Historic Election

Seconds after the large television screens that hung near the podium declared Barack Obama winner of this historic election, a uniformed police officer leaned against the back wall of the tightly packed Skirvin Hotel ballroom.

He was there not as an on-duty Oklahoma City policeman. But as a citizen to witness what no one had witnessed before. To stand quietly, but to soak up the sight and sound and feel that made this special. At that moment he glanced and then looked me straight in the eye, and smiled. It was a smile not of a man of authority, not of a man of different race than me, and not of a man of different experience or culture or thoughts.

It was a smile of a fellow human being who recognized that we – the black police officer and the white lawyer – were there for precisely the same reason. And I returned that recognition in the same way. With a return smile. A smile that you give your brother when on Christmas morning you gather around the tree and open the presents that you have given each other, and realize that the giving is greater than the gifts.

In that moment there was a sameness in this grand ballroom that at least for this period in time swallowed any racial division that any of these participants - black, white, brown or red – had ever imagined or had ever experienced.

The candidates in this election said it was about "change". As it turned out the election wasn’t just about change of policies in Washington, it became about a change in the way we see each other as people.

The celebration at the Obama/Democratic Party watch party was like a gush of emotion and elation that rivaled the final seconds of any team’s national championship. The ballroom was adorned with blue Obama signs and the "Yes We Can" banners. With the announcement that the 232-year-old United States had elected its first African-American as President, there was an eruption of sound, then a blur of movement and then a cacophony of aural celebration, marked by the most notable chant, "O-BAM-A...O-BAM-A...O-BAM-A."

A band blared some catchy tune that captured the feeling that America had risen to the level of idealism which school children have been taught for ages, which Hollywood has portrayed with the patriotic sounds of John Williams scores, but which for our country’s entire history has been seen as lacking and even sometimes disingenuous when the color of skin was considered.

People danced and people danced on chairs. Men high-fived. Well dressed women of all ages hugged. Couples kissed. There was no barrier — physical, political or perceived – among these many people who celebrated the election of a man who brings hope that America is indeed the great democracy of the world, and on this night we proved it to the world.

On this night, November 4, in the year 2008, in this red-state ballroom of nearly 800 people, one rock band and a half dozen TV reporters, there were no black people. There were no white people. There were no differences. There were only Americans. Americans standing, and dancing, and smiling at each other -- proud of what we had accomplished.

--Mike D.

Obama: No. 1 Liberal or not?

I’ve noticed that the FOX talking heads (yeah, I saw Hannity recently), keep referring to Obama as the MOST liberal person in the Senate. That of course is the first time I’d seen anyone identified as more liberal than Ted Kennedy. But, anyway, I checked with a website that is liberal and which ranks senators and house members on a liberal (progressive) vs. conservative scale on all votes that have come up and this is what I found:

Progressive Punch Senate Rankings

This is a ranking of all votes – not just on certain issues that might skew the tabulations one way or the other.

Obama ranks 25th on the “liberal” scale in the Senate (that’s his lifetime score). For 2007-08 he’s 43rd (that puts him two notches ahead of Joe Lieberman, a ways behind Hillary and quite a bit behind his fellow Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, who is Number 1 in 2007-08).

While Obama does not fall into any conservative tendencies on any issues, he loses his chance at being No. 1 “most liberal” on the following votes: moving class action lawsuits to less consumer-friendly federal courts; voting with Republicans to move forward on Senate approval of Republican judicial nominations; he voted against a move to delete funding for an additional prison at Guantanamo Bay; he voted against an amendment by Tom Coburn that would have made the 9/11 Commission recommendations expire in the year 2012, thereby siding with Republicans, while Coburn sided with some Democrats (it’s a wacky, wacky world sometimes); he sided with Coburn on Tom’s amendment to an appropriation bill to cut $100 million for security at the presidential party conventions this summer; and he voted to confirm Condelezza Rice’s nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite criticism at the time for her role in lobbying for the war in Iraq (which Obama opposed). Much of the rest of his poor showing as a “liberal” was because he was absent during close votes on issues regarding big business and restrictions on credit card companies.

I may have to reconsider my support for Obama. He may be too conservative for me.

Meanwhile, according to this ranking, there are 40 U.S. Senators more conservative than John McCain (based on lifetime votes). He lost his “conservative” star by voting with Democrats/”liberal”s the following way: to stop debate on an immigration bill; to curb an expansion of the list of crimes that would prevent illegal immigrants from applying for legal status; to allow federal funds for embryonic stem cell research; to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for cheaper pharmaceutical prices for senior citizens (apparently Repubs are healthier and don’t need medicine); he voted with Democrats to reduce certain tax breaks for persons earning more than $1 million annually, in order to fund greater veterans medical benefits; he authored a bill requiring current background checks for gun buyers to apply to “gun shows”, thereby closing a loophole. This was hotly opposed by the NRA (the bill was then added to the gun liability bill, which was soundly defeated when the gun lobby ramped up); he voted with Democrats for $100 million in aid to Mexican farmers hurt by falling coffee prices (someone tell Starbucks about that); McCain voted against an amendment to the drug bill that would have barred states from providing health insurance to poor legal (yeah, legal) immigrants. The amendment failed, but McCain was one of only 8 Repubs to vote against it; in 2004 McCain sided with Democrats and voted against a bill to cut funding for education and social security and provide tax cuts for the highest tax bracket taxpayers; he voted against a bill to cut taxes on social security benefits and allow budget deficits to increase; in 2002 he voted against allow pharmaceutical companies to extend their patents (his vote thereby allowed less expensive generic drugs to become available at the current time frame); in 2005 he voted to re-instate polluter-pays fees to fund the bankrupt Superfund trust originally created to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites (the bill failed, so the taxpayers have foot the entire bill, but clean up has slowed to half what it was before); he sided with Democrats in a bill requiring the Dept of Energy to set timelines for development of hydrogen fuel cells (32 REpubs voted against this for whatever reason); in 2004 he voted against opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling; and in 2002 he voted with Democrats to create a commission to examine spikes in energy prices. His absence on several key votes regarding pharmaceuticals also affected his score.

But before you call McCain the most liberal of Republicans, he is ranked 19th most conservative in the Senate in the 2007-08 period. There are 30 Republicans who score more liberal than him over-all, according to this study of each senators entire voting record during that period. But there are only eight Republicans who score more liberal than him when the senators’ lifetime voting record is taken into account.

Both Obama and McCain missed about the same number of close votes on various issues in the last two years.

So when you hear FOX labeling Obama the MOST liberal in the Senate, that’s obviously not true. He may be far more liberal than they want, but it’s the sort of hyperbole that we are fed by cable TV media who have an agenda. If conservative critics label McCain too liberal, he probably is for their tastes, but mostly due to his votes critical of big business or the gun lobby.

-MDD

Rudy's Bomber

Norman Podhoretz is a New York neo-conservative columnist who advocates a pre-emptive military strike against Iran, for fear that Iran will build a nuclear weapon some day and threaten the western world. He acknowledges this could create a huge backlash of anti-Americanism world wide. But, he says, it is worth it.

Podhoretz is Rudy Guliani's senior foreign policy advisor.

You can read his "Case for Bombing Iran" here.

Podhoretz openly advocates what he calls World War IV (III being the cold war) and makes analogies to Adolf Hitler when referencing Iranian's nutty president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Podheretz is quick to point out that the Iranian leader's agenda is to first "wipe out" Israel.

I suppose it is not surprising that a Jewish neo-conservative from New York would be advocating the U.S. save Israel by bombing an Islamic country; nor surprising that Guliani would be the presidential candidate listening to this guy.

So, if you are tired of this war in Iraq, but want another, then vote for Rudy.

On the other hand if you think Podhoretz is a warmongerer (and that such is a bad thing), then you will only vote for Rudy if you have lost your mind. If Rudy wins, then we all will be losing a lot more: many thousands more of our young men and women in a purposeless and unnecessary war.

-- Mike

Agreed -- what was the point of Petraeus' testimony?

An excellent editorial in the Sept. 10 Oklahoma Daily:

http://hub.ou.edu/articles/article.php?item_id=1939381827&section_id=398493765

An excerpt:

Optimism about Iraq is hard to come by, though Petraeus hoped to engender it with his remarks yesterday. Instead, he exposed how irrelevant America has become in Iraq.

The Craig lesson

I wonder about the state of our nation when a United States senator is railroaded from office (by his own party) for brushing his hand against a bathroom stall at an airport. Of course I am talking about Sen. Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican and NRA board memer, who resigned todayunder pressure over his misdemeanor conviction of lewd conduct, under the suspicion that he is homosexual.

Craig denied he was gay on Tuesday. Party bosses were concerned that his apparent plan to fight the criticism of his misdemanor plea bargain last June in Minneapolis would hurt Republicans in upcoming elections. Do they really think his resignation will somehow erase any negative impact this might have?

I listened to the audio tape of the police interrogation of Sen. Craig when he was arrested. What struck me was not the senator's explanation of events -- frankly, it seemed plausible and clearly established a reasonable doubt -- but rather the heavy handedness of the arresting officer who tried to cajole a confession from Craig. It made NYPD Blue's Andy Sipowicz's techniques look like those of a school girl.

(Note: The evidence cited by police in support of their charge that Craig was soliciting an undercover officer for sex included their statement that Craig entered the toilet stall and positioned his carry-on luggage behind the bathroom stall door, so that no one from outside could see underneath it. This absurd conclusion ignores the fact that almost all air travelers do the same, because there is no where else to put it when one needs to take a crap at an airport. Leaving it outside only results in police confiscating the "abandoned" bag, blowing it up on some firing range and arresting the owner for violating some TSA rule).

It was apparent on the audio tape that the police officer used Sen. Craig's status -- and obvious fear that the arrest would harm him politically, to convince him to plead guilty to a lesser misdemeanor charge. The officer repeatedly told Craig he would not go to the news media about it. But it was clear to both the interrogator and the interrogatee that Craig's political career held in the balance, and under this pressure Craig pleaded guilty to what amounted to a traffic ticket.

Of course such things do not go unnoticed. And two months later the plea comes to light. Craig resigns because of politics. But was the public served by his resignation -- or merely the whims of party bosses?

I don't think so. If Sen. Craig was good enough to serve Idahoans before June, then a misunderstanding over a bump of feet or reaching for a piece of toilet paper in a crowded airport bathroom surely does not make him unfit for office afterward. I don't care whether he's as gay as Rock Hudson.

The homophobic nature of many Americans causes us to believe gay men are sexual predators. The actions of the Republican party to run Craig out of office -- whether he is gay or not -- is disappointing, because it does nothing but perpetuate that myth. And more imporantly to me, it merely shows that getting elected, or re-elected is more important to political leaders in America today, than governing.

Losing common sense in Arizona

I'm beginning to think many Americans in positions of authority have lost their minds. No, I'm not talking about the White House (this time). In the second highly publicized incident in as many weeks, a school administration has demonstrated abusive enforcement of rules (or in this case no rule at all) supposedly in furtherance of being politically correct.

The Chandler, Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for doodling on a piece of paper what school officials believed to be a gun. You be the judge. Here is the doodle:

There is nothing in the school's policy that prohibits the drawing of a gun. There is nothing in the drawing that indicates a threat to other students or teachers. The drawing does not show blood, guns, bullets, injured persons or identify any particular individual. It does show stick figures and smiley faces. The boy said he did not intend it to be a threat, but was just doodling without thinking about it. But that got him suspended.

When the parents confronted school administrators about the suspension they were told they were trying to prevent another Columbine and stressed the seriousness of this "offense."

How difficult is it to use some common sense? School officials won't talk now, saying it would violate the privacy rights of the student. What about the student's free speech rights? Or the right to be left alone to doodle?

Surely the public is getting sick and tired of this sort of behavior from school and other public officials, who are more than willing to dispense with the baby in order to throw out the bath water.

Restoring common sense in Oregon

Police and school officials in McMinnville, Oregon apparently do not know the difference between criminal sex offenders and unruly boys. But, thankfully, a judge does.

Criminal sexual abuse charges were dismissed by a judge against two 13-year-old seventh graders who had been handcuffed, held in jail for five days, and charged with felonies after running through a school hallway slapping the butts of female classmates.

Do this as a college student and you make Girls Gone Wild. Do it at an Oregon junior high and you face prison time. See the story:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bottom-slapping-case-dismissed/20070820171109990001

We're seeing more of this every day. Prosecutors and school officials who crucify childlike behavior. The prosecutor had no qualms about charging the boys, saying their criminal behavior was "life altering." As it turned out, several boys were swatting the heinies of girls, and several girls were doing the same to the boys. The only thing life altering about this story is the abusive prosecution conducted by the state.

If this trend continues you would think the students themselves would cry for bringing back corporal punishment in our schools. Three licks from a football coach is a whole lot better than what these poor boys had to go through before the judge said, "enough is enough" and dismissed the charges "in the interests of justice."

The people in McMinnville, Oregon should be taking a close look at whether the district attorney and the school officials should continue in their jobs. They should also re-elect Judge John Collins for restoring common sense to their community.

McCain hanging on

The surprising thing is that John McCain’s candidacy for president is dying on the vine. It may be his position on Iraq that has turned even conservatives (who are increasingly critical of the quagmire in the Middle East) against him, or they merely believe McCain’s pro-war stand threatened his viability as a “winning” candidate.

Regardless, the man who championed campaign finance reform is suffering from poor contributions and poorer campaign strategies.

McCain was once considered a front runner. He’s now a mere announcement away from checking it in for 2008.

Is this a bad thing? Maybe. McCain is labeled a populist conservative. On some issues he is right in step with middle America. He also has this Goldwater-esqe way of taking a path not always in step with his party. Must be something in the Arizona water.

McCain is anti-abortion, so much that he advocates over-turning Roe v. Wade. But he’s also not homophobic, endorsing the military “don’t ask don’t tell policy” and stating gay marriage should be an issue left to individual states. He thinks local school boards should decide whether to teach creationism in their districts, but he personally believes in evolution. He advocates investing oil profits in nuclear power, but voted against drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He has voted for greater environmental controls over the oil and gas industry. McCain voted for protections of gun manufacturers from lawsuits, but also voted to ban certain assault weapons.

And as the only member of Congress who has ever been tortured (while a prisoner of North Vietnam), McCain is against CIA torture of suspected terrorists to get information. He knows first hand it is a flawed method of obtaining intelligence, and just plain un-American.

McCain doesn’t buy into the chicken little approach some Republicans have to immigration. He does not support an official language (English), noting that some native Americans speak their tribal language and that hasn’t threatened our white-bread culture. He has been critical of the witch-hunt some conservatives have toward illegal aliens.

He voted yes to increasing the minimum wage, knowing that the only people that will affect are a few McDonalds drive-through workers and some college students. But the union bosses say McCain has an anti-labor voting record.

McCain voted in favor of allowing re-importation of low cost prescription drugs from Canada. I am sure that did not endear him to the pharmaceutical lobby, which might account for his recent poor showing in the campaign contribution race.

All in all, McCain is one of those candidates whose populist approach to issues is appealing to many Americans (and consequently a threat to Democrat candidates). Unfortunately for him, the Republican party has been hijacked by extremists. The Republican voting base is being unduly influenced by the conservative shock jocks of cable TV and radio – pushing them farther and farther to extreme positions away from McCain on issues like immigration or sensible positions on the environment and energy.

McCain is now in third place among Republican candidates. Unless this ol' Navy man can right the ship, his campaign will get mothballed soon. That is good news for Democrats.

Loyal Libby scoots

Bush says no prison for Cheney's boy

President Bush today commuted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 2 ½ year prison sentence for obstruction of justice because he said the punishment did not fit the crime. A spokesman for vice president Dick Cheney said the VP agreed with the oval office decision. No shock there.

If you are a Republican candidate for office you’re probably thinking, what more can Bush do to screw up the election chances for 2008? The party that spent millions of taxpayer dollars seeking the impeachment of a president for lying about getting a blow job, now says any prison time (not one single day) for one of their own who lied about revealing the identity of a CIA agent is not justified.

The word “hypocritical” is not strong enough.

It’s the “do as I say, not do as I do” party. What a convenient dosey-doe dance. If Sen. Ted Kennedy had out-ed a CIA agent the right-wingers would have sought public execution at gallows constructed on the capitol mall.

What is even worse is that we know the commutation of Scooter’s sentence was a quid pro quo for taking a fall for his boss, Cheney. The investigation into the Valerie Plame Wilson outing was getting too close to the vice president. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. That means there was something there to obstruct the investigation from revealing. People do not risk prosecution for nothing, especially people with admittedly long years of public service like Libby.

But, they do risk it if it means taking a bullet for the team – and not going to jail -- which is precisely what happened here. No other person was prosecuted following the three-year $1.5 million CIA leak investigation.
You have to give Libby his due. He’s a loyal servant. Just not of the American people.

In the old (some say even now-a) days of the Kremlin, someone in Libby’s position would have literally taken a bullet and never been seen again. You see that’s the difference between this administration and Stalin and his KGB. These White House boys don’t use live ammunition unless it involves invading another country.

----
Note: Bush let stand a $250,000 fine of Libby. That’s about one year's salary for Libby (he made $261,000 as VP Cheney’s chief of staff). As for employment, Libby can always resort to mystery thriller novel writing (although from what critics say, he should’ve kept his day job). See: http://www.amazon.com/Apprentice-Novel-Lewis-Libby/dp/0312284535

Bossy Hillary

Hillary Clinton’s views on important political issues, such as pro-choice, stem cell research, health care, the environment and education are very close to my own; meaning we both probably can be labeled by political philosophers as “moderate liberal populists.”

That ideology is not unlike hubby Bubba Bill Clinton, who in my book is one of the most capable and talented presidents to have lead this country (and still whose conduct not only stained Monica’s dress, but discredited the office).

I don’t think we will have to worry about that from his spouse.

But, this Clinton – I don’t like.

I cannot put my finger on it. I cannot say this feeling comes from some well reasoned analysis of her politics or her demographics. Heck, I even believe the next president, or one soon thereafter, ought to be either a woman or black (or both, unless it is Condoleezza Rice).

I am not alone in these “negative thoughts”. In a recent Gallup Poll, Hillary Clinton had 50 percent of the people with an unfavorable opinion of her. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140629/site/newsweek/
That’s highly unusual for a non-incumbent presidential candidate. But this Clinton had similar numbers this time prior to her New York senatorial bid, and then ended up winning the election with 55 percent of the votes.

Some may say that I fall into the category of white males who are afraid of smart, aggressive, white females. This despite the fact I was married to one for 17 years and have been in a relationship with another for more than a decade (ooooh, did I say that?). Instead, I think it is more I just don’t like Hillary Clinton. I wouldn’t like her if she was a guy. If she was a man I would think she(he) was some smart aleck guy who thinks he knows more than the rest of us, and worse yet, one that might be right about that.

Still, considering we’ve suffered through a presidency less bright than the rest of us and one that has fouled things up – then, maybe we should have no problem being told what to do by a smart, aggressive woman whose ideas are not bad at all.

Those ideas include 1) fixing the horrible health care system in this country (how we do that – I don’t know, I’m not the one that went to Harvard); 2) preserving the environment (I can do that); and 3) lifting the idiotic ban on federal funding of stem cell research (it’s just one non-veto away from passage). And while Hillary did an about-face on the whole Iraq war, having first supported it then changed her mind – didn’t most Americans do the very same thing?

So, I might vote for Hillary come 2008. But, I will likely not invite her over for coffee.

Tragic and uplifting

Somebody important said, "War is hell." Still, we sometimes forget how hellish it can be, or for whom the hell tolls.

An example, as excellently reported by CBS News chief foreign correspondence Lara Logan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/18/notebook/main2946477.shtml

"Conservative" Giuliani

Republicans getting hjacked again?

The striking question about Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination is this: Have the Republican voters lost their minds?

Twenty seven percent of Republicans favor Giuliani, placing him head of Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who stands with 21 percent , according to a recent Fox News poll. A New York Times poll puts Giuliani’s lead at 36 to 22. Sure, Giuliani’s candidacy could be difficult for the Dems to tackle. After all he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 2001, and presumably some Republicans think he is the best competitor to Hillary Clinton – perhaps the primary reason for his support from conservatives.

But mostly, Giuliani’s candidacy does not look like a conservative Republican at all.

An example:

-- After the 9/11 attack, Giuliani threatened a lawsuit to challenge the mayoral term limits so he could continue as mayor of New York. Term limits of government officials has been a core plank of the Republican Party for several years.

-- During his 1999 bid for U.S. Senate, he admitted to his marital infidelity. That cannot sit well with conservative evangelicals.

-- In 2000, Giuliani announced the city was going to file lawsuits against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. “This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed," Giuliani said at the time. Do the muckety mucks of the NRA know about this guy?

-- In 1998, as NY mayor, Giuliani pushed the city council to codify local law by granting all city employees equal benefits for their “domestic” partners, meaning homosexual partners. Giuliani also allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in his administration.

And then there’s the big issue to Repubs: Abortion. Giuliani has been very open about his pro-choice stand. In his campaign against Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani said he supported then President Clinton’s veto of legislation making partial birth abortions illegal. While most Americans are pro-choice, Giuliani’s stand should not curry favor with conservative voters who see it as a good vs. evil issue.

Giuliani has not only been pro-choice, but advocated lawsuits against big business, openly promoted illegal immigration, and who admitted under oath he promoted to city Corrections Director and man with mob connections and who later pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

Is this Republicanism? Well, just when I thought I understood the “new” conservatives (now labeled “neo-cons”) the party of the religious right has Giuliani leading the pack. Just when I’d started to acquiesce to the notion the Bill O’Reilly-created “culture” war was real, Rudy Giuliani – the pro-choice candidate – is leading the Republican Party candidates. But it doesn’t stop there. The Repubs are seriously considering nominating a guy whose moral barometer is a lot farther left of Bill Clinton than Ken Starr ever imagined.

Giuliani divorced his first wife who was his second cousin (no more Arkansas jokes about that, my friends); openly had an affair with a staff member; told people he believed it was in good Italian tradition to maintain a mistress (according to this month’s Vanity Fair article on him), and fired his police chief because the guy got more publicity than the NY mayor. He’s also known among NY political insiders as being a ruthless control freak who is willing to step on anyone’s toes to assert his authority.

Everyone likes to say the proof is in the pudding, which I think means you judge someone by their actions and behaviors. How do we judge Giuliani? Well, a recent poll said we don’t know how to judge him, at least we don’t know where he is in the political spectrum. More than one-third polled considered him a moderate. Fifteen percent actually called him “liberal”. An amazing 20 percent had no clue.

However, there is some indication that some conservatives voters are catching on. In the NY Times poll of Republican voters, half said Giuliani did not share the same values as the Republican Party. Those voters are also unhappy with their candidate selection in general, with only 38 percent of Republican voters saying they are satisfied with their field of candidates. That compares to 63 percent of Democrats who said they were satisfied with the Democratic Party candidates.

Come on my conservative friends, stop this. You may think Giuliani has a better chance of beating a Clinton, but if you don’t watch out you’re going to be putting in the White House a man whose reading on the Republican litmus test is more acidic than even Hillary. More likely, though, you’re just going to be nominating a guy so out of step with the party that a greater number of conservatives will stay home from the polls and we will all be welcoming “Madam President.”

The Lincoln-man returns

Chris Lincoln was sports director at KTUL in Tulsa from 1974 to 1981. This week that station's management announced he would return to that position after a 25 year hiatus. Lincoln founded Winner Communications, Inc. and has been a big-time player in sports production companies, especially the horse racing industry, where he has been ESPN's chief race announcer, since he left Channel 8.

This will be cool. Lincoln was "my" sports guy during my formative sports years -- high school and college. He's the one who stole away the Oklahoma Football playback show from Oklahoma City stations and created the informative but hilarious Larry Lacewell television show on Saturday mornings. I'm really looking forward to what he will do now, in what is probably a psuedo-retirement job for Chris.

I wonder if Don Woods will be back with Gusty?

Who reads what

The publisher of the McCall, Idaho Star News has come up with a neat listing of what he calls a "Brief Guide" to the newspapers of America. Take a look:

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3.The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but really don't understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country - if they could find the time- - and if they didn't have to leave southern California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country...or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided, of course, that they are not Republicans.

11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

Politics and the war

From the "hypocrisy" is an unspoken word in Washington department: Here's an excerpt from Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who in 1993 was strongly advocating the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Somalia:



An example:

"For us to get into nation building, law and order, etc., I think is a tragic and terrible mistake….To think that somehow the United states will suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability as far as the number one superpower in the world I think is baloney.... What can erode our prestige…I”ll tell you what can hurt our viability as the world superpower and that is if we enmesh our selves in a drawn out situation which entails the loss of American lives…," McCain said.

Of course that was when the president was a Democrat. When the president is a Republican, McCain is all for nation building and keeping American military forces at risk at any cost. Eg., Iraq.

I'm sure there are examples of Democratic leaders who have been equally guilty of checking out the color of the party jersey before deciding which team is "right"; but aren't we tired of this?

Start up the buses

Illegal immigration and crime – not what you may think

I saw where Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly were engaged in verbal combat a couple of weeks ago over immigration problems. Particularly, O’Reilly was arguing that the current U.S. immigration mess was responsible for the death of two teen-agers by a drunk-driving illegal alien. Rivera contended this was O’Reilly’s way of capitalizing on a tragedy to foster a “massive witch hunt “ of illegal immigrants (hereinafter referred to as “Mexicans”, to be politically incorrect, but with the knowledge that not all undocumented aliens hail from the Republic of Mexico) .

I wondered: Do we have more crime now that Mexicans are overrunning our borders like the horde of evil killer bees O’Reilly claims them to be?

I checked the authority, the FBI crime statistics. You can see these here.: (

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/).

I found some interesting facts. Since we’ve been turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration, crime rates have gone down.

Yeah. Down.

Violent crime hit its peak in Oklahoma in 1994 (actually, statistically, it was 1995, but those numbers are skewed by Timothy McVeigh’s act of murder), with a rate per 100,000 population of 664.1. Since 1998 the Oklahoma violent crime rate hasn’t gone higher than 510.9. Property crimes have also declined during that period and have been at levels similar to the late 1970s. Back in the 70s the only Mexicans living here worked for Chelinos. Oklahoma City’s Capitol Hill High School still had white bread kids.

Similar downward trends have occurred in our neighboring states, including Texas, which as we all know is populated by more illegal aliens than the planet Klingon.

So, what gives? Certainly if one particular illegal alien committed the manslaughter which O’Reilly talked about, it’s a horrible occurrence. But to extrapolate from that tragedy a conclusion that illegal aliens are raping and pillaging America like the Visigoths plundered Middle Age Europe just isn’t borne out by the facts.

What, the O’Reilly Fear Factor not sticking to the facts? I know, I know. That’s hard to believe, my friends.

But if O’Reilly’s assumptions are in part correct -- if there is some causal relationship between crime and illegal immigration, then we need to send chartered buses to the Rio Grande and bring as many Mexicans to Oklahoma as possible. Another 100,000 of them and we won’t have to lock our doors at night at all. Plus, it will only improve our already thriving Mexican restaurant scene.

I’m calling my legislator right now.

---

See the Geraldo-O'Reilly "debate" here:

An honorable hero

I have always wondered about people who idolize famous individuals, whether they are movie stars or politicians or sports figures. I have not understood how that came to be. Maybe it was because I have been so cock sure of myself that needing inspiration from others who were not family or friends has not fit into the equation.

But on Monday night, I realized I was wrong. My hero died.

I saw the headline on the on-line news page I was browsing late Monday. It said: “Famed Vietnam War Journalist Killed in Crash”.

I had this sinking feeling that it could only be one person: Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam.

I met Mr. Halberstam in 1983 while attending law school. Because of my journalism background (I had already obtained my B.A. in journalism and had worked as a reporter for six years) the Dean asked if I wanted to participate in an all-day conference with a handful of other University of Oklahoma students, mostly journalism undergraduates. Halberstam was the speaker, moderator, questioner, teacher and friendly conversationalist. I think he even picked up lunch that day at Mr. Bill’s.

When you get to “hang out” with such an individual, even if only for a day, you learn about that person – not just the headline or the written biography about him. You learn how that individual thinks. You become one of his students.

What I learned about Mr. Halberstam was that he loved to immerse himself in and learn about new things – like the quizzical kid in a dinosaur museum or at a state fair midway. In this case his subject was a half dozen students sitting in chairs formed in circle in a small conference room at the university. Mr. Halberstam sat in one of the chairs – not apart or separate from the rest of us. Our initial thoughts were merely wondering whether we could get this famous author’s autograph on our copies of the “Best and the Brightest”. We soon learned that we were not only gaining from his accounts of experiences as a journalist, but that he was learning things from us. Few professors had been like this.

When he asked me questions during the conference it seemed like he really wanted to know what I thought about things. It may well be that I was seeing the consummate professional interviewer, using his skills to bring things out in people. But I genuinely believe that David Halberstam loved people. And he loved their stories.

Halberstam was not the cigar-chewing “damn the torpedoes” newsman type sometimes portrayed in movies. He obviously had the dogged tenacity of Carl Bernstein, but more so he had the thoughtful and careful reflection of Bob Woodward. When Halberstam spoke, he talked as he wrote, in an eloquent but concise manner, carefully articulating each word as if it packed an importance that compelled the listener to pause and hang on every syllable.

Like many good reporters, Halberstam started his career in a small-town newspaper. His beginning was in West Point, Mississippi, reporting on the civil rights movement. He worked his way to the larger newspapers, until he found a position with the New York Times. The Times sent him to Vietnam to cover the war. He reported from the front lines. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting in 1964, at the age of 30.

The “Best and the Brightest” was his acclaimed novel about the United States involvement in southeast Asia. That and his “The Powers That Be” are two books that every American should read. It gives us all a behind-the-scenes look at how the movers and shakers develop and carry out this country’s foreign and domestic policy. It also shows how these individuals can do so disconnected from the American people and in secret.

Halberstam wrote 21 books. Not all were about the machinations of government. He wrote about baseball. And the economy. And the automobile industry. He found something interesting in topics that would not get any attention on the frivolous television news shows of today. He had the same desire to interview the farmer as he did to interview the congressman, and he wrote about them in such a way that they were indeed as interesting and as important.

Halberstam was killed in an auto accident in the Bay Area yesterday. He was being driven from a conference with students at the University of California in Berkeley, where he had talked about the craft of journalism. Like in 1983, when he came to Norman, Oklahoma, Mr. Halberstam was sharing his experiences with his students and asking them what they think.

His wife, Jean Halberstam, said she would remember her husband most for his “unending, bottomless generosity to young journalists.”

David Halberstam was truly a great American. He was the best and brightest of American authors of the 20th – and 21st – centuries. And he was my hero.

When taxes aren't bad

Monday's Good News Story

Having to fork over a four-figure amount to the Internal Revenue Service last week was almost enough to turn one into an anti-tax Republican. Certainly we all are amazed at how Congress can find ways to spend our money on things that we don't really want. But that does not equate to thinking all taxes, or all tax increases, are bad.

Case in point: the MAPS project in Oklahoma City. That was a good example of a community deciding to increase taxes in order to bring a benefit to that community -- which is exactly what has happened, with the development of a Bricktown entertainment district and other improvements which have nearly reversed the devastating destruction of a vibrant downtown by Urban Renewal in the 1960s.

Another case in point: When faced with the need to replace an antiquated jail, Pontotoc County votors approved a bond issue -- the county government's borrowing of money, with the loan to be paid back from revenue generated by additional taxes on real estate.

Not only did the public step up with its responsibilities, but the local banks in Ada did as well. They decided to pool their resources and offer the county financing that would save the public more than a half million dollars.


Ada-area bankers join Pontotoc County Commissioner Winford Wood to sign the financing deal for a new jail in Ada.

Despicable right-wing media

Blaming the victims
I am outraged at the despicable campaign of blaming that right-wing political pundits have waged in the last week against the students at Virginia Tech for what one called "awful corrosive passivity" when a crazed gunman was shooting them.

I can think of no more heinous commentary this week than to victimize the victims, such as has occurred by the following:

In a National Review column, Mark Steyn, wrote that the passivity of the Virginia Tech students was a "threat to a functioning society."

Right-wing radio host Neal Bortz on Wednesday called the students behavior the result of "wussification" of America.

Right-wing radio host Michael Graham said on MSNBC the students just let the gunman have his way with them.

National Review's Neal Derbyshire wrote this: "[W]hy didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake -- one of them reportedly a .22."

They apprently weren't reading the newspapers' accounts of the attempts, some successful, in which the students and faculty fought back and defended themselves. Or they chose to ignore these factual accounts because it did not fit their propaganda.

It is bad enough that these media people distort the truth. But to distort it at the expense of victims so they can preach their near xenophobic hatred of liberals is inexcusable. It is amazing anyone in media authority permits this to be printed or aired.

I'm sure Imus is sitting on his ranch in New Mexico wondering how he could get fired for trying to be funny, but the mean-spirited and callous commentary like this is allowed to continue.

Good and bad journalism

Reporting on the shooting

The Good: In a story headlined, "That was the desk I chose to die under," David Maraniss and a team of 10 Washington Post reporters compiled a riveting minute by minute account of the Virginia Tech massacre that is at the pennacle of good news reporting. The information gathering was supurb; the writing crisp and at times eloquent:

"Life is mundane until it is not, and then the mundane can look serene," the story goes, summing up how the world changed Monday morning for those in Blacksburg, Virginia.

See Post article here.

The Bad: MSNBC's Chris Matthews, interviewing Karan Grewal, the killer's dormitory suite mate, chided the Virginia Tech student for not reporting to police Cho's "really weird" behavior of not talking to fellow students. Matthews said: "I’ve never heard of anybody like this in my life…he walked around without aspect, like a zombie, and you guys didn’t talk about him, you never told anybody about him…you never thought this was really weird . . . you never thought this was really weird, this guy was incommunicato with his suite mates?"

I guess the thought of someone not running off at the mouth is incomprehensible to a loud mouth like Matthews.

Then, apparently seeing that he was berating a victim, Matthews took a different tack, over-making the point that Virginia Tech authorities did not warn Grewal or other students about Cho's prior psychiatric evaluation. How can someone in Matthews' national network position be so ignorant of privacy laws (can you say "HIPPA"?) that are now common knowledge to the public? In addition, how can Matthews be so insensitive as to blame victims for what a crazed murderer did?

This is why cable "news" programs like his are junk.