What I Want To See From The Media & My Thoughts So Far

Here's what I'd like to see from the news media regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates:

• A timeline of the event.
• An explanation by legal experts of the laws pertinent in this situation.
• Nationally recognized experts in the field of police standards and training.

At the moment my thoughts are that most of the statements I've seen so far are emotional knee-jerk reactions.

I didn't take President Obama's statement as a condemnation of the entire Cambridge Police Department as the the president of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officer's Association claimed. That seems to me to be a defensive mischaracterization of the president's remarks.

The demeanor of the officers that responded is more important than that of Mr. Gates. I believe that police officers are trained to remain calm and deal 'professionally' with subjects even if they're confronted with insults and the like.

It is nevertheless always a good idea and mature behavior for someone in professor Gates' position to also act respectfully. That's easier said than done of course, but as for the police it's essential to remain calm to diffuse and de-escalate a situation.

I always pause when I hear the head of an organization say that they will conduct an 'internal investigation' on one of their own, especially after taking a defensive stance as the Cambridge police have. An independent inquiry should be undertaken to eliminate the question of bias.

Finally, I have a feeling that most if not all the parties in this incident will at some point look back and have second thoughts about their statements and their behavior.

At least I hope they do..

Some Random Thoughts Roaming My Mind

[Sorry about the screwy formatting (grrr), but I'm 'wicked tired' and I've got to eat something..]

1. People are frustrated by all this taxpayer $$ flying out the door and having no control.

2. The credit society most people live in got them (and the lending institutions) into very bad
unsustainable habits.

3. The Bush administration reinforced #2 by committing our forces to a war where the
American people were purposely kept disengaged (no 'war tax' etc.. "War? What war.
Mistakes? No mistakes here..").

Going from a balanced budget and a surplus to Trillion-dollar deficit spending under Bush.
'Heck of a job George...'.

3a. 'Due diligence'.... There was little to no 'due diligence' (except maybe to protecting
"secrets") over the entire Bush administration's tenure.

4. Current frustrations include millionaire financial misfits getting rewarded despite
the fact that they helped create the mess.

- And as far as I'm concerned, there is no place in a responsible society for
failure to be rewarded.

5. This bailout money is corporate welfare.
Ask any social worker about the restrictions imposed if you take public assistance.


I'm sure it's a culture shock and a rude awakening to these millionaire executives to have to
show restraint and contrition. To suddenly be answerable to the people who have to bail their
sorry incompetent asses out when they've gotten used to answering to no one except a chosen few.

Most people that have jobs work hard and many pay their bills on time, only to see their
retirement accounts wiped out or drastically deflated while top executives get their
'golden parachutes' and rewarding failure with 'performance bonuses'.

They see billions literally thrown at companies* owned by friends of Bush/Cheney. Billions
more thrown to corrupt foreign governments/officials and terrorist organizations.
They see inexperienced political appointees given the job of 'overseeing' critical programs
including spending in Iraq.
Instead of appointing the most competent people to government positions, neophytes whose
primary qualifications are party loyalty and monetary contributions to that same party
were chosen.

Crimes and mismanagement were covered up by over-reaching "secrecy" policies

Between the corruption here at home, and the corruption in many of the foreign
governments that we provide[d] money to, what percent actually got to where it was
supposed to? (We can't tell because too many of the people responsible for that were either
incompetent or complicit themselves!)

- Now picture yourself as President Obama [voluntarily] stepping into this huge
disaster created by seven years of Bush/Cheney and the republican majority (and *some*
democrats).

You can't possibly accomplish anything by yourself (other than by example and leadership)
so you have to delegate much of it to others, some of whom will undoubtedly mess some
things up.

Being a man of courage class and honor he takes ultimate responsibility for his errors and
those in his administration who make mistakes (as opposed to 'having faith in them' but
taking no responsibility and never admitting to any mistakes [as the previous administration
did]).

If most people were truthful and honest with themselves, they'd have to admit that
(were they in President Obama's shoes) they would have either snapped under the pressure
or be looking for some form of escape via medication or heavy drinking.

To Obama's credit, he appears to be holding up fairly well and providing
leadership amidst all the turmoil surrounding him.

He needs to reign in some of his closest advisers though. Rahm Emanuel and others are
making his job harder at the moment.

Don't forget the Republican party (what's left of it), led by a hateful radio commentator (one
of many) who are acting like juvenile delinquents and doing absolutely nothing to help their
constituents by standing in the way of everything President Obama and Congress try to get
done.

America needs their help, and they're hoping for (and contributing to) *our*
failure.

- Picture President Obama trying to scale a wall (holding America's future and
well-being) while other Americans (mainly Republicans) throw crap on him and
try to saw off the bottom of the ladder instead of helping him get up the wall.

And despite all this you will still find far too many people leaving comments on progressive
web sites [and others] being hypercritical, and saying things like "If Bush and Cheney were
back in the White House everything would be just fine.". (Kool-Aid withdrawal/accepting
reality must be very hard for some )



*Some of whom provided sub-standard services, some that put the health and safety of our troops at risk, some that killed innocent civilians, alienating potential allies, some that
basically sanctioned rape of their own employees, and almost all of them protected from
criminal penalties by the administration who considered itself 'untouchable'.

Critical Question For Candidates

Knowing the history of the Presidency regarding the unwillingness to give up presidential powers once their predecessors have gained them (despite how they gained them and whether they're constitutional or not), I think it's imperative that the current candidates for the presidency are asked whether they will reverse the "questionable" powers that Bush has claimed since becoming President. Especially if he's not impeached as he rightfully should be.

If Bush isn't impeached, (as I've stated before) a terrible precedent will have been set on many levels for future Presidents. Candidates need to be on the record (not that that matters anymore) saying that if elected they will renounce the unconstitutional claims of presidential privilege the Bush administration has stubbornly held to since 9/11, clearly and unconditionally.

Instead of the mostly asinine questions asked of candidates, we must ask this one and other critical topics! Electing a president has rarely had so much at stake for the future of our country as this one. If we're not able to reverse the downward decline this president and the majority of the Republican party have "led" us into we will have completely lost the honored position as respected and envied leader of the free world.

Not only thoughtful and respectable people in this country, but people all over the world are waiting to see what happens after the debacle of the Bush presidency is over.

The direction the President has taken us, compounded by the severe lack of representation of the citizenry by Congress in favor of big business interests (and their own) will lead to our downfall eventually. It's surely not what our founders put into place so thoughtfully.
As a matter of fact it's starting to resemble what they rebelled against all those years ago.

Tonight's Countdown [Without] Keith Olbermann

Just a few thoughts regarding tonight's show.
First of all, of all the people who sub for Keith when he's off Allison Stewart is in my opinion the best. That said, I need to say something about tonight's discussion concerning former President Clinton's "roll the dice" comment from the Charlie Rose show.

I don't understand the questioning of what Clinton's statement 'meant'. It's plain to me that it meant that Hillary is a fairly well known commodity with a good deal of experience, as are the other candidates, except for Barack Obama. It's simply a matter of experience. Now I understand that political journalists like to read 'between the lines' and divine "the real meaning" of statements like this, and sometimes that's necessary, and sometimes the journalists are correct, but sometimes 'a cigar is just a cigar'.

"Roll the dice" means gambling, taking a chance. And to elect someone with a limited amount of experience, even when they have a lot of good ideas and are charismatic, is a calculated risk. Is it not?
In some ways you could say that voting for any of the candidates is a gamble. We've seen too many politicians take stances and vote on issues that oppose what the majority of their constituents want, and in some instances are in direct conflict with the oath they swore to when elected (you know, "To protect and defend the Constitution..."?).

There's no doubt that Hillary's campaign has encountered some bumps in the road, and being almost dead even in the latest polls has undoubtedly made them anxious to draw distinctions between her and Barack Obama. That major distinction is experience. They'd both be a welcome change from what this country and the world has painfully experienced over the past seven years, and are both head and shoulders above anyone running for the Republican party.

Now the idea that Bill Clinton was doing anything other than being truthful when he said that "Obama is a person of enormous talent". I didn't read that as "damning him with fake praise" as it was characterized by Allison and Howard Fineman. And I think Clinton characterized the rest of the field of candidates correctly when he said that all but Obama had a long and fairly extensive history of foreign policy and legislative experience.
I think the same thing. The first time I heard Barack Obama speak he amazed me by how much sense he made and how well he communicated. So much of what he says reflects the same way I feel about many issues. In some ways he has characteristics that none of the other candidates do, and part of that [I think] comes from not being part of the Washington scene for too long. But as far as other (meaning the good) aspects of experience go, he just hasn't had the time or the experience(s).

As for David Gregory's questioning of Hillary Clinton regarding the quote, he clearly interpreted it negatively as simply a 'dig' and not as a simple [political] way to make the distinction between Hillary and Barack Obama. He could have phrased it differently, but competitive politics isn't a case of being as nice to your opponents as you can. These days that was being [relatively] nice!
The questioning by Gregory had the odor of another try for a 'gotcha' moment from a member of the press as opposed to unbiased critical questioning of a candidate and Hillary didn't oblige him.
I truly miss Theresa Heinz Kerry and her forthright and unabashed responses to questions like that. I'd like to think that she would have responded by saying "My husband said it, why aren't you asking him?".

The press can often be so petty.

PS, Allison's comments about Michael Jackson almost made me snort water out my nose!

How long has it been like this?

In our country we're supposed to be represented by politicians we choose locally to be our 'voice' in Washington DC. When did that end?

I don't recall any news advising us that what we want doesn't matter anymore. As far as I know our representatives still claim to listen to and represent our concerns, especially while they're running for office. But recent events prove otherwise.

Now I'm not referring to my own state of New Hampshire in this case, but the fact that 80% of Americans favored the passage of the recent "SCHIP" legislation that the president vetoed, that should have been overturned if the people's representatives truly represented their constituents.

The same holds true regarding many other issues. The "war"*, impeachment, domestic spying, retroactive immunity for Telcos, universal health care, and others where the majority of the American people aren't seeing their wishes translated into votes.

In so many ways it's like the 2006 elections and the mandate for change that was so evident never happened. The majority changed hands, and there was so much optimism that all the excesses, corruption, and back room deals were, if not over, substantially reduced.

We're seemingly left with nothing but the power to organize and attempt to replace them, but is that really a solution? There is so much institutional corruption inherent in the way the entire government works, especially these days that even fresh faces won't help. They're ineffective and repressed if they try to change the status quo, and the only way to get anywhere is to conform to the culture and the demands of the entrenched leaders.

I don't want to hear that it's always been like this, or that we don't understand how things work and that we have to trust them to do what's best. That's a huge load of bull.

Sure there are many valid considerations that go into legislation and oversight that most Americans don't usually think about or even know about, but that's not the point in this case. This failure to overturn the President's heartless veto directly contradicts of the clear wishes of the majority of the American public, and that's just plain wrong.

I send the political action emails to my state reps (that I write myself if given the option), and I get neat little form emails back thanking me for my thoughts, but does it do any good?
Are they effective? Sometimes I wonder, are they even read?
In this case it appears the answer is a resounding no!

And what does that teach people who are trying to be good citizens, trying to make a positive difference by letting their elected representatives know how they feel about certain issues?

Our "leader" says he issues vetoes "just to be relevant".
If that isn't the most asinine and irresponsible statement by a President of the United States in living memory I don't know what is**.




* It's called war, but I define loosely it as some form of military action against different adversaries where people are needlessly dying.
** And Bush has made many worthy of consideration.

The Democratic Party | Children's Health: Overturn the Veto

The Democratic Party | Children's Health: Overturn the Veto: "If we can get 2/3 of Congress to stand up to President Bush, we can overturn his veto on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program—a program that provides health insurance for millions of kids. We need your help to get those votes. Use the tool to the right to contact your members of Congress and tell them to reject Bush and fight for children."

Here's a copy of the letter I sent:

Dear Sirs,

In your hearts you all know the right thing to do. As my subject line says "Please don't let politics get in the way", and I sincerely hope that every one of you will put the divisive politics of the past aside and help over-ride this unconscionable veto by President Bush.

The folks that this will help already have enough to worry about. They shouldn't have to avoid taking their children to the doctor because they can't afford it, and the children shouldn't be caught in the middle.

What does it say when we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a 'military action', billions of which can't even be accounted for, and neglect the needs of our children and poor.
Thank you. I know you'll do what's right.

Sincerely,

TR Daggett
------------------------------------------------
Please help to get the Presidents veto overturned. Go to this web site and send your own letter to your state's representatives, and remember to be concise and polite.