Women understand the actual difference between Democrats and Republicans and how crucial it is to elect Democrats to positions in both State and Federal government. Because our asses and our ability to actually retain jurisdiction and control over our own asses are actually on the line. And a centrist Democrat will still protect my ass from the Republican maniacs who are trying to jam an ultrasound probe up my ass, against my will. That is a real fucking difference.

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats will be a fuckload better than a Congress that has juuuuust enough GOP assholes to continue jamming up every progressive initiative.

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats WILL be able to pass Immigration Reform and stop destroying Latino families;

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats WILL be able to protect women's right to control our own bodies, our reproductive health and our own destinies, OH -- and to stop Koch-financed Zombie State governments from raping us with ultrasound probes, which, and this is so sweet, those fuckers will then make US WOMAN pay for out of our own pockets. That doesn't happen under Centrist Democrats.

Harry Reid wouldn't want his own wife to get an abortion, but he does not give a fuck if I do.

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats WILL be able to pass measures to slow the release of carbon into the atmosphere...and to slow and possibly reverse the progression of Climate Change.

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats WILL be able to get the fuck rid of the Sequester and start funding SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!!! Hooraaaaaaay!!!!

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats WILL be able to pass funding for INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILDING -- Roads and Bridges and Updating and upgrading the Grid....which will ...SSSSHhhhhhhhhh, (stimulate the economy and reinvigorate the Middle Class).... Infrastructure is like a tax break for the rich and corporations that those fuckers have to share with all of us! It's like a tax break for the rich conditioned on it being reinvested into specific projects that benefit everybody, not just those greedy McFuckers.

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats WILL be able to pass a minimum wage hike, which will also exert an upward pressure to raise wages that are already above the minimum wage. Not only that, but when you raise the wages of the lowest-earning working poor, WHAT HAPPENS??? THEY SPEND THAT MONEY, PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY....HOOORAAAAYYY!!! And that stimulates the economy even more!!! YAY MINIMUM WAGE!!!

A Senate with a majority of liberal, progressive and centrist Democrats will confirm liberal and non-crazy Justices to the Supreme Court and to the Federal Courts. So when Antonin Scalia, that reactionary, fascist piece of shit DIES, the whole composition of the Court will change from Asshole to majority liberal, pro-separation of Church and State, and pro-choice! Hooraaaaay!!!

A Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist democrats WILL be able to pass a Constitutional Amendment that holds that MONEY IS NOT FUCKING SPEECH and that will overrule Citizens United and set in motion the process that will return the control of government to The People from the super wealthy, the industrial lobbyists and corporations.

That is the fucking difference, and that is why even those lily-livered Blue Dog Democrats are worlds better than the World of Shit brought to us by the Obstructionist, Fascist GOP.

And oh by the way, you're seeing Democrats right now as centrist and annoying as fuck because the states with Senate seats open are almost all traditionally Red States or Purple States. That is why Alison Grimes is humping rifles and french-kissing coal. She also will not jam an ultrasound probe up my hiney against my will. Neither will Hillary.

One last thing, a Congress with a supermajority of liberal, progressive and centrist democrats WILL be able to block the GOP from imposing a Sexual Intercouse Tax on women, where we work the same as men, but instead of having birth control covered under health insurance, we have to pay for it out of our own pockets, a tax of anywhere from $600-$1200 annually, while men get to fuck us baby-free for nothing. Grover Fucking Norquist some of that mother fuckers!

The only thing we can accomplish if we go back to Iraq

...will only stay accomplished if we stay there forever or until we destroy ourselves economically.

We can't have the oil without dumping more trillions on perpetual war...not to mention World War, once Iran and Saudi Arabia finally say "Fuck it," and own up to their engagement there. And if we're going to have a world war, hey, let's invite Pakistan to join us. Of course, if you're going to invite Pakistan, you have to invite India. They hate each other! After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and we can always use another friend. Right, India?

Shit, invite Afghanistan! They've gotta be pissed off at somebody. Why shouldn't they get a chance to be part of the war? Of course, all the A-List terrorists have already moved from Afghanistan to Syria, so we have to invite that shit show, for the entertainment value at least. They'd be insulted if we didn't.

Oh, goddammit, if Syria comes, Russia has to as well. Oh, all right. I mean, what's a good game of "Spin the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile" without Vlad?

Somehow I feel that all the oil in the Universe could never pay off enough to make that war worth fighting.

We should try to replace all the infrastructure in Iraq that we destroyed (and here, at home would be nice too), make sure they have as many schools and a grid and the shit we broke. We just have to know who the fuck we can trust with our money, like someone who won't take our Marshall Plan money and spend it on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and genociding the opposition.

We need to get all enlightened interfaith clergy to start channeling energy for PEACE. We've got to support autonomous self-determination for the parties in Iraq, and offer them one helluvan incentive to peacefully organize and seek answers, to think outside the sandbox. Do some confederation that is FAIR.

We need George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Abraham, Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, John Lennon, Bobby Kennedy, David Ben Gurion, Nelson Mandela, all the groovy Sufis, Voltaire, Rousseau and all the Philosophs and anybody who made the supreme sacrifice for the greater good and raised the human race higher....

That's what we should do.

Protestant Philosophy and Government Policy on Poverty

Calvinism had its roots in concept of "Predestination," a theology that held as follows:

God, who knows and sees all, including the future, has already selected (predetermined) all those human beings who will be saved and go to heaven.  Because fallible, finite humans neither know nor comprehend God's infinite plan, we cannot know who is saved or not.  Consequently, it's possible that the drunk passed out in the street or the beggar on the corner are among God's chosen, the ones He has already selected for salvation.

Accordingly, good Christians should have unconditional mercy towards ALL people. Otherwise we might offend God by judging or harming someone who is beloved and saved in God's eyes.  The roots of Calvinism started from this point of radical humility, at the root of the concept of Predestination.

That fallible human beings cannot begin to comprehend the boundaries of God's love and mercy is a profoundly humble, charitable and beautiful notion.

Unfortunately, once put into human application, interpretation of the theory of Predestination degenerated into the mundane notion that one's appearance or status in the earthly realm actually reflected one's status in Heaven or in God's eyes.  In the light of the radical humility of the uncorrupted Predestination theory, which recognized and honored God's greatness and infinite mercy, the arrogance of the degenerated interpretation is plain by comparison.

Given the undue "faith" and weight accorded to the earthly items, treated as indicators or signifiers of divine intervention or salvation -- that a guy with 5 Mercedes is more likely to be saved than a guy who has to take the bus -- the sanctification of mundane possessions, wealth, and STUFF is unmistakeable as flat out idolatry.

Tragic and shameful!

The Ethics of Buying Clothes Made in Buildings That Collapse

The notion that one would not wish to buy clothing manufactured in abusive circumstances strikes me as neither left nor right but Capitalist -- in terms of its appreciation of supply and demand and using reduced demand to create pressure for behavioral change by manufacturing owners & management -- and ETHICAL, in terms of using consumer pressure to advocate against the abuse of human beings involved in the manufacture of the goods we buy.

 To say, "Don't buy goods manufactured in Bangladesh," is to say, I don't want my dollars to support unethical treatment of humans beings who make the products I buy.

 It used to be a mainstream and unremarkable for Americans to be shocked by and non-controversially opposed to the consumption of clothing produced in sweatshops. Anybody remember years ago when Kathy Lee Gifford was publicly humiliated upon the discovery that a clothing line bearing her logo was manufactured at a sweatshop? Her apology and promise to rectify the situation wasn't even contested.

I sure as hell don't want to give my business to anyone who treats workers as undeserving of the basic safety and dignity we would want accorded to any human being. It should go without saying that I don't want my consumer dollars going to the profit and benefit of any owner or manager who treats his workers like so much expendable cannon fodder.

The site of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire is on the campus of NYU, a block up from Washington Square Park, and a quick jog from where I studied Labor Law at NYU School of Law. Moreover, the women who died in that fire were my ethnic forebears: Eastern European Jewish women and their descendents. Those people in Bangladesh could have been me.

These are human, ethical considerations. Human beings should not be treated like that, and I don't want my consumer dollars to support that. Period. If that means I buy five shirts because I can't afford to buy 10 anymore, I'm cool with that.

Oh No He Didn't: Arkansas State Senator Calls Bostonians "Librul Cowards"

On Friday, April 19th, as Americans held anxious vigil during the police pursuit of and  violent confrontations with the Boston Marathon bombers, one state senator from Arkansas, Nate Bell, saw fit to post this on Twitter:

I wonder how many Boston liberals spent the night cowering in their homes wishing they had an AR-15 with a hi-capacity magazine? #2A

— Nate Bell (@NateBell4AR) April 19, 2013

On the senator's campaign Facebook page, 8000 reaction posts (many by outraged Arkansans) called for Bell's head while a grand total of three posters-- surely sock puppets for Bell, his mom and his grandpa -- posted in his defense.  To them, I offer the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

As a New Yorker, I ordinarily regard Bostonians as my arch rivals: the Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics and Bruins fans I love to hate come game time.  But like my fellow fans who paid tribute to Boston with a rousing rendition of "Sweet Caroline" at Yankee Stadium, I, too, feel an urgent need as an American to show solidarity with my cousins in Beantown.

Senator Bell, your state should beg the Waltons to funnel a small fraction of their multi-billion dollar fortune into some remedial education just for you because your ignorance about your fellow Americans on the East Coast is appalling. The truth is, we eastern liberals believe in protecting our families, and we most certainly have the means to do so. Still, like all too many of your craven GOP partisans, you remain stubbornly impervious to facts and empirically-verifiable reality, let alone the best interests of the American people.

Compared to you and your constituents in Arkansas, we northeasterners pay out a whole lot more in Federal taxes than we ever get back in benefits and services.  As a result, much of the means you have to pay to protect your family CAME FROM US. That's the first reason why you should either say “Thank you,” or kindly shut the hell up. We will gladly settle for the latter.

Many of us eastern liberals actually do choose to own and keep guns in our homes. Some of us even hunt!  We have woods and deer and everything out here!  We just think it's overkill to keep semi-automatic weapons and high-volume magazines in densely-populated, urban areas, especially when a nice, loud shotgun blast can scare off an intruder even better.

Others (indeed, most) among us would rather take our resources and pool them into a common fund (you know, tax revenues -- shhhhhh!).  You see, the large amount of money we raise when we pitch in together enables us to employ a well-regulated professional police force outfitted with semi-automatic handguns, assault rifles, armored trucks, k-9 units, cameras and even robots to protect us.  It works very well.  For more than 15 years now crime rates in New York City and Boston have been at lows last seen in the 1960s. 

We northeastern  liberals also have this crazy habit of taking note of things like facts and statistics. They show us that guns kept the in the house expose women and children three times the risk of being shot and killed by another family member, as compared to the negligible danger of being shot by a stranger in a home invasion. 

I’ll spare you any further discussion of statistics, as I wouldn’t want to make your  head explode from all the, you know, *knowledge.*  We'll leave that for the folks at Harvard, MIT, Tufts, Boston University, Boston College, U Mass, NYU, Columbia, Barnard, Baruch, Queens College, Brooklyn College….  Eh, never mind.

One of your three supporters made the colossally ridiculous claim that it's "bullying" when American citizens criticize outrageous remarks made by an elected government official.

A bully kicks someone when he or she is down.  Do I really need to remind you that terrorists attacked Boston, leaving 180 of its citizens and visitors injured, many with life-altering amputations, and 4 residents dead, including two beloved daughters, a sweet little boy and a respected police officer? Those are the wounds you so arrogantly doused with salt.

Perhap, State Senator Nate Bell, you can explain to us “cowardly liberals” how packing heat can stop opportunistic terrorists with concealed bombs and homemade grenades.  Perhaps you can explain how professional law enforcement officers are supposed to tell the difference between armed terrorists and idiot yahoos running through the street with AR-15s.  

And when you answer the door with a semi-automatic firearm in your hand, you go right ahead and explain to SWAT teams, conducting house-to-house searches for armed and dangerous fugitives, that you’re just protecting your family.  That should go well.

Perhaps you can explain to the family of MIT Campus Police Officer Sean Collier, who was ambushed and shot repeatedly while sitting in his police cruiser, how you could have done a better job than he did, despite the fact that he was armed with a semiautomatic weapon.  Same goes for the cop wounded in the gun fight between the terrorists and a team of twenty trained law enforcement officers.

Of course if you weren't so busy flexing your Internet muscles behind the safety of a computer screen, you'd be out there catching bullets with your teeth and jumping on grenades to save your colleagues.  Please proceed, Senator.  Please proceed.

The Boston Marathon is the most perfect embodiment of participatory democracy in sports.  Everyone is free to take part by running, walking, rolling in a wheelchair or by offering cups of water and cheering on the racers from the sidelines.  Begun in 1897, only eleven years after the dedication of the Statue of Liberty, the Boston Marathon is the occasion when all the denizens of Beantown throw their arms open to the rest of the world and put the best of America on display.

In light of all this, it could not be more obvious that the attack on the Boston Marathon -- on Patriots Day, no less -- was an attack on America itself.  And while Boston police and residents were braving a hail of bullets, bombs and grenades, while the families of the injured held vigil at Boston hospitals, and while 4 Boston residents lied dead, all you could do was launch a self-serving, partisan barrage of insults against your fellow Americans.

You'd have to be a colossal horse's posterior to insult the Bostonians under any circumstances, let alone ones such as these.  They are, after all, the sons and daughters of the Minute Men.  You know, the folks who kicked the tails of the British in the Revolutionary War.  Compared to them, your Tea Party is nothing but a cheap replica. 

You might also recall that, together with my forebears from New York, Bostonians kicked Arkansas’ Confederate hiney in the Civil War.  As to the former, you can just say, “Thank you,” and in light of the latter, you can shut the hell up.  We’ll gladly settle for the latter, or we'd be happy to refresh your memory any time.

Reserving Judgment Before Having the Facts Is NOT a Defense of the Guilty

I discovered tonight that two tweets of mine, made in the course of a more-than-2-hour discussion, were posted out of context in an article advancing the proposition that "Progressives are defending a convicted pedophile, because he's a progressive."

 http://lolwutpolitics.com/2013/03/30/on-predators-and-progressive-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-42
 
The notion that I have done anything of the sort -- support a convicted pedophile -- is patently false. That my tweets have now been used to make me the poster child for "Progressives in Denial about Child Predators In Our Midst" is a gross and outrageous misrepresentation of my opinion on the matter and of me. That the original misrepresentation is being linked to in other articles elaborating on the same false characterization only amplifies the offensiveness of this misrepresentation.

http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2013/04/04/its-not-ok-when-liberals-commit-crimes-stop-defending-it/

 The use of my tweets in the original article are out of context and entirely misleading. I specifically stated in that discussion that I was NOT defending William Glenn Talley, but that I did not know enough about the case in order to RESPONSIBLY form an opinion as to the facts of the case.

When I wrote those tweets, I had just learned of the existence of the case.  I had barely skimmed one of the appeal decisions on a 4th Amendment issue and was seeking additional information. At that point I was listing hypothetical possibilities that I wanted to either confirm or eliminate by consulting reliable materials -- such as published court decisions and news accounts -- about the case.

Other than the one case I had skimmed, all I knew about the case at that point was what I been told by strangers through tweets.

I had read nothing, other than such tweets, stating that Bill had been convicted.  The appeal case I had skimmed said nothing about any conviction because it was "interlocutory" in nature.  That is, the appeal had been heard and decided years *before* any conviction had happened.

Also in that thread, I was told that Bill had been found guilty by a jury of his peers, a claim that, despite the self righteousness with which it had been advanced, turned out to be FALSE.  As my review of the actual court materials demonstrated, there never was a trial on the merits of the case.  There was never any jury.  There was never any jury verdict.

This should underscore the fact that assertions made in tweets -- especially regarding the background facts on a case as serious as this one -- are unreliable and potentially inaccurate.  To rely on them alone is irresponsible.

I thought that we as progressives are supposed to be better than "Right Wing Nut Jobs" because we value basing our opinions upon sound, reliable information, not on hearsay -- what we heard from someone with only second hand or third hand knowledge of the facts -- especially when what we hear are tweets from someone we do not know.

To print my tweets out of context, and to characterize them in a manner that I had specifically stated in that tweet thread was incorrect and that did not reflect my opinion of the case or of Bill, is disingenuous and outrageous. To identify me as someone who defends or has defended Bill is false. To attempt to ridicule or shame me, based upon a position I have never taken is equally incorrect and outrageous.

The ONLY position that I took in that thread was that I was not prepared to form any opinion of the case or of Bill AT THAT TIME, and that I wanted to research the background on the charges and read any available cases and news accounts, so that I could find out what had happened, appraise the facts and decide for myself.

I have written to request that the author of the first article linked above print the entire thread, reflecting all of my tweets in that conversation, not just the two that, taken out of context, utterly misrepresent the position I was taking at the time and my position on the case as a whole.

Now that I have read all the court documents and materials on the case, that are available online, I will be happy to share my opinions on it once the record has been corrected, as requested. For now, I need to close and go to sleep. I will follow up, accordingly.

Manifesto of a Progressive Single Female Land Owner

I’m of the last generation that grew up on analogue communications – hand-written letters and no email, typing on Corasable paper in college. Word processors – the DOS kind – entered the workplace the year after I graduated, in 1985. The only phones we had was our land line, and when I was in the car, out shopping, or off picking blackberries in Webster, you couldn’t reach me. If I got lost on the way home, I stopped at a gas station and looked at a map. Cell phones looked huge and ridiculous, and having and using one cost a fortune.

Everyone raised after that point grew up with their lives being broadcast in some fashion. With email, GPS and online social networks, status updates, options on electronics and web sites with default settings on “track,” it seems that we live much more publicly than we used to, which is good in a lot of ways, but also a double-edged sword.

Privacy is a huge area of Constitutional rights that I think could use a serious shot of adrenaline. It is the very core from which We the People store and build our power. It is the locus of our integrity as individual human beings. Keep in mind as well, that with the increasing economic disparity, the Middle Class has not only lost out on income but also on privacy. With every home lost, gone is also a power base, a zone of autonomy, independence, and influence.

Privacy is the reason why the government is not supposed to tap your phone without a warrant. It is why the government can’t force you donate one of your kidneys to Rupert Murdoch, even though he’s stinking rich, and you are the only perfect match for him, and without your kidney he’ll die. Privacy, of course, is the seat of bodily integrity, and that is a kickass feminist discussion for another day.

Privacy is a zone in which we can interact freely and without government surveillance or interference. It is the zone of liberty in which, provided you don’t bother anybody else, you can do as you wish. It is also the zone in which the people are sovereign to their government, as in they get their powers from us, and all rights and powers are reserved to the People. That’s express in the 9th Amendment. It is also grounded in "The Penumbra of the Constitution."

Privacy is not the same as secrecy. It can be open to the public. It can be transparent with documentation, but it can also be free of governmental supervision and surveillance. My home is a gun-free, bigotry-prohibited, progressive-friendly, human liberation zone. It took me until my late 40s to be able to afford it and get in here, ‘cause the mortgage and taxes ended up being less than my monthly rent in NYC. Now I am a single-female homeowner and tax payer. How many times has that happened in human history, without having to marry some nobleman or captain of industry, minister to his needs, and have him die before I died of repeat child-bearing?

The private sphere is a crucial power base for the Middle Class. It is the very essence of democracy, in which every man and woman can be a king, a free and autonomous political being. As such, as a private citizen who has dominion over this land and this ediface, I want to devote the resources I have to the movement and towards the expansion and acquisition of more zones of privacy within the reach and control of the Middle Class.

25,000 who survived on 9-11

It was supposed to be the Democratic Primary for Mayor of NY. Mark Green was the front runner. Mike Bloomberg was kind of a joke, another really rich guy who wanted to buy his way into public office and political power.

The primary in September, 2001, was where the mayoral election in October would be decided. The Democrat most likely to be nominated was considered a shoo-in in the general election in November. So getting the right Democrat for the NYC mayoral race was the order of the day on September 11th.

Because this was effectively the election that would choose NYC's next mayor, a lot of people were off voting on the morning of Sept 11. That is why there were only 25,000 people in the building, instead of the 50,000 on ordinary mornings around 9 or ten.

But the election wasn't the only thing contributing to the 25,000 who happened to not be at the Towers.

For many families, September 11, 2001, the first Tuesday after the long Labor Day weekend, happened also to be the First Day of School. Parents were late to work at the Trade Center because they were personally dropping off the kids at school. So they weren't there and didn't die.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001 also happened to be the day after Monday Night Football, the season opener, which happened to be the NY Giants against the Denver Broncos, a rematch of the legendary Giant Superbowl Championship of 1986. The game was in Denver. On the night of September 11, Giants fans all across the tri-state area parked themselves in front of the tube, with a healthy supply of superb munchies and beer. They dug in for the game, way past their bedtime on a work night.

Yup, TANKED.

In sum, many people who had watched the Giants MNF game the night before, were tired, maybe hungover, definitely ticked, annoyed, irritated, or pissed off and depressed due to Denver handing the Giants their asses. So they overslept and made like slugs and ended up late for work. Indeed, on that morning-after, the achy, lingering putrescence of New York Giants loss may have actually saved the lives of thousands of New Yorkers.

And then, of course, you had the incomparable contribution of the Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department, the Port Authority police, and various Court Officers, Marshals and security throughout the downtown area. They got at least 25,000 people out of the Towers before the buildings collapsed. Talk about the ultimate sacrifice.

Oy vey! They're building a mosque at Ground Zero!

The only way someone could be upset about this is if he or she equates Islam with terrorism and assumes that all or most Moslems sponsor or approve of anti-American terrorism. That is a grossly erroneous assumption.

Islam didn't call for the attack on the WTC. Extremism and radical fundamentalism did...as well as sheer, batshit crazy, criminal impulse.

Supporting the building of the Cordova center two blocks from "Ground Zero" is not just some knee-jerk "politically-correct" attempt at appeasement of a hostile population. This is to give members of one religion the same access that an American city would give to *any* religion. It is to remain true to our democratic principles of equality and religious freedom.

Yes, it creates -- or rather affirms, since there was already a Mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero -- an Islamic presence in the area. But this is an Islamic institution whose own principles stand in stark opposition to the violent radical fundamentalism of various Wahabist sects. This mosque openly embraces diversity in faiths and advocates tolerance. It will further cultivate and support moderate, mainstream Islamic communities who are integrated in and invested in their greater American communities. This can only be a good thing. It is crucial that Americans support and help to cultivate mainstream, moderate Islamic communities. That is a cornerstone in the delegitimization of the violent, fundamentalist sects.

Where building a house of worship in a given community is at issue, if we start saying that a different standard for approval applies to Moslems than the one for everybody else, we've just stepped out onto the same slippery logical continuum as the 1938 laws in Germany -- Jewish doctors are not allowed to treat Aryan patients; Jewish teachers cannot teach at public schools; Jewish citizens are banned from serving in public office -- or as imprisoning Japanese American citizens in internment camps. There is no principled distinction between these measures. The difference is only of degree.

And what the fuck is this development lately in our country that it is okay to attempt to surgically strike out certain fundamental civil rights of individuals, based on how certain people look or based on their religion???

This ain't right, Jeff. You know what I'm talkin' about.

Waterboarding is against UNITED STATES LAW

I can't believe the utter crap reasoning I've been seeing in DEFENSE of TORTURE. "We need to do it "-- all competent evidence to the contrary that it actually helps and to the affirmative that it actually hurts -- "because the attack on the US on 9-11 was an atrocity."

That is the very essence of a false argument, linking two things that have no relationship to one-another, other than indulging our sense of anger and helplessness respecting the attack on 9-11. And I speak as someone who breathed in the debris from the WTC as it rained down on my home...and personally know people who died, including the 20 firefighters from my neighborhood.

YES, the terrorists are utter savages and barbarians, and we should fight them FIERCELY in the field. NO MERCY.

But once they are in our custody and control...once they are CAPTIVE PRISONERS..., they are no longer a threat. They are helpless. They are human beings AT OUR MERCY.

The only conceivable threat that a captive prisoner presents to us is in the hypothetical situation, the "ticking time bomb scenario," which makes for a good episode of "24," but is so remote in actuality that in no way should the exception decimate the rule. Moreover, it's just a BAD IDEA to base major national security policy decisions on fictional television shows, as opposed to on our law, our foundational constitutional principles and on the settled professional insights of expert interrogators in the field.

Professional interrogators in the FBI and CIA -- folks like Matt Alexander, leader of the interrogation team that located Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq and murderer of tens of thousands, by using relationship-building methods and non-coercive techniques -- have stated repeatedly that even in the "ticking time bomb scenario," torture is the LEAST efficacious method for extracting the information needed to save lives. Befriending the subject, winning them over, using deception...these are all methods that have consistently proven MORE EFFECTIVE than torture in gaining useful and reliable intelligence.

Speaking of intelligence, it is far better to employ our brains, smarts and the accumulated know-how of professional experts to gain crucial information than it is to allow our EMOTIONS and desire for revenge to govern our responses in these situations.

What the defenders of torture stand for is akin to saving the village in Vietnam by incinerating it. We would "save" our country by voluntarily incinerating our Constitution, intentionally violating U.S. LAW, and decimating our country by destroying everything it stands for, everything that makes us great, everything that makes us a LAW-ABIDING DEMOCRACY.

Resorting to torture is the pussy's way out. It is a reaction rooted in fear and lack of faith in the greatest system of justice and democracy on this earth. We allow the terrorists to scare us into destroying ourselves. The decimation of the US becomes an inside job. Such a reaction could not be more anti-democratic, more barbaric, more ANTI-AMERICAN.

For shame!

No, Rabbi Pomerantz. You are wrong.

In a column published today on Newsmax.com, Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz employs stunningly tortured logic to hold President Obama responsibile for Wednesday's terrorist shooting by white supremacist James W. von Brunn, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

As a Reform Jew and a Zionist, I find Rabbi Pomerantz's remarks utterly mortifying. I cannot believe this guy is a chaplin for the State of New York. He says:

Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience more than 100 million people that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel's actions in dealing with the Palestinians.

Although the rabbi speaks here as if he is quoting Obama directly, that is not what the President said. Rather, the President simply iterated two truths that are not in conflict -- that the Holocaust was an atrocity against humanity and that Israel has a part to play in improving the plight of the Palestinians within and adjacent to its borders.

President Obama called on the Palestinians to abandon violence...and for the Israelis to abandon the continued expansion of the settlements on the West Bank. He held BOTH sides accountable for the part they MUST play in making a lasting peace in the region in the future. He did NOT state that the plight of the Palestinians was *equivalent* to that of the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis. To put such words into President Obama's mouth stops just short of libel.

What I will say as a New Yorker and a Reform Jew is this: Because of our persecution in the Holocaust, Jews here and in Israel MUST stand against persecution of people based on heritage, ethnicity or national identity, no matter how relatively mild that persecution may be. NEVER AGAIN means we MUST stand for equal rights for ALL human beings, regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, etc. To stand for Israel's security is not in conflict with these goals because security measures can and MUST be aimed against those whose behavior-- not identity -- presents a threat.

American and Israeli Jews can and must oppose the violence of Hamas while vigorously defending the rights of the Palestinian people to a country and the blessings of peace, security and prosperity. That is my position. My grandmother violated the United States Neutrality Act to ship arms to Israel during the wars in 1967 and 1973. I was raised to support Israel as a Jewish homeland, and I do fiercely stand for Israel and against antisemitism. I also stand for the equal right of the Palestinian people to their own homeland, side-by-side with Israel.

Obama did indeed condemn the violence perpetuated by Hamas. He is not letting the Palestinian people off the hook.

To state that President Obama's views "help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people," is histrionic crazy talk, so over the top it is beyond credibility.

I see this as a common flaw among many of my fellow Jews and fellow Zionists, the false belief that to hold ourselves and our beloved Israel accountable for the part we have played in exacerbating the suffering of our Palestinian brothers and sisters is to sew the seeds of our own destruction. This is the fundamental misconception that has kept and continues to keep Palestinians and Israelis mired in perpetual conflict.

We need a paradigm shift, or we will NEVER have peace.

I am a Reform Jew. I love God. I love Israel. I love my Palestinian neighbors out here in Brooklyn, and I love my Palestinian brothers and sisters in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Rabbi Pomerantz does NOT speak for me. And I know I am not alone in feeling this way as a Jew.

Cheneyan Doublethink and Newspeak

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised Dick Cheney has the gall to come out and publicly defend torture of detainees by American authorities. As far back as I can remember, from McCarthy to Tricky Dick and Spiro, to Gingrich and Ken Starr, to Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove...and that drooling idiot in the corner with the lace collar and the propeller hat..., these guys on the far right have been utterly shameless. So why should I expect an dirty old dog to suddenly learn new tricks?

Cheney refers to water boarding by the sanitizing euphemism, "enhanced interrogation techniques." He does this despite the fact that current, effective statutory law, judicial rulings and international treaties unambiguously define water boarding as torture. Let's leave aside the fact that Abu Zubaydah was "interrogatorily enhanced" over 80 times in one month.

According to Cheney, however, when Cheney calls water boarding an "enhanced interrogation technique," suddenly and magically it is no longer torture, not illegal, not a horrendous way to treat a captive human being.

Cheney's coinage is a classic example of "Newspeak" a central weapon in the totalitarian propaganda arsenal, illustrated so indelibly in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. With Newspeak, something is not what it is simply because the government authorities say so. To challenge the government’s statement is to commit a treasonous act, to invites government scrutiny and police intrusion into one's life ... like having all of one's phone calls and internet transmissions tapped, without a warrant.

Oh wait. They did that.

A self-proclaimed minion of "the Dark Side," Cheney has never wavered in his staunchly optional relationship to factual accuracy and, well, reality. If he could, he would suck the entire world into the black hole that is his psyche, so we all might play a part in the dark puppet show of Cheney's most paranoid fantasies. Combine Cheney's contempt for facts with Karl Rove's head for political strategy; add in their mutual appreciation of the manipulative power of fear, and you've got one diabolical formula: Strategic Mendacity -- a pattern of making stuff up to exploit people's fears.

Here is how strategic mendacity works: Put forth false factual assertions that justify one's position and put the burden on your opposition to marshal the facts necessary to set the record straight. Blanket the world with bullshit, and leave it to your opponent to dig the fuck out. Strategic mendacity has proven exceedingly effective, particularly in the period following 9-11, when overflowing wells of fear throughout the American public primed the field for absorption of megatons of bullshit.

It's a brilliant diversionary tactic. Instead of openly debating matters of policy and law on the merits, the Rovians mine the field of public discourse with factual misrepresentations, deliberately planted to mire the opposition in the effort required to expose and debunk the lies. It's a dirty tactic that works like a progressive tax on the opposition. Valuable time and effort that could be spent on positive efforts towards change and progress get wasted instead on Republican Roto-Rooter Research duty, sifting through the sewage.

Which leads me to one of my favorite pieces of Rovian Newspeak -- We are fighting this "War on Terrorism" in order to preserve and protect our freedom. Meanwhile, the government taps Americans' phones without probable cause, turns air travel into a universal stop-and-frisk, and obliterates core constitutional principles like the presumption of innocence and freedom of assembly.

We're preserving and protecting our freedoms by setting up a second judicial system, a shadow system of justice, outside the jurisdictional reaches of the United States Constitution, unbound by the need for a speedy trial, legal representation, the right to confront one's accuser, the right to due process or any hearing at all, prior to the deprivation of a human being's liberty or property. And this is all okay.

Newspeak. Doublethink.

Strategic mendacity, like "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction," drove us into an unnecessary war in which thousands of young Americans gave their lives and still more their limbs, their mental health, their ability to support their families and to simply enjoy life. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives were wiped out, blithely dismissed as “collateral damage” in the greater battle for "freedom" or to wipe out WMD...or whatever.

Let us not forget, for years the Bush-Cheney administration fought the release of the numbers on Iraqi casualties. They sought to keep from us crucial information bearing on our personal responsibility as citizens of a democratic country, waging war upon the people of a foreign land. As far as the Bush-Cheney administration was concerned, the First Amendment to the Constitution simply would be on hold for as long as Bush-Cheney could make their state of emergency endure.

It is nothing short of an outrage that the connection between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the "War on Terror" -- the entire justification for going to war -- was one Big Lie after another, backed by intentionally-stilted intelligence reports, cooked up to provide after-the-fact support for foregone conclusions dictated by Bush, Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because Dick-Bush-Rummy said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the patriotism of anyone who would question this claim is inherently suspect. Newspeak.

One particularly galling aspect of strategic mendacity is that the mainstream media, in a misguided effort to "fairly represent both sides of an issue," habitually give equal billing and air time to the psychotic claims of the Cheney-Rovites. Their arguments are deemed newsworthy not because they are factually sound but because of their entertainment value.

This was the unintended consequence of the side-by-side coverage of the May 21 speeches of Dick Cheney and President Obama. The entertainment value of the cage fight death match elevated Dick Cheney, a personage who should be shrinking into obscurity in disgrace, to the same level of public relevance as President Obama. This "even-steven" approach to coverage confers an undeserved legitimacy upon Cheney and the toxic bullshit he shamelessly disseminates to the American public.

Let us also not forget that when Joseph Wilson published credible evidence questioning the accuracy of the Dick-Bush WMD claims, the Administration – indeed Cheney – responded by deliberately blowing the cover of Valerie Plame, an active intelligence officer of the CIA! This is the same Vice President who had the gall to fault both President Obama and Nancy Pelosi on their support of the CIA. Simply mindbending, eye-crossing, head-exploding gall. Chutzpah.

Newspeak.

An old saying among trial lawyers holds: "A jury will forgive a witness anything, except for a lie." One lie, and anything else the witness might say will be dismissed as non-credible and worthless. If a witness will lie about one thing; he will lie about anything.

With that in mind, it is dumbfounding to me that either Rove or Cheney has the nerve to show themselves in public, let alone to speak on any subject, when the American public has countless examples of reasons to never credit another single word that Cheney or Rove may utter.

Helpful Tips for the Newly Unemployed

With the recent economic downturn, millions of qualified American workers in good standing are being laid off by their companies. Many of these employees have had double-digit and often double-decade years of service with their employer. The sudden change in status is an enormous blow not only to your income and ability to support your family, but also to your self-esteem and emotional well being. Having a place to go every day, where you can be productive and from which you can derive a sense of satisfaction, is a key stabilizing factor in your life.

As a professional recruiter, I speak to people dealing with this situation every day -- good, highly-credentialed people laid off in 2008 or as early as last week. Here are some tips on how to cope that I have been sharing with all the candidates I’ve been speaking with:

When you get laid off . . .
• Do take a vacation, but end it at a certain date. You might give yourself exactly three days to do absolutely nothing—take a couple of days to hang out, do fun and lazy things, sleep until noon, watch DVDs of every television series and movie you've missed.
• After those three days, get busy and stay busy. Treat your search for a job the same as you would treat a project at work.
• Make it your job to find a job.

Every weekday . . .
• Get up early and at the same time every day.
• Go to the gym or for a run if that was your pre-work habit.
• Shower and get yourself looking polished (make up, hair care, etc.)
• Get dressed in business casual clothing, as if you were going to work. You are!

Do all of the obvious things:
• Update your resume.
• Create or update your page on Facebook and LinkedIn.
• Start reaching out to all of your professional/work world contacts, let them know that you’re looking and what you are looking for, send resumes where appropriate, and line up references and letters of recommendation.
• Reach out to all of your old classmates, everyone you've ever known from everywhere.
• Post your resume on professional/skilled work job boards and school-related outlets.
• If there’s a government or school-related placement office, go there. Browse their job listings and post your resume there.

Do some less obvious things:
• You can extend your "vacation" by every day that you take on active projects in your home and outside your home. No more procrastination.
• Clean out your garage, attic, basement, closets, and bedroom (this is good for the soul).
• Hold a garage sale or stoop sale.
• Donate old clothing and stuff you can't sell to a cause that needs it.
• Take a day to go to museums or art shows or a cultural activity that inspires you and feeds your soul.

Feeding your soul is valid self-care to help you find a new job/career!
Remember, unstructured time is the enemy. When you hang out and watch TV, it eats at you and makes you feel guilty and badly about yourself. You can end up in a downward spiral of feeling badly, which saps your motivation; the lack of motivation keeps you from being productive, and that, in turn, makes you feel even worse. As Woody Allen once said, "Eighty per cent of success is getting out the door." Or something like that.

Do not let idleness gain a foothold!

Now REALLY GET BUSY:
• Make your own business cards on the Web or professionally, if you can afford it.
• Research free training programs on the Internet. See if programs are available in real life in your community, through houses of worship, government programs, civic organizations, and take one (or two).
• Take a class; brush up your skills; learn new skills; get a certification in Six Sigma, ASQ, CPIM, CPA, anything that will enhance your employability and send you to the head of the pack.

Volunteer in your community!
• Get out in real life where you can meet people.
• Always bring your business cards and hand them out liberally.
• Keep extra resumes in your car, briefcase, handbag, knapsack, or whatever.
• When you meet someone who could be a valuable business contact, be prepared to give them your card or resume. Get that person’s phone number and email address!
• After you've given out your business card or resume, call or email that person within 24 hours (the sooner the better) to follow up with them on any opportunities they may know of that would be a fit for you.
• Also keep in mind that when you help others, you will keep your skills sharp and feel needed and good about yourself. That is huge in terms of feeling good about yourself and nurturing your motivation to keep going!
• And you can include your community service on your resume!

Be mentally prepared to sit for many interviews.
• If you are someone who is accustomed to walking in, nailing your first interview, and getting the job, for now that situation is over. Competition is that intense. Instead, be prepared to sit for 5-10 interviews or even more.
• Treat every interview as a learning experience. Even if you don't get the job, the interview itself is still a valuable experience in which you get to rehearse how you present yourself, your qualifications, and your skills. With practice, you inevitably become more at ease and more skilled in touting what you have to offer.
• Again, if you don't get the job, don't take it as a judgment against you or the value of your qualifications. Someone else may simply be a better match based upon the finer points of their credentials or experience.

A special note for professionals seeking jobs:
Professionals should avoid general all-purpose job boards. You're better off posting your resume in boards specifically targeted to your area of specialization (like APICS for Supply Chain Professionals or AICPA for CPAs).

If you are a professional worker (accountant, engineer, EHS supervisor, supply chain manager or account manager, teacher, healthcare professional, regulatory affairs professional, etc.) -- the kind of professional dealt with by professional recruiters -- take care not to overexpose yourself on public boards on the Internet, like Monster and CareerBuilder.

If your resume is posted all over creation, or if you apply directly to employers, you can eliminate the motivation for recruiters to work with you. If it is likely that employers in your field already have your resume (because you submitted it directly, or they pulled it off Monster) in their files, then a recruiter will not get credit for bringing your resume to the employer's attention. Accordingly, the recruiter will be precluded from representing you, and your resume will stay buried in the employer's files.

Instead, do your research to locate job boards specifically aimed at your field or profession; post your resume in those boards, and do reply to job ads listed by recruiters. Take care to reply ONLY to ads for jobs for which you can be fairly considered a match -- that is, jobs where your experience and credentials do match at least 3 of the MUST-HAVE requirements posted in an ad. That is the best way to make a valuable and truly productive contact with a recruiter who actually works in your field and will be proactive in helping to market your resume for the job listed or other jobs similar to it.

These are just some beginning tips. The key is to keep yourself busy, productive, and feeling good about yourself while you hunker down to find a good job.

http://www.exek-recruiters.com
Member of Better Business Bureau
Member of the Optical Society of America
Member of Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Throwing Shoes at George Bush is WRONG!

It's no secret that I can't bloody stand President George W. Bush.

WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

I object mightily, however, to the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at the President during a joint news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday. Shoe-throwing may seem a small offense in comparison to the war crimes Bush stands accused of in the forum of world opinion, and ultimately, I hope, in a court of law. Bush's own wrongdoing, however, remains irrelevant.

The crux of Bush's offenses turn on his lawlessness: his unlawful invasion of Iraq and his flouting of the Geneva Convention and of the United States Constitution. Another act of lawlessness -- an assault against an individual and an act of aggression against a visiting head of state -- remains unjustifiable. Two wrongs do not make a right.

A shoe is the least of what I would like to throw at George W. Bush. More than anything, however, I would like to throw the book at him: specifically, my very thick book of United States Constitutional Law and my book of international law, including the laws against torture.

The act not only dishonored George Bush. It dishonored the office of the United States Presidency. It also dishonored the rule of law, which is the very foundation upon which civilization stands. Those proclaiming Muntader al-Zaidi a folk hero might well argue that the journalist dishonored the office no more than President Bush himself has, during his disastrous 8-year reign. That doesn't make the shoe-throwing incident right.

Those who ache for the restoration of respect for human rights must practice such respect for precisely those individuals we personally revile the most. If we cannot protect them and levy punishment in accordance with the rule of law, then we cannot protect anyone.

A Much-Needed Ned for the United States

Barack Obama is the United States' "Ned," the guy you meet shortly after coming through a crazy, traumatic experience -- like being abandoned in a foreign country by a superjerk travel buddy or suffering through eight years of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Just when you thought all hope was lost, this guy shows up out of nowhere and reintroduces you to what normal is and what normal feels like. Following in the wake of an ordeal that beat you down and made you wonder if you were crazy, the rediscovery of normalcy feels like a revelation:

"Oh yeah, that!"

To illustrate the meaning of Ned, I offer this story: On my post-bar-exam jaunt through Europe in late summer 1989, I had a falling out with my travel buddies. One night in Bologna, they called me to their room to advise me that I would not be welcome to join them on the next leg of what had until then been "our" trip. If I wanted to get from Italy to anywhere else on the planet, I was on my own.

I wish I could say they ditched me for having very audibly hooked up with the swarthy, green-eyed Venetian down the hall at our pensione...or for inviting the Italian Olympic skiing team to crash in our suite...or for being the one who magically never had cash when restaurant bills or admission fees turned up and who never quite got around to settling up with fellow travel mates for amounts owed. If I was going to take the penalty, it would have been nice to at least have had the pleasure of having committed a satisfying crime.

Alas, the real reason was not nearly so glamorous or fun. On the first night of our trip, before we made it out of the gate at JFK, my travel buddy -- let's call him "Dick" -- got himself arrested. Our British Air flight to London had been delayed by two hours, and our luggage had been loaded onto an earlier flight, which was now in the air, over the Pond, without us. Plus, our seat assignments on the flight, which we had booked months in advance but apparently never checked, sucked.

So of course, merely six months after the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, with our flight delayed, our baggage out there in the ether somewhere, and our seats positively sucking, it somehow made sense to Dick, standing at the check-in desk, trying to change our seat assignments, to make a joke about bombs in our bags.

I was in the waiting area reading People Magazine and blissfully unaware of the colossal act of stupidity that had just transpired behind me. As Dick returned from the check-in desk, a bunch of cops and men in burgundy polyester coats and walkie-talkies closed in around us. Next thing I knew they were putting Dick in handcuffs, taking him away to the Port Authority jail and asking me if I knew what he had said.

I must have looked sufficiently baffled, shocked and clueless to fit the profile of the "stupid little blonde girlfriend," because the cops dismissed me immediately, a development that eased my panic at the prospect of getting searched.

Then, with the law of bodily searches still so fresh in my post-bar-exam head, a dreadful realization dawned on me. We were in a fucking international airport terminal, the one place on earth other than a Turkish prison where you would have the least possible protection against against bodily invasion by law enforcement authorities. Not only could Dick and I get searched under the usual state laws of arrest and probable cause, the guys at the international airport could do a cavity search if they felt like it, just to keep in practice….

Mind you, had Dick's verbal diarrhea occurred after 9-11, we both would have woken up at Guantanamo, with our luggage blown up by the bomb squad and every orifice on our persons sore, chafed and emptied out. We were lucky.

Fortunately, this was 1989, so we simply missed our flight and spent several hours at the Port Authority jail awaiting disposition of Dick's case. By 3 or 4 a.m. the FAA and FBI had decided that Dick was more stupid than dangerous and, therefore, not worthy of their charges or time. New York State, however, slapped him with a misdemeanor, amounting to the airline version of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, gave him a court appearance date, and cleared us for departure the following morning.

Two mornings later, upon arrival at Heathrow Airport, Dick took a good ten minutes at customs while I breezed right through. This inspired Dick to make a joke about drugs in our bags.

You know how you make an ugly face, so that your mother tells you, "Don't do that, or your face will freeze like that"? From that moment on, my OMFG-I-can't-believe-how stupid-you-are expression -- the squinty eyes, the scrinched up nose, cheeks, forehead and mouth, as if I was sniffing Elizabeth New Jersey -- was permanently frozen on my face and pointed at Dick. It also didn't help that Dick kept telling me to "Shhhhhh."

It can't have felt good to be on the withering end of my holy-shit-you're-an-idiot face. By Amsterdam Dick and I started taking separate rooms at hotels. We hooked up with two other law school friends, who happened to be following about the same route as ours through Europe. Dick shared a room with them. This new arrangement seemed to take the edge off and eased tensions between Dick and me. Together we traveled from Amsterdam to Munich to Salzberg to Bologna, where our new travel mates took me aside and advised me that on our next leg to Paris, Dick's delicate psyche would require the comfort of the absence of me and my emotionally devastating face.

The next morning, they headed off to Paris and left me behind in Bologna, to fend for myself. First, I had a transatlantic cry over the phone with my obviously worried mother. Then I set out to look up another law school classmate, Ned, who had done his junior year abroad in Bologna and had returned this summer to recover from the bar.

I found Ned at a nearby pensione, one that happened to be nicer than mine and that had a vacant room right next to his. So I moved over. That day Ned took me on a tour through Bologna. As we meandered through the intimate, porticoed streets, with their reddish brown walls and pale gold and white ceilings, Ned took the time to point out all the highlights: the Piazza San Pietro, the Chiesa San Domenico, where Guido Reni is buried, the tower at the University of Bologna, where Da Vinci first used a telescope to gaze into the stars. Next we went to the University art gallery, where we saw paintings spanning from the cartoonish renderings of the medieval period, to the brilliant color and representational fidelity of the Italian Renaissance, and finally to the delicately brilliant light, elegance and lyricism of the Italian Baroque, all represented through one common theme, which Ned encapsulated perfectly in his comfortingly familiar "Lawn Guyland" accent: "Madonner-and-child, Madonner-and-child, Madonner-and-child, Madonner-and-child…."

That night Ned brought me and his guitar to one of his favorite trattorias. The food was inexpensive and delicious, and the long tables invited socializing and celebration. We discovered we knew a ton of songs in common and sang ourselves into the early morning hours. Equipped with a spiky hairdo, bigass earrings, a hearty red table wine and the voice for it, I did a mean version of "Hit Me With Your Best Shot," accompanied by Ned and the laughter and applause of our Bolognese hosts.

As we wended our way back towards the pensione, a revelation came over me:

"Hey, I'm having a normal vacation!"

You know, where you have fun and don't feel self-conscious and go on adventures and actually enjoy the company of your companion.

Oh yeah, that. Normal.

The next day, Ned introduced me to Florence. Florence, Italy. First, Ned set me up at a nice, reasonably-priced, well-situated pensione in Florence. Then he took me on a tour of the city, to help me get my bearings. The attractions were too many to list, so he pointed out the key landmarks: the Duomo, the marketplace, the Piazza Della Signoria, the Ponte Vecchio, and what turned out to be my favorite: the Chiesa Santa Croce, with Michelangelo's tomb and its magnificent Giotto frescos, capturing the moment when the mind of humanity turned a great, big corner: linear perspective.

Ned introduced me to the most fascinating and overwhelmingly beautiful city I had ever seen, and not once did he even remotely hint that any quid pro quo was involved. He was a perfect gentleman.

Oh yeah, gentlemen. They're good. Keep them.

Having a blast with Ned reassured me that there was nothing wrong with me that had led to my having been being so rudely ditched. I was perfectly capable of having a good time and being charming, so long as my travel buddy didn't make stupid jokes, get himself arrested, give all my potentially-searchable bodily orifices a heart attack, or tell me to "Shhhhhh."

Ned headed back to Bologna that evening and left me to explore Florence. I planned on staying there for a few days before going back to meet Ned at the end of the week and contemplate another city or heading back to the States.

That night I found myself at a lovely trattoria. Barely two pages into my novel -- (I was reading Mary McCarthy's The Group.) -- I was befriended by five absolutely adorable Italian soldiers, who paid for my dinner and entertained me enormously. Among these nubile young men was one cute little Bolognese fellow who ended up taking the train back to Bologna with me later that weekend.

The rest of my trip was a magical journey of joy and discovery. I went wherever I wanted to go, without rancor, without having to negotiate or compromise and without having to worry about cavity searches. No matter where I went to eat, I wouldn't get two pages into my book before someone struck up a conversation with me and bought me my meal. I made friends and influenced people. I had such a good time, I stretched one week in Italy out to three.

Florence immerses you so deeply and densely in art and history that it utterly overwhelms the senses. It takes time and to absorb all the visual input. On this trip, I hadn't been prepared for everything I ended up seeing. I needed time to decompress, just to sort through it and make sense of it all. I was determined to return after taking a couple years to read up and educate myself on Italy and Italian art history.

I did, in fact, return in 1991, all by myself for 21 days in Bologna and Florence. I went on a quest to find the female artists of the Italian Renaissance. I found them, along with the Italian Baroque. Met up with that little Bolognese soldier boy, too.

Back to the story. Because of Ned, I not only rediscovered normalcy, I launched into on a whole new epoch of my life, something begun when I was lost and abandoned in a foreign country. I could have returned home in defeat, but instead I ended up having a great, confidence-building adventure. Because of Ned, I discovered some of the greatest passions of my life: history, art and all things Italian. Ned not only showed me "normal," he hooked me up with transcendence. Cool.

Hey Ned, I can't remember your last name, but if you're out there, friend me on Facebook, okay? I mean, you changed my life and everything.

Now, every time I hear President-Elect Barack Obama speak, I get the same feeling of relief and revelation as I did when Ned rescued me in Bologna.

Obama talks about things like filling positions in his administration with people who are not only competent. They are the premier experts in their field. Oh yeah, looking for people who are actually qualified for their responsibilities is so sensible, so refreshing, so normal.

Today Obama said that he wants his cabinet to be filled with experts who will provide him with a variety of opinions on the issues and that he prizes "vigorous debate." So he cares about finding out what is actually going on, so he can make informed decisions, based on the facts.

Whoa.

This is what a President is supposed to feel like -- smart, thinks on his feet, capable of listening and giving a spontaneous, responsive answer, one that comes from his brains and heart, not from a pre-fab list of talking points.

Here is a guy who can not only tell you what newspapers he reads. He can tell you what they said and why he agrees or disagrees with them. He also can tell you who wrote the articles and what their bias or interests are likely to be. This guy can most definitely point out quite a few Supreme Court cases with which he disagrees. Why, he can show you recent Supreme Court opinions with which he agrees but which he would have analyzed and written differently, had it been up to him to write the opinion.

There's grey matter between them thar big ears! Hallelujah! What a refreshing change.

I can only hope that our journey over the next four years with the Obama Administration will turn out to be as enjoyable, revelatory and paradigm-shifting as the one I got by the good grace of Ned.

JOY

With Barack Obama's victory in the Presidential election of 2008, we the people of the United States can rejoice at having once again fulfilled our potential to become "a more perfect union," this time in a HUGE way, with the election of a black man to the Presidency of the United States. And yet this milestone, which has inspired joy in so many, has also, somewhat understandably, aroused apprehension among those who voted against Obama.

To be happy that an African American won the election is not an indictment of or accusation against those who did not vote for him. Nor is it a statement that his supporters voted *for* him because of his race.

After 372 years of subjugation of people of color in America and 232 years where only Caucasians have held the office of the US Presidency, to not recognize the quantum leap forward that Obama's election represents is to dismiss a key moment when we as a society realized the true potential and promise of our founding principles.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....

What is significant, indeed crucial, is that Obama himself did not run on race. He spoke of race only when absolutely pushed to the wall, when the Hillary campaign started blasting him on his association with Reverend Wright -- a strategy which sought to arouse and exploit fears among white people that Obama conformed to the stereotype of "the Angry Black Man."

That was the situation that prompted Obama to write and deliver his speech on race:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-th_n_92077.html


When the McCain campaign, particularly through Palin, started rousing fears with their accusations that Obama was "palling around with terrorists," and Representative John Lewis, a hero of the Civil Rights Movement, -- a man who had personally witnessed the church burnings, the fire hoses, the murders of Goodman, Scherner and Cheney, as well as the murders of Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King -- called the McCain administration out on these tactics, the Obama campaign distanced themselves from Lewis' statements, expressly rebuking the association Lewis had made between John McCain and George Wallace.

The Obama campaign statement pulled the emphasis of the discussion away from race and back towards a more neutral critique of "angry divisive rhetoric" and then, even more notably, they moved the message back into the "positive" column, by stating the need for unity "a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together."

I think it was this constant, steady, consistent and *color-blind* emphasis on unity and the positive that won over the Independents to Obama's side and ultimately led to his victory in this election, not to mention the intense affection of all those who gravitated to his cause.

I think the more people saw and really got to know Obama, the more they liked him and saw that, even though he was relatively inexperienced in terms of years spent in public service at the national level or in an executive capacity, he had the brilliant mind, judgment and temperament to be an outstanding chief executive. He was the most qualified candidate for the job.

And then there was that breakthrough....

What It Means to Elect a Constitutional Scholar as President of the United States of America

For me, having come from New York University School of Law, my orientation towards the title of "constitutional scholar" is the same as that held by the members of that community.

At the law school, the term "constitutional scholar" was no more remarkable than "electrical engineer." It held a certain prestigiousness, not unlike that of "neuro-surgeon" or "nuclear physicist," because it is one of the most highly-esteemed areas of study and practice.

That said, I am sad to think that the term, "constitutional scholar" would be regarded as somehow romantic. If the study and mastery of constitutional law has come to be regarded in the American consciousness as some kind of quixotic ideal, then it is a testament to how low we have sunk as a republic and how little regard we have come to have for our civil rights and our constitutional principles and aspirations.

We can find the evidence for this intensely regrettable decline in the passage of The Patriot Act, the eavesdropping on American citizens without warrant or probable cause, the avowed American disregard for the Geneva Convention in international warfare as codified by the US Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales, the active practice of torture and physically coercive interrogation techniques, imprisonment in offshore locations without a hearing, the attempt to suspend rights of habeas corpus....

The urgency with which Americans have handed over their civil liberties, hand-over-fist, in the purported interest of security, out of fear, has established a poignant occasion for the restatement of the words of our founding father, Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I hope that with the election of a constitutional scholar to the United States presidency, that we will see over the next decade the redemption of regard for our constitutional rights and that the title of "constitutional scholar" will be redeemed from trivialization as a merely quixotic ideal. My sincere hope is that the vocation of "constitutional scholar" will at least attain the status of a routine and unremarkable specialization, if not total restoration of the high esteem it once held.

Why I Am Not "A Globalist"

I would not describe myself as a globalist. I don't think "whether globalism is a good idea" is the right question.

Globalization is inevitable, given the prevalence and ubiquity of modes of communication and travel -- the telephone, the Internet, satellite technology, television, radio, airline travel, etc. These are the means of export, import and exchange of ideas, culture and trade...into a constant intermingling.

The right question is HOW do we effect this intermingling? So some resistance to unfettered "globalization" is in order to ensure that the values (economic, moral and ethical) inherent in the ideas, culture and products in the intermingling are fairly and ethically regulated and distributed.

To have one value dominate all others via globalization could be a bad thing. For example, if globalization favors inexpensive labor...resulting in the concentration of manufacturing or sourcing of materials only in countries that abuse or mistreat laborers...then globalization is bad, and I am against it.

The all-or-nothing orientation towards globalization doesn't really work very well. Because the channels of transmission and transportation are irreversibly open (or at least because their restraint is so prohibitively expensive and difficult), trade in and the exchange of ideas and products will continue and expand. The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no stuffing it back in.

There needs to be regulation of global markets in trade to preserve fairness, to protect workers in terms of wages, hours and safety, and to preserve and protect the environment.

In terms of political globalization, there are certain universal principles that should be given global expression -- the universal rights of human beings to self-determination, to government of, by and for the people, the right to elect one's own leaders, the rights to free and unfettered expression, the right to bodily integrity and reproductive freedom, and so forth. At the same time, there is also a need to for certain checks and balances that will allow these principles to manifest in ways that preserve and are respectful of variations in culture and ethnicity.

We need to make sure that globalism does not become the means of economic, cultural or moral imperialism due to the advantage held by stronger and more potentially dominant participants.

What an Epiphany: The Prospect of Putting a Constitutional Scholar Into the Oval Office

I love that Barack Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. He approaches all the issues as a scholar would...with an open and curious mind, eager to hear, appreciate and truly understand the philosophies and arguments with which he does not agree. As the brilliant legal scholar that he MUST be to have graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, he has to be able to anticipate and argue ALL sides of an issue. This will give him the ability to take in all perspectives on any of the issues he will face as President and to synthesize them into a decision, a solution.

I am so excited for the election today. I am eager for Obama to be elected. I'm not counting my chickens, but if he wins, I think he will be a great president...great for the country and great for the standing of our country in the world.

My deepest hope on the International front is that he will end the habit of the US to prop up dictators and for us to return to our roots as a force for the promotion of true democracy in the world. Now that the cold war is over, there is no need for us to prop up dictators, just to have a force that opposes the Soviets or China.

It has long been a counterproductive strategy that has come back to bite us all too often -- from our propping up of the Shah of Iran leading to the Iran Hostage Crisis to our propping up of Sadaam Hussein so long as he was fighting Iran...and we all know what THAT led to.

Once again we will start to make substantive progress in environmental matters, trade pacts that require the elevation of conditions for workers worldwide...and that will reduce the unfair advantage that work forces in countries like China and Mexico have over American workers.... I feel like our country will FINALLY start moving forward again.

Why I Support Barack Obama

As the Democratic primary process got under way, I started out genuinely torn between Hillary and Obama. I loved the Clinton presidency. I had heard Hillary speak several times before she ran for the presidency, and I always loved what she had to say.

But I was angry that she voted for the authorization of power to Bush to go into Iraq. I was also apprehensive that the vicious partisanship and polarization that had been directed towards both Bill and Hillary Clinton during the first Clinton presidency would recur. I wanted something different from the array of Clintons and Bushes who had held the Oval Office for the past 20 years. Something inside me felt that we needed someone new.

The more I've learned about Obama, the more I've grown to like him and to love him. Many are worried that he is too liberal, but the more you examine him and delve into his past, the more you will see that he is actually a closet centrist. He started out at the anti-establishment margins -- in the black neighborhoods of Chicago, where he had to join a somewhat radical congregation to establish his street cred as a black leader. Hence Reverend Wright.

BUT -- as he has risen from community organizer to state senator, from the tough streets of Chicago to the hallowed precincts of the Senate in Washington D.C., he has gravitated to the center. What I have learned about his childhood and schooling through law school tells me that this movement towards the center is more in line with who Obama truly is.

Obama is a biracial man who was raised in a white family. To have peace within himself, he had to have found a way to reconcile and harmonize both sides of his heritage and identity. I can absolutely see the parallel in his mission and drive to reconcile and harmonize the competing and all too often conflicting sides of our American heritage and identity. He is a unifier by nature, all the way down to his DNA.