![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a64c7c08-ba6a-4431-b145-e07c4b6fc111)
Joe Biden: The real Joe the six-pack. He's very smart and very wise and he didn't suffer from the foot-in-mouth disease as the pundits predicted. He stayed true to the message.
Katie Couric: Her interviews with Palin were the turning point for the election. She allowed Palin to look like the person that she was, rather than the candidate that the McCain campaign manufactured. And in doing so, allowed the American people to see the: 'there's no there, there' with Sarah the Governor.
The Youth Vote: Finally the youth of the country put their videogames and apathy aside and put their energy and vote into high gear. And in doing so, created an electorate that will follow for decades
The Electorate: Moving away from the gotcha/attack politics of the past, the new electorate put issues in front of wedges. They allowed for more meaningful discussions about which candidate were best for today's problems.
The US: Never in my lifetime have I ever experienced the sight that occurred that late November 4th evening. Throughout the country, city to city, small town to big town, people took to the streets to rejoice that their candidate won the election. It was as if every city won the World Series. It was an emotional reminder that Americans are still connected to their elections and care deeply about the direction of their country.
The world: I realize that the US elects its own leaders regardless of what the rest of the world thinks, but the impact of the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the US sends a message to the rest of the world that we're ready to do business again.
Losers
John McCain: Poor John McCain. Since 2000, he carefully prepared himself for his eventual Presidency. Unfortunately, he sold himself out in the process. For, had McCain held true to his pre-2000 beliefs, he would have fared better. Instead, he pandered his way to the finish line, only to see Bob Dole waiting for him with a pharmaceutical endorsement package waiting.
The right-wing attack media: Michelle Bachman, 527s, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, Mr. Ann Coulter and the rest of the wing-nuts now should realize the way out of the deep hole that they dug is not by using a shovel. The American public resoundingly rejected this white-noise.
Joe the Lieberman: Senator Droopy Dog can find solace in the fact that there's always a welcome seat for him.... In the rocking chair next to Zell Miller.
Joe the Plumber, Joe the Six-Pack: As a marketing message, your time is up; it's time to put you in the big pile of useless messages like 'whaaasssuuppp!". Joe, I mean Sam, the plumber... I mean the construction guy, since he's not a licensed plumber; your transparent attempt to catch Barack backfired. See ya!
Sarah the Governor: Some say she's on the rise and the eventually leader of the GOP, I think the opposite. I think that her 15 minutes are up and she'll go back to Alaska with the other slow-thinking glaciers. Unfortunately for her, with all of her Barack-bashing and partisan hacking, she alienated the Democrats in Alaska and will have a tough time governing. My guess, her upcoming book: "Cartography and other myths", will sell briskly though.
Ophra Winfrey: I don't care if this is the first candidate that you officially supported. In doing so, you showed your racial transparency. You put race above what was right for the country; it's wrong regardless of which side you're on.
Nancy Pelosi: It's time; Barack's message that 'change has come to Washington' means that you must step down. It means that your direction and leadership is wrong for the American public and you should step aside to allow for real change to occur.
The GOP: News flash: The religious right is out of touch, was out of touch and will be out of touch with the rest of the country; the quicker you realize this, the better.
Harry Reid: See Nancy Pelosi
Racism: It's not dead, but it 'aint' well.
Really? Have we have officially sunk that low?
It's one thing to use a manufactured voting record to support claims that Obama would raise taxes or allege that Obama will socialize health care. Those inflammatory assertions are based on a creative or a warped understanding Obama's proposed policies. But it's a completely different case to tie one of this nation's most recognizable and hated figures (Atta) to a leading Presidential candidate.
Okay, so any Obama supporter will either dismiss this as hateful rhetoric or become physically incensed. But I would like to know if the McCain/Palin supporters accept this tactic as "all's fair".
If it's acceptable to Photoshop Obama with Atta, then why stop there? Why not Photoshop Barack Obama with Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? Or Photoshop Michelle Obama performing an abortion? All's fair... right?
I personally can't wait until Wednesday.
]]>What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America.
Republican Rep. Robin Hayes of North Carolina said:
liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.
So not only have we anti-Americans in Congress, we have them everywhere - they are called liberals.
What would you expect from a party that chooses a dame named Sarah Palin who said this:
We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.
She sort of apologized. However, her message, and the message of many other Republicans, is clear. It's the same message power hungry demagogues have used for centuries. They - opponents - are not like us. They are communist, socialist, nazi, fascist, terrorist. Obviously, the preferred term today is terrorist.
Opponents are very different. They are not religious like us, not white like us, not Christian like us, not America-born like us, not small-town folks like us, not straight like us. They believe in evolution. They favor abortion. Horror upon horrors, they favor gay marriage. How can one call such people American?
You can tell who is an American, these demagogues say. He has an American flag in front of his house, he wears an American flag pin. He ties yellow ribbons to support our troops. He has a partriotic saying on his license plate.
None of these distinctions mean anything to an American. A person may be a great American whether we like him or not, whether we agree with him or not, whether we approve of what he does or not, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. What counts is the person's attitude toward his country.
An American may show his concern for his country by serving in the Armed Forces. Another way is to serve in the Peace Corps. Still another way is to volunteer to help the needy and infirm. The easiest way to identify a true American, however, is by his or her support of American ideals. In the final analysis, American ideals are the true protection we have. What would this country be without its system of justice, its concerm for equal opportunity for all and with the civil rights of everyone - regardless of differences?
As a matter of fact, it is the tolerance one has for differences which stands out as the true mark of an American. A real American realizes that we all depend on each other, that we need to help each other and that unity is decidely better than division. As Barack Obama says:
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
A real American never calls another American anti-American.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c5c0bad8-e734-4051-9d6c-7b480092942e)
McCain followed the tried and true approach of Atwater and Karl Rove - the Republican approach. The Republican approach may be summarize with one word: "Attack." Distortion? Yes. Smear? Yes. Lies? Yes. Character assassination? Yes. Whatever it takes. To paraphrase an old expression everything is fair in love and politics.
Michael Seitzman summarizes the Republican approach neatly:
Mccain and Palin and their ilk don't laugh. They patronize. They don't smile, they snicker. They don't debate, they denigrate. They don't talk, they condescend. They don't argue, they ridicule. There is a nastiness, a mean-spiritedness, a smug certitude, and a profound and baseless arrogance seething from both of them. These aren't leaders. They're not even grownups. They're not a team of mavericks, they're a team of schmendricks (Yiddish. Means someone who can't succeed but thinks he can. Also means penis).
From the very beginning Obama was urged to attack. When Hillary unleashed some bad attacks, he was again urged to attack. He resisted. When McCain went wild with attacks, he resisted. When Palin was chosen, all the Republicans were excited because here was someone who loves to attack. And attack she did. Obama resisted.
Friends of Obama are still encouraging him to attack. But by now he has proven that his civil approach works. The same people who were encouraging McCain to attack are now saying that he "lost" because he attacked too much. No, McCain did not "lose" because of his wild accusations but Obama "won" because of his civility.
As Obama says we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Obama has introduced us to civil politics, a politics that will make all our other interactions more civil. Just what we need.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0f00db74-ac44-4441-9d04-508e183b83c2)
Nonetheless, some people worry about one-party rule. The structure of our politics pretty much guarantees that some form of opposition will gain traction, so I believe such concerns are overblown. The Republicans just a few years back thought that they had an opportunity to establish a permanent majority. I confess that I was worried that Bush's willingness to ignore the Constitution might lead to real disenfranchisement of any opposition, and set the stage for something close to a coup. But the pendulum is swinging, and appears to be swinging pretty hard right now.
Which brings me back to Congress. Let's assume for the moment that Obama will win - not a guarantee but a likelihood. What will it mean for our nation if the Democrats are virtually filibuster proof in the Senate, and significantly extend their lead in the House? Many conservatives are genuinely worried that "the liberals will go wild", and more and more you hear talk from the right about impending "socialism". We liberals are entertaining some hopes that finally some actually liberal policy positions can be given the chance that they have been denied since Reagan's ascendancy.
To those who fear balance will be lost, consider that balance takes various forms. The obvious Party balance between executive and legislative branches, or between the two houses of Congress are not likely to be present for the next four years. But there still is a time balance in play.
It is not necessarily best that divided government be the order of the day for all times. Periods of time with one party or the other in both elected branches do present the opportunity to actually implement plans that otherwise face gridlock. Our democratic process for replacing politicians means that even when one party has both Congress and the Presidency, some caution needs to be exercised if those positions are to be maintained.
There is also ideological balance within parties. In order to win seats, the Democrats have run increasingly conservative candidates in known conservative districts and states. A truly socialist agenda is not likely when so many Democrats in the Senate are far more conservative than moderate and liberal Republicans of 30 or 40 years ago. And in the House, disaffection with the ruling party can change the majority in fairly short order, with every position standing for re-election every two years.
Because of six year terms, it is easier to look further ahead in the Senate, to possible party changes. Let's look at this election, that of 2010, and that of 2012, and even 2014, to see what we can anticipate.
This year the Democrats WILL expand their lead, and this was virtually guaranteed already when the current class of Senators was elected in 2002, an extraordinarily good year for Republicans. With the current economic crisis, and sullying of the Republican name brand, the extent of Democratic expansion has changed from 4-6 seats, to more likely 7-8 seats, and an outside chance of as many as 11, if Chambliss of Georgia, McConnell of Kentucky, and Wicker of Mississippi were all to be defeated.
In 2010, the party affiliation of Senators whose terms are up for re-election is more evenly divided, with similar numbers in safe vs non-safe seats for both parties. Depending on what happens between now and then, either party could pickup a few seats on up to a maximum of 8 or 9, though I would guess the net change to be 2 or less.
In 2012, the Republicans will almost certainly pick up multiple seats. Depending on outcomes this year and two years from now, this is their next realistic opportunity to pick up a majority. Given the likely larger than expected Democratic win in this election, 2014 will be yet another election in which Republicans should again make gains in the Senate. Again contingent upon their ability to return to more traditional conservative values, while avoiding alienating moderates, Republicans have a very high likelihood of becoming the majority party in the Senate by 2014.
My crystal ball pretty much ends there, as so much depends on intervening events which cannot be foretold.
Logically, the Senate is the body which is most likely to be Republican, since the less populated states of the Plains and Intermountain West, tend to be more conservative, while the House with heavier urban representation, should logically be easier for the Democrats to retain.
The importance of time balance, especially in the House has been hammered home with the corruption of the Democratic reign of some 40 years up to the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, and the subsequent corruption of Republicans developed over their 12 year reign from 1995 to 2006. If we can get redistricting reform enacted which reduces gerrymandering and the creation of safe seats, that would greatly reduce the likelihood that either party could retain control in the house in such long runs that corruption perverts the process as much as has happened in recent times. Iowa has set the standard for redistricting reform, and other states should follow suit. Look to Maryland(D), Florida(R), and Texas(D then R) as gross examples of partisan gerrymandering gone bananas, though it can be found in most states to one degree or another.
As I hinted in my opening, it is still possible that the Republican Party implodes and can't agree on its fundamental principles, losing its grip on enough of the electorate that it really does relegate itself to obsolescence. I think that is unlikely, since it is in a better position than any other party to right its ship and remain the dominant second party in America. The Democratic Party in spite of its recent successes is also at risk if it remains stodgily dependent on constituencies that are taken for granted, and doesn't demonstrate more political agility than it sometimes does. Should either party truly stumble though, other parties will surely enter the vacuum created, and opposition politics will remain in place for years to come. Personally I would be delighted to see another party replace the Republicans as the second dominant party, but I'm surely not holding my breath for that day. Rs and Ds are likely to remain the tags we see next to candidates' names on the ballots for many election cycles to come.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b679d754-39e7-4b43-9480-7d203d001570)
McCain, when confronted with dismal polling numbers and an incoherent message, attached the electrodes to the Creature in an effort to bring life into his faltering campaign. And in doing so, McCain inadvertently awakened the Creature from its sleep and sat back and watched in horror as the Creature devoured everything in its path; including McCain's own message. The Creature also forced McCain to distance himself from the damage, creating even more confusion to already bewildered campaign.
And, as in Shelley's novel, the Creature couldn't be controlled and was set out to wreak havoc on its community. In McCain's case, the community was his campaign.
Now McCain wants to put the Creature back in its grave.
Senator McCain, don't push off the misguided beliefs of your followers because their misinformed. Those followers are deceived because of your misinformation. Remember, you approved the message against 'that one'?
Let us hope that McCain's Creature ends like Shelley's Creature did; so remorseful of his master's death, the Creature vows suicide and vanishes.
For when McCain's Creature floats off on his ice craft and fades away into the deep mist, hopefully so goes the fear of Barack Obama as President.
]]>First thing our economic leaders do is bail out companies that are "too big to fail." If they are "too big to fail" they are "too big to exist." We should not allow companies to become this big. "Too big" means "too powerful" and "too powerful" means it has too much of an advantage over smaller companies.
One of the ways Secretary of Treasury Paulson came to our rescue is by allowing huge Bank of America to swallow up huge Countrywide to make a super-huge company that is definitely "too big to fail." This is ridiculous. We must make it more difficult to merge, something we used to have anti-trust laws for. We need anti-trust laws again.
Lots of literature has been devoted to the need for credit and how credit makes our economy grow and brings riches to us all. Yet, everybody will admit that the runaway credit market is behind the collapse of the economy. Banks and mortage brokers sold individuals a bill of goods. The banks enabled people to buy homes even though it was obvious they could not afford them.
It appears that the purpose of the $700 bailout congress passed is to ease credit. Why? Would it not make more sense to make credit hard to get so that the bubble may be squeezed out of the system?
Read what Satyajit Das says:
The worldwide economic drama and tumult are not symptoms of the disease but the cure. The "disease" is the excessive debt and leverage in the financial system -- especially in the United States, Britain, Spain and Australia. The "cure" is the reduction of the level of debt -- the great "de-leveraging."The second phase of the cure is the higher cost and lower availability of credit. This forces corporations to sell assets, reduce investment and raise equity -- for example, as General Electric has done. It also forces consumers to cut debt by reducing consumption or selling assets.
The last reason, perhaps the main reason, for the terrible turn of economic events in the U.S. is that we no longer make anything. Financial people play around and who knows what they are doing. Yet financiers manage to make more money than anyone else. To get out of this terrible situation we are in we must switch to making things. Instead of helping the guys on top, why not help those on bottom? Instead of worrrying about credit, why not find work? The fat cats can take care of themselves. We must help those who lose their jobs.
This is the key to the new capitalism. Instead of helping financial institutions so they may offer loans to entrepreneurs, the government should be helping entrepreneurs get started. The things we must do and have not been able to do is build our infrastructure, develop an alternative energy manufacturing system and produce a health system that is the envy of the world. The government can do this and the result will be the growth, but not the stifling gowth, of the associated credit system.
Let's revive our capitalism by producing more small capitalists, emphasizing people instead of credit and by getting back to making things.
]]>Not being an economist I have no idea whether the system itself broke down. All I know is that financial institutions made bad loans and they encouraged consumers to make bad mistakes. I don't think that dumping more money into financial institutions so that they can make more loans will fix things. Maybe it may put a few of them on firmer footing. But what will happen to consumers that lose their homes and their jobs?
There's been a lot of discussion as to whether we are in recession or not. The trouble here, again, is that we are thinking in terms of the system. When you lose your home or your job what do you care what the economy is called? As far as you are concerned we are in the midst of a depression. Those who still have jobs may call it a recession, but the unemployed think they are in a depression.
Having grown up during the Great Depression I can tell you how terrible things may get. Sure, many rich people killed themselves. But the bulk of the burden was carried by ordinary workers who were thrown out of jobs and could not find another.
Don't kid yourself. Unemployment will increase much further whether we shore up the credit system or not.
Instead of worrying about credit we should worry about workers. Instead of boosting the credit supply, we need to supply jobs. Instead of depending on the availability of loans to enhance business so that jobs may trickle down, we should provide jobs directly to workers and allow prosperty to trickle up.
How do we do this? Pretty simple. Sink the $700 billion not in the credit markets, but in the development of jobs. Also small businesses who were hurt as much as workers. We may help workers by improving our infrastructure which is in need of rebuilding. We may help small businesses by encouraging the development of alternative sources of energy, something we must do to prevent the addition of climate catastrophe to our woes.
Let's not bailout the fatcats. Let's bail out the small businessman and the worker.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4ead218b-1ee5-4421-b267-b9d7550fe310)
Gee, what's been going on since last Thursday? Oh yeah... the economic meltdown. Oh and that whole the first Presidential debate thing too.
I'm sure many people would love to know what the Republican VP nominee has to say about how her partner did on his first Presidential debate. Evidently Palin doesn't want to say anything; she refused post debate interviews. (or at least the McCain campaign didn't want her to say anything.)
Following the debate, Mr. Biden, Sarah's counterpart, was on virtually every major and cable network (not ABC) talking up the debate to anyone that would listen. Note: Biden didn't appear on ABC because Palin wouldn't appear. ABC evidently wanted both or nothing. Biden did talk up Obama on the other networks; he got his face-time.
Where's Sarah's face-time?
In Philadelphia.
Yes, in city that has a 2:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans. Where, in the last Mayoral election, the Republican candidate for Mayor scoffed at his own chances to win the election. Where there hasn't been a Republican Mayor elected since 1948, Ms. Palin was wooing voters.
Right.
Palin is being kept under wraps by the McCain campaign. Her comical responses for Couric were a better fit for Jeff Foxworthy on 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader" than a Vice Presidential candidate interview.
It's no wonder that the McCain campaign is putting a muzzle on her.
In any case, I hope she had a chance to grab a soft pretzel and a cheese steak, run up the art museum steps and watch the Phillies clinch the NL East. Go Phils!
After the Debate a majority of pundits felt that McCain did OK in terms of issues, but Obama beat him in style; McCain was passionate and Obama was not. But then pundits, many of them Democratic, said Obama should have shown more emotion. Here he was being attacked mercilessly and he responds calmly. He should have become angry and passionate in his replies.
You can't win in political contests, pundits say, unless you are an "attack dog." Even Democrats say this. This shows that Democrats, as well as Republicans, do not understand Obama and his approach to leadership. They have been hearing Obama's speeches but they were not listening. They did not get the essence of what he wants to do.
Obama has been saying he wants to make political speech more civil. Merely that you disagree on something does not mean the other fellow is your enemy. You can't influence your opponent unless you treat him with respect. The best type of leadership is encouraging people to do something, not yelling at anyone.
The comportment of Obama during the Debate demonstrated his advanced type of leadership. Yes, he was calm; do you want an excitable guy making decisions in the midst of a crisis? While McCain was losing his cool, Obama was as cool as a cucumber. While McCain was being nasty which nobody liked Obama was the essence of grace, which was praised even by Republicans. While McCain was constantly on attack Obama took time to praise McCain, and everybody noticed this contrast.
It's annoying that people do not understand Obama. They are so accustomed to petty poltical debates they think you can't win unless you are a boor. When an Obama comes along and tries to change the conversation, people think he's nuts. He's not nuts, we are - for alowing our political talk to reach this poor state.
Listen more carefully to what Obama says and try to improve yourself accordingly.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=40d68b46-37d2-44df-bcc2-8c7e56adc8c4)
But it looks like the Bush administration has Congress railroaded on this one solution. I'm glad, at least, that Republicans have come around to the thinking that the CEOs of those companies that accept the government bailout shouldn't get their hefty paychecks and bonuses. Too bad President Bush isn't among those who feel that way.
Paulson and the White House have objected to limits on executive compensation, saying limits would discourage successful firms from participating in the bailout. "These are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Then fine. Those firms don't have to buy into the great bailout. If they're so strong, they shouldn't even be allowed to participate.
As I said, there are alternatives to a massive $700 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. Hopefully they get the consideration they deserve.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=875f7eb4-ca09-43e3-87df-cbf418814bb0)
Opponents and supporters of the death penalty should be united in opposing such a possibility. But it appears that only Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stand in the way of this very real possibility. Troy Anthony Davis, likely innocent of the murder of which he is accused, watches the minutes pass as last minute appeals to grant a stay or retry his case go unheeded.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1e64bfcc-2bcb-4ad6-af88-18d3d181dda0)
Davis was sentenced to die for the 1989 murder of a Savannah, Georgia police officer. He has maintained his innocence from the outset, 7 of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony, no physical evidence tied him to the murder, and there is a credible different suspect for the crime. Georgia's Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote the dissenting opinion in March, but agreed with the majority yesterday that now the "jurisdiction is properly in the [U.S.] Supreme Court, not this Court." In March she agreed with the majority that recantation testimony is inherently suspect, but maintained that:"If recantation testimony, either alone or supported by other evidence, shows convincingly that prior trial testimony was false, it simply defies all logic and morality to hold that it must be disregarded categorically."
The catch is that the case isn't scheduled to come before the U. S. Supreme Court until next Monday, but Davis is scheduled to be executed at 7 PM this evening. It strikes me that yesterday's decision also "defies all logic and morality". As New York Times editorialist opines: What's the Rush?
Clarence Thomas remains one of Davis' last dim hopes, because he is the designated justice for intervening in the circuit which includes Georgia, which happens to be Thomas' home state.
So proclaims the website dedicated to the exoneration of one death row inmate in Georgia. Whether one believes that the death penalty is ever appropriate, or in the innocence or guilt of that particular inmate, we should all agree that indeed innocence does matter.
As we examine the case of Troy Anthony Davis, we should care very much whether an innocent man was convicted of a crime which substantial evidence seems to indicate was committed by someone else. It is also worth examining several broader questions. Does the desire to gain convictions skew investigations to buoy the first plausible solution to the exclusion of other possibilities? Once convicted of a crime, are the barriers to considering continued claims or evidence of innocence too steep? Should the certainty of guilt be even higher for the application of the death penalty? When if ever is the death penalty appropriate, or as the American Bar Association claims, do inconsistencies and flaws in our system of justice warrant a moratorium on capital punishment?
I believe we have a compelling need for re-examination of the process for granting new trials in cases where either faulty investigations, over zealous prosecution, coerced testimony, recantations, or new evidence casts doubt on former convictions - whether or not the death penalty is involved. That doesn't mean opening every case where an inmate claims innocence, or making it too easy for outside organizations to force trials when the case is not strong. But justice is not served by keeping the innocent behind bars in the name of having "someone" pay for the crime, upholding the standing of police or prosecutors, or appearing tough on crime.
The Innocence Project is doing great work in using DNA testing from former convictions to exonerate many who have been unjustly imprisoned. But physical evidence is not always available, as in the case of Davis, and common sense suggests that wrongful convictions are at least as high in such cases where eye-witness testimony is likely to have played a major role.
I am not claiming to know that Troy Davis is innocent. My window on the case is limited to what I've heard on radio, read online, and heard in conversation with Laura Moye, who is deputy director of Amnesty International's Southern regional office. I acknowledge that I am a long way away, and may have been swayed by the fact that "Davis' supporters were good at 'marketing' their cause", as DA assistant David Lock told Georgia's justices. Still, based on what I have learned, it seems more plausible that alternative suspect Sylvester "Redd" Coles is the actual perpetrator. And it is very difficult to accept that a new trial should not be granted in light of the recantations of 7 of the 9 original eyewitnesses. From a Savannah Morning News account
"If the prosecution witnesses are recanting to that extent and that they possibly perjured themselves, then the Supreme Court is doing the right thing [in considering whether to grant a new trial]," said William "Rusty" Hubbarth, vice president of the pro-death-penalty Justice For All in Austin, Texas. "I have never heard of a case like this where you have five or six witnesses recanting."
When off duty police officer Mark MacPhail responded to a commotion near a downtown Savannah Burger King at 1 AM on Aug. 19th of 1989, he discovered a homeless man, Larry Young, being pistol whipped. Before he had a chance to draw his pistol from his holster, Larry Young's attacker, seeing the officer's badge, shot and killed him. Witnesses hearing the shots saw three men fleeing the scene. This account (scroll 1/3 down), two of a series of five articles last year about the case appearing the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, gives what appears to be a fair summary about what is known about the sequence of events that evening, and what Troy Davis and Redd Coles each claim to have occurred. Davis' proximity to the site of two shootings on the same evening understandably directed suspicion his way, but the wantonly murderous behavior he is accused of, seems to fit better with Coles prior and subsequent behavior than with that of Davis. And two of the recanting witnesses have signed affidavits declaring that Coles was also present at the party earlier in the evening near to where another man was shot and injured. Why would Davis brutally assault the homeless man, when even Coles admitted that it was he who had the initial argument (over a beer) with him? Why did Coles show up at the police station with a high paid lawyer to finger Davis in the crime? Why did Davis so readily return from his subsequent trip to Atlanta when he discovered he was the subject of a manhunt, unless he felt confident that he would be absolved of the charges.
7 of 9 Recant
But the most compelling case for granting a new trial comes from the sworn affidavits recanting earlier testimony which implicated Davis, and suggesting police coercion in obtaining that testimony. The unfortunate homeless man who was the victim of the beating was detained by police for over an hour when he most needed medical attention. In pain and somewhat inebriated he finally signed a statement written by police without reading it, in order to gain his own release. Reading the details of each recantation, it is difficult to believe prosecutor's claims that Davis' family was able to pressure all of these witnesses to recant earlier testimony, risking perjury, not to mention the wrath of the still free Coles, simply out of sympathy for a man on death row.
Troy Anthony Davis has been in prison now for 19 years. That alone would be an extraordinary sentence for what, if his story is true, may have been a case of keeping bad company and using poor judgment in the aftermath of gunfire.
The appeals process has been yet another story in this case, where procedural reasoning seems to trump new reasonable doubt, whether in the state's habeas court denial of his petition in 1977, or the impact of provisions of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 signed into law by Clinton, which restricted the power of federal courts to correct constitutional error in criminal cases, or the Federal 11th Circuit Court's denial of Troy's appeal in 2006, or the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier refusal to hear his case, or tardy scheduling of the currently scheduled hearing.
This case has periodically gotten some media attention, yet in spite of the lack of evidence we are now possibly hours away from never being able to turn back. How many other cases languish in obscurity where innocent prisoners will never receive a fair trial when they were originally denied one? In many cases - hopefully a large majority of them - our justice system where one is innocent until proven guilty works beautifully. We have a justice system which on the whole is worth fighting for, and is far better than that which existed in earlier centuries, or does exist in many places around the world. But two factors which stand as a threat to proper justice remain the inordinate influence of money and connections on the process, and the growing simplistic tough on crime attitude which vilifies the accused too early in the process, values numbers of convictions over certainty of justice, and turns a blind eye all too often on instances of police or prosecutorial misconduct.
Process matters. Complexity matters. Motive matters. Truth matters. Certainty matters.
Innocence matters.
]]>After the Depression the economy was placed on a firmer footing by regulations, among the more important being the Glass-Steagall Act. This Act set up a firewall between investment and commercial banking by not allowing the same company to do both. This worked pretty well until businessmen became itchy and got the Act repealed in 1999.
Those working in finance were free to get involved in banking, mortgages, securities and anything else relating to finance. Financial people loved this and began taking advantage by producing complicated securities that no one can understand. As Robert Creamer in Huffington Post says:
Over the last thirty years, the mortgage market has fundamentally changed. Now most loans are originated by brokers or other mortgage companies who make their money through "origination fees" and often payments from big, unregulated lenders. Once these loans are made, they are then packaged and sold as securities through the secondary mortgage market.Mortgage originators had every incentive to make all the loans they could, but absolutely no incentive to assure that the borrowers could pay the loans back. Credit standards were relaxed, new "sub prime" products were introduced, "no-document" loans were issued.
These financial guys took no risk - at least they thought so - and now they pay the price. Unfortunately we the taxpayers pay as well. We pay more since the rich finance guys became richer while the rest of us became poorer.
Now with the meltdown of Fannie Mae, Fannie Mac, Lehman and Merryl Lynch - and more to come - the financial bubble is bursting. Who knows how bad things will get?
It's time for reregulation!
In a complex world, there is no one simple answer to such questions. World views can help us shape how we approach solving the world's problems, but those views can also blind us to solutions that others may offer.
]]> If you consider yourself a Republican, you may be convinced that most Democrats are more interested in seeing Republicans fail than in working across the aisle to solve problems. If you consider yourself a Democrat, you may be convinced that most Republicans are more interested in seeing Democrats fail than in working across the aisle to solve problems. Many Independents and supporters of third parties are convinced that partisan blindness in both parties has stalemated Washington's ability to solve anything.We partisans are often guilty as charged. But not always. It is possible to be partisan without partisan blinders. But it takes discipline.
It is easier to remove the blinders in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. I can honestly say that in the days following 9/11 seven years ago, I was looking to our President - to MY President - with great hope that he would make good decisions, based on sound reasoning and a long view of the future. The polls which showed Bush's approval climb to 90% in the aftermath of that crisis are testament to the fact that most Democrats were NOT wanting Republicans to fail at that frightening moment in history. Even among the 10% who continued to express disapproval of Bush, I am quite confident that a large fraction did not WANT him to screw up. 90% approval did not mean that the country was momentarily mostly Republican, but rather that we were Americans first. It was an expression of hope that we would rise above partisanship.
Within two or three years after 2001, we returned to a state of deep division, and now seven years later we remain largely divided on where to go from here, in spite of having two candidates who both profess the intent to put country ahead of party. There have been times when I confess to wishing that a particular (usually Republican, but sometimes bipartisan) economic policy would fail, because I felt so certain that it was part of a larger policy direction which I saw as directly harmful to large segments of the populace. It's rather like hoping that your child who has an obvious gambling addiction does not have a run of luck luring him into taking foolish risks with larger portions of his nest egg.
In the arena of foreign policy, however, I have never been so cynical. As convinced as I was in 2003 that invading Iraq was an awful blunder, I truly prayed that those weapons would be found, Saddam would be toppled to the cheers of Iraqis, and order would be restored to Iraq in a fairly democratic fashion. I feared with good reason that it would not be so neat, but what transpired eclipsed even my fears. When the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were revealed in 2004, I was deeply saddened, but still hoped that Rumsfeld would quickly resign or be dismissed, the policies which nurtured such atrocities would be unambiguously repudiated by the Bush administration, some of our international reputation would be restored, and then surely we would elect a Democrat to the Presidency to restore it further. When I and many fellow Democrats were calling on my party in 2007 to be tougher about funding the war at current levels and demanding a commitment to a withdrawal process, and Bush responded instead (after the Democrats' capitulation) with a plan for a surge, I thought that was foolish. I believed it was too little too late, but nonetheless, I hoped in spite of my fears that it would work. Honestly, I have been relieved at the reduction in violence that has resulted since, certainly in part due to the surge. Though there is plenty of evidence that serious political problems remain unresolved in Iraq, the resultant reduction in violence may put us in a better position to draw down our overstressed troops. I am happy with good news, even if it may be spun politically to the advantage of those who advocate policies that I disagree with.
You can always find cynics or partisans who are so blinded by their own world view that they will spin ANY news to the advantage of their ideology. That is true of any party or any world view, so the existence of these cynics is NOT evidence either against or for whatever ideology they are trying to advance. Often we focus on the cynics or the demagogues or the corrupt politicians as if they prove the wrongness of their side, rather than recognizing that we should instead debate the issues directly. Often that focus is cynically intentional, due to the historic success of straw man arguments in lieu of solid analysis.
Partisanship is not evil in and of itself. I still believe that government ought to play an important role in regulating industry to protect the concerns of employees, consumers, and our environment. I believe my party is more likely to advocate such a role than is the Republican Party. But when Republicans and conservatives counsel that we must pay heed that regulation does not cripple the natural ability of markets to provide goods to consumers at competitive prices, we should see the truth in that and be willing to compromise accordingly, and make sure that new regulations are not too onerous or restrictive.
On a whole host of issues, from civil liberties - to foreign diplomacy - to a healthy partnership between science and government - to the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining - and so on, I am more inclined to take a more liberal position and agree with Democrats more often. But that doesn't mean that I cannot also respect reasoned conservative cautions against excesses which might give too much authority to government or honor the rights of some to the detriment or danger of others. I am proud of my liberal values, but that doesn't mean that I don't have conservative values as well. Bush and Republican Congresses of the past have angered me often by their dismissive disdain for liberal values which I cherish, but they have angered ME as well for their abandonment of some of the best conservative values which they supposedly espouse.
This year we face a choice between candidates who both claim to represent a break from the partisan politics of the past. I will be heartily endorsing and arguing in favor of Obama whose speeches and writing eloquently and closely reflect my own beliefs and values. I will also be pointing to reasons to be suspicious that McCain and Palin will not be likely to become the change agents they claim, as they surround themselves with lobbyists and Republican partisans with heavy ties to politics as usual, and often when researched, real political corruption.
But let me also here confess to two things which my fellow partisan Democrats will cringe to read. I have no crystal ball assuring me that if he is elected that Obama won't capitulate to forces that honor the status quo, the influence of big business, and the most powerful lobbying groups of the traditional Democrats. In fact I am pretty certain he won't be able to completely avoid such influences, as we can already see in his pragmatic inclusion of advisors suggesting some of that. But the extent to which his campaign has been financed by many different individuals gives me real hope that he will be able to chart new ground in breaking with lockstep adherence to DLC initiatives or the politics of the past.
And secondly, as much as I worry otherwise, if McCain is elected you may be assured that I will be praying that his ascendancy to an executive role will free him to truly break with the past, root out corruption in government, return to his previous positions against torture, and against irresponsible tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans, and challenge his own party where they are unduly influenced by money. In terms of policy positions, I will necessarily be disappointed, because McCain will be aligned with positions I believe to be flawed, but if he is true to his "maverick" persona, and a Democratic Congress can act as a balance, that would truly be a step forward from the Bush years.
So I have risked having my own words used against me. For some that is a cardinal sin of politics. But I do so for this reason: I ask readers of this column or any other to bear in mind that every writer will tend to reveal that which supports their beliefs and not their doubts. The person behind those words may be an ideologue incapable of seeing any alternate view point, but maybe they are not. Perhaps that writer who seeks to convince that Obama is a disaster waiting to happen, or that McCain is a sure ticket to World War III, actually hopes they are wrong should the candidate of their fears be elected. In this post, let me assure all that I will hope for the best regardless of whom we elect this November. In future posts, I may not sound so much that way.
Fellow liberals, conservatives, libertarians, communitarians, greens, Americans, and humans, Peace be with you all, and may wisdom guide our electorate and our future leaders.