declared that illegal immigrants may be detained indefinitely even if they pose no known terrorist threat.

Certainly an argument could be made that such a measure is necessary as a valuable tool to protect our security, especially given that we don't know where the next terrorist threat could come from. But just how long could it be before any American with dark-colored skin or who speaks with an accent could be interrogated or even detained without due process? Already the administration has passed the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools for Intercepting and Obstructing Terrorism, or USA PATRIOT Act, which gives the government a wide range of discretion with respect to interrogation, surveillance, and even seizure of library records to try to detain potential terrorists.

The PATRIOT ACT and other restrictive measures by the Ashcroft-Bush team are well-known, and are actions many Americans undoubtedly see as necessary compromises to protect our security. While I for one welcome increased questioning and surveillance in airports and other high-risk points, and might be willing to give up a modicum of privacy if presented with clear evidence that it might protect my security, I also believe that if the adminstration continues to go down this path, history may one day reflect on it with a degree of disdain comparable to the that of the World War II era imprisonment of the Japanese in internment camps and the McCarthy era.

While that may be a harsh comparison to make, and while I do not contend that the restrictions imposed thus far - largely affecting Muslim, Arab and other foreign born Americans - have been as harmful as those inflicted on the Japanese, the inability and/or unwillingness to engage in a true balancing of the rights at stake and the actual need to restrict those rights in the method proposed makes this administration no better than its predecessors. Even the Supreme Court upheld the internment of the Japanese, solely because national security was such a big concern, in the case of Korematsu v. United States . In doing so, the Court never seem to answer the question it does it almost every other type of case where a constitutional right is balanced with a state interest - Is there a less restrictive means possible that could achieve a similar goal?

I fear that if the Court has the opportunity to address the constitutionality of the PATRIOT ACT or other measures, and it again fails to adequately consider that question, we could continue down the dangerous path of compromising the very rights we are fighting to protect. If we as a society don't start to question what measures are really necessary to enhance national security, we will again have failed to learn from our mistakes.

2003-04-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Apparently the National Press Club invited Tim Robbins to speak, mainly about the freedom to express dissent towards the war. (You can check out my earlier post about the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelling the 15th anniversary celebration of Bull Durham).

I've never been much of a fan, nor have I paid much attention to the self-righteous protesting, of Hollywood-types, most of which don't exactly have too deep a knowledge of foreign affairs, but seem to nonetheless come to the conclusion that America must be wrong. That being said, though, Robbins makes some good points in this speech, including the contention that the Bush administration has banished legendary reporter Helen Thomas to the back of the white house press room simply for asking Ari Fleisher whether our showing prisoners of war on television at Guantanamo Bay violated the Geneva convention. Also worth noting is this rather disturbing revelation:
"Another relative tells me of a school board decision to cancel a civics event that was proposing to have a moment of silence for those who have died in the war because the students were including dead Iraqi civilians in their silent prayer."

... Stay tuned for more later this weekend.

2003-04-25T05:27:00.000-07:00

The post that was supposed to be up last night will be up this evening -- Jeremy and I are in the process of graduating (well, trying to, of course) from law school, so yesterday and today are going to be busy for us. But you can check out our archives via the link on the left to see how it all began (almost 2 weeks ago now!) We want to thank the folks at TalkLeft and Sub Judice for their links to our sites, and thanks to everyone for coming to the site -- if you have any ideas, questions, or comments, please e-mail us at opinionsjust@netscape.net. Thanks!

2003-04-24T06:47:00.000-07:00

Stay tuned this evening for my column tonight about a political and military dissident that was imprisoned in Iran, but in the meantime, there is a must-read from Bob Herbert in the New York Times, entitled "Pull the Plug." It is a powerful indictment of the Death Penalty and should be read by all. (Also, I direct you to Jeremy's post here from April 18) Originally from Chicago, I can say that I was extremely proud to be from Illinois (ok, I normally brag about Illinois anyway, especially when the Bulls won all of those years and the University of Illinois made it to the Sugar Bowl, but seriously...) when then Republican Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 people on Death Row, and pardoned four. And there is good news out of Illinois that the new Governor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich will not lift the moratorium on the Death Penalty in the state. However, Blagojevich is a "firm supporter" of the Death Penalty, and was extremely critical of Ryan's move. Maybe he had to be if he wanted a political future?

And while this is the subject of a whole column or book, I find it horrible that politicians cannot speak out against the Death Penalty without being perceived as "weak on crime" by their opponents. This is a misnomer and absolutely false. It is another example of those of us on the left allowing the debate to be framed and controlled by the opposition, and must stop in order for political change to come about on this issue. But, more on this at another time...

2003-04-23T10:23:00.000-07:00

"Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics." --Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., coming to the defense of Sen. Rick Santorum. (Frist press release).

I don't know what's a bigger joke: that statement, or Newt's statement that it was Powell, and no one else, that botched up the pre-Iraq diplomacy. Will someone please get them CNN or Fox News for whatever planet they're living on???

Well, Senator Frist, accuse me of playing "politics," but if this is your example of "inclusion," what's your example of exclusion?

2003-04-23T08:25:00.000-07:00

Wow...how could I forget about the blatantly racist political cartoon that appeared on Wisconsin GOP-sponsored websites depicting Native Americans as tomahawk-wielding savages? Ahh...the "party of inclusion." (see my next post below)

2003-04-23T07:24:00.000-07:00

First, a couple of follow-ups....

On the Nigerian elections, Obasanjo was declared the winner of the the Presidential election. Yet, look at the controversy following these elections as Florida times 1000. Massive fraud has been alleged by Buhari that calls the entire election into question, and violent uprisings could be following shortly...

In the West Bank, as a deadline to form the Palestinian Cabinet looms large, there is word on CNN this morning that Abbas was going to resign before Arafat has the chance to fire him...Thomas Friedman tackles "Regime Change, Part 2" today, calling for Abbas' political victory over Arafat...

ok, now to the horror...

Are they Serious???

Sometimes, I think the situation gets so Saturday-Night-Live-skittish, that my instinct is to laugh. Although this is reality, and these are our elected officials. And what they have said, done, and neglected to do is real and is having adverse effects on many. So, because it's real, it's not funny. But is it real? Yes, it's all too real...

Let's start with some domestic politics...Republican (and you will see a strange pattern here...) Rick Santorum, who, by the way is the third-ranked Republican in the Senate said that he has "no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts." He went on to equate homosexual sex with deviant behavior such as incest, polygamy, and bigamy. This is so reminiscent of the "Barney Fag" comment made years ago that the Republican party still hasn't really gotten over yet. I don't know Rick Santorum personally, just like I don't know Trent Lott personally. Yet, do I need to? Referring back to what Jeremy wrote yesterday, this country holds its leaders to a higher standard. It wasn't ok that Bill Clinton's IQ was 422, and its not ok that George W. Bush seems like a great guy to play darts with.

So, the bigotry in the "party of inclusion" continues. And that is NOT OK, and this needs to be vocalized. You know, the old adage -- "I have many [insert racial/religious/ethnic minority group here] friends!" is now replaced by one Senator saying "I have known [idiot of the month] for years, and he is not a [racist/bigot/anti-Semite]."

Bigotry among any elected leaders has no place. Sure, we live in a democracy, and people have the right to have certain views. Great, and that means we then have the responsibility to mobilize and vote out those who have views of racists and bigots. I recommend this to the residents of Northern Virginia -- vote out Rep. James Moran for his anti-Semetic comments. So there, now no one can accuse me of being hypocritical and playing partisan politics (at least not here, of course).

Back to Santorum, because right now, I live in his state. There is an old phrase -- "Republicans are funny, that want to make Government so small, that it fits in your bedroom." And there is another phrase -- "You are ignorant." Santorum's comments were not just insensitive, but ridiculous. Yet, I'm sure we'll hear how they were "taken out of context" soon. So, the excuse will be that he was talking about how "privacy rights" are flawed and how the "Supreme Court shouldn't legislate," right?

Hmmm...sounds like an excuse that Southern "gentlemen" used: the Supreme Court shouldn't desegregate the schools because of "state's rights."

Enough of that ... onto to International Relations, and we welcome Uncle Newt back onto the scene. In his usual grace, he said that there has been a major diplomatic failure over the past months (thanks for stating the obvious), and that the fault lies with...the State Department and Secretary of State Powell! First of all, see Josh Marshall's views on this -- I completely second his opinion. The Grinch stated that we had months of diplomatic failure and a month of military success. In his warped logic, this unequivocally meant that Powell failed and Rumsfeld succeeded.

What hole has the Newt been under the past year?

The short memory doesn't serve the Grinch well. Does he remember the months of administration infighting and the neo-cons, Rumsfeld, and Cheney meddling in diplomatic affairs? Guess not. You know, I will always wonder how Powell would have done under a Democratic Administration, in which he wasn't sold out and called out constantly by his colleagues and his President.

And speaking of that -- when did Karl Rove hatch this plan??? Imagine this -- Rove working out a strategy to clean the Administration of any dissent. The number one target for that? Hmm...who challenged the Administration's stance on Affirmative Action and Iraq (at first)? Powell. And who could they get to start the pressure -- to raise the eyebrow that Powell should resign? Who better than the bad-guy, Newt. It gets the ball rolling...

The question though is this -- Is Wolfowitz moved over from the Pentagon and promoted to Secretary of State or does Rove bring in another member from the Reagan-Ford era?

Finally, the Bush Administration is caught with their pants down. (I always wanted to say that about a Republican Administration after all of the Clinton jokes, although unlike that scandal, this diplomatic/strategic failure can be devastating). The headline of the Washington Post yesterday was "U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites." They are surprised? Are you kidding? You mean to tell me that the Administration is surprised that it "liberated" a group of individuals, who make up some 60 percent of the Iraqi population, wants to control its own destiny? And should they be surprised to know that Shiite controlled Iran is sending in its own people to help fill a power vacuum? Wait, maybe we should ask Uncle Newt what to do now!

This failure of the administration cannot be downplayed. As much as Jay Garner would like to downplay it, the rise of Iraqi Shiites also gives rise to the flaw in the neo-cons let's-spread-democracy-across-the-Middle-East-argument. And with every powerful picture of the Shiite pilgrimage, those in the Administration are probably shuddering. If a pure democratic election (and that is the neo-con stated goal) was held tomorrow, who would win? Not pro-American factions, I believe. If we occupy for months, maybe years during a "democratic transition," the chances even drop more dramatically. So, now what? This is a serious problem for the administration -- what happens when an Islamic, maybe Anti-American faction wins an election, and Iraq is still Anti-American. You cannot convince me that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz would be ok with that.

So, what are the true intentions that are just masked in the name of democracy? I'll direct you to Josh Marshall on these questions. Personally, I believe that we want to install Chalabi, and if we have to do it under the guise of an election, so be it. Hmmm...who said a couple of days ago that young democracies (i.e. Nigeria) may prove to be a model of democratic failure in Iraq if things don't go the way that the rulers (in this case, Americans) want it to go? You heard it here.

Are we sure it's not 11:30 pm on Saturday Night???

2003-04-22T19:38:00.000-07:00

Great Expectations

CBS’ 60 Minutes aired a segment recently about the presidents with the highest and lowest IQs historically. Bill Clinton topped the list, with an IQ of 182, while, you guessed it, George W. Bush brought up the rear, at 91 although those exact numbers may in fact be an urban legend. Even so, most people would probably agree that Clinton was a strikingly intelligent president relative to his contemporaries, while Bush's intellect seems rather underwhelming.

I had the opportunity to discuss this over the holiday weekend with my family, and a common sentiment seemed to emerge. Why is it that the most brilliant man the American people could elect had such a fatal flaw that now clouds his presidency and violated the trust we put in him. But further, why is it that the only man we saw fit to replace him has a level of intelligence barely above normal. I say this not to disparage Bush or Clinton, or to criticize the war effort. There is still plenty of work to be done and I hope the Bush administration has a solid plan of action as to how to help bring about the rule of law in Iraq. That is the subject of another column. Like many of those who had earlier reservations, I think Bush has handled the situation in Iraq thus far surprisingly well. And that is the problem. It shouldn’t surprise us when a president provides solid leadership. It shouldn’t surprise us when a president has the courage to stand up for what he (or she) believes in. It shouldn’t surprise us when a president gets through a candidacy, or term of office, without a major scandal.

The Democrat contenders for the 2004 election continue to accumulate, and the pundits are beginning to gear up for the race. And while the numerous hopefuls will likely dwindle down to Senators John Kerry and John Edwards and perhaps a few others, maybe someone will step forward and earn the right to be our president, rather than winning it by default. It doesn’t take someone who’s perfect, but it isn’t so much to ask for a candidate with intelligence, credibility as a leader, and just enough charisma AND INTEGRITY to make us believe again.

Maybe, just maybe, one or more of the candidates will present a real agenda – and instead of hiding their true views, explain why a liberal, progressive agenda can protect the safety and security of Americans.

... George magazine ran an issue prior to the 2000 election with the cover “Who will make us proud again?” with pictures of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy on the cover, and waxing nostalgic for presidents who just seemed, well… presidential. That’s a question I still ask today, and one I hope will not go unanswered for much longer.

2003-04-21T07:42:00.000-07:00

Will the Car Even Start?

I once was planning a road trip. I had everything set -- the map, some snacks, my bags, and a destination. I had been planning for a couple of months and, wow, was I excited. So I got into my car, put in the key and was ready to go! Except for one thing. The car wouldn't start. I had the great ideas and the direction, but no means of getting where I wanted to go.

So goes the Road Map to Middle East peace. Only weeks after an encouraging start, we see the possibility of reform seriously threatened within the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is known as a strong critic of the Palestinian Intifada, and has criticized the use of violence to achieve the goals of the Palestinian people. So, you could see the elation in the American and Israeli eyes when Arafat selected him as the first Palestinian Prime Minister. It was a fantastic and hopeful start.

Now, the struggle begins. In an attempt to select and convene a cabinet, Abbas has voiced serious disagreement with Arafat. The disagreement threatens the construction of a cabinet, which has a Tuesday night deadline, and can serious threaten the Road Map to peace, which is contingent on the PA reforming its structure.

The central disagreement surrounds Abbas' desire to appoint Mohammed Dahlan as a member of the new cabinet. Dahlan has the ability, in the view of many American, Palestinian, and Israeli analysts, to crack down on violence in the territories. However, Arafat refuses to give up control of the Palestinian Security forces, and has threatened to fire Abbas and designate a new premier if Abbas doesn't give up on Dahlan.

And today, word comes that Abbas rejected an Arafat compromise, because it still excluded Dahlan from the cabinet. Nabil Sha'ath, a Palestinian leader, stated that Abbas has "no chance of presenting a government due to the large gaps and the deep crisis between him and Yasser Arafat."

(Insert sigh here).

Ok, so now what? Well first, I think that some things are pretty telling about this whole disagreement. A main complaint on the Israeli side is that Arafat refused to crack down on groups like Hamas, and in some cases, even supported their violent uprising, which included suicide bombing within Israel proper. Some analysts believed this was essential to Arafat's self-preservation. If he took a hard-line against extremist groups, he himself, could have become a target. In my mind, this was, and still is, no excuse. A while ago, Thomas Friedman wrote a fantastic article stating that unless their was a war within civilization (he was referring to the different Middle Eastern states), then there would be a war amongst the civilizations. While I think the "clash of civilizations" argument lumps all muslims together to an unacceptable degree, Friedman raised a good point. Leaders need to crack down on extremists in their own states.

Self-preservation is no excuse for any good leader. A good leader must be willing to put it all on the line for change and peace. Yitzhak Rabin did that and was struck down by a Jewish extremist who considered him a traitor. Arafat seems to be too concerned with himself, and not the Palestinian people -- it seems to be all smoke and mirrors.

So, that begs the question, why not now? Arafat has the opportunity to take this responsibility off his hands. Dahlan is wanted by all parties, including the leaders of Egypt and Jordan. He can still preserve himself and at the same time, the extremists in the territories can be reigned in, per the Road Map's requirements. Yet, he is adamant to keep control of security. Why? Dahlan is qualified (he was the former chief of the Gaza Strip's Preventative Security Service), so it can't be that.

Hmmm...so what is it?

I think you see where I may going with this. With a new security chief, Arafat's flaws and alliances will be exposed to the world. When Abbas and Dahlan crack down, and do it efficiently, Arafat's "lack of resources" excuse will be looked at as a joke. Arafat will look like he supported these groups and, in some cases maybe even collaborated with them. He will be displayed as a lie.

So, instead, he is destroying the transmission on the Palestinian's new car. For all of his flaws in the past, Abbas is the man that can lead the peace process in the right direction. Yet, it would be him, and not Arafat, and it seems as if Arafat won't allow a legacy like that. Let's hope a true compromise is worked out and the car will start. Let's hope that their car fares better than mine:

It broke down again and we got rid of it. Although it was so beyond repair that we had to pay for a company to come and take it.

2003-04-20T18:38:00.000-07:00

Nigeria's fragile democracy

We have heard a lot recently about the "spread of democracy," and our role in this massive effort. We hear about spreading it in places like Iraq, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. Yet, what about fragile, struggling democracies?

Tonight, Nigeria is on the verge of either a massive victory for democracy or a descent into chaos. For the first time, Nigeria can move from one democratically elected regime to another. Do we comprehend the importance of this monumental occasion?

If there is further bloodshed, then I'm afraid we will have realized how monumental this transition could have been. And how democracy failed.

Current President Olusegun Obasanjo is seeking his second term - first elected in 1999, his election ended 15 years of military rule. He is running against a staggering 19 opponents, and his greatest challenge has come from Muhammadu Buhari. Yesterday, Nigerians went to the polls to vote for their President (and provincial governors), yet a week ago Saturday, the legislative elections were held.

And let's say that Bush and Gore's war of words looks like a love fest compared to the fallout from the Nigerian legislative elections and the run-up to the Presidential elections.

It's important to understand the complexity of these elections, and the numerous factors involved. Obasanjo is a Christian from the southern part of Nigeria, while Buhari is a Muslim from the North.

After the legislative elections, Buhari accused Obasanjo's ruling People's Democratic Party of massive fraud, and calling for "mass action." Taken as a threat, Obasanjo accused Buhari of inciting violence.

So, now the world holds its breath. On election day, six people were shot and killed. Today, while it seems as if Obasanjo has a lead in the vote returns, a member of Buhari's party said "THIS IS A MASSIVE rigging. The masses are going to react. They will fight."

So, now the world must take note. Democracy is fragile. And it is especially fragile in those countries that have experienced years of totalitarian dictatorship and military rule. In this country, we take for granted the ability to peacefully vote and trust that there is no fraud. In the 2000 contest of Bush v. Gore -- say what you want about how democracy was turned upside down -- there was no bloodshed. There was no violence. There was a peaceful transition. In a country of hundreds of millions, with an election separated by less votes than a large apartment complex, there was a peaceful transition.

So, now the world cannot take democracy for granted. It is no magic chia-pet that grows with water and love. This administration is adamant on bringing democracy to Iraq, and I believe that democracy should be in Iraq. Yet, let us not kid ourselves. It will take time. It will take effort. Hopefully, it will not take lives.

And, hopefully, the election in Nigeria will not only resolve itself without the loss of life, but let's all hope, in the end, that these allegations of massive fraud were misguided and mistaken. Let's all hope that, in the end, Nigeria passes the toughest test of democracies - the first transition from one government to another.

2003-04-19T22:11:00.000-07:00

Whether you were for or against the war in Iraq, put that aside for a moment. If you can't, then I hope you watched any of the major news networks tonight and saw the homecoming of the 7 former POW's. And if that didn't move you, then maybe you should hang out with the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz.

I once had a conversation with a Professor of mine -- pre-9/11 -- about the difference of generations and how my generation had not yet been challenged to rise to the level of our parents and grandparents (there was a "thank god" after that statement back in August of 2001). We chatted about whether or not my generation had the ability to, in fact, rise to the occasion, if need be. If, for some remote possibility (and, my goodness, it seemed so remote), we were attacked or needed to call our armed services into action. Our conversation was very interesting...could "Generation X," (or is it "Y" now?) stand up to the challenges of war? Or were we coddled, spoiled, and lazy?

I believe that question has been definitely answered. And I almost feel embarrassed that we had that conversation -- but, in times of peace, these things happen. The New York Times ran a special last week with pictures of all of the men and women that have given their lives in Iraq. And whether you were for or against this war, something is very clear: these brave individuals stood up to a challenge, all in the name of making this world safer, and gave their lives. And a good majority of them were young. Very young. 18, 20, 21, 24 years old. Sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.

And they do not get the cheerful homecomings. But we should never forget.

And we won't forget the scene this evening. Forget for a second that they are soldiers. Think of them as sons and daughters kissing their parents. Brothers and sisters clutching each other after weeks of fear, nervousness, and emotions that most of us cannot grasp. We don't know right now how close these 7 were to not making it back. And here they are. And with the love of their families and a grateful nation, we all hope that their (and our) experiences over the next few months, and even years, are peaceful. Let us now work towards that peace.

Blind patriotism can be scary sometimes, and we must not ignore many innocents that were killed both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, for even the most critical, if you can watch this scene without either feeling overcome with joy for these families, at least a bit proud to be an American, and in debt to those seven (and all of our men and women) for putting their lives on the line for a possibility of a better world, then go hang out on Oz, you may find a heart there...

Happy holidays and have a safe weekend.

2003-04-18T11:21:00.000-07:00

In the past couple of days, there have been some interesting Washington Post editorials that have discussed: 1)the failure of the UN; and 2) issues relating to African nations. I believe that all too often, this country is hypocritical in its foreign policy and forgets that Africa even exists. I am not calling for ethnocentrism by any means, but rather, this country needs to commit itself to recognizing problems that exist throughout the entire world, not just where we share a similar culture or where there is a financial interest involved.

My main criticism of President Clinton's foreign policy is that the United States was too late in responding to the genocide in Bosnia, and did not respond at all to the genocide in Rwanda. (**Note: The Republicans were even worse...when the bombs were falling in Kosovo, Republican leaders were criticizing the Clinton Administration. These same leaders who call anti-war remarks "unpatriotic" and aiding the enemy...my how the tables have turned...just look at this great article...but I digress) A while ago, when the tragedy in Rwanda was occurring, I kept hearing the misinformed (and almost, if not completely, racist) argument that the US shouldn't get involved in the conflict (or any conflict) on the African continent. They made the argument that these were "ancient tribal conflicts," whereas the problem in Bosnia was a problem of territory and within the boundaries of civilization. That couldn't be further from the truth. The Hutus and Tutsis have more in common than these individuals would lead people to believe, and their differences were created and exacerbated by the European colonizers, who by seeking to gain and maintain power, empowered one group at the expense of another and pitted them against each other. Just another consequence of colonialism...

Anyway, my point is that American Foriegn policy needs to be generated to each of the nations in Africa (and not making the mistake that Africa is homogenous and therefore deserving of one policy). The Post wrote a telling editorial entitled The Forgotten War, and stated that "if the death tolls from the current Iraq war, the 1991 Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan and all of the Balkan wars of the past decade are combined, they would still not exceed the number of deaths caused by the much more obscure war in Congo. The International Rescue Committee, which works with refugees in the region, in a report published this week that 3.3 million people have died prematurely in that country since war broke out in 1998." Wow. Where have we been? Also, Justifying Abuse, discussed the failure of the UN Human Rights Commission to recognize abuses around the world, and specifically in Sudan.

I'd like to think that this country could focus on a problem without changing its military strategy, provoking allies, or making everything an epic biblical battle. Yet, I don't think it's possible. We just may need to watch our foreign policy in Syria to see this in action.

2003-04-18T10:12:00.000-07:00

Here is further proof that the death penalty has got to go. It's barbaric, discriminatory, and certainly faulty, yet I'm still amazed at how many people continue to make the argument that it is necessary despite hearing staggering statistics such as mistakes are made in 70 percent of all capital cases. It is easy to say that the families of the victims can benefit from it, through closure. But that is exactly why the families of the victims are not the ones making the laws. It's the same reason one wouldn't be advised to make an important decision while angry, upset or even drunk. The law is best driven by reason, not passion, and those who think that is unjust should consider the possibility that they might be wrongfully accused of a crime one day.

Of course every choice is easier when you're on the victim's side, the safe side, or the side that doesn't have to make any sacrifices or has nothing to lose, should that choice be made. But in the broader context, such choices aren't so easy.

2003-04-17T21:20:00.002-07:00

I was talking to a best friend this evening, and we were discussing, like we do often, topics like religion, politics, and world viewpoints. You know, the topics that you're told never to discuss with others. Well, we talk about it. And her realism balances out my idealism. And I respect her with everything inside of me. There is no right or wrong way. That is really important for me to stress. I think there cannot be one right outlook on life, and to believe so is to impose your views on others, without consideration of their life-long held values, and that is definitely wrong.

As for me, I think we all are driven by certain outlooks, and something about me that drives my outlook on life -- is a refusal to accept reality...a refusal to accept "the way things are." I can't live like that -- it is a strength and a weakness at the same time. Things should change, constantly and for the better. What is "better"? Understanding. Acceptance. Peace. Barriers set up by society and by history need not remain. And that's what drives me. Both in my professional, and my personal life.

And it's a shame, that once in a while, reality not only exists, but wins out.

On that note -- here was an idealistic speech I wrote after last year's passover bombing in Israel. Something that I hoped Bush would say, and something I hoped would happen. Things don't always happen the way you want. Yet, you still have hope. Always.

Draft of a speech for President George W. Bush in response to the crisis in Israel
March 29, 2002

Today marked a horrible and dramatic escalation in the Middle East. In response to the Passover Massacre, the Israeli Defense Forces have invaded Ramallah and seized the headquarters of Yasser Arafat.

The United States maintains its position that there should always be a strong and secure Israel. The people of Israel are helpless when suicide bombers destroy the beauty of the Passover Seder. The government of Israel is within its right to exercise an aggressive self-defense policy against terrorism in order to protect its citizens - including its children.

However, the government of Israel is also within its right to restrain. To take a step back and re-evaluate its policies. To mourn the loss of 30 of its citizens in 3 days - coming during one of the most holy times of the year: Passover. During Passover, Jews around the world remember the millennia or persecution, oppression, and killings of the Jews. It is a remarkable coincidence that Israel is experiencing another moment in the Jewish history in which its peoples' strength will be tested and pushed to the limit.

The United States would not be within its right to pressure Israel to restrain. We did not restrain when thousands of American citizens were killed on September 11th. We have always been guided by the policy that in order end terrorism, you mustn't bow to it, but rather, destroy it.

It is time for the terrorism to stop. It is time for the parties to take a breath and realize that their actions further the cycle of violence and threaten to pull the middle-east into the abyss of war. Violence against innocent civilians can never be justified - whether they are Israelis or Palestinians. Too many lives have been lost. It is time for peace.

Earlier this week, there was a glimmer of hope. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was willing to discuss a cease-fire, Chairman Arafat said he was willing to sit down and discuss the options. The Arab summit was passing a historic plan for peace - all sides agreeing that it was at least a start. U.S. Envoy General Zinni was in the region making significant progress. Peace seemed to be a possibility once again. However, there are those in the region that do not want peace. These groups oppose peace and want to see the destruction of the Israeli state and Jews driven into the sea. So, they attempted to derail the peace talks by bombing a Seder. They believe they succeeded when they see Israel's retaliation. Now, peace seems as far away as ever.

We cannot let the terrorists win. Let us destroy terrorism by combating their objective and pushing ours. Let us work for peace. It takes more than one, however, and it cannot be a 50% effort. Both sides must make sacrifices to achieve what they want. It is inevitable. To think otherwise is to be distant from reality.

We must stop looking backward and start looking forward. We have to stop trying to figure out who started it, or whose fault it is. Both sides are firmly convinced they are in the right. This isn't about right or wrong - it's about peace. When Yitzhak Rabin shook Yasser Arafat's hand, years of hatred and animosity was put aside for the possibility of peace. We must finish the job now.

Israel should remove its forces from Palestinian areas for the Passover holiday. In this time, I will send a top-level delegation to the area to discuss options with the Israelis. In the meantime, another top-level delegation will be sent to Ramallah, to help work with the Palestinian Authority to rein in terror.

The Israeli government needs to understand that the PA cannot reign in terror when fighting for its own lives, and the PA needs to understand that in order for any of their dreams to achieved, the terror must stop.

This is not to say that the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the PA, however, the leaders cannot say one thing to world, and act another way to its people. Is the goal peace and statehood, or war and destruction of Israel? If it is the former, then let us work towards that goal and act against those who want destruction. If it is the latter, well then, we must develop a different plan.

Israel, like any other country, has the right to secure itself and maintain its sovereignty. However, their military solutions have not worked. They have escalated the cycle of violence in the region. Those afraid of a Palestinian state worry about Israel's security. However, the security of its people right now - where citizens are afraid to leave their homes for fear they may never come back - is nothing to be preserved.

We must all look forward. We must realize that peace is never easy. That it is the truly courageous that achieve peace; that do not result to the primal instinct of violence to achieve its goals.

These top-level diplomats will propose a different type of plan that we have seen in the past. In the past, we have tried to work at achieving a cease-fire. That has not worked. One reason is that the cease-fire is really between two different groups, yet is expected to cover everyone - including those who do not want peace. Nothing will ever be achieved that way. Instead, we propose that there be a joint security session between the parties. The Israeli's need to know how much the PA is accountable, and the PA must realize that unless they are able to distance themselves from the terrorists, and reign in their own people, that the Israelis will never talk.

Talk is what we all must do. Violence achieves no grand ends -- it only exacerbates the problem. We must all be for peace and today marks a renewed effort by the United States to achieve that peace.

Thank you.

2003-04-17T09:45:00.000-07:00

at least no one can say that we take ourselves too seriously...
And I'll leave you all with a pressing question that I'm sure is keeping up most of you at nights:
Exactly how many half-brothers does Saddam Hussein have?

2003-04-17T09:41:00.000-07:00

Like my parents would read this drivel.

2003-04-17T09:02:00.000-07:00

Charles Smith, buddy...Charles Smith. That's how everyone remembers the Knicks, at least. Great, now we've completely regressed and I've alienated every reader in New York City (which makes the HUGE assumption that other than Jeremy's parents, we have readers in New York City...and even that's a stretch)...

2003-04-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

Call me sentimental, but as a Knicks fan, this is how I like to remember Jordan: check out this memorable shot from the 1992 Eastern Conference Playoffs

2003-04-17T07:50:00.000-07:00

While we want to keep this focused on political issues, a chicago-born boy like myself would be committing blasphemy if I didn't recognize the greatest basketball player to ever lace-up -- Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

2003-04-17T06:25:00.000-07:00

A must read from yesterday's NYTimes from Friedman, for anyone interested in intra-Arab relations (and some pot-shots against the French Ambassador to the U.N.). Also, look tonight for some comments I wrote a year ago about the Passover terrorist attack.

Also, the judicial nomination of Priscilla Owen is getting some much needed publicity. The NY Times supports filibustering her nomination, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights calls the nomination part of the "conservative constitutional counter-revolution." My bottom line is this -- if the President places ideology at the forefront of his priorities when deciding whom to nominate -- the Senate has every right to do the same. You can't set the rules, break them, and then put them back together again. This humpty-dumpty game that the Bush Administration is playing just isn't going to work...

2003-04-15T21:55:00.000-07:00

"Being for peace, it's not enough to sing songs for peace. Then you become a singer."

Former Prime Minister of Israel and current Knesset member Shimon Peres said this on a recent trip to Philadelphia. He spoke on a wide variety of issues, mainly responding to some surprisingly insightful questions from the audience. I was very impressed by his speech, mainly because I am impressed by him as a leader, and as an individual. One of the architects (on the Israeli side) of Oslo, along with the late Yitzhak Rabin, Peres has been a voice of light in a conflict of darkness.

Yet, and all too unfortunately, his voice has been drowned out by the hawks in the Likud party. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the hawks in his own party - the Labor party - as well. Disillusioned with Oslo, they have more-or-less bolted from the Labor ideology, and have kow-towed to Sharon's battle-plans.

The other day, Peres spoke of the epic battle between the high-tech world of modernity and the traditionalist - those who refuse to accept modernity. Specifically, he was referring to religious fundamentalists - those who believe it is impossible to preserve religious traditions and accept globalization.

While his characterization of the world may be correct, I believe it is an oversimplification. Just like Bush's "good vs. evil" thought process, to say that those who oppose American or European values are poor, backwards, mosque-going individuals is wrong. We need to look no further than the remnants of Saddam's sons - wealthy beyond belief, infatuated with technology (I think one of the sons had actually stores of downloaded pornography on his computer), and lacking the true beliefs of Islam.

What I am saying is that we have to be careful with over-simplifications, even you, Mr. Peres, whom I respect beyond belief.

I agree with Peres when he stated that "Oslo is still the right thing." In my mind, a two-state solution, with secure borders for Israel and a guarantee of a modern standard of life for Palestinians is the way to go. Pressure should be put on both parties to talk. Always. "Bush's vision is the termination of Oslo," Peres said, a striking rebuke to Bush's strong rhetoric...oh wait...Bush needs to be actually involved...oh, that's what he means! Bush lacks no vision in the middle east. Sure, the infamous "Neo-Cons" and other conservatives will say that Bush is the first President to articulate US support for a Palestinian state. That's ridiculous. First, it's not just about words (even in diplomacy) it is about action; and second, Clinton's policies displayed that he supported and acted toward achieving a lasting peace - with two states.

In fact, Peres called Clinton's efforts a "demonstration of good will" and that there was "quite an achievement at Camp David." Leads you to ask just how close were the parties??? The reason for failure, according to Peres? Having too high of expectations and starting negotiations with "immobile parts" - Jerusalem and the right of return.

As for the current state of the world, Peres called Saddam the "greatest killer of our time" and said it was "unimportant" if WMD were ever found. I disagree (on the second part of that statement). And that's the subject of another column...

Also striking was Peres' discussion of European anti-Semitism. "I hope they will liberate themselves from this ugly sickness," Peres stated. He went on to call any hatred "a sickness." I couldn't agree more. We have seen this world ravaged by the disease of hate, and need more peace-makers like Peres to help all of us find a cure.

Yet, it is not enough to sing for peace, or light candles for kindness. And it is counterproductive to practice megaphone diplomacy, or talk down to other countries (especially allies). The right balance needs to be struck, and this administration needs to find it. Preemptive strikes, as a doctrine, will only incubate the bacteria that cause hate. And that's the subject of another column...

2003-04-14T21:13:00.000-07:00

Friends, countrymen, welcome aboard... If you've just stumbled upon us, this is a work in progress, but we hope to entertain and, just maybe, enlighten...

Here's a thought... I know that in this time of war, we're all supposed to support the President, lest we are unpatriotic and un-American (tongue inserted firmly in cheek here). But hasn't it gone too far when the Baseball Hall of Fame decides to cancel a ceremony to commerorate the 15th anniversary of the release of the movie Bull Durham? For those unaware, that's exactly what the Hall did, out of fear that the movie's stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon would voice their often outspoken dissent against the war in Iraq. This is what the HOF's director Bill Petrosky actually wrote in a letter to Robbins. See if you can follow the reasoning:
"In a free country such as ours, every American has the right to his or her own opinions and to express them. Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American. We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U. S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger."
Putting aside just for a minute the hypocrisy within the statement, can we examine the ridiculousness of such a statement? I'm sure all of our troops in Baghdad are thinking, man, I survived three weeks of battle in the desert heat, and I think we'll be OK as long as Tim Robbins doesn't criticize the war.
Check out this article for a great quote:

I think he says it best here: "Petroskey believed he was standing up for U.S. troops, President Bush and the sanctity of baseball. Of course, some people believe this war was partly about restoring to Iraq the right to free speech, if not the right to boo and cheer and get mustard on your shirt while watching a ballgame on a bright summer day."
- One has to wonder if Petroskey's ties to the GOP, having spent two years as an assistant press secretary for Reagan, factored into his controversial decision. But even more alarming than party ties determining whether to honor a baseball movie is this: Most Americans seem to think Petroskey was right. At least that's the result of a poll on thedenverchannel.com, where 69% of the 13,497 surveyed thus far answered 'yes' to the question "Did Baseball Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey make the right decision to cancel the "Bull Durham" celebration because of stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon's antiwar views?"
Kind of makes you wonder, just what the hell are we fighting for?

2003-04-14T15:14:00.000-07:00

The way that we hope this will work is that myself (Jason) and Jeremy will rotate columns ... occasionally, we will have a point-counterpoint if we really differ on a topic. Sometimes, we will coauthor a piece. We hope that these are more than just comments -- but rather substantive columns.

2003-04-13T20:01:00.000-07:00

in the meantime... I can be e-mailed at OpinionsJust@netscape.net (note the reverse order...someone already grabbed what I wanted)

2003-04-13T19:47:00.000-07:00

Stay tuned over the next couple of days for my first few comments...