George Will: Putting Reason Ahead of Partisanship

Sometimes I wonder what got into my head when I was a very young man and came under the influence of the pen of George F. Will. And then there are days like today when I read his column, and know exactly why I came under his influence. Today's column is entitled "Contempt of Courts," and Will demonstrates yet again why he is such an important political writer. He is a rare breed of conservative today: he actually puts reasoning ahead of partisanship.

John McCain has called the decision by the Supreme Court to prevent the executive branch of our government from unilaterally holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without so much as filing charges against them (let alone making the case) "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Will lists a whole series of cases, including the Dred Scott decision that supported slavery and took away all rights from African Americans, and wonders if McCain really things it is in the same league with those. He suggests that McCain's comments were not so much about the case as they were a political tactic bent on making the Supreme Court balance an issue in the campaign. Will writes:

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests. As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

Will is far more gracious to the far right's response to this decision than I would be. He says that it is something reasonable people can disagree about. He admits that there is merit to Chief Justice Roberts' concerns that the decision creates more ambiguity than clarity. For example, does this decision mean that while the Bush Administration can't run concentration camps at Guantanamo, it can run secret prisons around the world in areas completely outside of U.S. jurisdiction? Does this decision mean that other Constitutional rights also apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo?

I wish that I believed that these clever arguments were the main reasons Roberts disagreed with the decision. I wish I did not believe that he is another vicious right winger whose main concern in life is for security, survival, and victory rather than for justice. But I admire Will's attempt to show the virtues of the right wing Justices' reasoning. I admire more his ability to get to the heart of the matter when he writes:

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims? As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

If only Marshall were back at the head of the Supreme Court, I might have more confidence that justice will prevail in our country.

Doing What is Right on Guantanamo

The United States of America lived up to its promise as a nation that promotes human rights and justice under democratic rule yesterday.

The Supreme Court got it right when they ruled that foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have a right to something at least resembling habeas corpus. The White House under George Bush has repeatedly thumbed its nose at any semblance of justice as it follows its own brand of Machiavellian principles. While it has allowed a military tribunal to oversee the system, Justice Anthony Kennedy (above), writing the majority opinion, said that the military's "review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus." Justice Kennedy writes.

Many of the critics to the ruling will argue that alien "enemies" do not have any Constitutional protection. This ruling disagrees. But it does so while stating explicitly that it is concerned with the just treatment of prisoners, and not with a strict application of U.S. citizens' rights toward foreign prisoners. "We do not hold that an adequate substitute must duplicate [the federal habeas law] in all respects." Kennedy admits in his response to the dissenting opinion, that there is no precedent for their application of constitutional principles to foreign detainees, but denies that this is a "barrier" to the decision.

That there is something more to this ruling than what is at stake in this one case shines through in the most popular quote from Kennedy's written opinion: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Importantly, Kennedy writes that "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

The impact of those two statements in combination reach far beyond the Guantanamo case alone. The Court is saying what many of us have believed for years--that the Bush Administration cannot dismiss the rule of law under the pretense of the very real dangers presented by terrorism. That would, presumably, apply to curtailment of the civil liberties of U.S. citizens as well.

Many of our fellow Americans will resent and ridicule this decision as a liberal abuse of the Court's powers. In fact, Justice Scalia and his fellow dissenters lead the way in this interpretation of the decision, which only narrowly passed at 5-4. We live in a very divided country. The conservative amongst us seem to want to put 'survival' at the top of their list of values. From the survivalist perspective, they justify actions that are not fitting for a democratic nation that supports basic human rights. But hasn't this always been the case in the long history of human affairs? The question in ethics is often about doing what is right and just as opposed to what is merely expedient. I am personally ashamed of my fellow countrymen whose consciences are not awake enough to remind them of this point. Nearly every atrocity perpetrated by dictators around the world has been done under the name of this expediency. It is against this arbitrariness that the rule of democratic rule has risen, and we must not forget that.

The United States should be a beacon of hope for the world. It should not be feared as an enemy of the rule of law.

Good articles: Congress's Guantanamo Burden
by Benjamin Wittes, and A Victory for the Rule of Law by Eugene Robinson. I think Newsweek gets it right with their title, Overplaying its Hand, by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Honesty and the Political Process

Jimmy Carter wrote about the need for presidents to be honest this morning.

There were quite a few people who wrote in and said awful things about him in response. The venom of Republicans against this man is incredible. They can't stand that he actually lives his Christian values, it seems. He tries to be a peacemaker, and that means meeting with those who live in ways that you don't agree with.

That said, the following was the comment I sent in:

This discussion reminds me of Gandhi, and his philosophy of Satyagraha.

People take Carter to be naive, if not foolish, for saying things like this. But that's because most people have their lives wrapped in tangles of little lies, and it's generally believed that this is the way you 'get by' in life. The world is a mess, largely as a result of this. We can't trust our politicians or the political process. We can't trust the media. We can't trust businessmen, or those who represent them. We can't trust people who say they're in need at social services offices. Webs of lies are all around us, and cynicism grows with each passing year.

Gandhi believed in the power of truth. He believed that one must find the truth and live it. And he showed that it works.

"Be the change you want to see in the world," he said. We can't wait for Presidents to tell the truth. We can't wait for the oil industry to tell the truth. It starts with us. Each individual and each community must strive to live the truth, and then it will become far less tolerable to accept these untruths from political and business leaders.

Driving a Donkey to Drink

Ann Telnaes has a wonderful cartoon in the Post. Check this out:

Obama is Taking the High Road

Barack Obama has won the primary in North Carolina by a considerable margin. Hillary Clinton held on to win a very close one in Indiana. Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, pointed out that this narrow margin of victory for Clinton can be credited to Rush Limbaugh's get-out-the-vote for-Hillary campaign. 10% of the voters in the Democratic primary in Indiana were Republican, and a sizable number of them supported Hillary. I don't know for certain how many Republicans came to the polls for Hillary at Limbaugh's behest, but I do know that the Clinton's victory came by such a small margin that if even 10% of the Republicans voting for Hillary did so in order to mess up Obama and the Democratic Party, it worked.

Through all the Clinton mud-slinging, Obama has chosen to take the high road. He keeps to an optimistic message. He believes that real change is possible in Washington that will help average Americans. And I am pleased that Obama is able to present the face of a better future for our country.

Now it's on to West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky. Puerto Rico will come after that. Clinton had to loan her own campaign more than $6 million dollars this month, because she can't get enough money in from supporters. I'm not sure that's the way campaigns out to be supported in America. One of the problems of this country is that it's run by the wealthy. And having candidates who can throw that kind of money at a campaign that isn't supported by the people is just a symptom of this same disease that continues to weaken the ideals and the promise of our country. But it's legal--for now. We should all be aware of what's going on, however, and ask ourselves if we want to nominate a candidate whose campaign can only continue because she is obstinate and filthy rich.

Clinton is determined to have this nomination decided at the convention by the super delegates. My concern is that, by leaving the nomination to be decided there, the news that Obama is our nominee will provoke a strong negative reaction in the Clinton camp that won't have time to heal before November. The Convention is in August. The election is in November. Having a huge uproar of internal hostility at the Convention could easily spill over with such venom into the fall that the Democrats may not have time to recover and take on the real challenge--keeping the Republicans from retaking the White House.

"The Thrill of Victory"

As a native Washingtonian, I was thrilled to see the parts of the Wizards-Cavs game that I did get to see yesterday. It was Game 5 of the best of 7 series. The Wizards were down 3 games to 1. It looked like Lebron James--I refuse to use his moniker "The King" as he's most definitely not my king--was going to wrap things up in Cleveland. Then we found out before the game that Gilbert Arenas, the face of the Wizards' franchise for the last several years and an athlete with enormous talents, is finished for the season. He tried to make a comeback from knee injuries twice this year. He played the first eight games of the season, and then bits and pieces of the last few games of the season. He could never make it back. The issue was compounded when he suffered a bone bruise on his surgically repaired knee early in the series against Cleveland. But Washington learned how to win without Arenas this year. That's why they were the fifth seed in the playoffs. Caron "Tough Juice" Butler knew he had to step up and deliver and ('lo and behold') he did! Butler scored 32 points on 11 of 22 shooting from the field. And the Wizards won 88-87.
I watched the first quarter of the game at "The Grad" in Chico. They have good food and a whole slew of t.v.'s, big and small. One of the Grad employees was watching from the next table over, and told me his family knows Arenas and he's a big fan of his. (It's nicer when you're not alone watching these events.) The Wizards had a steady lead through the first quarter. Then I had to go to give a test to my Logic class. So, off I ran. I was able to monitor the game through ESPN's "gamecast," which lets you know the score and who did what. Washington still led at the half. When I finished helping students after the test, I looked and saw that Lebron James had just made a slam dunk to put the Cavs up by 1 in the 4th quarter, with less that 8 minutes left, and I thought 'Uh, oh! Here it goes." I raced back to the Grad in time to see the last 4 minutes of the game. With less than 2 minutes left, the Cavs were up by 5 points. The Wizards' center, Brendon Haywood, fouled out. I figured they were finished. But the Wizards weren't finished. James missed a 3-pointer, and the Wizards got the rebound (which was not a sure thing in this series by any stretch of the imagination). The ball was put in Caron Butler's hands. He drove down the right side of the lane with Lebron James guarding him. Everyone agrees he was fouled at least twice, but no call was made and he made the tough shot that put the Wizards up by 1 with 3 seconds left. Again, everyone knew that James would get the ball for the final shot. James tried the very same move up the right side of the lane on his side of the court. Without a doubt, James was also touched on his way in, but again no foul was called and, unlike Butler's shot, James's shot rimmed out. Game over. Lest anyone feel sorry for James, I read one account that assures us that the "foul" that wasn't called was a result of James's teammate, 7 foot 3 inch Ilgouskas, pushing Wizard center Darius Songailla from behind into James. Songailla tried to avoid James. The refs just made it a no-call. James missed the shot. The game goes back to Washington for Game 6. So, the Wizards have made it a series now.

ASOKA: A Very Impressive Indian Film

Every semester in my Eastern Religions class, I speak briefly about King Ashoka in India. He won a series of wars and become the Mauryan Emperor. Afterwards, he converted to Buddhism.

I just watched a beautiful Indian movie about his life called ASOKA. (There's an accent on the S that makes it an 'sh' sound). It takes a little getting used to seeing the Indian musical productions inserted here and there, but they are lovely, too. But the story is remarkable. Ashoka garners our sympathy in the beginning. He's a terrific warrior-athlete who is also very handsome and charming. But his character grows darker and darker as time goes on. We are drawn into his dark quest as a kind of Clint Eastwood revenge cycle. He has been done wrong, and we appreciate his right to fight back. But with success, he goes over the top. There's no end to his thirst for revenge, and by the end, the whole world is his enemy. He tells us that he doesn't care if he destroys everything. There's a beautiful love story in the midst of this that is, at first, the tragic cause of his undoing, and then, later, is the cure that brings him back to his senses. We don't get to see the results of his conversion. I wish that we could have. Buddhism was established in India by his conversion in the 3rd-century BC. I would love to have seen how that developed. But this movie helps us understand why the powerful emperor might have grown tired of war, and how he might have come to see the folly of his ways. Personally, I was very moved by the tragic dimension of this story.

Another 4 Years of a Bush-league Presidency?

I was giving McCain too much credit. He is a Republican conservative ideologue after all.

Michael D. Shear reports in the Washington Post:

McCain dismissed his Democratic rivals' proposals for universal health care as riddled with "inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs." He said the 47 million uninsured Americans will only get covered when they are freed from the shackles of the current, employer-dominated medical insurance system.

Do I understand this correctly, McCain? You're going to do what? You're going to free us from "the shackles" of employers providing insurance for their employees? Oh, yes, that will fix everything.

"Captains Courageous"

Tara, the kids, and I watched the 1937 film "Captains Courageous" last night. It's a Rudyard Kipling tale, based on his 1897 novel. It's the story of Harvey, who is a spoiled rich kid who has no mother and feels neglected by a father who is too busy to spend time with him. Finally, his father is persuaded to take him on his business travels, but Harvey falls overboard. He is rescued by a Portuguese fisherman named Manuel, played by Spencer Tracy, and the rest is about Harvey learning how to be a decent human being while learning to work with the crew of Captain Disko's boat. It's a very good cast. Freddie Bartholomew plays Harvey. Lionel Barrymore is terrific as the captain. John Carradine (David's father) is excellent as crewman "Long Jack." Micky Rooney plays the captain's son, Dan, in a small yet effective role. But the central character is the PoManuel, played by Spencer Tracy in one of his first major roles. Tracy won an Oscar for Best Actor for the performance. I will never forget Manuel's songs, his playing of a Herty Gerty, his tales of a heavenly fisherman's paradise where he hopes to join his father someday, or his calling the boy (with a heavy accent) "Little Fish." This is a very good film, directed by the excellent Victor Fleming.

"The Men"

Tara and I watched "The Men," this week, which was Marlon Brando's first major film. It was made in 1950. In it, he plays a soldier named Ken Wilcheck, who was shot in the back during WWII. This occurs in the opening scene of the film. Then, we follow him to a Veteran's hospital, where we learn that he is with others like himself who are paraplegics. The result is an impressive film with a number of characters that we get emotionally invested in. Jack Webb, who later played Joe Friday in 'Dragnet' is very good as Captain Norm Butler. And Arthur Jurado plays the memorable character Angel Lopez. With the exception of Angel, these men struggle with the meaning of their lives now that they've lost the use of their lower bodies. The biggest problem is whether and how they can relate to women. Teresa Wright plays Ellen, a classic 1950s "stand by your man" kind of woman, who enters into the struggle of her life in dealing with the tortured feelings of Ken (played by Brando). It's a good film.

Washington Mutual

Washington Mutual (like many lenders) was poorly managed, and suffered huge setbacks. Do they end up in the street like many of the people they lent money to? No, of course not. They received what's being called a "cash infusion" of $7 billion to help them overcome their losses. Was the CEO, Kerry Killinger fired? Did he suffer a setback like the one the company suffered? Did he have to worry about ending up on the street? Of course not. He's a deserving capitalist... well, I'll refrain from adding to that. He was "compensated" with $14.4 million. Al Capone, wherever he is, wishes he got into this racket. It is technically legal in our system... for some reason. See this story in the Washington Post for details.

On McCain

I haven't been blogging recently, but this came to me from MoveOn.org, and I thought it was something I really should share. I had no idea that McCain supported Bush's veto of the ban on waterboarding. My opinion of McCain was obviously misguided before.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.¹

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."²

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.³

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."⁴

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.⁵

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.⁶

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."⁷

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.⁸

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."⁹

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.¹⁰

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network. And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-8394043-0wOjWs&t=232

Thank you for all you do.

–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, April 5th, 2008

Sources:
1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council^® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Politics and Division

Politics sure divide people in a hurry. Read Zachary Goldfarb's column along with the comments that follow it. It's incredible to me how people with such similar views on the direction this country should take have come to a place of being at each other's throats. Emotionally, I find it hard to take, also. When I hear James Carville saying that Governor Richardson is like Judas for his 'betrayal' of the Clintons, it makes me so angry and disgusted that my gut reaction is to say I'd not vote for the Clintons if they were the only ones running. But in the end, we have to remember that what is best for the nation is for a Democrat to get elected this time around. If we take the comments in this article earnestly, you'd have to conclude that the hopes of the Democrats are dead, and that we might as well get used to saying "President McCain."

Tibet

The decision to hold the Olympics in China was a decision to give China a chance. It was an expression of good faith with the expectation that China would become a member of good standing in the civilized world. Their crackdown in Tibet proves that they are not such a member. The threat of a boycott of the Olympics must begin to ring. We cannot sit by and allow Tibet to be crushed by the Chinese government. Its occupation of Tibet is illegal, and must not stand. Its destruction of Tibetan culture is immoral and must be resisted.

Avaaz has a petition ("End the Violence") against the Chinese oppression here.

Five Years of War

Our president (cringe), George W. Bush, has said that we are making real progress in Iraq and that the 5-year war must go on even longer so as not to risk losing the gains we've made.

When this war started, we were supposedly there to find and destroy the 'weapons of mass destruction' that Saddam Hussein might give to Al Qaeda. We were told that he had connections with Al Qaeda. Both of these remarks were not only wrong. They were lies that went against the administration's own intelligence estimates.

The administration tried to tell us that the war would cost $50-60 billion dollars in total. When their own economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay dared to tell us that the true cost would be between $100 billion and $200 billion, he was fired. The cost of the war is now up to over $500 billion dollars, and counting. Watch the money tick off above in the left-hand column. It's horrible.

Dan Froomkin has an article entitled "Bush's Triumphalist Amnesia" that is right on point regarding the president and his speech. Bush can say that the situation has improved in Iraq since a year ago when the surge began. What he isn't telling us is that he's paying people like the Shiite leader Al-Sadr off, and he's arming the Sunni side (Saddam's side) of the conflict in Iraq. Sadr doesn't like us, and he's just waiting for us to go in order to do things his way. Bush also spent more than $4,000 on every Iraqi in 2007 alone, which (given cost of living differences) is the equivalent to giving over $121,000 to every American. Bush acts as if we've struck a blow against Bin Laden, but he doesn't mention that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went into Iraq. He doesn't mention that our own intelligence services say that the war has made Al Qaeda stronger.
Froomkin points out that the one place where 'the surge' has helped is in buying Bush time. He has gone from a full rebellion (including Congressional Republicans) a year ago, to passing the buck onto the next administration.

Important Obama Speech

Senator Obama has given the needed speech on race relations and the incendiary remarks of his pastor.

See his website for the video and the written text of the speech.

Many are acclaiming this speech as the most important speeches in America on race since Martin Luther King, Jr. Chris Matthews of Hardball says it's the best speech on race in America ever.

McCain Denounces Torture

Thankfully, Senator McCain put out a statement today that clearly states he is against the waterboarding that George Bush supports. I just wonder--if George Bush supports torture, and John McCain says that it is clearly illegal, then what does that make George Bush? After all, he is the Commander-in-Chief who is giving his administration the green light on this torture. McCain said:

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law - that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Bush the Torturer

George W. Bush has vetoed legislation that explicitly makes water-boarding illegal. It's already illegal, of course, but Congress was trying to make sure that George Bush and his criminal administration knew that it was. I am ashamed of him as the supposed "leader" of this country. I am ashamed of all the Republicans who support him. They're not part of the America that I was raised to believe in. At least the next president will reverse this immoral behavior. Even Senator McCain, Republican that he is, is against torture. Besides being inhumane, torture has been proven to be ineffective in intelligence gathering. An excerpt from the Washington Post follows:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, suggested that those who support harsh methods simply lack experience and do not know what they are talking about. "If they think these methods work, they're woefully misinformed," Soyster said at a news briefing called in anticipation of the veto. "Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world."

Journalists in Iraq

There's an excellent story running on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. Neal Conan (whose photo is to the right) is interviewing four journalists who have been covering Iraq since the beginning of this war: Anne Garrels, Ted Koppel, John Burns, and Hoda Abdel-Hamid. You really get a sense that they know what it's like there from the inside. Anne Garrels impressed me by saying that while the surge has worked, it hasn't improved things much for foreigners. She still operates by a 10-minute rule: she can't be on Iraqi streets in any one place for more than 10 minutes. If she were to stay longer, there's a good chance she'd be attacked or kidnapped. As I'm typing, Hoda Abdel-Hamid is saying it's actually the same situation for any journalist. One caller brought up the important point that while the surge may have been necessary, what has worked more is paying off insurgents like Al-Sadr. Ted Koppel talked about the discouragement setting in amongst troops right from the beginning of the war. The Army was expecting to be greeted, quite literally, by a band and people with flowers. Instead, they were met with RPGs. John Burns talks about how Iraq is such a secret society, partly thanks to Saddam Hussein, that even Iraqis see it as a "land of shadows." Americans, he says, have suffered from a lack of knowledge about Iraq, and in part this is caused by the secrecy that Iraqis had to maintain under Saddam. Hoda Abdel-Hamid talked about how Arabs have seen an entirely different war than Americans have. The American networks sanitize and glamorize the whole war. Ted Koppel agreed, and said he argued that the war ought to be covered more graphically. ABC wouldn't do it. With the elections, now, they say that the war is not going away, but it's taking a back seat in American newspapers and on television.

Clinton Drags the Party Down

Clinton's victories in Ohio and Texas makes a mess of things. There's no way she can win, but she plugs on with a negative campaign that is trying to tear Obama down. I'm disgusted with her. I would find it very hard to vote for her.

She can smile all she wants. The nastiness oozes out way too often.

The Republicans might win again. She's going to drag the Democratic Party down with her.

Ahmadinejad in Iraq (revised)

I was going to write about the incredible contrast between the Bush visit to Iraq and Ahmadinejad's.

But I just discovered Andrew Sullivan saying the more or less the same thing I wanted to say in his Daily Dish: "One telling reflection of the Bush administration's handling of the region: the Islamo-fascist was able to announce his visit well in advance; the American president had to go in strict secrecy. There you have a small insight into the immense damage to American power that this administration has inflicted. And who really won the war against Saddam."

We are in Iraq, according the Bush myth, to defeat the terrorism that threatens both us and the poor Iraqis. You would think that his actions would make him a hero to the Iraqis. In the meantime, however, when Bush visited, he had to sneak into the country and sneak out. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader and therefore practically the devil himself (again according to the Bush myth), entered Iraq with great fanfare. He apparently wasn't worried about getting assassinated. A good question for the naive to ask is "How could this be? Why isn't our president the one who is greeted as a hero?"

I am no fan of Ahmadinejad's. He is a simple man who rose to power because of a simplistic view of the world that matches that of other fundamentalists in Iran. But we have to face the fact that the majority of Iraqis are quite happy with Ahmadinejad and his worldview. They share the same view of fundamental Islam: namely, the Shiite version articulated by the Ayatollahs. And by remaining in Iraq, we are unwittingly helping to impose the Shiite will on the minority Sunnis who were ruling under Saddam. The terrorists known as "Al Qaeda-in-Iraq" wouldn't have existed without our intervention, and without our assistance in imposing the Shiite will on the Sunnis. We may say that we want everyone to get along in Iraq. But it hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

I understand the sentiment that it's a horrible shame if our young men died there in vain. People get incredibly angry if you suggest that's the case. But sometimes that's the reality. Bad presidents make bad decisions and a lot of people die for those mistakes who shouldn't have had to die. We now have a very bad president who makes very bad decisions.

South American Crisis

The Colombian Army has recently started going into Equadorean territory to pursue rebels who have been attacking them. They now say that they have attained information that links the rebel fighters to Equadorean President Rafael Correa. Equador and the Hugo Chavez's Venezuela have responded by sending troops to Colombia's borders. Chavez has warned that any similar movements into Venezuela would result in war.

Chavez is known to have a cozy relationship with the drug dealing rebels in Colombia. He recently helped negotiate the release of some of their prisoners through this relationship in an effort to gain favorable press.

This is a significant crisis not only for Colombia but for the U.S. as well. Colombia is pursuing these rebels with U.S. support, and with U.S. encouragement. Venezuela's leadership is virulently anti-U.S. If war were to emerge between Colombia and its neighbors, the U.S. could not sit idly by. We have little or no national interests in Iraq. But we have significant national interests in South America, especially given the drug trade and our current relationship with a growing number of anti-U.S. governments. We could ill afford the fall of Colombia into the wrong hands. Our activities in Iraq are at least legally questionable. What would happen if we are so stretched by our Middle East involvement that we can't react to real issues of national security in our own back yard?

The Bush administration has weakened our country in so many ways. This is just one more.

Freedom of the Press or a Criminal Act?

The question has come up as to whether Matt Drudge's release of the information that Prince Harry was in combat in Afghanistan is protected freedom of speech, or whether it constitutes an act of treason. The argument for the latter goes that Prince Harry is a leader of one of our allies. He was fighting as much for the protection of the United States as he was for the protection of the United Kingdom. All the major networks apparently had this information, but didn't report it because they were asked not to. Even CNN and Fox News had this information and didn't report it. But the Drudge report, whether to get attention or for some ulterior motive, didn't hesitate to report it. Once the news was online, Al Qaeda started spreading the word, and the U.S. and Great Britain had to risk lives to get Prince Harry out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. I am not a lawyer. I don't know if this was a criminal act. But I am firmly convinced that it is highly immoral, and I believe that it should be illegal. Drudge knowingly endangered Prince Harry, those he served with, and those who had to get him out of the country. Anytime anyone knowingly endangers someone else who is acting legally, there should be some recourse to charges of criminal negligence at the very least. Shouldn't they? Morally, the question is easier to answer. I can't imagine any morally sensitive person being able to live with themselves if they did something like this.

Gladiator

Lexi and I ended up watching "Gladiator" (2000) after everyone else was asleep last night. She'd never seen it. At first, she asked about it thinking it would be a good one to fall asleep by. When I heard she'd not seen it, I thought I'd watch it again with her. She didn't go to sleep. She said it was too interesting. "Gladiator," of course, is an outstanding motion picture, and it was rewarded with five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I particularly like the fact that the philosopher-king (Caesar) Marcus Aurelius is portrayed by Richard Harris at the beginning of the film as a setup. It may be the only time a major philosopher has played any role in any action film. Russell Crowe is, of course, brilliant as the Roman general Maximus Decimus Meridius. The writer plays a little fast and loose with history, as is often the case in Hollywood, but it's an interesting play on the known history. It's interesting seeing Joaquin Phoenix again in the role of Commodus Caesar after now having enjoyed his performance as Johnny Cash. He's every bit as detestable as Commodus, but I can appreciate his range as an actor better now. Perhaps my favorite line in the film is when Marcus Aurelius is made to say, "There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile."

Never mind that it's unlikely that Marcus wanted to return power to the Senate and restore the Roman Republic. A case can be made for it, I suppose. And like with most myths, the way it's told tells more about us than about the events the myth is about. It's good that this film plays out the way we would like to remember the history.

Prison Talk

Ramesh Ponnuru stimulated discussion this morning by suggesting that it's a good thing we have more people in prison than any other country. I don't care much for his way of viewing things, but I like some of the thoughtful comments he received.

The Radical Center

Through the wrestling that I have been doing on this blog (and outside it) with the liberal versus conservative debate, I have said that I have always found myself as a "middle-of-the-road" voter, and that I increasingly find Aristotle's Golden Mean to be valuable. This internal debate has led me to a discovery of work being done in 'the radical center'. It is sometimes called 'the third way'. In scholarship, one of the leading thinkers of the third way is sociologist Anthony Giddens (pictured here). I am going to pursue this line of thought in the months to come. I am very intrigued by it. The main point is that there are good ideas on the left and the right, but what is best for our society at any given time is probably to be found somewhere in the middle. The word "radical," represents rootedness. Being radically in the center is to be rooted in the center.

Wizards Win in Chicago

I was able to catch the second half of my hometown Wizards' game against the Chicago Bulls tonight, thanks to NBA League Pass. This was after playing five games myself at the gym. Great workout. I'm exhausted. As I tuned in, we were informed that the Wizards were 20 points down at the half. I guess they were just waiting for me. They went on a 22-1 tear in the third quarter, and ended up winning this game 96-91. It was a courageous win. I like this team a lot. They have three of their projected starters for this year out. Etan Thomas was informed he had a problem with his heart valve when training camp opened. He had to have heart surgery, and hasn't been able to play a game this year. The jury's out as to whether he'll ever play again, though he's practicing with the team now in non-contact drills. Gilbert Arenas, their superstar, hasn't played since their eighth game this season due to a second knee surgery. The first was during the off-season, but didn't get the job done. And their second star, two time All-Star Caron Butler, has now been out about 10 games with a torn muscle in his hip. He won't be back for at least another couple of weeks. Due to all of this misfortune, the Wizards have fallen to below .500. But they soldier on, and this win was pretty remarkable. Their defense was outstanding. Their rebounding was excellent. And they moved the ball well. They're a fun team to watch. (The photograph is of point guard Antonio Daniels driving on Kurt Heinrich).

The Scarlet Letter

Tara and I watched Roland Joffe's version of "The Scarlet Letter" this week. It was made in 1995. Demi Moore is always a pleasure to watch on the screen, but I didn't have high expectations for the movie or her acting. The result was actually better than I thought it would be. Joffe takes some liberties with the novel, but I have to say that I was pleased with the revisions. Native Americans play a significant role in the film, and when it begins, I assumed there was some influence from "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992). The filmwork is beautiful. The love scenes are hot. There is a scene where the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is preaching a sermon that uses language from the period about "the City on a Hill" that is moving. Gary Oldman plays the part of Dimmesdale in a sensitive and enticing way. I was unaware of him as an actor before, but I'll look for him now. (It turns out that he's played in a number of movies I've seen, but they were supporting roles.) Moore, playing Hester Prynne, gives a decent performance. What I especially liked about it was that she was convincing as a strong-willed woman who saw the evil that Puritanism had fallen into and she was rebelling against it. Robert Duvall gives an excellent performance (as always) playing the role of Roger Prynne/Chillingworth. He is superb as the sadistic and bitter doctor bent on revenge. Joan Plowright gives a memorable supporting performance as Harriet Hibbens, who likes to live naturally, rebels against Puritanism, and is accused of being a witch. The Native Americans are sympathetically treated. George Aguilar gives a strong supporting performance as the quiet leader of the "praying Indians" who have converted to Christianity under the minister of the kind-hearted Dimmesdale. When I taught American philosophy, one of the things that we went over were these two aspects of Puritanism: the idealism versus the reality of harsh judgmentalism that it degraded into. I don't normally mention these strong supporting roles, but they really grabbed me in this film. The film is far from perfect. But the rising crescendo of passion, the psychological struggle of Prynne and Dimmesdale, the frightening manipulation of Duvall's doctor, and the lush cinematography with warm lighting that reminds me of Zeffirelli (and yes, "The Last of the Mohicans,") swept me away and I enjoyed it a lot. And there's an altered ending to the story that I found more satisfying than Hawthorne's. Hawthorne was a genius and thank God for his work. (Coincidentally, I have cousins who are descended from Hawthorne, so I've always looked on his work with curiosity followed by great admiration.) But I very much approved of the changes Joffe made.

Obama Answers McCain

Let John McCain continue to patronize Barack Obama. He'll find out like Hillary has that Obama has some answers.

Bush and McCain See No End In Iraq

It seems clear that George Bush and John McCain do not see any end to our involvement in Iraq.

Bush has now said that

"It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq, opponents of the war have one answer: retreat. When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge, and turned the situation around. . . . In the face of these changes on the ground, congressional leaders are still sounding the same old call for withdrawal. I guess you could say that when it comes to pushing for withdrawal, their strategy is to stay the course. It's interesting that many of the same people who once accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq."

Everyone will acknowledge that the surge has been effective. If we put enough troops on the ground in Iraq, of course we can suppress the violence for a time. The real question is what our long-term strategy should be. Should we stay in Iraq forever because there will always be a threat that anti-American forces will grow there if we leave? Or should we begin a measured withdrawal so that Iraq can handle its own problems, and we're not continually fomenting anti-American sentiment around the world? We can't afford to stay there forever. Nor should we.

Jail Time

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. has more people in jail than any other country in the world. Doesn't that indicate that something is wrong with the system?

More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison, an all-time high that is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year, in addition to more than $5 billion spent by the federal government, according to a report released today.

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars at the start of 2008, the United States leads the world in both the number and the percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving even far more populous China a distant second, noted the report by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

It is shocking that China, which is condemned regularly for human rights abuses, has far fewer people in jail than we do. China has a quarter of the world's population, and still does not have as many people in jail as we do.

One problem pointed to in the article is that this is draining state budgets, limiting the funding they can provide for education. Spending less on education and more on incarceration can only lead to a downward spiral over time.

The Fact Checker and NAFTA

Michael Dobbs' The Fact Checker is a very interesting read. He has covered tonight's debate. It is clear enough that both Obama and Clinton want fair free trade. NAFTA would be all right, they argue, if we enforced its provisions properly. What this means to me is that NAFTA and other 'free trade' pacts require an administration that will actively protect the American worker. I'm not at all sure this will work. The fact is that other countries only have competitive leverage because their employees don't make much money, and the regulations over industry are practically non-existent. The principle they're aiming for is reasonable: negotiate trade pacts that are mutually beneficial. We should continue to encourage free trade while encouraging reform in the countries that we're trading with. Obama and Clinton are both intending to do essentially the same thing on this, it seems to me.

Aurora

Aurora is a vision of thousands of streams of light spreading through an otherwise dark night sky.

The grace of God is present in the world. It has been recognized in so many forms throughout so many cultures in the world. It is not new. It is as old as time itself. It need not be conceptualized as a personal being called 'God'. It is the life force. It is the vital energy of the universe. It is the source of all being. This power is beyond any representative abstraction.

It is the indescribable Tao of Laozi.
It is the inspiration of the Buddhadharma.
It is, more accurately, the Buddhidharma, for everyone has the Buddha nature within.
It is the content of true Islam.
It is the content of true Christianity.
Is the content of true Judaism.
It is the vision of Ueshiba who proclaimed Aikido to be "the art of peace."
It is ubiquitous. Yet so very underutilized and unrealized in the personal lives of most people.

It is the hope of being truly human.

Aurora is an open invitation to receive this gift, offered by those who have experienced it to those who have experienced it only slightly or who are not aware of having experienced it. The vital and guiding energy that is experienced as the Buddhidharma is available to all who seek it. The time is now.

Clinton's Inconsistency

Time and time again, I wonder who Hillary Clinton really is. Is she the nasty candidate who viciously cuts into her opponents? Or is she the nice woman who runs attack-campaigns on bad advice, and occasionally 'drops her guard' and lets her truer, warmer colors come through? I'd like to think the latter, except that just when I think it's authentic I hear that her dropping of the guard involved an almost verbatim quote of John Edwards' closing remarks mixed with an almost verbatim quote of a successful Bill Clinton closing remark. And this from someone who wasted her (and our) time accusing Obama of plagiarism.

Now she is giving me more pause for reflection on this matter. In Ohio, which she desperately needs to win and where a disproportionate number of workers have lost jobs to 'free trade', Hillary is taking up the John Edwards mantle and is proclaiming that NAFTA and other free trade agreements have hurt America. She is trying to paint Obama as the mainstream candidate Ohio doesn't need, while saying that she alone is for eliminating the tide of lost jobs to Asia and Central America.

I'd love to believe that Hillary means it. I'd love to believe that she has had a sudden conversion. As late as 2004, she was fully supportive of her husband's NAFTA agreement, and
said it was good for America. I'll bet she isn't campaigning against NAFTA in Texas where she's trying to hang on to the Mexican-American vote. She hasn't made it a campaign issue before now. Is it possible that Hillary, who has lost 10 states in a row to Obama, is trying on the fully progressive role as a last ditch, desperation move? The problem with that is that I don't know what she really thinks. I don't trust her canned 'emotional' releases. And I don't trust her waffling on issues such as these. I distinctly get the impression that she'll say whatever she needs to in order to get elected.

And an inconsistency such as that is very different than a consistent pragmatic strategy that is designed to unite disparate factions on a progressive course. I think Obama has done the latter. We need to elect Obama.

Nader and Voting "On Principles"

Susan Jacoby has promoted a discussion of the Nader candidacy through a short post this morning entitled "Ralph Nader: Enter the Spoiler Redux." Her article begins with the sentence, "Here he goes again. Ralph Nader, the egomaniac (as distinct from Ralph Nader, the distinguished consumer advocate) announced Sunday that he will run as an independent candidate for the presidency in 2008." She later writes: "I don’t know whether Nader is just a self-centered fanatic or whether he really believes that there is no difference at all between the Democratic and Republican parties." While it is rare for me to agree with Susan Jacoby, I couldn't agree with her more on this particular issue.

An American friend who lives in France commented on my Nader post by saying: "I really hate to go against the grain here, but...I...well, voted for Nader during the election when people told me that I was taking votes from Gore. But, I felt that I ought not "play the game" of strategic voting, but vote for the right person: a person who would implement universal health care, call a spade a spade, and not worry about tired communist slander (for example). Now the dems have a real candidate in Obama (he is not a savior, but much better than I could ever imagine in the current climate). All in all, I want to think that Nader and his supporters are thinking nothing other than what an essential candidate he is for the country. Democracy has some crazy, but passionate, fringes...thank God!!"

I am reading a "voting on principles" argument here. There are many people who believe that every American ought to vote for the person who represents their views whether they have a chance to win or not. I could not disagree more.

In the Democratic primaries, Dennis Kucinich best represented the views of many progressives. I'll grant that. But were his true, personal views much different than Obama's or Hillary Clinton's? I doubt it. To take one issue as an example, Kucinich knew he didn't have a chance to win. He could say anything he wanted without a concern in the world for the general election. He could say he was for full, free universal health care. Obama and Clinton (especially Clinton after what she went through in the 90's, know that they cannot possibly get enough support for free universal health care with about 50% of the population being center-right, fully right-wing, or extremely right-wing. So, they make the pragmatic decision to try to move the government in a progressive direction. They can't get the whole deal done in one go, so they are pragmatic enough to try to get what they can get.

Kucinich, as well as Nader, could say that on principle he must run against Obama or Clinton because they've sold out on the ideal. Then we'd have not only Nader but Kucinich as well draining off votes from Obama and Clinton. Why not throw John Edwards in here, too? He stood more firmly for the American worker than either Obama or Clinton, and he legitimately had a chance to win. He could say that Obama and Clinton have not done enough for the American worker, and so, on principle, throw his hat into the ring as an independent candidate, too. Then we'd have Nader, Kucinich, and Edwards draining votes from the eventual Democratic candidate. But Kucinich and Edwards are pragmatic enough not to do that. Thank God, indeed! Edwards and Kucinich must realize that Clinton and Obama represent the best chance we have to move the country in the progressive direction they'd like to see achieved eventually. They must know that they lost at least in part because the country is not fully ready for the ideals they presented during the primaries, so the country would be even less ready for them in a general election.

A little pragmatism is called for on the part of Nader supporters for the same reasons.

I'm all for high ideals and principles, but there are limits to Kantianism. According to Kant, on principle, we should never lie. But the obvious critique of his ethics was the example of the mad man with a knife. If a mad man with a knife is after a loved one, should you honestly tell him where the loved one is hiding? If one's moral principles suggest that one should not lie, then (on Kant's theory) you should tell the truth no matter the consequences. But most of us would say that's nuts! To me, it's the same here. The Nader supporter seems to be saying, "I don't care if my vote helps to elect someone who is diametrically opposed to everything I believe in, and will set causes I support back for another 4-8 years. I refuse to vote for someone who (largely out of pragmatism) won't say they support fully implementing my ideals tomorrow."

For that reason, I not only think the argument is a weak one. I think it's morally unconscionable to act upon.

Univeral Health Care: Clinton and Obama

A comment on one of my previous posts deserved a new post, I thought. So here it goes.

Both Clinton and Obama want universal health care. As Obama said, the difference is in the path they're proposing.

Clinton's plan does NOT get us to free universal health care. It gets us, supposedly, to MANDATED universal health care. And there's a big difference. I'm lucky to have insurance through my employer (California State University). If my only employer was the community college, I couldn't afford health insurance.

Neither Clinton nor Obama believe they can pass free universal health care in our backwards political environment where they'd be labeled "communists" if they pushed it. So, Clinton wants to mandate our participation in health insurance. She'd make me buy insurance whether I can afford it or not. Thanks a lot! And if I couldn't possibly afford it, she'd fine me for not getting it. I'd be even worse off.

Obama is at least kind enough to say that if I can't afford the health insurance, he isn't going to make me buy it.

Both Clinton and Obama are planning to subsidize the purchase of insurance for the poorest of us. The question is what to do about those who make too much to be subsidized, but who are not well enough off to then afford health insurance. Clinton says she'll make them buy it anyway. Obama gives them a break while trying to move the country toward more universal health care.

I prefer Obama's plan. I don't need Hillary using the power of the government to make me pay for insurance I can't afford.

Ralph Nader

What can Ralph Nader possibly hope to get out of running for President again? If I were an investigative reporter, I'd "follow the money!" There's absolutely no chance he'll win. And he must know that. So what's in it for him? It has to be they money. I'm not going to say the Republicans are behind this. But if they aren't, it sure would be the best chance they have to beat Obama or Hillary. Every vote for Nader will be a vote for McCain in the last analysis... unless the vote is coming from someone who wouldn't have voted otherwise. Suppose Nader cuts into the Democratic vote by 5%. After the last election, does anyone doubt that this is a dream come true for the Republicans? Now we need a right-wing extremist to run as a 4th party candidate to do some equal damage to the Republican vote. Someone tell Howard Dean to get busy funding such a campaign. (I looked for a photo of Nader and ran across this political cartoon by Gary Markstein. It's the same thing as 4 years ago. Does anyone wish Nader hadn't run 4 years ago? I know I sure do. Talk about a spoiler.)

Oliver!

We watched “Oliver!” this weekend, and it’s the one I think everyone should take the time to see. It’s a musical based on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. I remember when this came out when I was a boy. Mark Lester (Oliver) and Jack Wild (The Artful Dodger) were huge sensations. Their photos were in all the magazines. For some reason, I never got to see it. Better late than never! This film is fabulous. In the workhouse, where the film starts, we see the words “God is love” written in large letters on the wall, but it’s clear that the house is filled with anything but love. The boys march down the dungeon-like stairs carrying bowls and approaching their ‘gruel’ singing “Food, glorious food,” and dreaming of eating like their caretakers. Oliver asks for more, and gets dismissed from the workhouse while his keeper sings “Boy for sale.” Oliver gets put to work for, and abused by, an undertaker’s family until he’s thrown into and locked up in a cellar. He looks out the window and sings “Where is love?” This is all great stuff.

He escapes and heads to London, where he meets The Artful Dodger. Through him, Oliver is introduced to Fagin (played Ron Moody), one of the most memorable villains you will ever see anywhere. Oliver thinks he's finally found a soft spot to land as they sing "Consider yourself at home. Consider yourself... part of the family." I didn't know that's where that song had come from. Fagin introduces Oliver to his new line of work with “You’ve got to pick a pocket or two.” You’re hoping that Oliver won’t get caught up into it, but as you see the huge contrast between the rich and the poor, you understand it as well.

The entire film is outstanding, but it’s Fagin who stands out as the unforgettable highlight. Forever ingrained in my feelings are his expressions, his dancing, and his theme song (sung twice), “Reviewing the Situation.” This song is so hilariously funny. I laughed and laughed and laughed. He wants to get out of his villainous ways, but in the end sings “I think I’d better think it out again.”

Oliver Reed (whom I remember most from “The Three Musketeers) was excellent as the lost soul Bill Sykes.

If you haven’t seen this, you’ve got to see it.

Giant

Tara and I are avid movie fans, and see as many as we have time for. I've decided it's time to start blogging about the ones we see. I've only mentioned a couple along the way so far.
This week, we watched the very long, very much too long “Giant,” which runs nearly three hours long. “Giant” is famous as the last film made by James Dean before he died. The film actually stars Rock Hudson as Bick Benedict, a Texas rancher who inherited his family's 500,000 acre cattle ranch called Reata. Elizabeth Taylor costars as Leslie, a young woman from Maryland (even though Edna Ferber’s novel has her in Virginia) whom Bick meets and marries on a trip to buy a prize stallion. It also costars James Dean as Jett Rink, who works on the Benedict ranch.

I actually expected a better film than this turned out to be. I remember having read at least part of the book as a teenager, and knew this to be a classic in many people’s estimation. In the end, Tara and I were both disappointed with many aspects of the film. My own view is that the film was directed poorly… especially in terms of the editing. The first half of the film drags on and on with character development that could have been abbreviated. Then we’re suddenly thrust forward in time at least fifteen years. Not only are we left wondering what happened in the meantime, but the make-up job on Hudson and Taylor that is supposed to make us think they’ve aged is not very convincing. They did a better job on James Dean, who was the youngest of the three of them. Tara and I were very surprised and not real happy with the way the film ends either. I expected more… and less (in terms of film time)… than what we got.

There are some outstanding aspects of this film, however. It was very easy for me to get caught up in the dynamic of the Maryland girl marrying the Texan and having to adjust to life there. After all, I’m from Maryland, and Tara’s from Texas. I saw the film through Leslie’s (Elizabeth Taylor’s) eyes. I couldn’t identify with Bick (Rock Hudson), who was supposed to be a typical, arrogant, big, macho Texan. He was prejudiced and bigoted and misogynistic. Jett (James Dean) was no better. He was a Bick-wannabe. He resented the wealth of the Benedict family, and told Leslie that their family was no better than his. The only difference was that they were “foxy” enough (as he put it) to take advantage of the Mexicans in a way that his family hadn’t been. The battle between Bick and Jett was representative of the battle of between poor whites and landed aristocracy in Texas at the time. This was a very interesting aspect of the film. I only wish it was developed better. Another undercurrent was the ethnic battle between the poor working Mexicans and the whites (both rich and poor). Leslie is chastised for treating the Mexican servants like human beings. Bick’s son ends up marrying a Mexican woman, and this puts the family in some uncomfortable situations. What I think I liked best about the film was that Leslie was quietly working on Bick through the whole film, and by the end, he’s willing to accept his children for who they really are, and because his grandson is half-Mexican, he finally can see the world through Mexicans’ eyes, and defends their equality.

All of this makes it somewhat thought-provoking. I just wish it had been done better.

The African-American Vote

Colbert King (pictured below left receiving a Pulitzer Prize) has a nice column this morning that the front page of the online edition of Washington Post labeled "The Truth Hurts," though the article itself is entitled, "A Truth the Clintons Can't Handle." He said that the typical white politician's approach to the black voter is condescending. And he believes
it is typified by the Clinton's words and actions in their race against Obama. Polling among African Americans, just a few months ago, indicated that Hillary Clinton had a substantial lead over Obama. As King puts it, Obama was as black then as he is now. The surge has come because voters have gotten to know Obama, and they like what he has to say. African Americans aren't voting for Obama because of race. And he is succeeding in this election across demographic lines.

Obama Wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii

Obama has won in Wisconsin, and in Hawaii where he spent part of his youth. It was reported today that some polls had him with only a 1 point lead over Clinton in Wisconsin, and that was part of why she turned up the negative campaigning. She thought she had a chance. But as it turns out, Obama won handily with 58% of the vote there, compared to 41% for Clinton. Obama won 76% of the vote in Hawaii, compared to 24% for Hillary Clinton.

With those kinds of margins shaping up for Obama, it's hard to see how the super-delegates could turn this election in favor of Clinton. It would be a subversion of democracy if they did.

But Clinton has to see Texas and Ohio as her last chances. Obama has now won 10 states in a row. Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio in order to help her super-delegates feel that they can vote for her. If Obama were to take either Texas or Ohio, it's hard to see how Clinton can even stay in the race. And it's my understanding that Obama has a real good chance in Texas, despite Clinton's support among Hispanic voters. Obama polls very strongly in the parts of the state that have the most delegates--Houston, Dallas, and Austin.

Clinton Gets Nasty... Again

Hillary Clinton is doing the only thing she can to stop Barack Obama: she is attacking in the nasty way that she does best. She is now accusing Obama of plagiarism, as if there's a politician alive who doesn't make plentiful use of language they approve of from a variety of sources, and she is saying that Obama's campaign is all about rhetoric without substance. She says that it's "just words." If she succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination, I'd have a hard time supporting her for the presidency.

Obama has defended himself against her viciousness by asking if phrases like "I have a dream..." and "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" are "just words."

It's not like Obama is unintelligent, and can only make speeches. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is brilliant. People relate to his speeches because they do not come across as mere speeches lacking substance. People see Obama as someone who has the optimism and vision to carry out the essence of his fine words.

I don't see that in Hillary Clinton. She so readily falls into this vile scratching at her opponents, and the dirty attacks that the Clintons have become notorious for. One could argue that it's effective. I'd rather not have another Cheney or Rove running the country; whichever way their political inclinations may tilt.