It's not the Nobel "Pacifism" Prize

Some have criticized the awarding of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to a commander in chief of a nation that has just announced an escalation of one of the two wars in which his nation is involved.

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for renewing America's commitment to diplomacy, the rule of law, and a decreased emphasis on the use of military force, not for pacifism

Few Nobel Peace Prize winners have been  pacifists. Many were military commanders or political leaders of nations at war.

President Theodore Roosevelt's 1906 prize was for his diplomatic work in ending the Russian-Japanese War. President Roosevelt had built his career on his record as a war hero in what was an unjust war of aggression and conquest, the Spanish-American War, and believed in the aggressive use of military force.

President Wilson's 1919 prize was for his diplomatic efforts after World War I to prevent future wars. As commander in chief he just presided over the American military's decisive contribution to the defeat of Germany and its allies.

General George C. Marshall's, the American Army's chief of staff in World War II and a major architect of the Allied victory, won the Peace Prize in 1953 for his post war reconstruction work in Europe.

The 1973 prize Henry Kissinger shared with his then North Vietnamese counterpart for negotiating the end to the war in Vietnam may have been to most disturbing and least deserving of any. Along with what has generally been judged to be the unjust use of excessive force in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger's policies set off the chain of events that directly contributed to the Khmer Rouge's massacre of millions of their fellow Cambodians.

Rather than an acknowledgment of anyone's accomplishments, the 1973 prize was perhaps more a collective sigh of relief that the Vietnam War appeared to be reaching a conclusion.

Both of the 1978 winners for their diplomatic work, Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime minister Menachem Begin had dubious histories of terrorism. During World War II, Anwar Sadat was imprisoned by the British for his efforts to work with Nazis against the British in Egypt. Menachem Begin was part of an organization that committed terrorist attacks against both the British and Arabs in Palestine before Israeli independence.

The 1989 winner, the Dalai Lama, does not claim to be a pacifist and supports the just use of force, perhaps because he sees that as among the options to achieve his goals for Tibet. From the late 1950s until the mid 1970s, the Dalai Lama was publicly silent about the CIA supported guerilla war the Tibetans waged against the Chinese. When as part of the process of normalizing relations with China, the CIA withdrew support for the Tibetan guerrillas, the Dalai Lama called on the Tibetans to cease the war, implying that he long had some authority over the fighters.

The 1993 Prize was shared by leaders who after a prolonged period of waging war against each other, agreed to peace, South African President F.W. de Klerk and African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela.

Ironically in some ways the accomplishments of these South African practitioners of armed force may have been greater that those of the iconic pacifist of the 20th century, Mohandas Gandhi. After independence, India descended into a maelstrom of  Hindu versus Muslim violence with up to one millions deaths. British Indian broke into two then three nations that have repeatedly warred with each, two of which have armed themselves with nuclear weapons.

In contrast, South Africa achieved a much less violent end to Apartheid without civil or racial war or a break up of the nation. South Africa also dismantled its incipient nuclear weapons program.

The 1994 prize was awarded to three leaders who had long waged both conventional and terrorist wars with each other, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin

The 2002 prize was awarded to Navy veteran and former President Jimmy Carter for his post presidency diplomatic and humanitarian work

Vietnam War Army veteran and former Vice President Al Gore shared the 2007 for his environmental work.

For more information:

Diplomacy That Will Live in Infamy by James Bradley, New York Times, December 6, 2009. The author writes that rather than acting as a neutral mediator of the Russian-Japanese War, President Roosevelt was a supporter of Japan and sought an end to the war on terms favorable to Japanese dominance in Asia.

All Nobel Laureates

Afghanistan and the lessons of history

The history of Vietnam is not the only source of historical insight into Afghanistan.

Because of the threats from violent racist ideologues , Republican President Eisenhower used Federal troops and U.S. Marshalls to protect African-American children as they attended integrated schools to obtain a quality education.

In Afghanistan, violent religious extremists who oppose the education of women have thrown acid into the faces of little girls attending school.

One of President Obama's goals is provide support and training for Afghan police and soldiers so they will protect Afghan girls attending schools.

The violent racist ideology that threatened American children is still active but is marginalized, isolated, and mostly ineffective. In a similar way, another goal is to help create conditions in which Afghan society can isolate and marginalize those who opposed the education of women.

Why Tiger Woods is a public issue

What is publicly known continues to suggest that domestic violence may be involved. Years of consciousness raising has made domestic abuse a community issue. That doesn't change because celebrities are involved or a male may have been the victim.

Endorsements are a major source of Tiger's fortune. Where does that money come from? Do products such as Gillette razors include a Tiger "endorsement surcharge"? Many buy such products because of  long years of use and not because of Tiger's relatively recent endorsement.

Is another source the continued underpayment of the workers who manufacture the products Tiger endorses, such as Nike? Instead of paying workers fairly, is Nike paying a fortune to Tiger?

When Tiger sold an entire image package of not only the greatest golfer but nice guy and family man, Tiger sold his privacy.

For more information

Danish Comsumer Council's report on working conditions at a Nike factory in Vietnam

Disturbing White House security breach

The New York Times reported  uninvited guests got past security into the state dinner with the Prime Minister of India..

Coming two days after the 46th anniversary of the Secret Service's failures which contributed to the death of President Kennedy, this is seriously disturbing.

No matter what the cause, security breaches like this cannot be allowed with the threat level against President Obama.

46th anniversary of the assasination of President Kennedy

Today on the 46th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, I'm reading Brothers in arms:The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder, by Gus Russo and Stephen Molton.

The authors researched recently released archival material. The cover up which has fueled conspiracy theories was not of who killed President Kennedy but the extensive U.S. war against Cuba. Oswald acted alone but was motivated by a desire to retaliate for the attempts to assassinate Fidel. The authors found evidence that Cuban intelligence had been in contact with Oswald and may have known of his plan.

Are among the reasons that relations with Cuba are not normalized the lingering bitterness towards the Castro because of the Cuban intelligence service's relationship with Oswald?

On a related note, I hope the Secret Service learned from their incredible failures on that day to improve security for our president today.

What lesson can conservatives learn from the resignation of Van Jones?

Some Republicans and conservatives are celebrating the resignation of Van Jones. They misunderstand the significance of what just happened.


By marginalizing a 9/11 truther, mainstream Democrats took a step towards restoring civility and rationality to our national discourse. In her column today, progressive African-American Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Cynthia Tucker agrees.


Responsible conservatives and Republicans now need to do the same to the conspiracy theorists and other extremists in their own camp: the birthers, deathers, tenthers, and those who openly carry firearms at political rallies or make other suggestions of violence. 


Two recent actions provide tiny rays of hope.


Mainstream Idaho Republicans quickly condemned fringe Republican gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell for joking about buying a license to hunt President Obama.


In an act of courage and integrity, former educator and former First Lady Laura Bush condemned  the attacks on President Obama’s back to school pep talk and decried the increasing polarization of the nation.


What is unfortunate is that neither her husband or father-in-law, the two living former Republican presidents, joined her.

What are Birthers, Deathers, and Tenthers?

In my previous post, I referred to birthers, deathers, and tenthers. Someone asked for definitions.


Birther: Someone who despite all the overwhelming evidence, questions if President Obama was born in U.S. and therefore questions if he meets the Constitutional requirements to be president. The anger and persistence of some implies a racist agenda, questioning how an African-American could have been elected.


Deather: Someone who claims that President Obama's health care reforms include hastening the death of the elderly and people with disabilities through rationing or denial of health care or euthanasia. This is conscious misinformation by opponents of not only reform but of almost everything President Obama does, which again suggests some racist motivations.


Among the proposed reforms is a guarantee of Medicare reimbursement to a physician for regular end of life discussions with their patients. The discussions would be voluntary and would include options such as hospice and palliative care, and the preparation of advanced directives.


President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, has written articles discussing questions such as the appropriateness of aggressive chemotherapy for a very elderly person with terminal cancer. This has been distorted to imply he is advocating withholding care or euthanizing the elderly.


Among the “Deathers” is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin who while governor actively encouraged Alaskans to prepare advance directives.


Tenthers: Someone who claims the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from doing anything regarding health care.


The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenthers ignore that a significant portion of health care is already provided by the Federal government through Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, care for active duty military personnel and their dependents, and the provision of private insurance for Federal employees.


The Tenth Amendment has been inappropriately cited over the year to oppose such Federal actions as enforcement of civil rights which adds to the suspicion of racist motivations.


The tenthers ignore years of Supreme Court decisions that have settled this issue.

Should the Green Jobs Czar have resigned?

Former Obama administration green jobs czar Van Jones showed incredibly poor judgement by becoming a “celebrity” signer of a 9/11 Truth petition. Either he sympathized with it, which suggests a disqualifying lack of discernment, or he didn’t read it, which displayed a disqualifying lack of attention to detail.

There are many legitimate critiques of 9/11 that someone can express without disqualifying themselves from positions of public responsibility. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not among them. They are best viewed in the same way as are Holocaust denial, intelligent design, alien abductions, birthers, deathers, and tenthers.

Seemingly legitimate petitions may not be worthy of our signatures. Some petitions are authored by ideologues and extremists whose agendas are not immediately obvious such as petitions that appear to be calling for peace in the Middle East at the same time as they call Israelis Nazis.

I declined to sign a petition to impeach George Bush. I had grown weary of my progressive colleagues viciously criticizing Democratic members of Congress for failing to do something that was utterly impossible.

I treasure our Constitutional right to petition government. However, signing every petition that is put before us devalues one’s signature and as Van Jones discovered risks serious consequences.

Why didn't McNamara speak out when he could have made a difference?

As an anti-Communist, McNamara may have thought the Vietnam War just. One of the tragedies of McNamara is that he knew at least the means being used during the Vietnam War were wrong and ultimately ineffective. 

There was too much corruption among the anti-Communist Vietnamese and they were out of touch with the majority of Vietnamese to effectively oppose the Communist led coalition. The anti-Communist elites were Roman Catholics (descendants of the converts from the missionaries that as always accompanied the French colonials) while the majority of Vietnamese were Buddhist.

Information such as this was readily available to McNarmara in the Rand Corp.'s analysis, later known as The Pentagon Papers when they were released by Daniel Ellsberg. They were written during McNamara's tenure, classified but circulated within the Pentagon. McNamara was enough of an intellectual to understand their significance. 

Had he spoken out publicly while Sec'y of Defense or immediately after he left office, he might have saved thousands of American and Vietnamese lives. 

Had the war in neighboring Vietnam ended in the 60s before Nixon overthrew the Cambodian monarchy and invaded Cambodia, the Cambodian king might have been able to maintain his relative neutrality, continue to marginalize and isolate the Khmer Rouge. and save Cambodia from the horror of Khmer Rouge rule.

The only way the Vietnam War could have been "won" would have been to attempt to occupy the whole country. The Soviet Union and China were committed to a Communist nation in at least the northern half of Vietnam. Attempting to occupy all of Vietnam would have risked a land war with China which easily could have escalated into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Even if we had figured out how to occupy Vietnam without provoking an end of the world nuclear war, we would have found ourselves fighting an insurgency far worse than anything we face in Iraq today.

I'm treading on shaky grounds as the intellectual giants of history urge extreme caution when in speculating on historical "what ifs"!

Had McNamara spoken up when that could have made a real difference, he would have risked losing appointments to various private sector positions and earning obscene amounts of money. Instead he would have had to settle for something as the more modest pay of a job in academia. Was that too much risk and cost to him to do the right thing?

McNamara exhibitted moral cowardice as did Colin Powell. Powell knew the Iraq War was wrong. Prior to the Iraq War, Colin Powell spoke of what he learned from his service in Vietnam about when and how American troops should be sent into combat. He knew that the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were ignoring those lessons.

Yet while Powell was in a position in power when saying something might of prevented the Iraq War, he told lies to the American people and the U.N. to promote the war.  By failing to speak the truth, Powell betrayed not only his own intellectual and moral integrity but also all of his comrades who served in Vietnam. That makes his silence more tragic.

Powell is no longer being seriously considered for the Republican presidential nomination. His pensions are secure, he is retired and therefore has nothing to risk, Now Powell suddenly discovered his ethical and moral voice. He endorsed Obama  and just made a statement of support for Judge Sotomayor.

Do the comparatively minor risks of some social ostracism. decreased job options, and lower pay cause people such as McNamara and Powell to ignore their moral compasses when their words could make significant difference?

Does the NFL have higher ethical standards than the U.S. Senate?

The State's Attorney for Sagamon County, Illinois which includes Springfield has decided that he lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute Roland Burris for perjury for the lies of omission Burris used to obtain his Senate seat. The level of evidence needed for a jury to convict  Burris is very high.

About the same time as the state's attorney was declining to prosecute Burris, NFL Commissioner Goodell issued his decision regarding Cleveland Browns' player Donte Stallworth. Stallworth had successfully minimized the criminal consequences for having killed someone while driving drunk. Goodell judged that the resolution of the criminal charges did not shield Stallworth from further civil consequences. Goodell indefinitely suspended Stallworth.

The Senate Ethics Committee continues to review what Burris said and withheld. They would do well to follow Goodell's example.

Could Jeremiah Wright have picked a worse time?

In the recent interview in which President Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright complained that "them Jews" are keeping  him from seeing President Obama, he added that:

Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing [by] the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel...

Israel waged an unjust war and used force that exceeded legitimate self-defense needs. Israel's continued refusal to negotiate seriously on outstanding issues was another reason that the situation with Gaza deteriorated into another war.

However, calling what Israel did in Gaza "ethnic cleansing" is hateful, evil, vile, and demeans the real ethnic cleansing that has occurred in the past and continues to this day as in Darfur.

If Israel was engaged in ethnic cleansing, the populations of Gaza and the West Bank would not continue to grow under occupation, blockade, and continuing violence. That the Palestinian population is able to grow under Israeli rule is a rebuttal to charges of ethnic cleansing but in no way a justification for Israeli policies.

When ethnic cleansing occurs, vast areas are without their former populations, for example the areas of Europe without any significant Jewish population after the Nazi Holocaust or the areas of Turkey without any significant Armenian population after the Armenian genocide.

Israel can justifiably be accused of many things. "Ethnic cleansing" is not one of them.

Wright's statements become even more shameful as they were made almost at the same time as an African-American security guard died defending the U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum against an attack by a anti-Semitic white supremacist.

How is Marshall Mather/Eminen/Slim Shady dealing with the 12-Steps?

The New York Times reports on Marshall Mathers's (Eminem, Slim Shady) drug abuse problem, overdose, relapse, and recovery. Mather overdosed on methodone, one of the drugs that was found in the toxicology during the autopsy of my oldest son. Methadone was possibly the drug that made lethal the mix of substances he had taken. Were it not for this connection, I probably would not be commenting on this story.

Mather has:

started the full 12-step program of a recovering addict, complete with meetings, a sponsor and a therapist.

Mather is continuing his career:

Eminem resumes — or relapses into — his main alter ego, Slim Shady: the sneering, clownish, paranoid, homophobic, celebrity-stalking compulsive rapist and serial killer who plays his exploits for queasy laughs and mass popularity.

During the early part of his career:the article states:

Eminem quickly became an offensive scourge to those who took Shady’s fantasies literally, or worried that others might.

Both in my training as a registered nurse and my support of my son’s efforts at recovery, I learned much about the 12-step program. I have often wondered how people like Mather reconcile how they earn their living with their 12-Step program, especially these:

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/steps.html

This may be how Mather does it:

Now, a decade into his major-label career, “I’m done explaining it,” he said. “Here’s my music. Here’s what it is. Get what you get from it. I didn’t get in this game to be a role model.”

“At the end of the day, it’s just words,” he added. “That’s all it is to me.”

That is literally true but very disturbing to those like me who have personally and professionally experienced the devastation of substance abuse.

Mather is not alone in this behavior. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck both acknowledge that they are in recovery from substance abuse while they both continue to earn their living with mean-spirited, hateful lies that, like Mather’s lyrics, raise fear that people with disordered minds will take literally enough to act out violently.

Ceasing substance abuse is the first half of recovery. Ceasing abusive behaviors learned while abusing substances is the second half. 

I raise these questions reluctantly as recovery is a very personal matter. However, Mather and others have made their recovery very public, even using it to promote their careers. That opens them to questions like mine.

I hope they are addressing these questions in their 12-Step program, with their sponsor and therapist.

Are people with mentally ill being preyed upon by extremists?

The New York Times reports that at least one of the four men recently arrested for the plot to bomb a New York synagogue suffers from mental illness.

(Laguerre) Payen, described as a nervous, quiet sort who took medication for schizophrenia or a bi-polar disorder, 

A friend who visited Mr. Payen’s apartment on Thursday said it contained bottles of urine, and raw chicken on the stovetop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/nyregion/22plot.html

Hamin Rashada, an assistant imam from the Islamic Learning Center of Orange County... said. “(Payen) has some very serious psychological problems,”...adding that Mr. Payen was on medications and talked in circles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/nyregion/22suspects.html

People with mental illness are very vulnerable. Family members, friends, co-workers, advocates, and caregivers already are helping them to protect themselves from financial scammers, sexual abusers, drug dealers, and other predators.  Add to that the heightened vulnerability to being preyed upon by recruiters for violent religious or political extremism that those with schizophrenia seem to have.

Besides conservative Republicans, who else hates Sen. Specter?

In the 60s Arlen Specter was on Congressman Gerald Ford's staff and served on the Warren Commission that investigated JFK's assassination. Specter was part of the team that determined that one bullet, the second shot, hit both JFK and Texas Gov. John Connally. All subsequent studies including the most recent ones using modern forensics techniques, confirm the accuracy of Specter's initial conclusions. Specter is therefore not only hated by conservative Republicans but by JFK conspiracy theorists.

Arlen Specter joins the long history of politicians switching parties including Gov. Connally who in 1973 switched from Democratic to Republican.

What happens when Texans forget history?

Speaking to anti-tax tea bag protesters, Republican Governor Rick Perry quoted Texas founder and hero Sam Houston.

"In the words of Sam Houston, Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression," Perry said. "We will not stand for our pockets to be picked."

Thousands rally against overtaxation in local tea party  The Daily Skiff, Texas Christian University

Perry also alluded to secession perhaps in the belief that somehow Texas reserved the right to secede.

Perry's quoting Houston is especially ironic. After winning independence from Mexico, Sam Houston accomplished his next goal, admission to the union in 1845. After winning election to governor in 1859, he was removed in 1861 because he opposed secession and Texas joining the Confederacy.

Texas does not have any additional right to secede than any other state. Snopes reviewed the historical literature and found absolutely no basis for this along with the other myth that Texas can split into five states. The American Civil War decisively settled the question that once a state joins the union, they are in forever.

Did the Europeans use smallpox against the Indians?

On March 21, 2009, The New York Times reported on Ward Churchill's lawsuit against the University of Colorado. A U of C committee dismissed him from his tenured position for what they found to be very serious acts of academic misconduct such as:

"he had no factual basis for...his theory....that Capt. John Smith purposefully introduced smallpox among the Wampanoag Indians in the 17th century."

Ward Churchill apparently:

"...cited writings of other scholars that he had actually ghostwritten, creating the illusion that there was a body of work supporting his theories."

In Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, author Jared Diamond doubts the Europeans had that sophisticated an understanding of disease transmission. Smallpox, measles, and influenza were introduced during the one hundred years of European contact prior to the time Ward Churchill alleges the Europeans tried to spread disease. Within a few years of these earlier contacts, these disease became a devastating pandemic among the native people who lacked immunity. Almost 90% of them died. Probably nothing the Europeans could have done would made things worse.

How might Madoff behaved had he met Wiesel in the camps?

I read Elie Wiesel's Night in my late adolescence. In it Wiesel describes how he was repeatedly and brutally robbed by fellow inmates, including having his gold fillings ripped out of his mouth.

How must Madoff's relatives and "friends" feel knowing that what Madoff did was to make Wiesel a victim again of the same type of predatory criminality that Wiesel suffered 65 years ago in the camps?

I find it easy to imagine Madoff behaving like the camp inmates who in return for the chance at a few more moments of life or a temporary privilege, betrayed other inmates to the Nazis, groveled to the guards, shoved their fellow inmates into the gas chambers then afterwards removed their bodies, and preyed on their fellow inmates, including the children like Wiesel, who were weaker, more vulnerable, and less able to defend themselves.

Is a political cartoon effective if you have to think this much?

I've long loved political cartoons. I was lucky to grow up in Chicago where the work of one of the greatest cartoonist, Bill Mauldin, was regularly published in the Chicago Sun-Times. I even dreamed of being a political cartoonist.

Cartoons are meant to be simple, superficial, and taken in at a glance. The superficial, simple, at a glance reading of the New York Post cartoon would be to recognize the classic racial stereotype of a black man who was behind the stimulus bill, Obama, as the chimp.

(The New York Post does not seem to have permalinks to its content. To view the original cartoon, go to http://www.nypost.com/delonas/delonas.htm then enter February 18, 2009 to retrieve the original from their archives.)

Not only did the cartoon touch on racial stereotypes, it touched on assassination of Obama.

The New York Post and right wing media commentators are claiming that we are misinterpreting this. They claim the chimp represents House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate head Harry Reid or the Democratic party which has devolved to the level of chimps. That's way too complicated and obviously a cover for their racial insensitivity and their insensitivity to the higher assassination risk Obama is under.

One has the First Amendment right to say or publish most anything, unfortunately including hateful things. The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring such speech before publications or prosecuting it afterwards.

However, the First Amendment does not shield one from others' reactions. The First Amendment also protects reactions such as public condemnations and calls for a boycott of the New York Post.

What will make Burris resign?

The same lack of integrity that Burris exhibited by accepting the Senate appointment from Blagojevich now prevents him from doing the honorable thing by resigning.

What would move such a personality to resign? I think Burris has enough megalomania that he would rather resign than need to chisel into his burial monument:

1. First African-American senator censured by the Senate.

2. First African-American Senator expelled by the Senate. That would be particularly humiliating as all but one of the previous 15 expulsions were for supporting the Confederacy.

3. First African-American Senator asked to resign by the first African-American President.

4. First African-American Senator indicted for perjury or any one of a number of crimes to be revealed by ongoing investigations. While criminal prosecution does not necessarily result in loss of his seat, he may wish to avoid adding an indictment to his legacy by making some type of plea bargain, resigning in exchange for a promise of no prosecution.

In his resignation statement, Burris could use the standard fall back of needing more time with his family. That probably would not soothe his pompous ego. More likely, he will blame everyone else. He may charge that he is the victim of a vast media conspiracy which has made it impossible for him and President Obama to do their jobs.

How will Burris deal with this on his monument?

How and when will Burris leave office?

1. Resignation? Probably the least likely as his ego won't allow it.

2. Expulsion by the Senate through one of its procedures other than than impeachment? Reasonable and possible.

3. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate? A long, cumbersome, and politically costly process which makes it less likely.

4. Loss in the 2010 Senatorial primary? A very likely possibility especially since the revelations of the past few days cost him most meaningful support from Illinois Democrats.

5. If he survives the primary, loss in the general election? That might be the worst outcome as it will give the Republicans another Senate seat, the last thing President Obama needs.

Unfortunately, Burris is so self centered that he is incapable of seeing how harmful he has become to President Obama. Just as the Republicans are putting ideology before the good of the nation, Burris will probably do the same with his ego. That will look great on his grave marker.

Where were they for the last eight years?

During the confirmation hearings for Obama's nominees, Republican Senators are raising issues of ethics and conflicts of interest. On the measures to deal with the economic crisis they are raising concerns about fiscal responsibility, deficits, and balanced budgets.

Where were they the past eight years while the Bush administration engaged in some of the most illegal, unethical, and immoral conduct in our history? Where were their financial concerns when for the first time in U.S. history they cut taxes during war and ran up record spending and deficits?

Anti-Semitism and Madoff's Ponzi scheme?

A rise in anti-Semitic comments has been reported in the wake of Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Such commentators ignore that many of his victims are Jewish, including Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel's foundation. Madoff is a criminal predator whose evil knew no bounds and who happened to be a Jewish-American.

Anti-Semitic attacks ignores the complete history of European Jews involvement in finances.

Christians are directly responsible for the the involvement of Jews in finance. First, medieval European Christians prohibited Jews from owning land and from many occupations. Then Christians adopted an extreme interpretation of the Bible that Christians could not charge each other interest. When they realized that economies cannot function without credit, they decided it would be alright if they borrowed money from Jews. As a direct result Jews became skilled at finances.

Michael Hirsch writes in his review of Niall Fergonson new book, The Ascent of Money:

“Behind each great historical phenomenon there lies a financial secret,” Ferguson says. He goes into fascinating detail about how “it was Nathan Roth­schild as much as the Duke of Wellington who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo” by selling bonds and stockpiling gold for the British Army. The richest bankers on the Continent in the 19th century, the Rothschilds became known as die Finanzbonaparten (the Bonapartes of finance). And, as Ferguson argues, they also played a crucial part in the South’s defeat in the Civil War by declining to invest in Confederate cotton-­collateralized bonds.

The defeat of both Napoleon and of the Confederacy were two extremely positive events that benefited the world and were directly related to the financial skills an English financier who also happened to be Jewish.

Does Homeland Security agree with me?

Homeland Security revoked Gov. Blagovich's access to classified information.

Turns out the U.S. Department of Homeland Security agrees with me that action can be taken against Blagovich. Apparently, Homeland Security feels the charges are serious and credible enough. They don't buy his effort to shield himself from the consequences of his behavior with cries of "innocent until proven guilty."

Just like impeachment, this action is not a criminal sanction that requires a finding of criminal guilt.

This is similar to the example I cited in my previous blog, the suspension of a caregiver during the investigation of allegations of abuse.