The Shame of Sham: This is not my usual pristine written piece. Read the link below IF you are interested in the Michael Jackson saga written by a writer who lived with him since 2005. I claim not to be interested and there you have it the minute I see a story maybe worth reading I do. If this story is true, I may have been off the beaten track in terms of my indictment of him most especially about sex with children -- I say MIGHT be off the mark. Who can EVER truly know?

Allegedly, according to this piece, he had a rare disease which left his lungs unable to make a certain protein and hence left them unprotected and so the masks. He also had anorexia according to this and he ALSO NO surprise AT ALL was gay and had a couple of young men (NOT boys) he was in love with but this author says the accusations of child molestation were money driven by the accusers and probably false ALTHOUGH his penchant was for men of the younger variety but this author says not that young. Still admittedly just SLEEPING in a bed with kids was insane. He led a double life sham marriages and all.

When all is said and done if this is all to be believed and true (WHO KNOWS) it would seem IF Jackson in the first place was savvy enough to watch his finances and MOST especially watch the piranhas with whom he got involved in his career, MOST DEFINITELY NOT JUST even SLEEP with little boys which led to the accusations and his breakdown, he could be alive today and would not have had to agree to the 50 time tour at age 50 which he could not do. If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a streetcar.

MY HYPOTHESIS if this: If this link is to be believed MOST IMPORTANTLY IN THE FIRST PLACE IF he could have come out as homosexual maybe just maybe he would not have had to go through such charades and such a crazy life. He could have been honest about his homosexuality, not sneak around meeting people in the middle of the night and honest about whom he loved and also described his physical alleged genetic illnesses none of this would have happened. IF you have to hide ALL the time who you are great pathology ensues psychological pathology, physical pathology and even death by drugs or suicide. It is a near impossible task and for the famous it is torturous just ask or read about all those famous of yesteryear as to how they hid their sexuality -- NOT EASILY. What a moronic and stupid thing religion, and society does to those who are different ESPECIALLY where sex is concerned AS IF the larger society as a whole is so wise and successful at relationships and marriage they can teach ANYONE whom they can love. Just ask Mark Sanford who knows SO much about it.

Here is the story below from Huffington Post:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Michael-Jackson-predicted-death-months-ago.html

Bill Moyers asked viewers to check out the blog and write what they thought the American dream meant. So I took a stab and posted it on the PBS blog. If you want to do the same Google Bill Moyers and give your thoughts.


The American Dream – that oft used multifaceted phrase unique to these United States. What does it REALLY mean? I believe it has a common meaning and a unique meaning. It is as amorphous as the diversity of the nation and as concrete as the people who comprise the nation. It is unique and it is diverse. It has evolved as the nation has evolved and its foundation has stayed the same as the nation’s Founders intended.


The Founders, imperfect as they may have been, created through a rather simple document – a Constitution – which bestowed upon these United States the keys to the machinery of government which form a democratic way of life no other nation ancient or modern has ever duplicated. Their gift was the mixture that created the possibility of this American dream. It combined the balance of power (executive, legislative and judicial) in the operation of government with civil libertarian freedoms through which the dream could become manifest. In addition to all of that, the Founders advocated for a free market through which the governed could use to improve the quality of life. The country added one more necessary ingredient which was the near absence of the importance of social class in determining one’s destiny. The notion of class did not cement one to his economic fate as it did in the European experience. It is the combination, I believe, of our Constitutional republic with our basic civil libertarian freedoms amid a free market economy which makes the American dream work. It inspires hope that each generation COULD do better than the one which came before it.


The Constitution provides too, I believe, the necessary flexibility that allows for the possibility of intrinsic social change. It is the mixture of these basic pillars upon which the United States stands that makes it unique among nations and which makes so many want to risk their lives to come here. Nowhere, I believe, on earth is the concept of what it means to be a free person so embraced. We may differ as to policy but we, I think, are in agreement as to this.
The hope and the dream, of course, have never been completely fulfilled. To be sure, many groups have struggled and still do to obtain the nation’s promise. The magnificence of the country, though, is the fact that it can change over time and that it does not remain stagnant by policies driven by the realities of different eras. The country can change as the times and technology dictate and yet remain true to the basic tenets the Founders initially put forth. The arc of US history, I believe, bends towards justice and the possibility of justice, fair play and advancement continue to be its hope.

The Impermissible Becomes Permissible: There are some who have vociferously and with great anger accused me of not being the liberal I profess to be in some of the letters I have written. They accuse me of playing into the hands of the right wing without allowing me the ability to enunciate a defense. I need to be clear from the beginning. I will never be a right wing apologist. I have been over decades, am now and always will consider myself progressively left of center. That does not mean, however, I must march in lock step with every viewpoint my side of the isle advocates. I am a liberal but I am a liberal with decided boundaries.

The latest media frenzy concerning the adulation of Michael Jackson as well as the outside-of-marriage sexual liaisons of South Carolina Governor Sanford, Nevada Senator Ensign, and Florida Representative Vitter have things in common. I believe we have become a nation and, indeed, a world where the formerly impermissible is now permissible. It is even permissible among elected officials whose very party creed is adamantly opposed to such immoral behavior. It apparently matters little as these elected officials, in the face of the greatest hypocrisy, seem to keep their jobs and suffer little recrimination. I have seen those who have committed the most egregious moral behavior within a party that professes to have no tolerance for such bad behavior, keep their jobs and others make excuses for them while they boldly lie to their base seemingly with little consequence.

Moreover, the elevation of Michael Jackson to near sainthood illuminates the fact that this man who paid a 20 million dollar settlement to squash one of the most egregious offenses known to man, child molestation, even in death is allowed a pass on that. Not only is he given a pass, Congress gives him a respectful moment of silence. I saw many lugubriously weep for him and I even saw, to my incredulity, a flag raised to half staff for him. Why?

The once impermissible becomes permissible as we on both sides have become inured to the most vulgar behaviors or as the great Steve Allen called it in his book we overlook and do not see the “vulgarians at our gate.” No one blinked an eye when during one of Michael Jackson’s dances he grabs his lower parts for the entire world, including young children, to see. Seemingly, not a word of condemnation was uttered. Nothing surprises us anymore. The once impermissible becomes permissible. It is so permissible that we see entire broadcasts devoted to a man whose behavior, with most especially male children, was dubious at best and illegal at worst. Well, it surprises me and when I think the emperor is not wearing any clothes even though the preponderance thinks he is, I say so. Some objectionable behaviors cross political boundaries and, worse, they tug at the glue that keeps the fabric of our nation together.

Michael Jackson -- Shame on Keith Olbermann To treat Michael Jackson as one would treat the death of a head of state is sickening. He was a rock star. THAT'S it. In addition, in my opinion, the doubts which lingered as to his implication in pedophilia make the elevation of his death absolutely preposterous. He admitted to sleeping with children and advocated its innocence. Did he touch them in bad places? Who knows. I am suspect. When a man in his mid forties sleeps with UNRELATED-to-him young boys whether any sexual touching occurred or not utterly OBVIATES the catapulting of Mr. Jackson to the gods of Mt. Olympus.

Was he talented? WITHOUT A DOUBT YES. Was it worthy of ALL NIGHT coverage on every station including until this morning and probably for days yet to come? UNEQUIVOCALLY NO. With worldwide events exploding and people's lives at stake I say shame on you Keith Olbermann. I expected better. Clearly, MSNBC felt they must compete with CNN, Fox and other sensationalist rags. It would have gleaned, I suspect, MSNBC more listeners, eventually, if he stuck to his usual format. It would have given us utter RELIEF!! I hope we are spared tonight as I look to both to him and Rachel Maddow every night for brilliant, informative as well as entertaining left-of-center opinion to help shape my own political beliefs. They both do what they do so well but last night was surely different from all others!

Sex in South Carolina: Governor Sanford and Republicans DESERVE to be pilloried for their sexual immoralities more than Democrats who commit the same indiscretions. The Democratic Party does NOT make the main thrust of its ideological argument about Christianizing the nation through its omnipresent proselytizing of acceptable adult sexual behavior. Republicans make its party platform about so called family values and the joys of heterosexual marriage. It advocates for sexual abstinence outside of marriage and, of course, delivers its omnipresent choral cacophony of homosexual condemnation. This is what makes Republicans the party of hypocrites. They claim as their mantle sanctimonious sexual morality but then are caught soliciting sex in a men’s room or from prostitutes or, in Governor Sanford's case, from a liaison in Argentina he could have met in an online chat. Republicans condemn others to the belief that hell awaits if they do not tow the Biblical line and then cross that line in every possible way often paying little political price.

They influence the psychology of a nation forcing many into a self loathing vortex when they are unable to meet the impossible standards the leadership imposes. Moreover, and, in my opinion, even worse, they create law which affects the lives of millions. Republicans must be held to a higher standard as the leadership itself often does not conform to the same tenets of behavior it expects of everyone else. The Governor Sanfords of the Republican Party and their attendant religious fundamentalist movements laugh all the way to the bank as they pull yet another piece of wool over a very gullible public’s eyes!

Sent this to various news media: The Brief Disgust of DOMA

Because of the dismay of many in the Democratic Party base about the content of the brief filed in support of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) by Obama's Justice Department, by executive order benefits are being extended to partners of homosexual federal employee's partners/spouses. It was an outreach to the President's supporters and, to his credit, he listened somewhat to his critics. That's good but not good enough. The verbiage in the DOMA brief was insulting and not worthy of an Obama Justice Department. The president knows, I am sure, what he must do. He MUST show us he knows the language of the DOMA brief was poor and that homosexual marriage issues are civil rights issues nearly identical to the ones Obama's parents faced in some states as black/white marriages, as insane as that seems today, were prohibited. Most have someone they know, a close friend or a family member whom they love who is gay. I know, they would not want them to suffer what previous generations did which propelled some to alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness, depression, abuse and worse even suicide. What an unnecessary waste of life. Homosexuals pay taxes, serve, love and even die for our country. They deserve what everyone else takes for granted.

I want to hear the President repudiate the horrendous brief his Justice Department filed. If reports are to be believed, the president allegedly did not know its content. I would hope he would disclaim adherence to those obnoxious views in the brief and address most especially the outrageous ones which refer to incest and pedophilia. I cannot even dignify those horrific iterations with a discussion. President Obama needs to show he is on the side of his base and risks losing valuable support if he does not.

If the Justice Dept is to uphold the law so be it. That is what could have been said period without the other rancid irrelevancies. DOMA is the law and that's that. It is, up to the legislature or the courts to reverse this patently unfair unconstitutional legislation enacted over ten years ago. This administration should be at odds with much of its content and the President should say that. Indeed, it is up to the the legislature or the courts to reverse it.

Disgusting DOMA: Because of the dismay about the brief filed by Obama's Justice Department on DOMA benefits are being extended to partners of gay federal employees by executive order. It was like pulling teeth but he did listen a bit. That's good but not enough. I sent TONS of emails of dismay to the White House about DOMA and tons of irate blogs. Human Rights Campaign Fund was not going to a large funding benefit SURELY helped too. I even called the HRC Friday when I heard about that awful DOMA brief.

Here is what I emailed the president today and would love if you do the same on his contact page (Link below). It's not eloquent but to the point. I hope someone listens and a higher human power (or divine as I will take any help we can get) conveys my thoughts. Write to the White House about it using my concepts or better ones if you want. It helps and do it fast as he is speaking today about it. He MUST show us he knows our issues are civil rights issues and nearly identical to the ones Obama's parents faced in some states as black/white marriages were prohibited as insane as that seems today. Please support this issue vociferously and often. Also you can go to the Human Rights Campaign Fund link: http://www.hrc.org/contactus and tell them how you feel.

It helps if all of us play our part but in my opinion straight people who show support DECIDEDLY help. Most have someone they know, a close friend or a family member whom they love who is gay. You, I KNOW, would not want them to suffer what previous generations (mine included) did which propelled some to alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness, depression, abuse and worse even suicide. What an unnecessary waste of life. Homosexuals pay taxes, serve, love and even die for our country. Gays deserve what everyone else takes for granted. So here is what I said:


Mr. President: THANK you. My faith in you is restored a bit. Granting gay partners/spouses of federal worker's benefits is a wonderful step and it shows me that you listen and I HOPE care a little about feelings, doing what is right and not always what is politically expedient.

In your speech today I am HOPING I will hear some repudiation of that horrendous brief filed in support of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). I guess if reports are to be believed you really did not know the content of the brief. I would hope you would disclaim adherence to those obnoxious views ESPECIALLY of perverted incest and pedophilia. I cannot even dignify those issues with a repudiation and I hope, too, some action uttering that dismay would be uttered to those who issued that abhorrent brief so that we do not associate you with those views.

If the Justice Dept is to uphold the law so be it and THAT is what could have been said without giving any justification of anything. DOMA is the law and that's that even though THIS administration is at odds with much of the content of DOMA it is up to the LEGISLATURE or the courts to reverse which you would favor. I would love something like that, Mr. President, to be said. Then my faith would be renewed. This is a good first step but not the ONLY step that needs to be taken. I KNOW you should probably not implement a reversal of gay issues such as Don't Ask Don't Tell first thing on your agenda. There are other more pressing issues but to explain the DOMA brief in the above way to the American people I think is prudent and, in fact, necessary. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for listening.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Murder at the Museum: The recent murder by a right wing anti-Semite at the Holocaust Museum in Washington is a mystery to me. Who would have thought after the murder of 6 million innocent humans that anything like that, as Elie Wiesel said at the Buchenwald concentration camp with President Obama, would again be perpetrated? Who would think this would still be part of human history?

For the Jew, the specter of Hitlerian hate never dies. It lives on not only among the rancid right wing fanatics but it lives on among leftist extremists as well. The Jew is hated from each side of the political spectrum equally and in every corner of the globe. Even in many South American states, synagogues must have guards on rooftops. They must remain nondescript with little visible acknowledgment of what, in reality, they are. If a Jew has money he must be unpretentious, careful not to show his wealth lest he be a target -- the rich Jew, the non-deserving-of-his-money Jew even if he worked so hard to get it.

I am convinced that the world's LONGEST hatred is its most UNIVERSAL hatred. I am convinced there is NONE other like it EVER in human history. It is and has always been so very hard for me to understand. I, a Jew, have none of the poisonous stereotypical attributes accorded to Jews. I am neither a Communist nor a Wall Street banker. I am certainly not among the rich, I am not a thief, a conniver and I am not plotting to undermine anyone. I have never been involved in a trade union nor a conspiracy to hurt multitudes. I have never known anyone who has. The only group with whom I have met consistently is a book club. The question becomes, as it always has been, why. Why is the Jew the most despised, put upon, rejected group, I think, on earth?

I KNOW my people and have lived among them all my life. I KNOW who I am and I KNOW the generality of who we are. I KNOW the goodness, the brilliance, the yearning for success, education and the caring about the powerless that lies deep in the Jewish heart. I KNOW Jews voted overwhelmingly for Obama despite fears to the contrary. I KNOW this and yet I do NOT know what we as a people have done for 5000 years of history to deserve our fate. Is the reason fundamentally the accusation of New Testament deicide or is it jealousy of Jewish success as my mother so often explained to her child what the rationale behind the accusation of "Christ Killer" was so many years ago? Why is Madoff so feared among my people as an indictment of ALL of us but Charles Ponzi was just a bad guy and had nothing to do with Italians? Why were indictments of the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg a stain upon all Jews? Why were my parents afraid to talk about the issue? Why was not the spy Robert Hansen an indictment of all Danes, Polish or Germans and a shame upon them?

If I had lived in Europe at that fateful Holocaust time and if I were the same person I am today -- disabled, Jewish, female among other minorities I would have had a free ride to Auschwitz and, in reality, would have done nothing to anyone to deserve it. If I could live to be 200 the mystery of the murder at the museum would still remain a mystery to me.

Haunted by Heresy -- the Irish Catholic Church/Monotheistic Dilemma: James Carroll's editorial in The Boston Globe June 8, 2009 "Haunted by Irish rosary beads" (link below) about the extensive and endemic child abuse of specific institutions within the Irish Catholic Church astounds me. His article overcomes me with incredulity how a specifically religious institution devoted to comfort brings not comfort but unspeakable cruelty to the members it serves. I, however, do not sit in smug judgment of other religious institutions. In reality, in my opinion, abuse and the staggering hypocrisy which is its offspring surely has not been the domain of one church.

Violent abuses have existed for years among the powerful religious hierarchies. I believe the blame lies not within one faith but within all faiths and is particularly evident in the most orthodox of the monotheistic traditions. The abuse we have seen, may have experienced and about which we have read walks hand in hand with a belief system which is based on the severe repression of, most especially, man's sexual appetite and that which is biologically frozen in his DNA. It begs for expression. When it cannot be expressed or when men (and women too) are condemned for even thinking their sexual thoughts, it will, by any means necessary, gain expression sometimes in the most abhorrent and unacceptable ways. Fundamentalist Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, Islamic extremism and other ultra religious sects are not among the innocents here. Sex abuse is not only within the domain of the Catholic Church but exists wherever the rigidity of a faith asks its adherents to do that which they cannot possibly do. There is nothing healthy, God-like or good in the suppression of that which cannot possibly be suppressed.


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/08/haunted_by_irish_rosary_beads/

A Part of Obama's Odyssey: The President's speech at Normandy commemorating the 65th anniversary of D-Day was the greatest speech I have ever heard and probably will hear if I live to be 110. He was just superb and brought tears to my eyes more than once. He is here for OUR moment for OUR time and we are TRULY TRULY blessed!

He gave more than inspiring words. He gave a masterpiece. I have no words to describe THOSE words except to say that I am so fortunate that in my time in my era that I was alive to see and hear what he said. He was simply wonderful!!

I will write something more tying the entire trip in but I have to compose my thoughts and maybe wait until he returns from his trip.

A Threat to the President: Okay so I'm angry today because I get up read the news and am hit in the face with a story that the president was threatened so my BP rises and I need to vent. If you do not like it I always say you don't have to read it or delete it. It is not the most pristine perfect piece I've written but it gets the point across!

The president was threatened yesterday by some genius (Daniel James Murray) who said so when he went to a bank in Utah and withdrew $13,000. He had at least EIGHT registered firearms. It is sickening. It is amazing how many certifiable NUT JOBS there are out there and how many who are on networks, radio and other media virulently egging these wackos on wishing the president would fail or worse.

I think Obama's trip has so far been miraculous. I am Jewish and I am saying that. If better feelings can begin between the Arab world and us then we and Israel too will be the benefactor. Obama is doing unbelievable things and all some of these IDIOTS on blogs and media can talk about is his birth certificate or how he is a socialist when Bush caused the death of thousands including MORE than on 9/11 and more of us. If Obama saves us another attack from an irate Muslim because he hated being imprisoned for nothing, tortured or his family killed or bombed for nothing then Obama is worth his weight in gold. HE IS BRILLIANT and doing things maybe NO other president since Franklin Roosevelt has done. The stakes are HIGH as high maybe as a World War BECAUSE nuclear is now in the equation.

If it turns out otherwise I will be surprised and will admit to my error but now I think he is doing what for so long many of us and the world have thirsted. We have YEARNED, begged and pleaded for someone smart. 137 days into his administration and he has done legions. His trip to Egypt was a resounding success by anyone's standards. Elections matter OBAMA WON. Let me say that again he WON and it wasn't even close.

I WANT THE SECRETE SERVICE to investigate round the clock to find this lunatic who threatened the president until that jerk is found and while they are at it they might look at some of blogs too. Yes, I am a free speech advocate but some are outrageous and threats to the president's life is where my free speech advocacy ends.

If God forbid a trillion quadrillion times something EVER happens OUR president you can kiss this country goodbye. How do you think the MILLIONS upon millions of people who love him here would feel or what they would do not to mention what would happen around the world as the adoration he has across the globe is legion. I did not see ANY Bush adoration ANYWHERE. Obama is a loved man.

As much as some in this country have brains in their posterior like mush and cannot bear that a white guy LOST an election there are a billion people across the globe to whom he is giving hope. IF he has the good fortune to survive four years AND be elected for four more our country just may have been saved by the skin of its teeth yet again.

Sometimes miracles happen but in this country somehow somewhere some brainless IDIOT will try to screw it up you can be sure of that! The stupid insipid right wing are utter venomous morons if they cannot see poison they spew and the deadly ramifications it has.

A hand to the Muslim World: I have not had a chance to review what the President said but as usual what I did hear he delivered magnificently. The path we have chosen for decades MUST change if we are to live in a safer world retaining the moral clarity which at a distant time in our history we possessed. Obama's speech changed things. I hope.

The Abortion of Our Rights and the Rise of Domestic Terrorism: This is a letter I wrote to Attorney General Holder


The right wing religious FANATIC who assassinated Dr. Tiller and the many other right wing extremists who are antiabortion, anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual zealots are absolutely terrifying. Dr. Tiller, as you know, HELPED women in desperate need of help and it was LEGAL. What is in the essence of a person who kills, in a church, a doctor who has the legal authority to do what he does?

Women seeking late term abortions, as has been said, do NOT just one day walk by an abortion clinic and think maybe I should have an abortion. They, more often than NOT, during late stages of pregnancy have significant life threatening, complicated or emotionally unacceptable circumstances. Rachel Maddow interviewed Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation who was devastated by the death of her friend Dr. Tiller and who knew about the whys of late term abortion. She gave examples such as one girl who was 10 or 11 years old IMPREGNATED BY HER FATHER! The fetus, if taken to term, would have been a child of rape and incest. The young girl did not know what to do and waited until the latter stages of her pregnancy to seek help; another had terminal cancer and found out late in her pregnancy and STILL another had a fetus which was DEAD in her womb. There are many more mothers who develop serious maladies and threats to their life OR their fetuses do and would be either condemned to a horrific death once outside the womb or condemned to life-long debilitating physical deformities if taken to term. One male member of a right wing extremist group, she said, thought that the woman with the dead fetus in her womb should carry that fetus to term. This is how OUT OF CONTROL, ill informed and how sick they are.

These people who threaten violence of abortion clinics, torment patients and threaten doctors SHOULD be dealt with as TERRORISTS. They have at times even justified the assassination of the president. THIS IS HOW DANGEROUS they are. The President MUST be protected at all cost. I worry about right wing domestic terrorism every day and worry about our president's safety because of them. The right wing is, with their sanctimonious religious fanaticism, a huge threat to our nation perhaps even the GREATEST threat of all. This, like its Islamic terrorist cousin, is Christianized terrorism and their lack of morality is, in my opinion, the same. It is a clear and very present danger to all of us. I ask you, the Attorney General, with HASTE to monitor ALL of these groups and religious zealots everywhere who are a dire terrorist threat to our people, our president and our nation. Infiltrate them as soon as possible and prevent another catastrophic event.

The right of women to seek an abortion is enshrined in law and should stay that way to protect lives of full term living breathing human beings who find themselves in trouble! When abortion was illegal, as you know, women were consigned to filthy, back alley, abortion shops where they developed life threatening often fatal infection. Some even became permanently sterile. We cannot, we MUST not allow this to happen again and we MUST not allow these few religious fanatics to fill our lives with terror. I know you take this as seriously as most of us do and hope you are working feverishly to stop the murder of doctors, the bombing of clinics and the injury and sometimes death of the people who assist them.

Justice Sotomayer and the Ricci decision--Affirmative Action in the Crosshairs:

Justice Sotomayer has been relentlessly attacked mostly by the right wing for her decision with respect to the Ricci case concerning the white fire fighters in New Haven. She decided on the affirmative action side and against them. She has been ridiculously called a racist as if white men for over two hundred years did not have power. I say there is no such thing as neutrality. We are ALL (justices included) tainted by who we are and it is through that lens with which we perceive the world. I am not a fan of affirmative action because I think it does minority groups an injustice too by allowing others to view their success due to the special consideration given to race.

Having said that our culture has had a special history with respect to race. The conundrum for our nation is that it professed one unique and, indeed glorious, set of ideals expressed in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution but did quite another in practice for over two hundred years with respect to the African American community. Without question our nation treated that group abysmally. History has consequences and, I believe, through various profound decisions in our courts, laws in our Congress and in the changing attitudes of our people we have tried mightily to adjust the playing field. The consequences of our history toward mainly one group because of their visually obvious different skin color have been profound and tragic for all of us. It is because of this horrific injustice, I believe, we still need to level that playing field. We experience, it is true, an occasional inequality to whites, the dominant group, because of it. Perhaps, however, this is the price the future generations of those who ran slave ships from Africa pay for the egregious sins of their forebears. We have reaped what we have sown and for that reason I still acquiesce to the payment for past wrongs and the present remedies affirmative action affords.

Boy in the Striped Pajamas: I posted my review of this film on IMDb the film link. It is not the best I have ever written because I did not take the time to hone it. It was in response to some which criticized the film for various reasons. I thought those reasons trivial. It gets my point across. This film is highly recommended by me and is in rental and On Demand. Do so if you get the chance.

I thoroughly loved this film. I do NOT care one wit that one could say this was not probable or that was not probable. This is based on a book of fiction BUT it had HUGE NON-fiction things to say about the complexities moral and otherwise of the Holocaust. It had HUGE things to say about the innocence of childhood and how a child tries to make sense of things that make NO sense at all. It may not have been absolutely accurate in terms of possibilities of what could or could not have occurred but it is ABSOLUTELY accurate as to the essence of the character substance and in the horror of the undeniable.

This was not only a good representation of the nature of the camp and the juxtaposition between the "other" the Jew and the privileged Nazis who lived normal lives next door to insanity it was a WONDERFUL representation of the nature of this beast of humanity that was the Holocaust. It matters NOTHING whether Shumel could have entered the camp or whether he could have talked to the boy or whether he could have gotten clothes for him or not gotten clothes. THOSE THINGS ARE TRIVIAL.

What is NOT trivial is their friendship and our age old questions of how did this possibly happen. How could it have happened in an advanced culture and how could ADULTS do this to other human beings even children? It shows how the youth were indoctrinated and it shows how some such as the mother had a DEGREE of humanity and morality that put her at great odds with her husband the commandant. We KNOW some Germans rebelled against this moral insanity. Bruno is the child who sees the unseeable and cannot get it. It makes NO sense to him. It makes NO sense to me either. It is the one occurrence in human history that is INEXPLICABLE if I lived to be 1000 I could not understand it. It IS BEYOND comprehension to a moral adult as it WAS to the boy of eight.

It is man's shame, it is his eternal crime and it should NEVER be forgotten EVER no matter what ignorant human tries to deny it. They cannot. History speaks. As long as there is a planet earth the Holocaust will be remembered forever. This film speaks volumes about its essence, volumes about man's cruelty and volumes about the innocence of childhood and the joys of simple friendship one human being to another which could never be in life. Only in death could they be equal and together. It is too bad adults have to lose that innocence. Once lost it can never be regained. It is a film for all time including and most especially our own. This film was, in my opinion, SUPERB!

Obama's Choice: I am elated about President Obama’s selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayer as Justice Souter’s replacement on the US Supreme Court. Not only is Judge Sotomayer eminently legally and scholastically qualified having graduated first in her class at Princeton and having been editor of the Yale Law Review but she also has served in a varied capacity within the law from a criminal prosecutor to a litigator in a corporate law firm.

More than even all of that, however, is the essence of who she is and the background from which she emerged which makes her a uniquely American story. Only in America can someone from a housing project in the Bronx escape the shackles of neighborhood drug dealers and the omnipresent crime it engenders to avoid that which could have imprisoned her for life. She is testament to the importance of family and the values it bestows as the vehicle to avoid a life of grinding poverty, hopelessness and sometimes even death before one’s time. Judge Sotomayer has risen above the hardship of the early death of her father, the hazard of a difficult milieu in which to thrive, a mother who sometimes worked two jobs and even the onset of diabetes at age 10 to show what desire, fortitude and positive family values will do to escape the seemingly inescapable.

Judge Sotomayer is the first Hispanic woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court. She is all that is excellent about this country and that which reinforces time and again my love for it. Where could the great odds against her be overcome any other place on earth? People come to our shores risking life and limb for a reason. The life of Judge Sotomayer gives answer to the question why and credence to President Obama’s campaign essence: Yes we can!

Updated Opinion: I thought about this more especially after seeing the president deliver the speech. Perhaps, he hit a home run and really served more to illuminate how recalcitrant the hardened opposition is. Possibly this served to reach out to those Catholics who are reasonable, moderate AND moral. He did more to infuse his presidency yet again with rational thought. His delivery was perfect.

I take my opinion back ... just a bit. The hardened religious right will never capitulate on abortion, gay marriage or any other hot button issue but the center truly is the important venue and Obama, as usual, played to that with clarity, empathy and prescience. Who in good conscious could disagree with what he said? Probably not many. So, kudos yet again to this most articulate, engaging, and brilliant man. It is unique that we should have gotten this man elected since we were so many years in the desert. There's a Biblical metaphor in there somewhere!

I refer to this blog: http://yomamaforobama.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/reconciliation-not-recalcitrance/#respond

Pig headed Protest: I agree with most of what was said in this particular entry. I, however, disagree with some, of it. To me, abortion is NOT horrific. What IS horrific, in MY opinion, is taking a fetus to term when it is not wanted, when the mother cannot afford to raise the child, when it will be raised in a toxic milieu, when the mother is drug addicted, and when the fetus will develop significant deformity including retardation profound and otherwise. There are a host of other rationales for someone choosing abortion and we know the litany well: rape, incest and the health of the mother to name an additional few. All of the profound rationales for abortion discussed above, as I see it, are the most horrific scenarios of all and the main rationales for choosing to terminate a pregnancy. I do NOT think birth control is the main reason for abortion. How much easier it is to use a birth control technique then to suffer a surgical procedure with the risk that entails even WHEN it is in sterile conditions not to mention the psychological humiliation that some women encounter when seeking abortion at a paucity of clinics in various states. Currently even in an affluent suburb of Boston there is conflict as a clinic seeks to move to a larger location but because of the protest of the pig heads (as I call them) seeking to make the woman feel even more agitated than she already may be, its construction is in a state of limbo.


Contrary to the thrust of one idea of reconciliation of the two sides of the abortion debate, I believe that the secular world and the religious arena will ALWAYS be at odds with respect to the abortion issue. Those who disagree with a woman's right to choose do so primarily because of religious rationale and it is often sponsored by those bastions of virtue the Catholic Church, fundamentalist Protestant churches and, of course, the population explosive Mormon Church. If one equates a fetus, dependent on the mother for continuance, with a full term human being of say age 22 then the argument is closed. The religionists will never compromise. I believe the two sides are going to have to agree that they will always disagree and I believe, the president quite rightly said that. The question is whether the two sides, most especially the religiously fanatical side, will do so without violence. When one absolutely knows god is on one's side and one is on a crusade then what does one have to lose? If they do NOT protest they think they will lose their immortal soul. End of argument as they have, as THEY see it, nothing to argue. There is no possibility of reconciliation if the other side is implacably recalcitrant.

Part of me thinks, although most at Notre Dame were supportive of the president, that he did not need to subject himself to the onslaughts which would, of course, ensue when speaking at an institution which is part of the Roman Catholic aegis. I thought those who protested this gifted, brilliant, moral and accomplished man did him a grievous insult and Obama gave himself one by accepting their invitation. Just my opinion.

The Community that I Know and Love: I had the pleasure of taking a tour conducted by the Historical Society of my town of some of the oldest and most historical housing . I had never done it before. It was eminently satisfying. I wish I had realized as a young child how much history this town has to offer. The homes on the south side AND on the north side that we toured were beautiful, interesting and rich with history. I met some residents and was thrilled at the many discussions I had with many diverse and very lovely people. Yes, the town has changed since I knew it many years ago BUT there is still so much good that this town has to offer. No one or nothing is perfect. I STILL love it and continue to think it is a wonderful community in which to live. Like all things in life if one wants to find good just look for it. It's all around - simply take the time to see it.

Stream of conscious to the president: I sent a stream of conscious to the president. Here's what I said. It's just off the top of my head but not releasing the torture photos made me mad. I think Bush et al should be prosecuted. Look at what they have done and I see Obama as capitulating. I think he is afraid of them and I don't know why. So I said the following:

I am feeling one HUGE disappointment after another. Today the president decides NOT to release the torture pictures. He doesn't want to prosecute CLEAR illegalities. He sides with the Bush administration on failing to prosecute phone companies on NSA spying, he hires Wall Street cronies to run the bail out, he allows bonuses and he ramps up war and who knows when or even IF we will be out of Iraq. He is turning out to be NOT what I thought he would be.

So what if there were dems involved in sanctioning torture? Let the chips fall where they may. They have to know there are consequences for illegalities. These illegalities have gotten people killed and our own security is compromised.

He was SUPPOSEDLY the most liberal member of the Senate then why isn't he more behind the Dawn Johnson OLC nominee. She is FANTASTIC and yet he is weakly pushing for her even though she would make it without filibuster. It just seems every single day more and more and more things come around that are a disappointment.

Don't as k don't tell the president writes letters of support for a fabulous guy who was a West Point grad and then fired when he came out on the Rachel Maddow show. It was a SIN to fire him. Then the president does not do a thing to advance the cause against it as more and more service people GOOD ones who know Arabic get fired. He could in one second by executive order rescind that guy's termination. Is the president SO afraid of the extreme right that he compromises at every turn? What about the left who got him in there?
.
I don’t even trust the president’s words on the economy as too big to fail banks get bailed and the average person is suffering with foreclosures, credit card debt, unemployment and no healthcare. And WHY is single payer NOT on the table? Why did not the cram down legislation pass? I don't like Geithner and I don't like Summers never have. I think they are in league with Wall Street and NOT Main Street and I am beginning to think the president has bamboozled us all. I hope I am wrong. Dismayed!

Trouble in Newspaper City: Jeff Jacoby's May 6 editorial "Liberal bias isn't killing newspapers" in The Boston Globe is, in my opinion, correct. It is not whether a newspaper is labeled liberal or conservative that accounts for the difficulties in which newspapers find themselves. The reason, as he stated, is man's technological advancement which has always transformed the way we live. The telephone, automobile, television and now the Internet have changed our lives in too many ways to count. I never thought that the liberals controlled all media as some incorrectly say. There are too many that fall into the so called "conservative" category for my taste for me to perceive that as true.

I am one of the small percentage, about whom Jacoby talks, who read at least one newspaper (usually The Globe) every day. I know I do not like staring into a computer screen for my morning dose of news, nor do I love looking at the same old talking heads on TV. Newspapers and their cousin the book offer unique and unparalleled ways to concentrate and to learn. Reading the actual newspaper or book is as good as reading it on the Internet if not better. I can sit, relax, have a cup of coffee and simply turn the page. Better still my back does not ache and my eyes do not blur. The newspaper itself is the best way to soak up the daily news and opinion no matter what your political stripe.

Profiles in Courage? -- Jeff Jacoby's May 3, 2009 Boston Sunday Globe editorial "Courage and the lack of it," strains credulity. Mr. Jacoby put Ms. Prejean and Professor Glendon into the courageous category. Ms. Prejean, beauty pageant runner-up, is an unsophisticate who has absolutely no understanding of human sexuality but touts her religious belief as the gold standard of behavior to which she would like all of us to conform since if she and her church had their way -- and sometimes they certainly do -- they would be making decisions for millions who were born gay and want the freedom to choose with whom they construct a committed life. Ms. Prejean said something which had a destructive impact. Perez Hilton gave this person a forum to achieve sainthood from religious extremists who try to spew their venom into policy. Professor Glendon, a member of the Bush II administration, and one who refused to share the same podium as the current president because of his views on choice, is Mr. Jacoby's other profile in courage. She cares so much about fetuses but could not, obviously, care enough when George Bush supported capital punishment, to refuse to be a member of his administration because of it. I thought her church was against capital punishment. She is a threat to full term human life since she would rather see a pregnant mother who emotionally, economically and sometimes physically cannot take a pregnancy to term, sacrifice her own full term life and die from a botched illegal abortion.

Ms. Prejean is a buffoon and Professor Glendon is a hypocrite. One was employed in an utterly immoral administration taking us to war based on lies killing thousands and the other, dawning a postage stamp-size bathing suit, complete with exaggerated endowment, was involved in a sexist beauty pageant that makes women look like, what conservatives would call, perverted sex toys. I thought conservatives were about morality in media. Both women and the groups that love them wreak havoc on our society. It is shocking, that Jeff Jacoby, a man of letters, could write such editorial nonsense. I would have expected a little bit better analysis by him of just who is a profile in courage and who is not.

The Specter Switch -- a New Dance: I was absolutely thrilled by the momentous switch of the long time Republican Arlen Specter, to the Democratic Party. It was brave, it had foresight and it showed a pragmatic insight into the political realities of our time. It was brave because it is a difficult undertaking to switch parties when one has been a member of the federal legislative branch for such a long time. It was brave, too, in that Senator Specter knew the predictable risk of being accused that it was done simply because he saw the Republican primary polls for him in the next election were, as he stated, bleak. That fact, however, gave him the chance to be pragmatic, see the changing national demographics and with savvy represent the state of Pennsylvania and our country more effectively.

There is more to it, though, than that. The Democratic Party now has within it what the Republican Party lost. The Republican Party, sadly for it, lost its big tent and the Democratic Party, effectively constructed one of their own. Within the Democratic Party there is room for debate, dialogue and flexibility. This is, in my opinion, its biggest asset and has been one of the greatest reasons for its recent legislative and presidential success.

The Republican Party took the 1964 presidential Republican nominee Barry Goldwater’s memorable convention speech phrase “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue” and used it as its mantra to create over the past forty years a change in the Republican brand. Over time it served to work against itself as it eliminated a permanent Republican majority by eliminating differing views of its moderates. Clearly, extremism on either side of the political spectrum is the greatest vice and moderation the greatest virtue. The Democratic Party has developed a new dance and acquired what the Republican Party has lost and that is the ability to hear the other side, to rationally and less ideologically discuss the issues and to make more people feel their opinion counts.

I posted this on McClatchy blog at 10:30 p.m. August 23, 2009

To Much to Do: Let's see there is Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Taliban, the Taliban in Pakistan, Pakistan's nukes, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran, bin laden, Israel, the economic disaster, no health care for half the country and the other half has inferior health care, our bridges, roads and infrastructure are crumbling, our education system stinks, and now tac on torture. No wonder Larry Summers fell asleep. We do not need one president, we need TEN. Oh yes there's the swine flu. I thought flu season was over. I'm tired. I'm going to bed!

The Torture Legacy: It is unfathomable to me how an administration could commit the abundance of illegalities that we know for certain the Bush administration did and not think, with all the years of experience some like Dick Cheney possessed, that they would not have to account for their nefarious behavior most especially with respect to torture. For the first time former Vice-President Cheney is making the media rounds to try to explain his side of the story. No matter what Dick Cheney has to say it cannot and will not erase the indictments of so many, a significant number of whom are experts in interrogation tactics and others who will start coming out of hiding to expose the dastardly deeds so they can sleep at night and, most importantly, for their defense in the probable legal onslaught. History, of course, will be the final judge. My suspicion is the positive legacy the Bush administration allegedly so furiously covets will be one of the worst to befall an administration in US history and there is nothing they can do about it.

A footnote: Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times April 24, 2009, says it all more eloquently than I. Here is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1

Another expert opinion -- Philip Zelikow, a former Bush administration lawyer interviewed on Rachel Maddow. He was asked to write an opinion on the legality of torture. For the Bush administration he wrote the opposite of what they wanted to hear and, of course, left, his opinions mysteriously vanishing. I suspect they may once be lost but soon, HOPEFULLY, found. He writes the following in the NYT as an Op Ed Contributor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24zelikow.html

The Folly of Fascism: Kudos to Scott Lehigh on his April 22, 2009 Globe editorial "The conservative cries of fascism." The vast pool of ignorance in which the American public swims astounds me. They simply do not know the definition and the difference between Fascism and Communism and its varying degrees of political thought which fall in between. Clearly the fascism of Mussolini of Italy, Hitler of Germany, Franco of Spain, or Hirohito of Japan were different from the politics of Roosevelt, Churchill and even Stalin no matter how many labeled all of these men interchangeably. It is inane to do so.

Nomenclature has meaning. The American public, generally speaking, would not know the difference between a fascist, a Communist or a socialist if they tripped over a Webster's dictionary explaining their essence. To understand all of it one would have to know where the term fascist originates. It had its etiological meaning as a bundle of rods or fasces tied together with an axe-like blade on the side which were carried by Roman soldiers. It signified a symbol of the power of the state. Mussolini used it as a symbol of the Fascist movement he tried to create. To understand Communism, of course, one would have to understand Karl Marx and his philosophy which made a vain, albeit unsuccessful, attempt at the humane equalizing of social class. These two extremes are quite different from one another. There is nothing about fascism one could label humane. They both, though, make the individual subservient to the power of the state.

These political philosophies are complex and can be discussed at length. Most of the American public cannot do that with ease so talk show hosts take advantage of ignorance by screaming that people are either one or the other when they are neither. There are underpinnings to these political ideologies but most do not understand them. Obama is to Fascism as an orange is to an elephant. It is ridiculous to compare the two. This is more evidence of the American public's slant toward anti-intellectualism. That is the saddest "ism" of all.

The Fabric of American and other Life -- Tea Anyone? The latest teabag anti-tax (and many anti other things) mostly right wing inanity was an embarrassment. The threads of anti-government, anti-tax and the indictment of the latest fashionable ethnic group running through the historical fabric of American culture is chilling. The worst patch of the American quilt, in my opinion, is its traditional anti-intellectual assault on reason. THAT is the one I fear the most because through that all other extremist views are sewn. One can see it from the violent scourge of Fundamentalist Islam, Fundamentalist Christianity and, even among my own people, the popularity of Orthodox and Hassidic Judaism the most extreme and uncompromising forms of the faith.

The churches of change such as Unitarians, Congregationalists and other thinking Christian faiths as well as reform Judaism, in modern times, I think, take a hit as people want certainty. The Islamic faith, too, has a few moderate strains but many annihilate the disagreeing other by the most grotesque and bestial methods possible and, within the parameters of my limited knowledge of it, has no popular active liberal reform movement for obvious reasons. I have heard much of moderate Islam but nothing of reform Islam which would obviously encounter great risk to adherents. Dangerous times somehow advance the dangerous agendas of dangerous and often violent people incapable of listening to another side or questioning much of anything.

I hope man's divinely supreme intellect, proclivity for learning, and his love for rational thought ultimately prevail. It USUALLY does but, as history tells us, not always. It is my greatest fear because the stakes of annihilation from a nuclear reality by people who think they possess the ultimate truth is possible and terrifying. I am hoping smarter thought prevails and its attendant art form, compromise, not forgotten.

Civil Liberties and Domestic Surveillance: I have always had mixed emotions with respect to the NSA's collection of domestic telephone and email exchanges. Lofty principles are wonderful in an age when nuclear weapons are not a reality. That is not the age in which we live. Yet, what is more representative of the essence of our nation than its civil libertarian devotion. It is the reflection of who we are and, often, at least the verbal justification for our military and diplomatic intervention on the world stage. While I understand the grave existential threat of physical attack, I worry about the existential erosion of those very ideas that make us, as a nation, who we are. The body and the body politic consists of both ideas and biological realities. They are united. Can one live without the other?

While there is a certain amount of government surveillance which, I believe, is necessary, the dragneting of thousands if not millions of harmless citizens' phone calls and emails is a waste of time, money and surely is, I believe, ineffective in keeping the nation safe. We are wasting resources capturing email and phone calls of an elderly grandmother living in Boca Raton whose daily routine includes meals at her assisted living, bingo and phone calls to her daughter in law in Paris. Our country needs to be protected but the protection requires pin point accuracy of who is the real threat and who is not.

A New Sealing of Fate: When I first heard about the rescue of the captain of the Maersk by the Navy Seals my level of depression about the economy, more American soldiers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other problems facing our nation, went from ten to zero in an instant. Finally, an Easter/Passover metaphor -- the resurrection of hope in a sea of despair. Over the course of three days I thought the captain of the Maersk would be killed. That he was not reinforced a debate I had with someone recently over the competence of our military. I believe it to be the most competent in the world. My opposition, surprisingly a veteran, said he thought not. I decided Sunday my opinion was vindicated as I rehearsed in my mind over and over again what our modern military has been asked to do. Our professional all-volunteer military performs perfectly and have done what they have been asked to do every time. They are the military. They are NOT politicians nor are they members of the State Department or Congress. Their job is to protect and, if necessary, to kill for, American interests period. In my opinion, they do it with phenomenal bravery and incredible preciseness. What were the odds the captain and his crew would be rescued successfully? As each day passed the odds began to look slim.

Barack Obama said nothing while the ordeal was occurring. I suspect he worked with many entities in the utmost secrecy to make the operation work. We will probably not know the true extent of his machinations for many years but I know enough about our president to believe he is cautious, he is deliberate and he is very very smart. He is the exact opposite of the eight years of knee jerk militarism and paucity of intellect which was team Bush. Recently, when Bush's former UN ambassador Bolton was asked how he would resolve this difficult pirate issue his reaction was a military assault on Somalia. That would mean, of course, an escalation of war and possibly yet another occupational quagmire of an anarchistic East African entity in the Horn of Africa which cannot even be considered a nation state. We would add a third or some say even fourth war, if one counts some of Pakistan, as a target to our military's burden. We cannot employ that kind of foreign policy again and again and again. We do not have the lives to risk, the money to spend nor suffer the worldwide ill will it would engender if the US reacts with overwhelming military force to meet every threat we may face.

Terrorism whether from pirates or otherwise is worldwide. President Obama brings to his office precisely what our nation needs: meticulousness of thought, thoughtful preparation and slow but deliberate action which produces the optimum result but does not incur world-wide animosity in the process. The Obama Doctrine is smart and it is deliberative. The indictment many have had the past eight years has NOT been of the military but of the politicians who craft stupid poorly thought-out policy and then cavalierly play roulette with the lives and fortunes of those who would implement it.

Thankfully, the US has wonderful geographical coordinates. It is removed from many anarchistic forces who wish to destroy it. Technology, though, as 9/11 proved, makes all nations very close indeed. President Obama showed smart, deliberate poise while he monitored the problem and then gave his permission to those who could perfect the desired result. They, perfectly, surely did.

Bribery Pirates -- Frontline April 7, 2009 -- "Black Money" international bribery: As usual PBS and Frontline presented an interesting broadcast. The program on international bribery made me reflect. If only I did not have to worry about money. I, disabled and suffering in this economic recession/depression, watch, as the economic conditions worsen and my own body from polio will no longer do at 60 what it did years ago no matter how hard I try.

I ask myself the very moral question that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia and others talked about in this Frontline episode in relation to his being paid huge sums of money under the radar screen from the British aircraft company BAE in exchange, of course, for huge contracts in Saudi Arabia. Is bribery for enormous sums of money really that bad? After all as he stated so many do it, it's simply human nature and man is a fallen angel. Wouldn't it be so wonderful never to have to worry about money again? Life is so short, why not live it in style as one lives only once? Why not as, in the final analysis, we can only account for ourselves and no one really cares about me except for me.

There are laws against international bribery for a myriad of reasons. Arms sales between countries surreptitiously are dangerous by their very nature as today's friend is tomorrow's enemy sitting with your country's killing machines in its lap easily turned on you when the time is appropriate. The Iraq war was testament to that fact. What if our friend Prince Bandar and his father are either removed from power or what if both turn on the west as China and other nations become titanically powerful economic forces? Then what happens to the arms, the planes and the equipment the west sold to him? It is, though, not only EVEN about simply that, although that is surely important. It is about personal morality.

Even with my difficult position in life, even with my handicap, even with my fervent desire to not have to worry again, if I were in a position and someone came to me with an offer there is NO way on planet earth I would succumb. You may say that is easy for me to say now because no one ever has but truly I could NEVER be corrupted not by international finance, not by Wall Street, not by being a Congressperson (if I were one), not by anything or anyone. Why? Because it's wrong, it's unethical, it's not fair, it is illegal and it is downright dangerous. I would NEVER do one thing to compromise my integrity -- ever. No amount of money could make me do anything at any time to potentially hurt another human being, this planet or most especially my country. That is how much I value all of those things. I value those things more than my own difficult plight.

Some would pocket billions of dollars SIMPLY because, as Frontline indicated, they COULD, I would NOT pocket billions or millions (assuming I had the chance) simply because I COULD NOT. It's that simple.

The Mystery of Mental Illness: Sent this to the Metro News responding to an editorial on mental illness.

I agree with Dr. Gordon's April 7, 2009 editorial "Don't Stigmatize the Mentally Ill." I believe, though, some critical comments about mental illness and its treatment are in order. It is true mental illness should not, of course, be stigmatized. We are advanced, at least SOME of us are advanced, enough to know that the brain is an organ just like any other in the body. Sometimes as one's pancreas, for example, it does not function effectively for a variety of reasons. However, the stigmatizing, I think, that is accorded mental illness is that it is behavioral and not simply systemic in nature. Unlike other illnesses mental illness CAN produce threatening behavioral manifestations. I submit, it is the nature of how mental illness presents itself that is often the reason people fear it, stigmatize it and isolate people who show symptoms of it. We can clearly, I think, state that the man from Binghamton who killed so many innocent people was mentally ill. That does not preclude the fact that he posed a very clear and present danger to the community and no one knew it. When people present with bizarre behavior or speech people often do not know and fear what they will do.

Dr. Gordon and others in the mental health field will say that there are treatments for people with mental illness as there are treatments for people with diabetes and that is true. I though, maintain, the treatment offered to the mentally ill is sporadic at best and ineffective at worst. The treatment for mental illness shown in the panoply of medications offered for it are delivered often by trial and error. Treatment is haphazard as medications for certain diagnoses are seemingly thrown into a hat and then selected. Even the diagnosis itself is subjective. There is, in my opinion, no effective scientific measurement yet to determine which mental illness one has and which treatments are proper for it. We can only guess. That is not the case with diseases such as diabetes. Much of mental health care is, I submit, guess work and it often does not achieve the effective result. Drugs seem to work for a time, then medications must be increased and finally stopped as they become ineffective or cause unacceptable side effects.

Further, to complicate matters, drugs to treat mental illness can get expensive. We know the record of insurance companies paying for the average disease is often less than desirable but it is worse than that when it comes to mental illness. It is NOT treated by insurance companies with the same procedural equality as other illnesses may be. Co-payments are often large and sustained treatment sometimes not available ESPECIALLY for people who fall into the middle of the socioeconomic strata who have a difficult time -- especially in a down economy -- of getting treatment for anything much less for mental illness.

In my opinion, mental health professionals must work most especially on developing scientifically precise measurements of the brain and blood chemistry of mental illness. Insurance companies, too, should be forced by law to pay for the necessary treatment as they should for any other disease. It is only then, by the successful treatment of mental illness and the patient's ability to pay for it that its behavioral ramifications will be ameliorated and the public stigma reduced.

Bill Maher -- I have seen better shows: Wrote this to HBO and Bill Maher

I have been an avid fan of Bill Maher for years. I will continue to watch his show. I do, however, want to convey my irritation lately about his shows. Last week, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens and Mos Def were the guests. Rushdie and Hitchens are significant intellects with much creative thought to offer. I believe Mos Def, whom I have seen on Maher's show before, yet again was not only out of place but obstructionist as he, in never ending fashion, interrupted the other guests and had little well thought out ideas to convey. He was, I thought, inarticulate noise and prevented my enjoyment of the other two intellectual giants. I thought this was an extraordinarily incongruous choice of guests by Maher and HBO.

This week Bill Maher had on the conservative journalist David Frum who is absolutely humorless and boring. Sam Donaldson, Reihan Salam, and Carol Liefer were interesting. Bill Maher himself was, I thought, obnoxious, disrespectful and crude to both Sam Donaldson and Carol Liefer. First, he forgot Liefer's book which I am sure was an important part of her appearance on the show, next he used insulting words about her body as she described her scare with breast cancer. If that were not enough he used a disgusting reference to her about female genitalia. She, I thought, did NOT deserve that. Moreover, Sam Donaldson, a cultivated journalist, was insulted, too, by Maher when he made reference to his hair. Bill Maher should have refrained from making reference to his "rug." It sounded insensitive, crude and ignorant. Mr. Donalson was a gentleman about it. I thought, however, he was embarrassed by the insult and that Maher's treatment stifled Mr. Donaldson's thought. He, it seemed, did not give the audience enough benefit of his vast experience on the world stage. Surely Mr. Donaldson deserved better treatment than he was given. I, too, in my opinion could have easily done without Joe the Plumber. I believe he has NOTHING to offer. He has no intellect, no achievement, no well thought out ideas and has been merely a media creation with no purpose.

Surely, Bill Maher, a talented man, with many gifts for comedy, political satire and criticism does not have to resort to vulgarity and insult to guests who deserve better. I will give The Bill Maher Show some more viewing time but, truly, if more thought is not put into the congruency of whom Maher has on as guests and WHAT vulgar verbiage Maher uses I just may not view him any more. Time will tell.

The Place of the Jewish Holocaust: A letter appeared in the Metro West Daily News, April 1, 2009 from an Armenian gentleman, Mr. Demoorjian, whose opinion was essentially that all genocides were the same in that they were important to the individual group which was the subject of the onslaught and equated the Armenian genocide to the atrocity of the Jewish Holocaust. In fairness to him he did not belittle the Jewish Holocaust BUT he did create what I saw was a rather egalitarian concept of the 20th century Jewish Holocaust in Europe with respect to all others. I took issue, in part, because I do not believe all genocides, while horrific occurrences in and of themselves, to be the same. Thus, I wrote my own editorial to the News commenting on it. It stated as follows.


What Mr. Demoorjian's says has, without doubt, merit. One cannot calculate the human suffering of genocide whether in Armenia, Cambodia, Sudan, the slums of Mumbai or of the Jews of Europe. I as a Jew and as one whose politics have been shaped by the Holocaust, have long advocated for world admission of the Armenian genocide. There is no question about its reality and no question of its horror.

While, in my opinion, the near complete eradication of the Jewish people in Europe reigns sadly supreme among man's inhumanity to man, the Armenian genocide comes close to equaling its scope. Still, as horrific as other attempts at genocide are, in my opinion, nothing on planet earth rises to the Olympian heights of the Jewish Holocaust. It was unparalleled in its length, in its scope and in its near successful completion as man used all his technologically sophisticated machinations to arrive at the German self-proclaimed Final Solution.

What does the word Final mean? I believe we must look not only at the deaths of the six million innocent men and women -- a million of whom were children -- but we must look also at the progression of Jewish history throughout the ages to see what the word final really means. Final means, to me, the end, the last, the climax of the 2000 year historical orgy of anti-Semitism born from Judaism's early schism with nascent Christianity.

Throughout generations, Christianity, uncompromising and extreme, laid a claim no other genocide ever did. The New Testament accusation against the Jew for the crime of deicide -- the actual killing of God --, in fact, made centuries of cruel, restrictive and brutal treatment of the Jewish people possible. Its orgasmic climax became the Holocaust and Europe's attempt to finally rid itself of a people the indictment of whom was a part of Christian doctrine for two milenia.

No other hatred has been as long, as wide spread, and as continuing as the hatred of the Jew. Moreover, while that kind of anti-Semitism we may consider now obscurantist (even though we do see some of it in modern Europe today), the baton of it has been relinquished to other Middle Eastern peoples who often use identical anti-Semitic spewing heard in the ghettos of yesteryear's Europe to justify the violence they spread.

It is with that historical milena in mind that I make my argument. I DO, though, understand the horrific nature of the Armenian atrocity and my thoughts, I hope, in no way diminish its historical importance to the world.

Watching the Wolves: Jeff Jacoby's April 1, 2009 op ed "Beware of wolves in suits" is a superior piece. I agree with every sentiment as my blood boils over the egregious abuses of the partnership between government and the people's money irrespective of political party. In circular fashion our money ends up often in our elected officials' or their appointments' pockets. They at times give back little and even sometimes nothing to the job they hold or to the people they represent. Much of the behavior such as collecting salaries and pensions at the same time, which Jeff Jacoby illuminated, is or should be illegal and if not illegal is certainly hugely unethical. As Jacoby says, it is especially unethical given our severe recessive economic times. Whether it's Wall Street bailouts and bonuses or pension funds and salaries for public employees, in the final analysis, it is the taxpayer's money. There must be strict oversight and intense regulation of those who could breach the public trust as human being's natural proclivity for greed is taken by some to Herculean heights.

We are, indeed, the sheep who do not have even a chance against the wolves who guard the hen house too because, often, the public's memory, unfortunately, is short. We read an occasional editorial exposing corruption one day and the next day it is forgotten. Perhaps it is because we feel powerless against government corruption and because there is so much of it. If we do not have our governmental officials to protect us then who do we have? In that case, it is up to the press to relentlessly pound the drum exposing the slime under the rock. It is then up to the people in a democracy to demand clean-up and watch ever so closely exactly what the wolves are doing. If our elected officials and their cronies breach the ethical divide we can use our power by giving them either the prosecutorial or electoral boot.

John Hope Franklin -- A man of hope: What a marvelous man the eminent historian Dr. John Hope Franklin was. It is all together fitting that his middle name was Hope and that his efforts to chronicle, understand and improve the politics of race provided just that -- hope. The presidency of Barack Obama I am sure realized a dream embedded in Dr. Franklin's DNA and, indeed, embedded within all of our DNA who value justice, fairness and equality promised in the Constitutional foundation of our nation.

Dr. John Hope Franklin, who died March 25th at the age of 94 and whose obit, sharing so much of what this man accomplished, appeared in the March 26, 2009 edition of The Boston Globe, was a gentle man of infinite scholarly preeminence and wisdom. He was a credit to all humanity everywhere whose thirst for knowledge could not be quenched and which knowledge was imparted by him to so many. I will miss his sweet tones and brilliant analysis of historical events I heard often on various media and read in his book "From Slavery to Freedom." Rest well, Dr. John Hope Franklin, a beautiful man, who was an inspiration to so many. You will be missed.

Moving the Money: I do not think the eschewing of large profits is what most are advocating as a remedy to our current economic crisis. If one is truthful, most of us would probably love large profits. The issue, I believe, is the running of the ship of state into the ground by the few who would scandalously use often fraudulent economic structures under the noses of the powerless and poor to sweep up for themselves, with government help, an immense and wholly unequal share of the public wealth. The question is, I think, who are we as a culture, as economic graphs show, if a gargantuan part of the wealth of a country is concentrated solely in the top 1% of the population? The answer is we are not a very comfortable or happy place in which to live as the so called American dream -- financial security for us in our retirement years and our progeny for their future -- becomes impossible for most to achieve. This cannot stand and it did not historically stand as the great trust busting years of Theodore Roosevelt show and, later, as Franklin Roosevelt proved during the Great Depression. Sadly, Ronald Reagan, the so called "great communicator," told us to reverse course that little government was the best government and that the forces of the market would wield their magical brilliance for the greater good of everyone.

Again and again, this has proven to be a fallacious philosophical argument as repeatedly we have seen wealth concentrated in the hands of a few means often economic catastrophe. Wealth in the hands of the very few does not, in fact, as Reaganomics told us ad nauseam, trickle down but, rather, stays in the hands of the very few. The few co-opt the many as they tap into a tired old long-time American anti-tax tradition. Anything with the word tax in it can be exploited to convince the American people that government is their enemy not their friend and that the best tax is NO tax at all while the monied class runs off with the store.

I submit government is NOT the enemy and it, indeed, CAN be your friend IF the majority understands the shell game some at the very top try to play. I am not a socialist but I am a fairist . I believe in a fair and transparent economic structure which does NOT soak the rich BUT, rather, requires them to pay their fair share which, I believe, quite ethically, should be more than those who occupy the lower ends of the socio-economic ladder. Through microscopic regulation of big business, government must ensure that too-big-to-fail corporations be disallowed, split up, reorganized and ultimately those that are left contribute their fair share to the tax structure. It means eliminating off-shore accounts, tax havens and unfair trade practices as well.

If the President and his economic team can ever untangle this mess, the bloated few who were responsible for the sub-prime loans, short selling, derivatives, hedge funds, credit default swaps, and other unsavory stock instruments which have nearly brought this country and, indeed, the world, to its knees, be neutered and a new fair redistribution of the wealth enacted through the tax code. Only government can ensure that Wall Street is regulated properly, that too-big-to-fail corporations be broken up, that unfair procedures be terminated and that those who committed unparalleled fraud be jailed. Everyone LOVES the things such as education, roads, bridges, and health care only government could provide everyone but seemingly NO ONE wants to pay for it. It's time someone did.

The Pecuniary Papacy: In response to the March 24, 3009 article in The Boston Globe entitled "Pope urges help for the poor as he leaves Africa," I am always stunned when the Pope, in this case Benedict the VI, the head vicar of Vatican opulence, states that he "urges" help for the African poor. If the Vatican and the Catholic Church are so concerned about the African poor and dispossessed I suggest they sell a few priceless paintings, artifacts gold pieces, rings and other prayerful items suggestive of the Vatican's overflowing fortune to help those poor about whom they, supposedly, care so much. While they are at it they might look into the billions of dollars in secretive Vatican investments, the coffers of which, despite the economic downturn, I am sure are sufficiently well stocked!

Mary Tyler Moore Idol NO MORE -- A Response to a Parade Magazine Interview:

I grew up watching without fail Mary Tyler Moore shows. Laura Petrie and Mary Richards reflected their times. They showed a moral goodness, innocence and a beauty that was what we thought life was like in this country. She sat high, for many years, on the pedestal I built for her until I read the Sunday Parade Magazine interview. I was surprised -- NO I was shocked -- to read about Mary's political support. I simply could NOT believe it. We all have a right to our opinion, no doubt. I, though, believe one's political beliefs ARE one's principles and one's principles are one's character.

I could not understand her support of Republican candidates most especially John McCain with his insipid side-kick Sarah Palin nor could I at all understand the excuse she used for George W. Bush's unconscionable and egregiously immoral stand on stem cell research. I was not angry. I was simply disappointed. It is beyond my imagination how a person nearly killed by the onslaught of diabetes and alcoholism, one who has suffered so many internal struggles and so much tragedy could support candidates whose sympathies for the feelings and conditions of others are so lacking.

Ms. Moore's inability to realize the necessity and the value of our Constitutional separation of church state clause is also staggering to me . It is the height of irony that a woman who needed most the advocacy for her plights would eschew candidates who could give just that to her. I, too, could not understand a woman of the theater, who most definitely in her career must have known many homosexual people, yet throws her support to candidates whose so called "moral" position on homosexuality would be that those people either not exist, deny their feelings or deny their rights which other American citizens take for granted. It is unconscionable to me that a woman of her stature could not think about the people she supports and look with suspicion on the company they keep. I might, respectfully, tell her, too, that George Bush did NOT reject embryonic stem cell research BECAUSE he “had an obligation to his religion …” On the contrary; others who have known him relate that he truly held weak religious belief. He USED religious belief, however, to appeal to a base he thought he needed to attain political power.

Ms. Moore's diabetes at this moment in time COULD have been cured IF George Bush had not been president wasting eight years while lines of stem cells were thrown in the trash. Those lines could have helped cure her diabetes and Michael Fox's Parkinson's and Chris Reeves’s paralysis and even MY paralysis from polio and millions of others who suffer from hideous diseases every day of their life. Chris Reeve could possibly be alive today if it were not for George W. Bush. George Bush had NO trouble sending thousands to their death but could not see fit to protect full term human life. This, Ms. Moore, says is because of his moral compass. I say WHAT moral compass. He had none.

It is sad in our time to see our idols fall from grace but fallen she has at least from MY Mt. Olympus. I wish her well but I SURELY hope those whom she supports as political candidates NEVER in this country and in MY time again gain the immense power they once had to create the kind of destruction we see today. Our president now may be our country's LAST chance to redeem its image; an image that was reflected by the innocence and beauty of the television of which, for so many years, Ms. Moore was a part. It is sad for me to see that she is not exactly who I thought she was.

I wrote this in response to a Newsweek article that said Obama was giving the country a too rosey scenario of the extent of our fiscal crisis.


In response to the Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart article entitled "Don't Buy the Chirpy Forecasts" if President Obama came out and said the prospects for economic recovery any time soon look bleak and the economic downturn will most likely last a decade then the media and the public would be screaming from the rafters that Obama does not inspire confidence. You cannot have it both ways. I think the president is doing the best he can given the can of worms he was handed. He tries to exude hope and realistic Rooseveltian optimism. The example presidencies of Lincoln and Roosevelt from which the president seeks direction serve us well. It was Lincoln's sagacious ability to look at issues with multidemensional heart and Roosevelt's optimistic oratorical brilliance which kept the country's spirits buoyed to save a nation.

I cannot imagine a worse scenario than to have an economic catastrophe and a president at the helm with a lemon-like Calvin Coolidge personality or a deer-in-the-headlights helpless impotency of a Herbert Hoover. We are lucky to have a president of substance and ability after the dearth of leadership we have experienced in the past decade. Will the president have missteps? Of course he will. Look closely at what his inept and incompetent predecessor did. Bush was, in my opinion, a disaster to this nation. The American public should never forget and be thankful someone brilliant, competent and hopeful occupies our highest office. Moreover, our speed dial McDonald's nation needs to understand President Obama has been in office a mere two months. Give him a chance. I think, perhaps, our nation, with any luck, may luck out once again.

"Ethical Embroys": Before I even read Jeff Jacoby's March 15, 2009 Boston Sunday Globe article"Embryos and Ethics" I knew my blood pressure would soar. It did. Curious how the right wing's moral compass is all atwitter about a frozen group of cells used in embryonic stem cell research but wars that kill and inflict horrendous suffering on often innocent full term human beings goes off their radar screen. Hypocritical as usual, the right wing often marches to every beat of a war drum but beats up on the possibility of cells in a petrie dish curing disease.

For me, a paralytic polio survivor since the age of five, this issue literally has legs. 30 years ago I was told about the possibility of the regeneration of nerve cells in my spinal cord and that regaining the use of paralyzed parts of my body was not simply the stuff of science fiction. More research, at that time, needed to be done. It never happened because of the right wing's oppressive agenda and because of George Bush who for eight long years limited research on it to only a few existing stem cell lines. Other lines created after subsequent fertilizations could not be used and, in morally dubious fashion, were thrown away. My leg and other parts of my body remain paralyzed.

I do not care a wit what Charles the ideologue Krauthammer thinks about this issue or if he cares about his own physically compromised life. I care about mine and others. He and Jeff Jacoby are wrong. This issue will never be like the Tuskegee experiment which was so immorally done on full term African American human beings. It is not even remotely the same and experiments such as that have nothing to do with stem cell research. A clump of blastocysts could promote tissue repair and cure hideous diseases. What a boon to all mankind that would be. I cannot think of one thing more that I would love my tax dollars to go to than to help cure human beings who suffer unspeakable torment every day of their lives. The people in our democracy must believe that too since they elected Barack Obama who was unequivocally supportive of stem cell research in his campaign. It is a breath of fresh air that he finally brought some intellect and rational thought to the White House. It gives hope to millions including even to me!

Written to The Boston Globe in response to Jacoby's March 11 editorial

I agree with Jeff Jacoby's March 11, 2009 editorial "History's Oldest Hatred." His article was flawless and his comparison to the Jewish festival of Purim well taken as it celebrates, in ancient history, the foiling of a Persian plot to kill all the Jews.

I once, many years ago, viewed the PBS documentary "The Longest Hatred." It explained the historical progression of Anti-semitism but began mostly with early Christianity. The truth is, the etiology of Anti-semitism is even further removed from that as the Jew has so often, even in ancient history, been the other. The uniqueness of Anti-semitism as he says is its protean quality and its ability to evolve over historical time.

He is quite correct to say it endures as an "obsessive and indestructible hatred" the lethality of which has been its legacy for so many Jews. The Jewish people have been condemned to this fate but have endured. It is why, though, ever vigilant will always be my motto.

This was in response to the story about the woman who had recently given birth and stole another new mother's purse from the maternity ward at a local hospital:

The sadness that exists in this world is sometimes hard to fathom. Why people do what they do to themselves and to others will often be an enigma. Poets, philosophers, writers and the like have written about it for centuries. Unless one can walk in another's shoes one cannot know for sure the why of things. It is up to us, I believe, to have the empathy to try to understand. In Truman Capote's book 'In Cold Blood' I believe he entitled it as such to give us a glimpse into the motivation of the perpetrators of a heinous crime. I think Capote was saying nothing is ever done in cold blood but, in truth, much ill that is committed has reasons, often volcanic, which explain the etiology of pathological behavior. On the face of it we only see the horrific nature of some crimes and we never get to see beyond it. The victim, too, has rights and deserves justice. Crime affects all of us as we use our precious tax dollars to pay for police, judges, juries, lawyers and, ultimately, if necessary, incarceration. We all pay for what others do as we are all in the boat together. If the boat is rocked we are rocked with it.

The nature of addiction is not known. Some say it is in DNA. If so one can only hope she gets the help she needs to manage and overcome it, if possible. It would behoove us, I think, as a society not to punish with verbal vitriol but to try, in some way, to offer hope that she gets the assistance she needs so she and her child not suffer any longer. We as the community, who must pay the price and bear the burden, should hope she receives the help she so desperately needs since even once removed if it happens to the least of these it happens to us as well.

Islam and Freedom of Speech: Jeff Jacoby's interview with the Dutch politician Geert Wilders in the March 8, 2009 ListenOP section of the Boston Sunday Globe entitled "Islam and Freedom of Speech" was commendable. I agree with Mr. Wilders entirely. Every country with no exception which considers itself based on Islamic law subjugates itself to a literal and unquestioning view of Koranic belief. Any perceived rejection of that will visit a death sentence or fatwa against the person postulating disagreement.

When religion is entwined with state it is so obvious the toxic and cruel brew that results. I believe the First Amendment to our Constitution is the most important and within that, freedom speech and freedom of the press go to the head of the class. It is why the potential restriction of that speech by a man like our former president was so threatening. It was threatening because our nation would be forced to subject itself to the whim of simply one man.

A nation whose life blood is a religious document with no escape clause becomes no less threatening. That nation is subjecting itself to the unquestioning statements of one document no matter how perceptively unjust or conflicting those statements may be. The separation of church and state is more than an extraordinarily important doctrine. It is life saving.

One, I think, could not argue with much Mr. Wilders said or one could. I would, though, as Voltaire said, defend his right to say anything he chooses. Too bad the UK government by not permitting the Mr. Geert Wilders entry into their country does not see it the same way.

Peter Singer -- A Different Song: In response to Jeff Jacoby's March 4, 2009 op ed article in The Globe "Intelligence is No Guarantee of Goodness" even I a 150% supporter of abortion rights and free choice have a hard time accepting an ethical argument of Peter Singer that parents along with doctors have the right to determine whether the life of a newborn child with severe disability can be ended. That is, indeed, to me, a right for which it is difficult to argue. Ideas such as that, while in theory seem to have humane intent, in practice are very hard to employ. When does even a doctor much less a parent consider a child born with severe disability unfit to live? I envision the abuse of determinations of that fact as families think about the financial costs incurred supporting that child through its life even when the parents are not there.

There is a line, as a free choice advocate, which must be drawn. Full term human life is not the issue for me. Life in utero solely dependent on the mother to sustain it is for me the essence of the abortion debate. Adults have the ability through health care proxies to let others know what they want. An infant, however,
has no such ability and to think of euthanizing it after birth is too much for my moral psychology to bear. Singer's thoughts reinforce my support for abortion rights more than ever. It allows me to conclude that the freedom to choose abortion is, in reality, pro life. It is a right which could often eliminate the need for a dastardly deed to be done after a full term human child is born.

The Anathema of Yoo -- a letter to Chapman University Law School where, John Yoo, one of Bush administration's lawyers who wrote memos to George Bush justifying torture and other breaches of civil liberties, is a visiting professor at Chapman from the University of California Law School at Berkeley:

I have read your law school's rationalization for the employment of John Yoo as visiting professor of your prestigious university and find it abhorrent. John Yoo has treasonously subverted the very essence of who we are as a nation. He helped undermine the very foundation of our sacred Constitution and subverted our most cherished legal civil libertarian values. He wrote opinions some of which were enacted and some of which were not. Those that were enacted with respect to the advocacy of torture possibly could indict Mr. Yoo for crimes. Torture, as I do not have to remind you, is ILLEGAL in this country.

Employing a visiting professor who harbors a hint of complicity in the advocacy of such policies should be an anathema to you no matter what one’s political persuasion. Those policies he helped justify meant the overthrowing of the entirety of our nation’s system. His opinions try to justify the very tyranny of presidential power we profess to abhor. They serve to justify the imbuing of the executive branch with so much power it COULD have meant even the apprehension of many in your law school, many in the University of California at Berkeley Law School, many in Harvard Law School, indeed, many in any law school, any university, any home, anywhere and at any time. That person could be jailed, literally, forever with no ability to redress his grievances and worst of all he could even be a citizen of our country. The decision to do so would rest with only one man. In Jon Yoo’s universe that decision would rest with George W. Bush alone. Would YOU have wanted your fate determined solely by him?

Our Founders were dedicated to avoiding the pitfalls of tyranny and eschewed the idea that one man would be able to exercise so much power that he, on a whim, might use that power to levy punishment on anyone he chose. That person selected, no matter how innocent, would have no right of trial and no right to face his accusers to state his case. This should be an egregious affront not only to ALL those within the hierarchy of most especially a law school but to all of us, too, who love our Constitution and our country's form of government. Mr. Yoo’s memos constructing ideations of presidential power took the history of humankind’s hard slog toward civilized conduct and reversed it centuries. He did not bend, as Dr. King so eloquently iterated, the long arc of the moral universe toward justice but he twisted it to an unrecognizable shape of injustice so that any man occupying the highest offi ce in our land could do whatever he wanted without fear of consequence.

He ignored our separation of powers system. If our Founders wanted the system for which Mr. Yoo advocated in the memos he produced they would have let King George III remain as colonial overlord and the colonists would have been required to endure whatever injustices he wanted to bestow. The abrogation of those civil libertarian values, so necessary for our democracy to flourish, makes our country the laughing stock of the world when we attempt to tell totalitarian governments how they should act.

If our civil liberties cannot be maintained even in the harshest times then that must mean they apply only when times are good. Our cherished civil liberties are NOT simply for times that are easy but for also times that are hard. Mr. Yoo, in my opinion, should not be teaching at an institution that values the rule of law and his employment there or anywhere else in an institution of higher learning should be repugnant to those who value the essence of our nation.