Is there anything that the pharmaceutical giants WON'T do to sell their product?

I feel very disturbed right now.

We've all heard all those drug ads on television:

Why continue to suffer with painful and debilitating hemorrhoids? Live a hemorrhoid-free life with new Putridex, from Glutton Pharmaceuticals.

Be advised that not everyone should take Putridex. Women who are pregnant or nursing or may become pregnant should not take Putridex. Neither should anyone under 30 or older than 35. Side effects may include nausea, diarrhea, upset stomach, vomiting, dizziness, dandruff, rabies, scabies, bari-bari, scurvy, hair loss, gangrene, gout, hiccups, sexual dysfunction, loss of appetite, gallstones, kidneystones, blindness, insanity and an uncontrollable desire to play golf with Jack Abramoff. So next time you visit your doctor be sure to ask about Putridex. Ask for it by name.

You know the gig. But if you are reading this you are also probably an adult. You know that what is advertised on television should always be taken with a grain of salt. You know that all these medical advertisements are out there not necessarily to educate you, but because pharmaceutical companies have figured out that one way to get customers to buy their products is through direct marketing in which the customer, based mainly on the information in the ad, decides on their own course of treatment and gets their physician to write a prescription for that particular product instead of a competing or generic drug that may do the same thing.

But this is what bothered me-- my 12 year old came to me a few minutes ago, scared to death of getting meningitis, having just heard it will kill rapidly and asking if she could be vaccinated with a product called menactra (I had to look it up.) And do you know where she saw the commercial? ON NICKELODEON! She and her sister it turns out were watching Spongebob Squarepants and that was the commercial that came up.

Now, I have no problem with protecting my kids against deadly diseases (meningitis certainly included.) Two years ago I made a point of going to their doctor and insisting that both of my daughters get the HPV vaccinations that may someday prevent them from getting cervical cancer.

However I have a real problem with a pharmaceutical company (in this case an outfit called Sanofi Pasteur) pushing drugs-- any kind of drugs on kids, and in particular by scaring them about getting a deadly disease. While I don't discount the information in the ad or the need to protect kids (and I certainly intend to have them vaccinated against meningitis sometime before they go to college) I really feel that scaring kids into asking their parents for a shot is unethical.

Of course lots of companies advertise their wares to children. I've become used to telling my kids 'no' by now when they come and ask me for New Nuclear Barbie (decontamination suit that glows in the dark). That's to be expected, I suppose. But pushing vaccines and drugs is over the line, and I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that way. I might add as a parent this gives me a dilemma. Do I tell my daughter she can't have the vaccine (meaning that she now thinks I'm willing to risk her death to save a few bucks) or do I get it (meaning they've now succeeded in writing my household budget for me by manipulating my twelve year old.)

I intend to contact NICKELODEON once their offices open tomorrow and let them know how I feel. If they are going to show kids programming they should categorically reject any ads from pharmaceutical companies (I'm sure there is precedent for this-- can you imagine for example watching Spongebob and seeing an ad for, say, Budweiser?)

Free speech is too important to restrict

I hate having to defend people who I consider toads, but right now that's just what I have to do.

Last week a British court gave a victory to Max Mosely, a British politician who claimed that he had been smeared by tabloids after they published intimate details of an orgy at his home in Chelsea, which according to the tabloids involved nazi role-play (for the record, Mosely admits to the orgy but denies the nazi role-play.) From this case we've learned that there is now a whole new subcategory of S & M in which one group of people dresses up in World War II vintage Nazi uniforms and then beat and humiliate their 'captives.' Well, just what I didn't need to know. I'd find it offensive that anyone could turn the systematic slaughter of entire populations into a sexual fantasy if it wasn't so utterly stupid. Best left behind closed doors.

The court ruled that Mosely was entitled to his privacy and that it was a violation of that right for the newspaper to publish details of his sex life.

And that ruling is chilling to me.

Now, I'm a strong advocate of the right to privacy from laws, government intrusions and the like. I've always been an advocate for the right of consenting adults to whatever the heck they want in the privacy of their own home (even if it is to dress up as Nazis and whip each other.) It is also true that tabloids are the worst kind of offenders of personal privacy (if you don't believe that then ask anyone who knows Brittney Spears, Angelina Jolie or Lindsay Lohan.) In celebrity-studded Southern California tabloid reporters eager for a picture have caused several minor traffic accidents and prevented people from getting into restaurants by packing around the front door with cameras clicking. The potential for a major, even fatal accident (and we still don't know how much of a role the paparazzi played in the death of Princess Diana a decade ago), or crowds of paparazzi preventing people from getting out of a restaurant in case of a fire, is present and sooner or later the law of averages says that something like that will happen. And that's just the American tabloids, which are by any account far tamer than their British counterparts (one of the benefits of not having a monarchy, I suppose.)

Personally, I make it a point never to purchase a tabloid and I encourage my kids to not buy them. And I take anything I hear from them with a grain of salt unless it is confirmed by a news source I trust.

Nevertheless, the Mosely verdict is the wrong one. Any kind of censorship (and restrictions on what tabloids can report is censorship) is a step towards an authoritarian state like we all fear. Just last week, the National Enquirer reported that John Edwards had been to a hotel in the middle of the night last week to see a former campaign worker who he has been accused of impregnating (Edwards, the campaign worker, and another campaign worker who claims he is really the father all deny it.) Now, I was skeptical the first time I heard that story a couple of months ago (especially since it also originated in the Enquirer). For one thing Edwards was thoroughly vetted by the Jesse Helms organization (nobody dug dirt better) when he ran for the Senate against a Helms protege in 1998 and again four years ago by the Republican attack machine when he was on the ticket with John Kerry. For him to suddenly do something so stupid this year would seem almost unbelievable, short of his having snuck off to a surgeon's office and having had a secret frontal lobotomy first. But in fact now I am not so sure. It seems to me that if a politician were accused of an affair, especially falsely accused, rule number one would be to avoid ever being around the woman he was accused of having it with again (and even more so to avoid being around her in a place like a hotel at 2 A.M.)

Then again this weekend there was a minor row around Barack Obama's trip to Israel. Like many visitors to come and pray at the Western Wall (Judaism's most holy site) Obama apparently wrote a private prayer on a piece of paper and placed it into the wall. Someone apparently retrieved that particular piece of paper and gave it to Maariv, an Israeli newspaper which published the prayer. I know that if I wrote a private prayer and put it in a holy place I'd expect it to remain between me and God and some Israelis are shocked that the newspaper would carry out such a breach of privacy (though apparently no Israeli laws were broken.)

Nevertheless the National Enquirer and Maariv should be allowed to publish what they find out just as much as any other journalistic enterprise (including the British tabloids.) Leaving aside the obvious facts that this information could just as easily be published, even if anonymously, on the internet or that many more people buy news for the salacious details than for any real news (one reason why traditional newspapers are declining in sales while sales of tabloids never seem to be hurt) they should still have the right to publish what they do and by implication go where they do to get the news. There are some things much more threatening than nosy reporters or photographers intruding on people's most private moments (as irksome as that can be) and one of those is the prospect of the law telling any publication that they can't publish something. Because if they can tell you that you can't publish details of Max Mosely's or John Edwards' sex life, then they can tell you what else you can't publish, and then what else until eventually it becomes instead a list of what you can publish (which could still be shrunken.) That is the policy that the media operates under in countries like China, Cuba and Zimbabwe.

There is of course another threat. During the Hoover era at the FBI (as I once posted), J. Edgar Hoover and others were expert at collecting dirt on everyone they could. By the time he died he had files on as many as fifty million Americans from all walks of life (and certainly on every American who might ever be in a position of power.) Often the government would spill details of someone's personal life in an effort to discredit them (This happened to everyone from Dr. King to people who opposed the Vietnam war to members of Congress who suggested budget cuts to programs that Hoover supported.) Of course laws have since been passed limiting the ability of the Federal Government, even if they know something about somebody, to use it against political opponents (though that hasn't stopped them from trying on occasion.) Is there anything to prevent a future, more sophisticated version of Hoover, from using tabloids to further his own private agenda?

Well, no there is not. And leaks happen today, often in the furtherance of someone or some group's agenda. And they don't even have to go to tabloids to leak, unless the story is so sewer-worthy that the official Washington media won't touch it. But that is the price we pay for a free press. The answer is not to muzzle the press, but to aggressively investigate and prosecute anyone who violates the law in terms of leaking privileged information or violates existing privacy laws in getting that information (for example I would have agreed with Mosely if he'd based his suit on his contention that the tabloid press acted as 'peeping toms' rather than adding that comment as an afterthought and challenging their right to publish the story at all.) Similarly, the city of Malibu, California (ground zero for the paparazzi) is now looking at ways they can fine reporters who drive dangerously or otherwise cause disturbances including blocking entrances to businesses. There is nothing wrong with that-- require that they maintain order while going about their chosen line of work.

Mr. Negative

Pay attention to the candidates for a week. One of them is laying out ideas and plans for the future, talking about what needs to be done both in America and around the world and what he will do.

The other candidate is mainly talking about his opponent.

Guess which is which?

John McCain actually caught a break this week when the New York Times refused to publish his letter to them after they had published Senator Obama's letter. The reason was because McCain's letter was not, unlike Obama's, a thoughtful treatise on how to improve things, but rather was just another attack. And if it had been published it would have gone together with the rest of the steady stream of attacks that Senator McCain has been leveling (instead of actually plugging himself) over the past week or so. In fact the refusal by the NYT became a net plus for McCain. There is nothing that seems to rally the nutbag right behind a candidate faster than being attacked or otherwise dumped on by the New York Times. But had the letter been published it would have made it clear that McCain's main tactic in the election is to impugn Senator Obama, with little else he can say.

Now, granted this is a campaign and attacking your opponent when you are behind is standard strategy and is as old as politics itself. And while Senator Obama has refrained from more than a passing mention of Senator McCain most of the time, he certainly has surrogates (as does McCain) out there doing the job for him. The difference is that it is ununsual for the candidate himself to get out in front on this issue. That may be why McCain is toying with the idea of choosing his running mate early. But my guess is that he won't but will instead just continue launching the spitwads himself.

It also says volumes about McCain's lack of anything meaningful to say. His plans for the economy and continuing to stay in Iraq are virtually the same as George Bush's, a President who if he were running today would lose in a landslide. He's praised Bush's Supreme Court appointments and said he would appoint the same kind of judges. I wrote a post three months ago pointing out that McCain's website never even mentions the words "social security" one time. I went back there the other day and it still doesn't. The man is devoid of new ideas, other than to continue the present path of the Bush administration on virtually everything. So I understand why he doesn't want to talk about any of that, so what's left is to attack Obama.

Is Obama vulnerable to attack? Sure, all candidates are. But at least he has some new ideas and some new plans for doing something in the next decade that is different from what we've done in this one.

In the meantime though I don't think these attacks will succeed. McCain has been called a 'grumpy old man,' and he's doing everything to live up to that rap. Maybe after the election Bob Dole (another guy famous for going on the attack himself) will let him co-star in another of those Viagra commercials.

Bush administration reversing itself on all kinds of issues

If nothing else, you know we are winning the battle of ideas when even the Bush administration is reversing itself at a dizzying pace.

Not long ago the administration acknowleged the reality of global warming and announced that it would not block work towards a new global warming treaty (though both Senators Obama and McCain are firmly committed to one anyway so it really didn't matter what the Bush administration did.)

Then as I blogged about last week, they reversed what had been a policy set in stone against talking to Iran. This was done without preconditions (though in a meeting involving multiple nations) and represents a complete about face from a President who just a month ago made a speech in Israel in which he suggested that anyone who wanted to talk to Iran was guilty of pursuing a policy of "appeasement." It also shows that despite the rhetoric criticizing Senator Obama's proposal that we should actually negotiate with our enemies rather than just bark at them, the proposal is both sound and long overdue.

That however pales into insignificance compared to the next flip-flop. The entire debate between the White House and Congress over the past two years has been about troop withdrawals. The White House vetoed multiple Iraq funding bills (and had the vetoes upheld by their congressional allies) all over the singular issue of a withdrawal timetable. Even with the reduction of violence in Iraq since we began paying Sunni militiamen to fight al-Qaeda instead of us and simultaneously implemented "the surge"*, the President has refused to consider troop reductions on a set schedule. But he had little choice, after Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki for all intensive purposes endorsed Barack Obama's proposal (which reflects the collective view of the Democratic Congress) that the American troops can and should be withdrawn on a schedule. The timing of this proposal, on the eve of Senator Obama's trip to Iraq could not be more embarrassing for the Bush administration which was already stunned when the Iraqi government refused to accept their demands and ended negotiations on a 'status of forces' agreement which would have kept U.S. forces in Iraq permanently and beyond the reach of the Iraqi legal system. While Obama himself has allowed that the pace could be slightly adjusted to account for events on the ground, the new Iraqi position clearly represents a meeting of minds, and it is one in which Bush and John McCain are the odd men out. So no wonder the Bush administration has reversed their position on a timetable. It is now a foregone conclusion that we won't have a permanent occupation force in the up to sixty bases that were once envisioned, and all Bush is doing is putting the best face he can on what is clearly a defeat for his policy. And after five years of war, a trillion dollars and thousands of dead American soldiers it will be tough once we do leave for anyone to make the case that invading Iraq was anything other than a mistake.

So then today we see the President apparently reversing himself on Habeus Corpus. (Hat tip to lscottsman at Coldhearted Truth, linked to.) He now says he wants prisoners to be charged and given a trial or released if they are not charged.

Hmmmm.... Not that I'm complaining about the changes (it's nice to know that for at least the last half a year of the Bush administration we will have some sanity) but I'm trying to think--- what exactly is it that George W. Bush stands for, anyway?

*-- any discussion of the 'surge' does have to (in order for me to be academically honest) include the admission that yes, I once predicted it would fail. I'll save you the trouble and link to the post where I made that prediction right here. But yes, I'm actually happy to say that I was wrong in my prediction that the surge would not bring about a reduction in violence-- and one that has led to the present situation in which the Iraqi government refused to sign the agreement the Bush administration wanted and is instead telling us in effect to start packing.

Bush administration does something right-- reverses itself on Iran talks

Remember when Barack Obama said that he was willing to meet unconditionally with foreign leaders we don't get along with, including Iran? In fact, even his pledge to negotiate with them at any level was lambasted. He was called an appeaser and worse, and the right has been howling ever since then about it. Of course the policy of the Bush administration has been never to negotiate with governments it considers part of the 'axis of evil' or otherwise involved in 'sponsoring terrorism.' Even John McCain got into the act, refusing to meet with Palestinians during his last trip to the middle east (incidentally, Barack Obama has accepted an invitation to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Israeli President Ohlmert when he goes to the middle east next month.)

Of course earlier this year we saw the Bush administration reverse themselves and negotiate directly with the North Koreans. But the biggest and most obvious foreign bogeyman-- Iran-- they have always publically refused to negotiate with.

So it was suprising today to see the Bush administration do a 180 degree reversal today and announce that Undersecretary of State William Burns will meet with Iranian diplomat Saeed Jalili this week during negotiations between Iran and diplomats from the European Union.

This is huge, and it is long overdue. It is not of course the kind of Presidential level talk that Obama has been criticized for saying he would pursue, and the scope of the discussion-- Iran's nuclear program-- is limited, but it nevertheless marks the first time in several years of saber rattling that the U.S. and Iran have had any kind of direct talks.

It is overdue because whether we like it or not, Iran represents a significant player in a part of the world that is both vital to the U.S. and where we have now gotten a significant portion of our military bogged down in (how much of our problems in Iraq the past five years have been due to Iran is debatable, but it is foolish to think that there is no connection.) Iran has much more influence over the Maliki government than we do (starting with the fact that much of the Iraqi military is composed of former members of the Iranian backed Badr brigade.) Iran also has a lot of influence over Hezbollah and other groups that whether we like it or not have significant power bases and ability to cause trouble around the middle east. And then there is that nuclear program and the obvious likelihood of a confrontation sooner or later between Iran and Israel. In other words, Iran is just too important to ignore. We may not like them, but then during the Cold War we didn't like the Soviet Union either. But like them or not, we had to deal with them.

The Bush administration is also clearly coming to the realization that in its waning days, with the costly mistake of Iraq only now settling down after five years of brutal war while the country we took our eye off of to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, is now heating up, any plans that they had to invade and occupy Iran (and we know that it was on their long term agenda) will have to be thrown away. Right now they have neither the military force needed nor the support of the American people for adding a long term military war and occupation of Iran to what is currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their about face and willingness to negotiate is ample proof that they realize this.

It also vindicates Obama's position on negotiations with foreign adversaries, and leaves conservatives (especially the variety of neocon who can think of no other way to engage a country like Iran than militarily) blustering and red in the face. I'm not saying that the deployment of military force is never required (I've always supported the Afghan war and believe that we must leave Iraq as soon as possible so that we can do what we should have done half a decade ago and finish the job there) but clearly diplomacy has its place. Even the Bush administration, which early on used terms like 'with us or against us' and 'coalition of the willing' to excuse its unwillingness to rely on diplomacy, has realized that the world is not always such a simple and easily managed place.

I know, I know. Someone will undoubtedly point out that 1) this isn't a Presidential level meeting, and 2) that Ahmadinejad is still a nut who makes all kinds of outrageous rhetoric. My answers are 1) this kind of reversal by the Bush administation is nonetheless hugely significant and could well pave the way for a Presidential level meeting eventually-- by whoever is President; and 2) Ahmadinejad is a not particularly popular politician who makes outrageous statements largely for domestic consumption. But he will be gone next Iranian election (which I believe is next year) and replaced as the 'face of Iran' by another politician. The guys who call the real shots in Iran-- a council of mullahs led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-- are in effect being engaged at just as high a level by diplomatic talks as they would by Presidential talks.

Besides, how is Ahmadinejad's threat to destroy Israel any more outrageous than Bush's declaration of the 'axis of evil' followed by his actual attack on one member of that group-- Iraq? As a North Korean diplomat candidly said a year after that speech, "Your President called us a member of the axis of evil....of course we have a nuclear program" Rhetoric like that often spurs countries to take more, not less action (and the threat from America may be part of Iran's nuclear motivation). So maybe it is time for both sides to tone down the rhetoric and shake hands. This meeting is long, long overdue.

McCain rape joke

One of my favorite Arizona bloggers, Tedski, did a post on the worst side of John McCain's sense of sick 'humor' in which he dug up this image of a Tucson newspaper article from 1986 in which John McCain is quoted as telling the following joke:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’

But, hey this is a guy who publically called his own wife the c-word.

All I have to ask is DO WE WANT THIS KIND OF A NEANDERTHAL SEXIST AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Incidentally, Tedski has been selected as the state blogger representing Arizona at the Democratic convention. I put in for it, but I don't mind saying that the credentials committee made an excellent choice.

It's good to see Hillary keeping her word to stand behind Obama

I think that Hillary Clinton is a better candidate when she's stumping for someone else.

And it's good to see that she's keeping her word and pushing Obama as she travels about.

She made a pretty good speech in fact to the convention of the American Federation of Teachers (a group which I used to be a member of when I worked at an institution where we organized a union under AFT auspices.)

Obama was also in Chicago on Saturday, and addressed the conference by satellite today. But Clinton, who received the AFT's backing during the primary, appeared in Obama's hometown yesterday to speak highly of her former rival before an audience of her supporters.

"I can't wait to see Barack raise his hand, take that oath of office and get to work," she told several thousand educators at the conference.

And she jabbed at the Republicans, using a line that drew such applause when Clinton used it earlier this week in New York that Obama borrowed it when he spoke at an event without Clinton on Thursday in Virginia....

"A vice-president who shoots somebody in the face, you couldn't make that up," Clinton said to laughter.

She added, "the Republicans should hold a press conference and apologize to the country and say they're just not going to run anyone for president."

I admit that I was a bit concerned about whether Hillary's promise to 'work her heart out for [Obama]' if he won the nomination might be just words. Obviously during the obligatory joint appearances she praised him, but the real test is what she would say when she goes on the road alone and doing her normal routine. And now we can see that she is doing what she can to help him. This will certainly help get her back into the good graces of a lot on the left who had abandoned her over Iraq and other issues before.

And I loved that line about Cheney. I agree, that if the Republicans can't come up with anybody better than Dick Cheney for number two, then it would be better to leave that line on the ballot blank.

Of course Cheney has served his role well. Over the past eight years, he's been the best argument Bush had against any serious attempt at impeachment.

And this is an accomplishment he's PROUD of?

President Bush went to his last G-8 summit this week, and spent the week with other leaders of developed countries discussing a variety of topics, not the least of which was curbing the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Of course President Bush has always been the one sticking his foot in the way of any real attempt to do anything about pollution. So when it was over, as his successor will go to the next G-8 summit, he decided to say goodbye to his old (and some new) partners.

"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter," said the President with a broad grin on his face.

And just to show what a huge accomplishment he thought that was he gave it some extra emphasis.

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Some joke, huh? And just a day after the White House had to issue an official apology to Italy after President Bush was given travel notes describing Italy as a 'country known for corruption and vice.'

Of course this isn't the first time that Bush has embarrassed America at the G-8 summit. Remember two years ago when he goosed Angela Merkel in an episode that was so bizarre that I still have trouble comprehending it (though it's been hard to not notice that since then Merkel, who was elected as a Bush ally, has been noticeably cool toward Bush and kept her distance from him.)

I've watched lots of Presidents, including some conservative Presidents who I disagreed with, like Nixon, Reagan and Bush's father. But I've never seen a President who has so consistently been a poor representative of our country on international trips (and that's even counting the time when Jimmy Carter vomited in the lap of the prime minister of Japan after eating sushi.) Bush's behavior is strange, bizarre and disjointed. The only thing I wonder about is whether he behaves that way all the time, just that on these international trips it's harder for his handlers to keep it under wraps.

FEMA-- Brownie's gone and the President probably still thinks they're doing a Heckuva job.

How do you figure out a way to hide millions in relief supplies from the people who need it, and then give it away to other state agencies instead?

Easy-- you create an obscure office that no one knows about, send them there and then declare that since no one applied for them they are actually not needed.

Then if you have a state government run by good ol' boys (somebody must have tipped them off) they can jump in and claim the loot to plug budget holes in their own agencies.

That's what the Bush administration did with millions of dollars in supplies that never made it to Katrina victims, many of whom are still waiting (I guess it would be a good opportunity to mention that today is July 7, 2008 which makes it officially 1,043 days they have been waiting.)

BILOXI, Mississippi (CNN) -- Prisons in Mississippi got coffee makers, pillowcases and dinnerware -- all intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The state's Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks took more coffee makers, cleaning supplies and other items.

Plastic containers ended up with the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration.

Colleges, volunteer fire departments and other agencies received even more.

But the Mississippi hurricane victims who originally were intended to receive the supplies got nothing, a CNN investigation has found...

Last month, CNN revealed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had stored $85 million worth of household items in warehouses for two years. Instead of giving the supplies to victims of the 2005 hurricane, FEMA declared them surplus and gave them all away to federal agencies and 16 states in February.

The state of Louisiana -- the most hard-hit by the storm -- had not asked for any of the supplies, prompting outrage in the community after the original CNN report.

CNN's investigation showed that Mississippi was one of the 16 states that took the FEMA supplies, but it did not distribute them to Katrina victims.

Jim Marler, director of Mississippi's surplus agency, failed to return repeated phone calls over several months to explain what happened.

Agency spokeswoman Kym Wiggins said, "There may be a need, but we were not notified that there was a great need for this particular property."

That doesn't sit well with most aid groups in Mississippi. "You would have to be living under a rock not to know there is still a need," said Cass Woods, the project coordinator of Coastal Women for Change.

Wiggins said that nonprofit organizations must meet federal guidelines and register with the state and that no such groups helping the needy or homeless were registered with Mississippi's surplus agency.

"There is no specific designation outside of a disaster period that says we have to have sustained properties going to the disaster area," Wiggins said.

CNN interviewed the leaders of eight nonprofits helping Katrina victims at a Biloxi, Mississippi, church used as a staging area for community groups. All said they had no idea these items were available, and most had no idea the surplus agency existed.

Yeah. There are thousands of people who are still waiting for help, and they haven't gotten it.

Ultimately the fact that the state of Mississippi, where the story is focused knew about the goods but chose to give it to other state agencies instead of to the victims it was intended for is something which both the Bush administration and Governor Haley Barbour's office is going to have to answer for. In Louisiana, neither former Governor Kathleen Blanco nor current Governor Bobby Jindahl apparently even bothered to apply for the aid at all.

Like I said above, it is 1,043 days and counting that some people are waiting for assistance.

And Brownie's long gone, so it must be someone else who's doing a Heckuva job.

Obama's 'flip-flops' are greatly exaggerated.

A lot has been made about Barack Obama's supposed 'flip-flops.' First there was the campaign finance issue, when he reversed a pledge to accept public financing because he can raise a lot more on the internet. Then on each of the Supreme Court rulings last week he came down on what could be considered the conservative side (disagreeing with the ruling outlawing executing child rapists and agreeing with the ruling that the District of Columbia can't ban all handguns.) Then he said he will vote for the latest incarnation of the FISA bill despite it giving telecom companies immunity, and today while campaigning in North Dakota he made a statement that he would withdraw troops from Iraq on a pace subject to the safety and security of the troops and the need to maintain stability.

There is a lot to say here. First, most of the supposed 'flip-flops' are greatly exagerrated when put in the context of what he has said in the past. And where they aren't, so what? No one is suggesting that Barack Obama isn't a politician. Would you rather have John McCain, who if elected pledges to continue virtually all of the Bush administration's policies? What makes Barack Obama special is his ability to inspire millions of people. That is not contradictory to also being a politician. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were politicians to the core, but that was not contradictory to their also being inspirational leaders.

The most clear flip-flop is on the campaign finance issue, so let's start with it. A long time ago, during the primary season, Barack Obama did pledge to take public financing in the general if his Republican opponent did likewise. That is true. But he did reverse himself. However, let's be clear here-- there is little doubt that he can raise as much as three or four times as much on the internet as the $84 million he would otherwise get in general election financing. For that matter, do you honestly believe that if John McCain had a way to raise hundreds of millions of dollars he wouldn't take it? That is the reason why Mitt Romney is still on McCain's list as a veep candidate. So for Obama to limit himself to a third of the resources he would otherwise have would be stupid. He proved he isn't stupid. Next issue?

The FISA bill. It gives most of us on the left heartburn that Obama will vote for it. The bill puts into law immunity for telecom companies that broke the law (at the request of the Bush administration) when they violated your privacy and gave access to government snoops to your telephone calls without a warrant (you don't actually know for sure than nobody did listen to your calls, now do you?) It's true that he had pledged to vote against this earlier. He is saying that the new bill is an improvement, which is true, but the big issue, the immunity for the telecom companies is still in there. So while he can use the cover provided by the changes in the bill to say he didn't flip-flop, yeah he did. However this is hardly a reason to vote for John McCain. You know darn well he will vote for the FISA bill enthusiastically (assuming he bothers to show up at all-- his absentee rate is worse than Obama's in the U.S. Senate this year, negating an issue Republicans once thought they could use.)

Let's discuss the two Supreme Court rulings. I don't consider these to be flip-flops at all. Regarding the first, Obama has said in the past that he supports the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes. He never said whether he considered the rape of a child to qualify, until it became a valid question in the wake of last week's SCOTUS ruling. So if it's the first time he's commented on it, where is the flip-flop? I happen to disagree with him (I actually think the Supreme Court ruling is right-- if we have the death penalty at all then it should be used as an 'eye-for-an-eye' punishment, exclusively for murder) but there is no flip-flop in this case.

Then on the gun case, the Supreme Court ruled against the D.C. gun ban. The justices interpreted the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms, not just a collective right. Obama, who in the past has supported gun control laws, agreed with this interpretation. Again, there is no flip-flop. The court ruled the D.C. ban went too far in banning all guns of a certain type, but that isn't contradictory to jurisdictions regulating them. Senator Obama's past statements and his current support of the D.C. ruling are not contradictory in that regard.

For that matter, I agree with both Supreme Court rulings. This puts me in opposition to Senator Obama on the first, but not the second, and in opposition to some liberals on the second, but not the first. Proving what? Proving that in the Democratic party we can have disagreements on issues and still remain united.

OK, what about today's Iraq statement? It is no secret that Senator Obama has pledged to get us out of Iraq. So today he said,

"I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Again, where is the flip-flop? Look at this quote from a Democratic debate in 2007:

We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later, but our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month.

Which according to the article led to his taking some heat from some of the other candidates in the debate, particularly John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

That was last September. So what he said today is completely consistent with what he said then. Again, it isn't like he is talking about anything other than withdrawal. He is talking about using information he gathers (i.e. from his upcoming trip to Iraq) to develop a more informed plan for withdrawing. That in itself is a refreshing change from our current executive, who when he began talking about Iraq had his mind already made up what to do and ran an administration that cherry picked intelligence reports to only pick out any which supported their pre-drawn conclusion. I'd much rather have a President who is capable of adjusting the specifics of his policy when and if he receives new information.

Of course then John McCain isn't talking about withdrawing at all, he's talking about staying there for a hundred years. And while we are debating this the Bush administration is feverishly twisting arms in Iraq to try and get them to sign onto a 'treaty' that will involve our building and maintaining as many as sixty military bases in Iraq. What do we need sixty bases there for? Only if we plan on using Iraq as a base from which to exert military control throughout the middle east. Barack Obama opposed George Bush's stupid and criminal war in Iraq from the beginning and he is the only candidate talking about withdrawing from Iraq soon. That's a plain fact. What he said today is in no way contradictory to what he said then.

That said, the attempt by the right-wing media to paint him as a sellout is an attempt to drive a wedge between him and his supporters. And it's met with some success. Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) already announced that while he will endorse and vote for Obama, he has torn up the check he was writing him. And as Moulitsas goes so go many supporters. For Obama to realize his goal of raising $250 million online he needs that support.

To a degree Obama also is creating part of the problem by his attempt to 'seize the center.' That doesn't work. He is blessed with the ability to articulate policy positions. Look at what a couple of good orators who can speak directly to the people (mainly, Socialist Bernie Sanders but also Howard Dean) were able to accomplish in Vermont. It was such a Republican state for generations that it even voted against FDR in 1936. Jimmy Carter and Massachusetts neighbor Michael Dukakis couldn't crack it either. But by the late 1980's then-congressman Sanders had laid out such an articulate vision and in terms that anyone could understand that the whole state moved to the left. And unlike, for example, California, it was not an immigration-driven change. Most Vermonters were born and raised in Vermont. But the majority of them are now among the most liberal people in the country when a generation ago they were among the most conservative. Obama could make the same kind of change for America, and I believe it is a mistake for him not to do so.

In fact, exhibit A is Obama himself. He beat Hillary Clinton largely because she had spent six years in the Senate staking out the center, and a lot of activists (who especially were unhappy with her continuing support for the Iraq war long after it became clear to everyone else that it was an unnecessary mistake) by that time were ready to support anybody else who could beat her.

However, while I may have some concerns about Obama's small steps towards the center, let's be clear here-- they have been greatly exagerrated by those who attempt to paint him as a 'flip-flopper.' Those people have the ultimate goal of electing John McCain. And that would be a horrible mistake and a disaster for the country.

Death while waiting to be seen

It's hard to even know what to say about this story:

NEW YORK (AP) -- City hospital officials said they were shocked by surveillance footage showing a woman falling from her chair, writhing on the floor and dying as workers failed to help for more than an hour.

Esmin Green, 49, had been waiting in the emergency room for nearly 24 hours when she toppled from her seat at 5:32 a.m. June 19, falling face-down on the floor.

She was dead by 6:35, when someone on the medical staff, flagged down by a person in the waiting room, finally approached, nudged Green with her foot and gently prodded her shoulder, as if to wake her...

And this is really galling:

Security guards and a member of the hospital's staff appeared to notice her prone body at least three times but made no visible attempt to see whether she needed help. One guard didn't even leave his chair, rolling it around a corner to stare at the body and then rolling away a few moments later.

Yeah. We have the best healthcare money can buy in America. IF you can afford it. Otherwise, our healthcare system is becoming medieval at an accelerating pace.

The hospital is run by the New York Health and Hospitals Corporation, a private entity that contracts with the state.

"We are all shocked and distressed by this situation," HHC's president, Alan Aviles, said in a statement. "We express our deep regrets to the patient's family and will ensure a thorough investigation to answer any questions that remain."

That doesn't ring true, considering what has been found in the past at this hospital:

A state agency, the New York State Mental Hygiene Legal Service, filed a lawsuit a year ago, calling the psychiatric center "a chamber of filth, decay, indifference and danger."

Patients, the suit said, "are subjected to overcrowded and squalid conditions often accompanied by physical abuse and unnecessary and punitive injections of mind-altering drugs."

"From the moment a person steps through the doors," it added, "she is stripped of her freedom and dignity and literally forced to fight for the essentials of life."

The suit was especially critical of the hospital's emergency ward, saying it is so poorly staffed that patients are often marooned there for days while they wait to be evaluated.

Sometimes, the unit runs out of chairs, according to the lawsuit, forcing people to wait on foam mats or on the waiting room floor. The suit also claims that bathrooms are filthy and filled with flies, and that patients who complain too loudly are sometimes handcuffed, beaten or injected with psychotropic drugs.

I have only one question. Why doesn't the state just take over and run this hospital as a public entity? It's hard to imagine that it could be run any worse than it is now, and at least if the state were running it then we could collectively fire the management if they continued to run this kind of apalling institution.

Yes, there is such a thing as a regime that is odious enough to rebel against.

This week we've been reminded again how important a gift democracy is, by watching another country in which it has been brutally suppressed.

Robert Mugabe once led a successful guerilla war against the racist white government of Ian Smith in the 1970's and 1980's in what was then Rhodesia. Since winning it though he has led Zimbabwe pretty much alone. He has also proven one of the world's premier despots, especially over the past decade.

His record of abysmal failure is actually pretty astounding. Keep in mind that his country was once the breadbasket of the region, and was one of the few sub-Saharan African countries where nobody starved. That ended over the past decade as he sent in gangs of thugs to take over farms. The farms were white-owned and he justified it as 'redistributing to the masses.' Only the 'masses' were actually gangs of his supporters who knew nothing about farming, to the extent that starvation is now widespread in his country. Many white farmers were shot or hacked to death either when they refused to leave their land or if they didn't leave it fast enough (as an example to others to leave faster.) His brutality isn't limited to whites though (and it should be noted that not all whites in Zimbabwe supported the Rhodesian government either-- some were very progressive at that time and stood shoulder to shoulder with the guerilla movement.) Opponents of his regime, black and white, have similarly been brutalized.

The latest chapter in Mugabe's saga began this past March. An election was held in Zimbabwe, and both exit polls and other indications were that Mugabe's main opponent, Morgan Tsvangarai, had won an outright majority. The electoral commission however (which is controlled by Mugabe loyalists) delayed releasing the vote totals for five weeks. By that time the election results had clearly been tampered with, and the commission released totals that showed Tsvangarai winning, but not by the absolute majority he would need to avoid a runoff.

Although Tsvangarai made it clear that he considered the election results fraudulent, he agreed to participate in a runoff. Virtually everyone in Zimbabwe who had voted for another candidate (primarily Simba Makone) was expected to vote for Tsvangarai in the runoff.

So then Mugabe went back to the tactics he knows how to use. He threatened if he lost the election he would go back into the hills and start his guerilla war again. But there was no need for him to say that. His fighters are already in every town. He unleashed his gangs of thugs. They murdered scores of Tsvangarai's supporters. And he also used the tools of the state, raiding the offices of Tsvangarai's party, detaining and torturing supporters, and breaking up campaign rallies. Tsvangarai himself was detained several times. Finally, Tsvangarai announced last week he was withdrawing from the runoff after reports surfaced that Mugabe-backed militias planned on mass murders of Tsvangarai supporters at the polls. Mugabe continued to claim that the election this past Friday was 'free and fair,' but obviously it is the farthest thing an election could be from free or fair.

Everyone agrees on this point. Both the African Union and the United Nations issued resolutions condemning the violence. Even Nelson Mandela took time out from the festivities surrounding his ninetieth birthday party to verbally slap down Mugabe (once united with him in the struggle to free southern Africa) and criticize the 'failure of leadership in Zimbabwe.' And it is likely that there will be more sanctions.

So what? I've concluded that sanctions never or almost never work. Mugabe has little to fear. They don't work because 1. they actually strengthen a despotic leader by giving him an excuse and an external enemy to blame for the problems of the country (want proof? We've had sanctions on Cuba, Iran and N. Korea for a combined 136 years and the sanctions have done nothing to weaken any of them.); 2. Sanctions often produce more suffering for the people they are supposed to help and not for the tyrants. Zimbabwe may produce very little food anymore, but even if things get so bad that there is just one loaf of bread left in the country then Mugabe will get to eat it; and 3. Sanctions only produce profits for black marketeers who will smuggle whatever isn't supposed to be sold in or out anyway. Even in the case of Rhodesia, the Smith government was not toppled by international pressure or western sanctions (as much as we might want to wish it were so) but frankly by the successful guerilla war led by Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo (that's a fact. Period.)

There are some who suggest military intervention. I disagree with that. A military intervention in a place like Zimbabwe would likely just provoke an endless conflict, and I'm not sure what exactly we are supposed to do once we are there. It would also smack of colonialism. Even an African-led intervention would likely just inflame regional tensions and not achieve anything.

Instead, I would suggest that when we have a despot who is as recalcitrant and brutal as Mugabe, it may be time to use his own tactics against him. Rarely do I support violent revolution as an alternative to democratic reform, but clearly the latter is impossible in Zimbabwe, and there are many people by now who are ready to risk their lives to fight against Mugabe (that is shown both by the number of people who boycotted Friday's election-- despite the fact that no purple finger paint makes them targets, and also the number who were willing to openly support Tsvangarai when he was running.) This may the very rare case where I would suggest supporting armed opposition groups, including those who may be willing to wage a guerilla war within Zimbabwe. Supporting them with political support, but also with arms and covert operations.

It bothers me to say that, but it is clear by now that no other option than continuing repression or violent revolution is left for Zimbabwe.

Back from vacation.

A lot has happened since I went on vacation a couple of weeks ago. So here is a brief wrap-up of what's been going on.

1. I was disappointed that Congress gave in on letting telecom companies have immunity for breaking the law in the FISA bill and also on Iraq war funding. Giving in on important issues like this in exchange for more pork is NOT a compromise. For a lame-duck President I'm disappointed that Congress is still letting him lead them around by the nose on crucial issues involving Iraq and warrantless surveillance. It's no accident that Congress' approval rating, which was rising for a couple of months into 2007, started tanking to the day that they first knuckled under to the Bush administration on Iraq war funding.

2. I'm encouraged by how quickly the party is coming back together. It's been eighteen days since Hillary suspended her campaign, and it's safe to say that while there is still work that needs to be done, the rate that Clinton supporters have been uniting with the Obama campaign is faster than the rate at which conservatives were rallying to McCain after he in effect decided the issue on Super Tuesday, or even after he clinched the GOP nod a month later.

3. In 1977, Jimmy Carter proposed (and Congress for the most part passed) a plan to make us energy independent by 2000. Unfortunately, virtually all of it (except for the original Alaska pipeline, which was only a small part of the whole) was dismantled during the 1980's. Also last year Congress finally passed increased CAFE standards for the first time since the Carter administration-- and it was a combination of Republicans and oil or auto-state Democrats who had scuttled it for thirty years. Keep in mind that a model-T Ford got 25 mpg, and that was a hundred years ago. If the GOP wants to make energy an issue, then bring it on. And yes, while in California I did have to pay $4.679 a gallon for a tank of gas.

4. I was encouraged by some state polls out the last couple of weeks. A survey USA poll out today shows Obama slightly ahead though statistically tied with John McCain in Indiana. The Hoosier state politically has always been a staunch Republican bastion that the GOP could pretty much count on to avoid getting shut out in the Rust Belt even in years when the rest of the region went to the Democrats. That may not be true this year. And a poll in Alaska the other day showed Obama within four. Alaska has also been a solidly Republican state, but then again-- maybe not this year. Obama has said he intends to send paid staff to all fifty states, which he will have the funds to do and McCain won't be able to counter him everywhere.

5. That leads into this observation-- Yes, Obama's decision to pass on Presidential matching funds was a flip-flop and a crass political decision. So what? He's trying to win, and does anyone honestly believe that if McCain had a way to raise $200-$300 million for the general he wouldn't do the same thing? Obama's learned quickly how to play the game, and having a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 money advantage (McCain will be limited to $84 million) in the fall will allow him to do exactly what Republicans have done in the past to Democrats (when they had the big money advantage.) The real root of the problem is that campaigns are getting more expensive and fewer Americans are dedicating that $3 of their taxes to go to the Presidential campaign. One reform that I would suggest Congress may want to pass sometime would be that when one of two major party candidates opts out of the system then the funds that would have gone to that candidate go to his or her opponent.

6. This observation-- when we went to Disneyland (we were lucky to be able to go this year ourselves, but we had promised the kids and we never break promises to them, plus they themselves worked harder and raised more for going to the Cinderella finals than they needed to this year) it was a lot less crowded than it was the last time we went-- on the same days and the same time of year-- in 2004.) Granted we were only there for two days, but either Disney raised prices too fast or less people can afford to go this year. Likely a bit of both. And oh, yeah-- speaking of Cinderella girls-- congratulations to Erin Nurss. She's always been really nice to our girls every year when we go to the state finals, and she's a class act all the way around. I hope she wins the Miss America pageant.

7. The state legislature, after shutting everyone out (especially members of the Democratic minority) for months has two budgets out-- the house Republican budget that makes deep cuts (and looks great for political grandstanding), and the Senate budget, more or less supported by the Governor, that is more reasonable given the current fiscal pressures facing the state. They will then resolve the differences by negotiating a budget that is likely to be closer to the Senate version. This is the same thing as happens every year. Here is an idea to save the state money-- since we know how this will turn out anyway, why not come out with the budgets in February and have the process wrapped up by March. Just think how much money this would save--especially by not having to pay legislators per diem pay for another three or four months. Well, read that last line again and you'll know why they give us this show every year. Incidentally, I want Obama to win, but if he does I'm well aware that it will hurt us in Arizona because Governor Napolitano would likely get a cabinet post, which would mean that Jan Brewer would move into the Governor's office-- and she'd likely sign the nutty stuff that comes out of the legislature. Plus, a cabinet call for Napolitano would likely deprive us in the Arizona Democratic party of our top candidate for McCain's Senate seat in 2010. Ah, well-- sometimes you are called on to sacrifice for your country and an Obama win would benefit all fifty states.

8. Apparently Senate Banking Committee Chairman and former Presidential candidate Chris Dodd got special treatment on his home loan from Countrywide (though he denies knowing he was getting anything better than anyone else.) He is now sponsoring a bill (actually a bi-partisan bill with Senator Shelby) to help bail out lenders, most notably Countrywide. It's a good thing Dodd isn't the nominee, otherwise this story would be broadcast wall to wall and would be called the biggest banking scandal since Credit Mobilier. In fact, it shows questionable judgement but no wrongdoing and will probably be gone within a week. But the fact that it will shows how much of a higher standard Presidential nominees are held to than also-rans.

9. I admit to being wrong about something. I picked the Lakers in five. What they really need is five. Five guys. Five guys playing defense. They are lucky they play in the western conference because the way they don't play defense I doubt if they would have even beaten Detroit or Cleveland to get to the finals if they were in the east. In fact, I'm wondering whether Tim Donaghy is right-- because the Lakers that showed up in the NBA finals weren't even good enough to have really beaten the Spurs.

10. It's good to be back.

Obama's experience was right for Lincoln; and some advantages that the next President will have.

I will be leaving on vacation for a couple of weeks, so I'd like to bring up two (somewhat related topics) that I've been mulling over today.

The first is that McCain has said he wants to contrast his experience with Obama's relative inexperience. OK, ask Hillary Clinton how well that worked. However, one point that has been overlooked-- Obama's experience (lawyer, community activist, Illinois state legislator, four years in Washington) bears an uncanny resemblance to the experience that America's greatest President had, when he held the reigns of power during America's worst crisis. So to automatically assume that Obama is too inexperienced to be President is rebutted by historical fact.

I wrote a letter on the subject to the USA Today. Since I've had three letters published in that publication (the most recent was last year) my guess is that it won't be published. So I have no problem posting it here.

Dear Editor,

Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. He was a lawyer, active in his community, was in the Illinois state legislature for a few years and spent four years in Congress.

Which is exactly the same governmental experience as Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for President in 1860.

The real experience question is why anyone would think that the best way to solve problems that have been created in Washington is to elect someone who has spent decades in Washington, as John McCain has.

Eli Blake

The second is the observation that the next President will have a tremendous amount of political capital when he takes office. I predict this for three reasons:

1. The American people are tired of hyperpartisanship, which is why they nominated two candidates who talk about 'bringing people together' rather than some of the candidates who might have been more polarizing, such as Hillary Clinton or Mike Huckabee. That will not be lost on the next Congress.

2. The next President will be a sitting Senator (something that has not happened since 1960.) When governors are elected, a lot of times (in fact most of the time) they've made the mistake of talking down to Congress the way they are used to talking down to their state legislature, and Congress is always ready to deliver a reminder to the President of how limited his power is, especially if one or both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposition party. But these two candidates as members of the world's 'most exclusive club' know about how to package legislation and make deals, and certainly in the case of the Senate will already have the familiarity with individual Senators to be able to sit down and work something out in a way that former Governors have always had trouble with.

3. The next President being a Senator also means that the Senate will be unlikely to block whatever he wants in terms of legislation, treaty ratification or confirmation of appointments (including judicial appointments.) There is an old joke that a Presidential primary debate is the same thing as a Senate subcommittee hearing. That actually isn't too far off-- for some reason 'President-itis' seems especially to afflict members of the senior body. Just among today's 100 sitting Senators, I count fourteen who I've read at least one report of in the past few years as forming an exploratory committee or otherwise feeling out the prospect of running for President

(Bayh, Biden, Brownback, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lugar, McCain and Obama).

Obviously some have been more serious and/or successful at it than others.

This however is one out of seven members of the U.S. Senate. That's a significant number, and there are probably more who also have had visions of themselves sitting behind the President's desk, they just to date haven't voiced it out loud. These other would-be Presidents realize that this is the first time since 1960 that the voters are poised to send one of their number to the White House, so they have a vested interest in the President at least being somewhat successful, so as not to return the voters to the old mindset that Governors are better Presidential material.

For this reason this election is all the more important. We can expect that the next President will have some clear advantages in dealing with Congress that past Presidents have not had.

Obama is the Democratic nominee

The last primary results are in and the last state to vote, Montana (which closed its polls one hour after South Dakota and so deserves credit for being the last) is the state that pushed Barack Obama over the top and gave him the delegates needed for the nomination. As a former resident of the Big Sky state I'm glad that Montana put him over the top.

Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign, but it's time for her to put action behind her pledge to 'work to unify the party.' She said she won't make a decision tonight, but he's now got enough delegates that when the roll call is called in Denver he will end up on top. She has the right to continue to challenge, but I'd only point out that the last four nominees who had convention fights (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1980 for the Democrats, and Ford in 1976 for the Republicans) all lost the following general election. And were that to happen then any ideas that Hillary had about running in 2012 would probably be about as good as Ted Kennedy's of running in 1984 were after a lot of people blamed him for Carter's loss in November. Yeah, I know-- Ronald Reagan fought Ford at the 1976 Republican convention but it didn't hurt him in 1980. However the difference was that in 1976 neither Ford nor Reagan entered the convention with a majority of delegates; there were some legitimate unocmmitted delegates to fight over. True, this year the Democrats have 'superdelegates' who can change their mind, but that is the point-- they would have to change it. Hillary has already made every argument she can think of and they are still for Obama. So it's unlikely they will change now.

But regardless, the night clearly belongs to Obama. He made a great speech, and is clearly ready to go after John McCain.

Some humor to lighten up a sad situation.

Today, Barack Obama resigned from the church he has belonged to for twenty years, Trinity United Church of Christ.

He said that the reason he was resigning was because every time that a member of the clergy said anything there, it would be attributed to him, even when the comments did not reflect his own deeply held beliefs.

And he is right about that. The black churches in general (and Trinity United is no exception) provide a refuge in a community that is often overrun with crime, drugs and poverty. It provides young people with hope and a way forward, and helps people in the community meet their temporal as well as spiritual needs. But because of a handful of inflammatory statements, culled from hundreds of hours of sermons that have been videotaped, the church has been misrepresented and used as a campaign issue against Obama.

Even after resigning from the church, some out of touch reporter looking for a story asked why he didn't go further and 'denounce the church.' His reply was characteristically blunt: he won't denounce it because it doesn't warrant denouncing. The church does a great deal of good for many, many people and there is no reason to denounce a church, with a membership of thousands, because of a handful of stupid remarks made from the pulpit.

It is a sad day in America when someone is forced to resign from a church just because of what somebody else said.

I will say though that now that Barack Obama is no longer a member of this church, I have some humorous thoughts about some churches he could join instead:

Catholic: In case another spiritual advisor says something loopy, Obama can enquire of the Monsignor about excorcism.

Jewish: Hey, what the heck? It might help him in Florida. Then again there is that circumcision requirement (ouch.)

Hare Krishna: Imagine how much money they could raise for the Obama campaign by bugging travelers in airports.

Muslim: Polling shows that as many as seven percent of the American people are so behind the times that they've never even heard of Rev. Wright and believe that Obama is a muslim. Might as well make them right about something.

Anglican: Technically the British monarch is at the head of the church, so if he got elected President would that return the United States to formal recognition of British rule?

Southern Baptist: He'd be in the front row for some more race-baiting sermons. Only the race would change.

LDS: Just in case he doesn't get elected President this gives him a backup plan. He could go visit his relatives in Kenya for two years. On a mission.

Born again: We've had two Presidents who were born again Christians. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. On second thought-- pick a different church.

Jehovah's witness: How is this for getting votes? Stand there and pitch to the same voter ignoring requests to leave, until he or she says yes?

FLDS: Just in case he gets tired with Michelle, he could get another.... and then another.... and then another.... Why would he want that? Simple. He could really play with Bill Clinton's mind and get him back for some of those campaign attacks.

Hindu: Just in case he gets tired with God, he could get another.... and then another.... and then another....

Falun Gong: Imagine how well this would go over with the Chinese.

Tibetan Buddhist: Same as the above.

Wiccan: Can put a hex on the McCain campaign.

Taoist: Life is not all black and white (or red and blue) but can come together. Plus, this would help with the Korean community.

Atheist: If there is no God, that makes the President of the United States the most powerful being in the Universe. This might appeal more to the Clintons.

Pentecostal: These folks are the most in shape folks there are. For a guy with a packed schedule, you can go to church on Sunday AND get your calisthenics done all at the same time.

Penitente: New Mexico is always a close state, and besides that, the cactus whip would be better for persuading wavering superdelegates than anything Hillary's got.

Mennonite: Join a nineteenth century church, to contast to Republicans who still have nineteenth century ideas.

Satanic: He could invert his flag pin and get fifty pentagrams at once!

Quaker: In line with his pledge to leave Iraq.

Voodoo: If he's behind in the campaign maybe he can get a McCain action figure and some pins...

Animism: It would give him a stronger case to make for ending global warming.

Eastern Orthodox: According to the Julian calendar, today is May 15. So he could theoretically produce a document proving that he joined the Eastern Orthodox church before Father Pfleger spoke at Trinity United on May 25, and save himself the headache if nobody discovers the ruse.

Ancient Inca: Helps get rid of problems. For example, for his induction ceremony he could have Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger wrapped head to toe in ropes and dropped down a volcano high in the Andes.

Ancient Egyptian: Who better than a sun worshipper to discuss alternative energy?

Ancient Greek: Offers a path to victory in Iraq: pray to Mars. Hey, it makes as much sense as anything the Bush/McCain administration has proposed.

Governor should reconsider her prison transfer plan

The Governor's office has put forward a plan to reduce overcrowding in state prisons and save money by sending some prison inmates to county jails around the state.

I think it's a terrible plan, and I have to take issue with her office on this one, even though most of the time I've been supportive of the Governor's initiatives.

First of all, there is overcrowding in state prisons. However there is also overcrowding in county jails (that is certainly true here in Navajo county, where the jail is often full.) It is certainly true that a lot of prisoners don't need to be locked up and there are alternative forms of sentencing (and I wrote a post questioning whether all the people we incarcerate should be just a couple of months ago) but foisting the problem of which prisoners to keep in prison and which can be released to probation or some other status onto counties is the same kind of 'pass the buck' approach that we've seen at times from Washington and trying to make the problem 'local' does not constitute a solution. Looking at and modernizing sentencing guidelines is actually something that we should be doing both on a state and national level, but that isn't something that this plan does anything to address.

Cost is another issue. The state paying counties to house prison inmates is nothing new, and most county jails now include some state inmates. In general however these inmates are subject to careful monitoring, and the money that the state pays the counties is spent paying the extra costs. But with the significant number of new prisoners that are being recommended for transfer, it is likely that many counties will have to expand their facilities and hire more staff, and so far there is no indication that any money that the state sends them will be sufficient to cover all of this.

The most damning issue, in my opinion though is one of the categories of prisoners who will be tranferred. In some cases, I don't have a problem (for example they want to send repeat DUI offenders-- that's fine.) One category though is prisoners, often violent felons, in the last year of their sentence. The theory is that if they are in the last year (of presumably a much longer sentence) they will be less likely to behave violently, try to escape or do anything else that will tack anything onto their sentence. Unfortunately I don't see that as the case-- I've read plenty of stories about prisoners in the last year of their sentence doing things that earn them more time. Not all prisoners fit the stereotype of the patient older inmate scratching off numbers one by one on the wall of his cell. Many of them are impulsive or don't think things like that through very effectively. More ominously many are members of prison gangs or otherwise are more prone to be violent. Sending them into a county lockup will also give them a whole new pool of potential recruits. Besides all of that, some prisoners want to remain in prison because they can't function on the outside and they know that. So they will often commit crimes against guards or other inmates while in prison in order to buy themselves more time behind bars. These inmates are most likely to be dangerous in the last year of their sentence.

It is true that when prisoners get out of prison they often have no job prospects or any other way making a living except to return to a life of crime (a career path that is always available.) And we do need more job training programs, halfway houses and perhaps even an employment placement office for ex-convicts. But I'm not sure how having them finish their sentence in the county jail is going to help them when it comes time to find a job after they get out.

I am glad that under the leadership and at the recommendation of Mr. J.R. DeSpain, our county commission unanimously sent a letter to the Governor raising several objections to the plan. But ultimately it's not up to anyone in the county, but rather to bureaucrats in Phoenix. I hope that they and Governor Napolitano reconsider this decision and look for real solutions to prison overcrowding instead of handing the problem to the counties.

McClellan is telling the truth

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is out with a book in which he claims that the Bush administration deliberately skewed facts in order to 'sell the Iraq war.'

So the die hard Bush loyalists are calling him a liar.

Only thing is, he isn't the first guy to say this. His account of how the country was mislead and stampeded into war reflects what was earlier said by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and by former Chief of Staff to Collin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson.

And they called them liars too.

OK. When the Bush administration ends and there are all those 'kiss and tell' books out there, they must all be written by liars too. Will the Bush-can-do-no-wrong chorus just stick their fingers deeper into their ears and yell louder?


At what point do we start to blame the Bush administration for incompetence, if for no other reason than for hiring so many 'liars'?

Eleven cheap shots at McCain being old:

While websurfing tonight I came upon a blog called elecric venom and a humorous post on John McCain's age. At the risk of being politically incorrect, I have to admit that I posted eleven cheap shots over there, and they were too good not to also post over here.

Best thoughts about McCain being old:

1. He was an ace pilot in the war. In fact, he survived at least one dogfight with the Red Baron.

2. He went to junior high school with Strom Thurmond.

3. If McCain loses the election, he could team up with Bob Dole on those viagra commercials.

4. If they make another 'Indiana Jones' movie, McCain could play himself in it.

5. He thinks of himself as a Republican maverick, like Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the truth be known, McCain really is Teddy Roosevelt.

6. McCain had a chance to sign the Declaration of Independence, but he decided to steer an 'independent' course and try to reach across the aisle to the British instead.

7. McCain is against torture. He became convinced it doesn't work during the Inquisition.

8. McCain, as a teenager, used to baby sit Ronald Reagan.

9. McCain's confusion over which Muslims are the Shiites and which are the Sunnis is understandable. He's used to thinking of them all as Saracens.

10. McCain has recently been speaking out against Global Warming. He remembers how hard it was for everyone the last time the ice sheets melted and flooded the land bridge to Asia.

11. And finally-- Al Gore may have invented the internet, but McCain has never been properly credited for his invention of the fishing net.

Remember acid rain?

Every once in awhile I will put up a comment on another blog that I feel would stand in its own right as a post.

And that is the case here. On Ann Althouse's blog (one of several I frequent where there are a range of views represented) she took some pictures of the forest and posted them in a post entitled, the view from the forest floor.

I thought about how great it is that liberals and environmentalists won a big battle a generation ago. The comment I posted was this:

I am reminded of how back in the late 1970's and early 1980's, many northern and especially Canadian forests were being destroyed by acid rain. So a campaign was launched to put in scrubbers in the smokestacks of power plants to sharply curtail emissions of sulfuric and nitric acid caused by the burning of sulfur-containing coal.

And opponents of the plan howled about how doing that would ruin the economy, and how all the power plants would go out of business, and how electricity would become so expensive that nobody could turn on their lights for more than a couple hours per day, and how America would lose out to the Soviet Union because the Russians cared nothing for the environment and somehow allowing our coal-fired plants continue to be inefficient was supposed to put us at a competitive advantage. They called it all a matter of bad science and said that it was something else that was killing the forest and reducing power plant emissions of sulfuric and nitric acid would not change that.

Well, the opponents of the plan lost. The environmentalists won that battle. The new emissions standards were passed by Congress and mandated by law, and the scrubbers were installed by the local utilities.

And let's take a moment to look back at the results. The world didn't end. The economy did quite well during the rest of the 1980's and for most of the 1990's, thank you. The power plants did not go out of business. Electricity did not become unaffordable. The Soviet Union continued to be inefficient until it died and America prospered.

And the northern U.S. and Canadian forests are much healthier today than they were then.

Success is having the vision to think about what the future could look like, and then the persistence to make it so.

There are many things that still need to be done, and many battles to be fought and won against determined opposition. But every now and then it is worth appreciating progress that has been made, if only to raise our morale and realize that today's battles too, can be won.