STILL ON PATROL

Happy 220th to the Constitution?!

On March 4, 1789, the government of the United States began operation under its new Constitution.  Two hundred and twenty years ago, today.  The Preamble is a useful reminder of what the document set out to be:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is, by any measure, an extraordinary document.  It has stood the test of time, and remains as the functional document under which our government operates, as the longest-running republican democracy in the history of the world.  It has been amended only 27 times, ten of which were the Bill of Rights that were contemplated as part of the original agreement over the document.  Two amendments were the passage, and then the recission, of Prohibition.

In 2009, we are left to wonder how many of our political leaders have more than a passing acquaintance with this document, or have even read it front to back?  It should be a requirement that each Senator or Congress-person be given a pocket edition of the Constitution to keep on their person at all times, and then have to pass a test on it before they actually take office.  While this would probably not stop some of the questionable actions and programs being enacted by Congress, at least they would, maybe, have a somewhat better idea of just how far we are straying from the government the Founding Fathers contemplated.

As Mr. Lincoln later said at Gettysburg in November 1863, this document was to have created a government "of the People, by the People, for the People."  Now, billions of Federal dollars now being doled out to failed businesses, and banks being essentially nationalized, with the only justification being that they are "too big to fail."  At the same time millions of regular Americans are being tossed out of jobs, losing their homes, and being pushed to the brink and beyond.  Shouldn't we be asking ourselves if we have lost sight of "We the People" in favor of rewarding massive failure piloted by corporate greed and mismanagement?  And shouldn't we be asking ourselves how far we have drifted from a free, democratic society into one that is growing more socialist and government-controlled by the hour?

Our leadership in Washington has lost touch with reality, tossing around words like "billion" and "trillion" as if they are referring to a game of Monopoly.  Do they not realize that tiny percentages of those numbers, which really represent piles of cash being burned up in the furnaces of corporate mismanagement, if doled out to "We the People" instead, would pay bills and prevent defaults, pay mortgages and prevent foreclosures, and turn this thing around from the grassroots level?  I'm not advocating re-distribution of wealth, but merely pointing out that the billions being doled out, if indeed there is some compulsion to spend them, probably could be spent much more wisely to restore our economy.  Better yet, reduce taxes, shrink government, and get out of the way of the economic potential of this country.

Our heritage was formed by intelligent, successful men with the foresight to create a system of government that has stood the test of time.  Yet now we seek to defeat individuality and personal success in so many ways - raising taxes on the very successful as if they have somehow been wrong-doers?  Nationalization of banking, healthcare, and so on, when our government has demonstrated time and again it is not good at operating business (can you say Social Security?  Medicare?)  The unabashed re-distribution of wealth?

So, on this this 220th birthday of our Federal government, I call upon our leadership to take the necessary time to read the Constitution and its Amendments, and ask yourselves just how much that magnificent document is being abused and stretched away from its original meaning.  Then go to work and bring this country back to its original path.

Birthday Thoughts on Lincoln and the Truth

If you didn't know it already, February 12, 2009, was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, in Hodgenville, Kentucky.  Today is President's Day, celebrating the birth of Lincoln and of George Washington, our first President.  Given the near-deification of Lincoln between the 200th anniversary celebrations, and his symbolic adoption by the Obama campaign and now administration, I feel compelled to mention a few things about Lincoln that should be known to balance his iconic status and strike a few small blows for truth.

Was Lincoln a great President?  It is probably fair to answer that question "Yes", because he did accomplish the overriding goal of his presidency, which was to hold the Union together in the face of monstrous Constitutional crisis, with the powers of the European world rooting against him.  He did so in some cases by pursuing strategies that were the ends justifying the means, and would have been excoriated for doing so were the 19th century media anything like the combative, agenda-driven media of today. There is little question that he was a consummate politician and probably had a clearer understanding of the American people of his era than any other president until perhaps FDR or Reagan.  He was an inspiring speaker and demonstrated this skill over and over again.

Lincoln the President did believe in the ends justifying the means, even when the means were illegal and un-Constitutional.  He suspended the right of habeas corpus early after secession of the southern states, and arrested the Maryland legislature to prevent it from holding a vote on secession.  He shut down many northern newspapers that criticized his policies; can you imagine if George W. Bush had tried to shut down MSNBC because it criticized the Iraq War?  He declared war without the consent of Congress.  And, he declared secession illegal without ever first seeking the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the sole Constitutional arbiter on such things, on the subject.

Lincoln was clearly against slavery:  "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."  Yet, in his mind, the Civil War was not intended as a crusade to end slavery.  As many historians have recognized, slavery was ended in dozens of countries by legislative effort with no armed conflict.  Lincoln himself said, in one of his 1858 debates with Stephen A. Douglas: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." 

Rather, historical study of the causes of the War clearly establish that secession, and Lincoln's war to force the South back into the Union, were brought about by the economy and a series of tariffs under which the South felt it was being oppressed and forced to economically support the North.  The last pre-War tariff, the Morrill Tariff, was particularly oppressive, yet was supported by Lincoln's Administration.  In early 1861, when asked why he did not simply let the Southern states go and be done with them, Lincoln asked, "Who will pay my tariffs?"  Later that same year, Lincoln expressed the difficult position in which he found himself by stating, "I find myself facing on one side the rebels, whom I detest, and on the other side the bankers, whom I fear."

Lincoln in 1862, shortly before writing the Emancipation Proclamation, stated, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it....What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the Union."   The document many consider his greatest achievement, the Emancipation Proclamation, actually freed no slaves.  It purported to free slaves in areas then under rebellion, which DID NOT include territory controlled by Federal armies, and DID NOT include border states, and was thus of no effect.  For example, in 1861, Maryland had over 87,000 slaves - none were freed by the document in 1862.  It is thus said by some historians that the sole purpose of the document was political, to turn the War from an economic disagreement into a crusade for freedom of the slaves.  In so doing, Lincoln is properly seen as a master politician, but not really a "great emancipator."

On the other hand, however, Lincoln was not in favor of black equality.  In another 1858 debate with Sen. Douglas, Lincoln said,"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

So, then, is it fair to say that Lincoln was an abolitionist, i.e., in favor of the abolition of slavery?  Probably so, although abolition was not his driving force.  Preservation of the Union was his purpose, which he pursued with single-minded determination.  Yet at the same time, as the term is defined in present-day society, Lincoln was a racist.  His beliefs are well-defined in the preceding paragraph.  He saw blacks as inferior beings simply because they were black.  His grand plan for freed slaves was to send them back to Africa because he believed white Americans would not tolerate integration of freed blacks into society.

It is fair to say that the freeing of the slaves, which took place as a result of the American Civil War, was part of laying the groundwork that resulted in the presidency of Barack Obama.  It is impossible to say whether that freedom would have inevitably come, without the sanguinary cost of War.  Many Southerners recognized that the end of slavery must inevitably come, but only sought for it to occur in an economically feasible order, not as a result of the destruction of War.  We shall never know.

But to laud Lincoln as a champion of black equality quite clearly misses the boat.  He could not have envisioned an African-American office holder at any level, much less becoming the 44th President in a long line of which Lincoln was the 16th.  Emancipator?  Yes.  Equalizer?  No.

It is also abundantly clear that the Lincoln vision of the Federal Union was a watershed moment that propelled the Federal government, bolstered by the Supreme Court's rulings in favor of the Federal imperative, to its pre-eminent spot in governing our lives.  States' rights has devolved into an archaic concept that is mostly expressed in the 21st century as begging for our "rightful" share of Federal money being doled out.  One need only look at the lines of Governors and Mayors lined up, hat in hand, for their "share" of bailout money being distributed from Washington, to see the truth of this change.

Before we stand still for the deification of Lincoln in this 200th anniversary of his birth, let us engage in a celebration of the truth.  Lincoln was a powerful, strong President who shared many of the social beliefs of his time about racial equality.  He was a central figure in the way slavery was terminated in this country, but not the sole cause or leader who made that happen.  He stood for the preservation of the American Union, and in so doing inexorably placed the Federal government at the apex of our governmental firmament. 

Would I have put Lincoln among the foursome on Mt. Rushmore?  No.  I would have chosen Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin.  Is Lincoln among the ten best presidents we've had?  Probably so.  Should he be deified as is currently taking place in the media, and in, ironically, the Democratic Party (Lincoln was the first Republican president)?  No.

Obama's Inaugural Address

Wow.  No matter what else I've ever said or written about the man, there is no question that he can deliver a speech.  Today, in my opinion, he outdid himself with his inaugural address. 

He struck a consistently positive note without shying away from the problems.  For the day at least, to this somewhat jaded writer, Obama lifted the spirits of the nation.  Even to those who fear what he will be as President, or who will inevitably disagree with some of his policies, I think after hearing him everyone can feel at least a little better about the new Administration, while at the same time hoping we are not disappointed.

I'm certain everyone will find something not to like.  I remain concerned at where he will go on energy policy when feasible, home-grown alternatives such as oil shale are there for the taking.  And it remains a concern what his economic stimulus and tax packages will be. As I have said here before, his words about equality should be carefully considered, because I don't sense Obama is all about every group and faction "getting theirs" so much as he is about floating everyone's boat higher.  I suspect some groups who supported him will be disappointed by their own out-of-proportion expectations.

But an inaugural address is not about specific policy points, or at least it should not be, media talking heads notwithstanding.  It is about setting a tone, a theme for a new Administration.  It should be like one of those ubiquitous "mission statements" that businesses typically write at some posh retreat.  Unlike those businesses, however, the "mission statement" set forth today by President Obama should not be shoved into a drawer and forgotten.   It should be a touchstone that is constantly checked and cross-checked to assure that specific policies and actions remain consistent with the tone set from the beginning. 

His multiple references to our collective history were quite well-done, particularly in an age where we do a poor job of passing the truth of our American history to our children.  Maybe somewhere this evening a child will ask his or her parents what the new President was talking about when he referenced "Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sanh."  In doing so, Obama tapped into the rich history of who we are as a people, and hopefully will lead us to be proud to be Americans, not embarassed or guilt-ridden as so many on the left want us to be.

He firmly but elegantly drew his line of difference with the Bush Administration on such things as energy policy and human rights, and perhaps his most eloquent line of the day was this message to terrorists and anti-American, corrupt, or oppressive governments and factions around the world:  "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

I do very much appreciate his acknowledgements that he is a spiritual man.  He mentions religion or religious themes at several turns, as well as "nonbelievers" at one point.  But I particularly liked his statement near the end:  "This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny."  (NOT "God, however you understand him", Bishop Robinson!)

I think most of us had high expectations for this inaugural address, and in my opinion those expectations were met.  Well done, President Obama, and enjoy the day.  You have quite a stack of issues waiting on your new desk once it's over.

The full text of his speech can be found here:   Download Obamainaugural .  It makes a nice read, even without the rhetorical flourishes.

Flaws in the Obama-Lincoln Comparison

I suppose it was inevitable, that the media and others would try to draw comparisons of the election of Barack Obama as President to another Illinoisan, Abraham Lincoln.  After all this year is the celebration of Lincoln's 200th birthday, both claim Illinois as their home and political base, Obama is the first African-American elected to the Presidency, and Lincoln is popularly known as "the Great Emancipator" and credited with the destruction of the institution of slavery in this country.

I read today that President-elect Obama is even planning to take a train from Illinois and cover some of the same route covered by Lincoln as he travelled to Washington for his inauguration in 1861.  I appreciate the nod to American history, I really do, but I cannot help but wonder just how thoroughly Obama's people have vetted this idea of invoking Lincoln so much?

You may recall from some old history lessons that Lincoln ran for the U.S. Senate against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858.  Douglas was the incumbent, a Democrat, and was in favor of the continuation of slavery along the lines of previous compromises enacted by Congress.  Lincoln, of course, was the choice of the fledgling Republican Party, and was considered anti-slavery.  The two candidates held a series of debates throughout Illinois, which are commonly cited as one of the prime examples of 19th-century political debating; both were great orators in their own respective styles.

During the fourth debate, in Charleston, Illinois, Mr. Lincoln sought to clarify his position regarding slavery and the negro race, in response to many things that were being said about his supposed affinity for blacks.  This is part of his response:

While I was at hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

There is no evidence of which I am aware that Lincoln ever recanted these beliefs, which were in fact widespread in American society in the mid-19th century, north and south.  Mr. Lincoln was, for these reasons, a proponent of the formation of the African nation of Liberia; the idea was to return former slaves to Africa rather than letting them live in America.  He was, from the time he first observed slavery while on a river trip to New Orleans, against the continuation or proliferation of slavery.  But, from the words above, he would, in all probability, never have contemplated the election of Barack Obama to any political office, much less the Presidency.

We have, thankfully, come a long way in the years since Lincoln was President in terms of our attitudes on human equality.  As an amateur historian, however, it constantly troubles me the way we manage to gloss over and ignore things such as Lincoln's words above for the purpose of granting him iconic status, all the while demonizing the 19th-century South.  It is but one more example of the gross failing in the teaching of American history in the modern U.S.

What Does It Take to be "Qualified" for the Senate?

Here we go again with the "qualifed" garbage in politics.  I happen to think the idea of appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat is a pretty good one.  Never mind that I've had a crush on her since I was a small child watching footage of her during the Kennedy Administration.  She is intelligent, well-spoken, and has devoted a great deal of her life as a member of the tragedy-stricken Kennedy family to public service.  She has authored a book on the Constitution when I question how many members of Congres have even read the thing, once.

Let's take a look at the rest of the Senate to measure the "qualifications" to serve as a member of that group: 

• Take for example, one of our Kentucky Senators, Jim Bunning.  His highest qualification is that he once threw a no-hitter for the Philadelphia Phillies.  Bunning is consistently rated one of the worst ten Senators. 
• How about Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia?  The once-great politician from the Mountain State is now Capitol Hill's reminder of the ravages of aging on the human mind. 
• Larry Craig of Idaho?  Remember his airport bathroom tap-dance? 
• Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, California's gold-dust twins?  'Nough said.
• Harry Reid of Nevada - dubbed by Rush Limbaugh as "Dingy Harry", he is the least impressive Senator I've seen over my 50+ years.  His speeches should be bottled as a non-addictive sleep aid.
• Ted Stevens of Alaska, master of the pork barrel bill and now facing bribery charges?
• And what of Ted Kennedy, who proves every six years that the people of Massachussetts have something seriously wrong going on to continue re-electing a man who should be in prison for the murder of Mary Jo Kopechne, is a long-time alcoholic, and apparently supports his nefarious nephews in their own drinking and sexual perversions
• It also now looks as if Al Franken will be elected to the Senate from Minnesota.  Franken, whose sole distinction is being the least funny person to ever appear regularly on Saturday Night Live, has written a couple of obnoxious books, hosted a radio talk show, and performed as a stand-up comedian.  Now there's a set of qualifications to be a Senator!

Matched up to these gems of public servants, I think Caroline Kennedy would add some class and intelligence to the joint.  Her Uncle Teddy is a disaster, but her father and Uncle Bobby served well, and I suspect she would tend more toward their example.  She is certainly at least as well "qualified" as anyone I've named on the above list of Senatorial shame.  Can we please move on to a real issue?

LGBT Groups Need To Get Over It

The uproar this week from LGBT groups about President-elect Barack Obama (PEBO) choosing Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration would be laughable if it were not so annoying.  Coming on the heels of the riots and absurd outcry over Proposition 8 in California, I do not feel out of line to say that the LGBT groups as a whole need to get a grip on this whole issue and understand the limits of their so-called "rights" as citizens of this country.

Last time I checked, this is still a country where the majority rule.  So, when exactly was it that the LGBT groups decided that they have a "right" of approval over anything and everything that happens within the public forum of this country?  Last time I checked, an incoming President is the only one who gets to choose a wide spectrum of things about his inauguration.  If PEBO wants Aretha to sing, I suspect the Queen of Soul will be glad to oblige him.  I would hope he would also ask Beyonce to brighten up the proceedings, but we will see about that.

So what if he asks Rick Warren to pray?  PEBO has spoken at Warren's church in the past, and Warren was the moderator for the Presidential debate this past fall that I thought was the best of a poor lot of debates.  Warren's books "The Purpose-Driven Life" and "The Purpose-Driven Church" are multi-million sellers that have helped hundreds of people, and churches, to set themselves on a better pathway.  Warren is an influential voice in a large segment of the populace; some consider him to be a successor to Billy Graham as "America's Preacher" (I can't quite go there).  And he offers a pretty darn good prayer from what I've heard.

PEBO responded to questions by saying, "We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." "Disagree without being disagreeable?"  Now that would be a change in American politics, wouldn't it?

The LGBT would be well-advised to pick their spots when to raise hell, and how.  Rioting after a well-publicized public referendum, and threatening to boycott or take other action against churches after losing fair and square is not the kind of activity that is going to win friends and influence people.  Raising all kinds of public hell over what pastor will give an invocation at an inauguration leaves most people wondering when the LGBT will ever shut up about insignificant things.  PEBO has said he is in favor of LGBT rights, and his choice of Rick Warren has absolutely nothing to do with his policies.

The "cry wolf" syndrome is very real in American politics.  If the LGBT continues to claim to have been "slighted" by every little thing such as the choice of Rick Warren to pray, soon no one will still be listening to their complaints, even if a serious one ever comes up.  When you make a public plea for sympathy, the desired reaction should be "damn, that's awful", not "here  they go again."

Otherwise, the LGBT will start to hear, from all corners, "Would you like a little cheese with that whine?"

Whither "Change", Mr. O?

Anyone who has not been under a rock the past two years knows that Barack Obama got elected to the Presidency on a mantra of "Change."  As in, "we're going to go to Washington and change everything."  Mostly due to the perceived poor performance of the Bush Administration, some of which was true and some not, the idea of widespread "change" in our Federal government took hold, even among those who had little or no understanding of the neo-socialist agenda actually being put forth by the Obama campaign.

If any of those voters are still paying attention, the early signs of whom President Obama will include in his Cabinet are not encouraging for "change."  Ranging from Hillary Clinton herself at State, to recently-defeated former Senator Tom Daschle at HHS, to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, to Eric Holder at Justice, so far the Obama Administration looks very much like a re-tread of the Clinton Administration and filled with Washington insiders, instead of any sort of sweeping "change" in the Federal government.

If Obama follows through with the rumored offer to keep Robert Gates on at Defense, it would be a "change" for a Democrat to make a non-partisan pick.  Gates, a widely acclaimed pick for the Defense post, is neither a Democrat nor a Republican by party registration.  I am hopeful these rumors are true.

I will grant you that it is an important factor that Cabinet-level officials have experience, and that given that the last Democrat President before Clinton was Carter, the few Democrats with Executive Branch experience will almost necessarily have ties to Clinton.  I will also concede that wholesale appointment of new, fresh faces can often be a recipe for disaster - witness, for example, the many blunders of past kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, many of which were attributed to his "Kiddie Corps" staff.

Those concessions aside, however, one could so far conclude that the "change" mantra was a tool to get elected that may be discarded early on in the drive to socialize Washington.  Daschle, Clinton, et al., are all about "spreading the wealth" and will be ardent supporters of Obama's neo-socialist agenda.  Daschle seems to be especially a Democrat retread, having lost his last re-election effort despite being Senate majority leader at the time.

I continue to try to be optimistic about the upcoming Obama Administration, if for no other reason than America needs some positives to happen, and soon.  These potential appointments, however, do not seem to bode well for any kind of "change" in Washington other than the same old Democrat liberalism that has never worked, and will not work now.  All of the various factions of the Democrat coalition will over-reach in the fight to claim what they believe is "theirs" in an Obama Administration, the political knives will be drawn, and the rest of America will fall prey to another round of Washington in-fighting, and politically-partisan retribution.

"True Colors" Being Shown in Gay Protests

The first verse of Cyndi Lauper's "True Colors" reads like this:

You with the sad eyes
Dont be discouraged
Oh I realize
Its hard to take courage
In a world full of people
You can lose sight of it all
And the darkness inside you
Can make you feel so small

Isn't it fascinating how explosively the gay community has taken the defeats in AZ, FL, and CA of gay marriage?  After all, they took a resounding beating at the polls, and now seem to think a collective fit of anger and threats will make millions of voters recant.  The reality is that a vast majority of Americans are looking at the protest marches and threats as evidence that the voters were right in denying the privilege of marriage, and presumable child-rearing, to such an irresponsible group of people

I am particularly appalled at the current movement to take their collective anger out on the Mormon Church and the State of Utah.  How patently absurd is that?  In essence, gays, who protest against being stereotyped, are playing on the common misunderstanding and stereotype of the Mormons as some kind of crazy cult holed up in the Wasatch Mountains that has some kind of vendetta against gays.  I have spent considerable time in Salt Lake City and among Mormons, and I can tell you they are as a group lovely, kind, and conservative, and very firm in their beliefs including that homosexuality is a sin.  They see the erosion of the family as a major threat to society and have the courage of their convictions to step forward and state their case.

So, why are they not protesting in black neighborhoods and proposing boycotts of black businesses, when black voters were over 70% opposed to gay marriage?   The answer, of course, is obvious.  The various liberal factions are putting off the day when the knives will come out to divide up the government pie Mr. Obama has promised them all  Instead, blame it on the Mormons - after all, doesn't everyone know they're "weird" anyway?  Qualitatively, how would this be any different than openly blaming African-Americans?

What has most angered the gay community, in my opinion, is that the Mormon Church spent considerable resources in support of the banning of gay marriage.  When this is compared to the sum of over $46 million collected and spent by the gays in California to fight Proposition 8 to no avail, they are angry that so much money, and so many political favors, were wasted in a losing effort.  Raising money for gay marriage will inevitably become more difficult after these defeats. 

"True colors"?  Sure.  Just think back to any time a liberal faction has lost a political battle, particularly so convincingly.  It's never that their position is wrong, or even that it is a minority position among voters.  Rather, some group or another is being "discriminatory", depriving them of their "rights", and being "unfair."  After all, it is the liberals who are so "enlightened" that the rest of us should just follow their lead instead of voting our convictions.  Sorry, but one thing the Founding Fathers sought to guarantee is that when each of us steps into the voting booth, we get to mark our ballots as we wish, not as the LGBT folks insist.

Oh, and here's a NEWSFLASH:  I don't know, but kinda doubt that the Mormon Church nor the State of Utah are worried too much about a gay boycott.

Election Reflections 2008

In reading and reflecting on the news reporting in the last 24 to 36 hours since Barack Obama's landslide win to become our nation's 44th President, as well as multiple other elections and ballot initiatives around this country, several fascinating (to me at least) points have emerged.

The most significant is the conundrum posed by the statements about racism being made in the aftermath of our electing the first African-Americanto the Presidency.  Most media pundits, celebrities (more about that later) and others are trumpeting the fact that Obama's election is a watershed moment in American politics.  It is, indeed, a watershed moment, and an opportunity for Obama to change perceptions and bring advances in racial equality that is unparalleled in our time.  He has accomplished much through the course of his campaign in changing the way white Americans look at blacks, and one can only presume he will continue to do so.

But I wonder, just perhaps, though, if we haven't also taken a step backward in the sense of how many voters seemingly voted for Obama simply because he is an African-American, as opposed to making a reasoned decision based upon his policies and proposals?  "Racism" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."   How many times did you hear or see in the media interviews with African-Americans proclaiming "I'm voting for the brother"?  Racism is a two-way street, and is no less damaging to society when practiced by minorities.  If we are going to defeat racism in America, it has to be defeated in any direction or in any manifestation in which it is practiced, or else it simply becomes a tit-for-tat form of political and societal gamesmanship.

Speaking of racism, I was also deeply offended by the media pundits who blithely chalked up McCain's wins in southern states to white male racism.  One idiotic bimbo on CNN kept talking about "old, Confederate white men" and making references to the Civil War.  As always, knowledge of history is never a requirement for television news reporting or commentary.  Never mind that racism was pervasive in America at the time of the Civil War - even Abraham Lincoln was widely quoted as believing that blacks could never be the societal equivalents of whites, should not intermarry, etc. - and never mind that violence toward blacks was in the 19th century far worse in northern cities, where blacks were seen as competition to white, European immigrant labor. 

Could it perhaps be that the demographics of this country are far more conservative in these southern states, and that these southerners simply did not agree with the neo-socialist ideas being propounded by Obama?  According to CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal media outlets, of course not.  It's far more fun to chortle about "old Confederate white men", even in total ignorance, than it is to do some honest reporting and state the facts.  Were there white racist votes against Obama?  Certainly.  But probably no more than there were black racist votes for Obama, if even that many.

The second fascinating event about which I have read is the overwhelming rejection by California, Arizona, and Florida of gay marriage by state constitutional amendment.  In Florida, the margin was pretty extreme - 62.1% to 37.9% - and in California gay marriage lost despite over $43.6 million put into the pro-gay marriage campaign.  The vote in Arizona reversed a previous failure to pass a heterosexual marriage constitutional amendment.  Now what will those some 18,000 gay marriages in California do?  In all probability, because they were legal when performed, they will be allowed to stand.  But at least in these states, until another ballot initiative can re-visit the state constitution, there will be no more gay marriages.

What makes this doubly fascinating is the analysis I am reading that one of the reasons behind the relatively easy defeat of gay marriage in these states is the high turnout of African-American voters to vote for President-elect Obama.  Despite the public perception of Obama's victory as "liberal", most black voters are socially conservative, and overwhelmingly do not favor gay marriages.  Thus, the high turnout that helped carry Mr. Obama into office at the same time very likely contributed to the defeat of gay marriage in these three states.  Isn't this an interesting country?

My third observation is when will we ever stop giving a damn about what celebrities think about something like politics or public governance?  Because they are talented, or attractive, or can sing or play a musical instrument, or have big boobs, or just simply got rich by some quirk of fate, why does that make them any more intelligent, or influential than you, or me, or our neighbor down the street?  The headline on my ISP this morning was something about "What Do Celebrities Think About Obama Victory?"  Who cares?

These are the same people we read about in supermarket tabloids, who hop from bed to bed and relationship to relationship, who run for the nearest rehab center when they break the law, and who are prima donna, obscenely paid performers who know nothing about what "Joe the Plumber" and the rest of us do to get through life.  I recently read an article in TV Guide (it was the only thing in reach in the bathroom, OK?) about what celebrities' clothing cost.  The guy who plays "Earl"?  His jeans, t-shirt, flannel shirt and boots outfit cost something like $3,000.  You and I would go to WalMart and get the same look for under $75.  Why do we listen to such profligrate idiots?

While these are difficult times because of our sick economy, they are also politically interesting times where irony abounds and idiocy rules the airwaves.  This next four years is going to be an interesting ride.  God Bless America.

Obama Wins In Landslide

Congratulations to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party on the landslide win in election 2008.  Their election strategy, combined with the ossification of the Republican Party, worked to bring an almost-unprecedented turnout of voters, and changed the political landscape in significant fashion. This having been accomplished, it is time for the nation to end the partisan campaigning of the last two years, and to try to rally together.

Now for the hard part - governing.  President Obama will, at some point, discover that his love affair with the mainstream media will be over, and that they will assume their adversarial role to the party and person in power.  Many he deems allies today will soon be otherwise, and he may find the rapidity of the changeover shocking. 

Obama clearly conceded last night that there are many difficult problems ahead, most of which do not lend themselves to easy solution.   It will be interesting to see if his neo-socialist ideas and plans, many of which sounded good on the stump, will work in the harsh reality of governance.  If he truly governs more from the center than the left, I suspect he will be able to get some things done, particularly given the low bar set by the Bush Administration.  On the other hand, so many candidates who try to be all things to all people only end up disappointing everyone.  For our sake as a nation, I hope this is not the case with Obama.

One significant hope for an Obama Administration is that it can bring whole new factions of society into an inclusive and effective relationship with so-called "mainstream America."  I feel certain that lowering the number of people who feel disaffected with government will probably make things better for everyone in the long run.  The risk, of course, in a society so aware of quotas and handouts, is that this could dissolve into an "I'm going to get mine" mentality, which was typified by so many voters simply saying, "I'm voting for the brother" with the apparent expectation that his election meant immediate rewards.  Despite my opposition to him, I do think Obama wanted votes because of his ideas and potential for leadership, not his skin color, and I am optimistic that he will want to govern that way, too.  I hope he can control the Federal bureaucratic monster well enough to inculcate his professed ideals.

As for the Republicans, it is well past time for a re-evaluation of how far the GOP has fallen from the glory years of the Reagan Administration.  Reagan's gift was the ability to reach out to all people, instead of clinging to a so-called "base" resulting in polarization of a changing electorate.  By nominating a 72-year-old candidate, regardless of his past record and heroic story, the GOP cemented its image with many as a party of the far-right, and of dinosaurs and the elderly, far beyond any surge of energy Sarah Palin could bring to the ticket. 

The GOP will have to find a way to re-energize conservatism, but to do so with fresh faces and fresh ideas on governance, as well as a recognition that the political landscape has indeed been changed by this election.  This nation is constantly changing and shifting, not only in demographics, but in its needs, its beliefs, and its goals.  The election results showed that clearly - Obama was able to perceive these things and capitalize on them, while McCain's reliance on the old electoral map, and his inability to develop new ideas and a consistent campaign theme that had any resonance with voters, doomed his effort.

So, whether or not we agreed with Obama's platform and proposals, and whether or not we believe he has the experience or ability to serve as President, he has been elected, by a strong majority of Americans.  Within a very short time he will raise his right hand, take the historic oath of office, and become OUR President.  While we may still have disagreements of politics and policy as he begins to govern, it is my hope and prayer that we can bury the partisanship, and work together in a reasoned and cooperative manner to solve our collective problems.  Perhaps his fresh face and voice can effect change from the bitter divisiveness that has so plagued Washington.  Or, perhaps I am being too Pollyanna-ish.  Only time will tell.  But for our common good, we must pull together and try to make things better.

Congratulations, President Obama, and good luck.