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.