Kennedy has left behind a spirited health care debate, if not a debacle, that he helped frame and forward but now can no longer fix. In the coming days and weeks, as we articulate his achievements and lament his loss, eulogizing him in news specials and print magazines, in public ceremonies and private moments, his legacy will remind us that we are very capable of holding on to him forever.

Perhaps Kennedy, the last of the four brothers to pass away, has long been immortalized. The Kennedys have influenced governance through legislation for more than four decades while stirring our national conscience by leaving behind iconographic images of tragedy and grief. As a man who endured Chappaquiddick, who exposed more than his flaws, who nearly died in a plane crash, and who had to observe the passing of his brothers, Joseph, John and Robert; his sisters, Rosemary, Patricia, Kathleen and Eunice; his parents, Joseph and Rose; and his nephews, including Michael, David and John, he made us pause.

It has been written a man does what he must in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, and dangers, and pressures, and that is the basis of human morality. Whatever may be the sacrifices he faces, if he follows his conscience — the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man — each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of the past courage cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.
– Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick Speech, July 25, 1969

Kennedy was a lot of things, but he never backed down

He served the public tirelessly, engaging in battles and authoring bills as sweeping and consequential, if not entirely effective, as the No Child Left Behind Act, the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and the Medicare Modernization Act.    

Persistently tackling issues he had wished were settled, Kennedy rooted himself in our daily concerns by promoting a bipartisan, liberal agenda to close inequities and gaps wherever they arose. He and his Senate staff passed hundreds of bills to that effect, although the Senator himself would go on to discredit whatever legislation he believed fell short, including the No Child Left Behind Act, a major tenet of his term. For Kennedy, paperwork and signatures had to measure up to real world practice.

His colleagues and associates, fellow senators and cabinet members, Democrats and Republicans, recognized him as an indispensable leader not simply because of his long tenure but because of his abilities to articulate an argument and galvanize the debate.

In part it is the raw force of Kennedy’s personality, along with his tremendous smile and shock of white hair, which will make his transition into the past tense feel so thunderous. He leaves us with both a deep appreciation for his vital breath in our public forums and with some real promise that in spite of the ongoing, polarizing politics, his legacy of civil discourse and needed union will prevail.

Laurene Williams is the writer/director of Phil Cobb’s Dinner for Four.

Image via Wikipedia

Two of his brothers were candidates for President of the United States, and one even became President. The question is why Ted Kennedy, the highly-respected Senior Senator of Massachusetts, considered the ‘Lion of the Senate’, never followed in his brothers’ footsteps.

There were two main reasons. One, of course, is that both his brothers John and Robert had been assassinated, and that if he became President there was an excellent chance that he would be next.

Another main reason is that rumors have always flown around Ted Kennedy, like a wild tornado, that he had let a younger woman die in the incident referred to as “Chappaquiddick”. This occurred during the presidential campaign of his brother Robert Kennedy. Many idealistic young people had volunteered in this campaign, swept up by the Kennedy mystique: that a Kennedy as President could usher in a new, better world for everyone, especially the poor and minorities.

On July 18, 1969, after a party where he had been drinking, Ted Kennedy was driving his car, and one of the campaign workers, Mary Jo Kopechne, an attractive 28 year-old, was his passenger. It was nighttime, and they were on the tiny island of Chappaquiddick, on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Kennedy unfortunately drove his car off a bridge into the water. He was able to save himself by swimming to land, and although he later claimed that he had tried valiantly to save the life of Kopechne, he was unable to.

Immediately, there were questions which remain unanswered to this day, as to what actually had happened. Strangely, Kennedy failed to report the incident to police, even though he had promised several colleagues whom he had contacted immediately after the incident, that he would do so. The police only found out about the accident after two fishermen reported they had seen her body the next morning. In addition, before she had left with Kennedy, other party-goers heard Kopechne ask him to drive her to ‘her hotel’. However, she had left both her purse and hotel key at the party before heading off with Kennedy. Also, after the incident, the Judge merely gave Kennedy a suspended sentence, after he had pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. And this came after the judge had found that Kennedy could be guilty of further crimes, but the prosecutor never pursued this possibility. In addition, almost all of the legal proceedings were held in secret, and Kennedy eventually ‘voluntarily’ gave Kopechne’s parents over $90,000. The parents refused to sue Kennedy, or investigate their daughter’s death any further.

Because of all these unusual circumstances, many strongly suspected that Kennedy, a married, Catholic Senator, was having an affair with Kopechne, a single, attractive campaign worker, and that Kennedy had panicked during the accident. A possible affair, especially in the 1960’s, ruined any real chances he ever had for the presidency.

Although the Chappaquiddick incident is most often cited as the reason he could never run for President, in reality there were others. One is the “Kennedy curse”, the notion that eventually all Kennedys meet with tragedy. In Ted’s case, this could have been especially true, as both of his brothers who had run for President were ultimately killed, and he could have met with the same fate.

In addition, even though they ultimately divorced in 1982, Joan Kennedy, his wife, had repeated bouts with alcoholism and drunk driving. Like his then-wife, Ted himself faced public accusations of drinking and “partying”, which the press widely reported.

Except for his highly-respected legislative record as Senator, Ted Kennedy’s reputation became increasingly negative over time. Whatever the actual facts were, he had to ultimately cede his hopes of ever becoming President of the United States. Sadly, now, with his death, the political legacy of that generation of Kennedys has also been extinguished.

In an attempt to answer this subconscious question of millions, the adult magazine Hustler has already produced two movies about the sex-life of former vice-presidential candidate and governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, featuring “Russians who come knocking on her back-door” or a flash-back scene where “young Paylin’s creationist college professor will explain a ‘big bang’ theory even she can’t deny!” The first movie was called “Who’s Nailin’ Paylin?”, then (as an obvious sequel) there came “Obama is Nailin’ Palin” while the X-rated Hustler network right now is working on “Hollywood’s Nailin’ Palin”, scheduled for summer 2009.

Whether these movies accurately depict the sex-life of either Palin or any politician for that matter, might be highly doubted. What seems to be more interesting, though, is that all of this might say far less about Palin herself than about the general citizen and his or her image about the state representatives. Do different moral standards apply to people, simply because they’re acting as politicians on the public stage? Are they “super-human?” Or are their sexual desires maybe as strong (or even stronger) as their desires to be in power? Do we want politicians with more sex-appeal, showing the same amount of “tits & ass” as Schwarzenegger showe muscle in his movies? Truly, what are our expectations of those leaders? And do we maybe secretely see them all as “just a little bit” morally superior only so that we can feel better about our own imperfection by digging in their dirt instead of our own? – All of these are questions which are heavily weighing down on the collective conscience and will undoubtedly come up at the next chance, again and again – until we will have the courage to deal with ourselves instead of “the man in the mirror”.

In early May, Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to her in briefings back in 2002 and 2003 about techniques used to extract information from terrorists. She claimed she was told nothing about harsh techniques, although other representatives who attended the same briefings have stated that the CIA was up front about methods being used.

In an article written by Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times (5/25/2009), Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) was quoted as saying “he can’t be sure Mrs. Pelosi was told specifically about waterboarding in 2002, but enhanced interrogation techniques were usually talked about as a unit.

“He also said it’s impossible to forget being briefed about harsh techniques. He said his first briefing on the subject was in the White House Situation Room, and the briefers actually demonstrated techniques such as a facial grasp.

“Mr. Hoekstra said Mrs. Pelosi as leader could easily have sought more information about the use of waterboarding, and he ridiculed her claim that there was nothing she could do to protest the techniques other than to win control of Congress back for the Democrats.”

Pelosi has disputed what she actually knew and has claimed she had few options to object. But the key phrase in her denials is “few options.” That means she acknowledges having known about waterboarding and that she understood she had some options available to register her objections. But, as the facts show, she did nothing.

What “options” were available to her? Here are just two: 1) a move to suspend or remove funding for offensive practices such as waterboarding from the CIA’s budget through the House Appropriations Committee or the House Select Oversight Committee; 2) a letter of protest to the White House announcing her disapproval of these practices.

Why did she do nothing? Her reasons center around the aftermath of September 11. At the time, most Americans, including Republican and Democrat leaders in Congress, sought to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. Reliable human intelligence – HUMINT – was necessary. So they turned a blind eye to “harsh interrogation techniques,” accepting them as necessary in order to prevent a repeat performance by terrorists. And they were – necessary, I mean. On Sunday, May 10, 2009, former Vice-President Dick Cheney appeared on Face the Nation and defended controversial techniques such as waterboarding, saying that they were highly effective tools in extracting useful information from suspected terrorists. He cited Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of helping carry out the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York. “He did not cooperate fully until after waterboarding,” Mr. Cheney said. “Once we went through that process, he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al Qaida.”

In Dinan’s article, Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, went on to say that in making her reckless accusations against the CIA, Speaker Pelosi has become “a wrecking ball to the morale of officers risking their lives in the field.”

The Speaker, criticized for having known about the harsh techniques but failing to do anything to stop them, is now attempting to shift public attention away from her own conduct by excoriating the Bush Administration for approving them. At first Pelosi announced that she knew absolutely nothing about the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Top CIA personnel immediately disputed her claim. Later, she grudgingly admitted that she knew, but claimed the Agency told her it was only “considering” using waterboarding.

That subtle shift did not go unchallenged. Former CIA Director, Porter Goss, said that the Agency had informed Pelosi, in briefings, that it not only intended to use waterboarding, but that it had actually already done so. Goss further stated that the only objection raised by anyone during briefings was a concern as to whether the CIA was going far enough. Current CIA Director, Leon Panetta, an Obama appointee, agreed with Goss. “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing the enhanced techniques that had been employed . . .” he said.

Pelosi’s response to all this came near the end of May. Backing away from her earlier shaky position, she turned her venom into an attack on the former Bush Administration. “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” she said, after almost three weeks of accusing the intelligence community of lying, failing to identify those within that community she now “respects,” and failing to identify exactly how the Bush Administration had not “appropriately informed Congress.” She did, however, go on to say she no longer wants to stress the matter. That’s not surprising in view of the battering she has taken from members of both parties: a bi-partisan effort, you might say. Further, on Friday, May 22, Speaker Pelosi refused to answer questions on the controversy she herself created.” I have made [all] the statements that I’m going to make on the subject,” she said.

Ever the political animal, Pelosi did her about face after her own party leaders voted on May 20 to keep Guantanamo prison open for the foreseeable future, to forbid the transfer of detainees at that camp to the United States, and to block funds contained in a $96.7 billion Obama war spending bill for the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison where terrorist prisoners have been housed since the beginning of the War on Terror, and where 240 terrorists are still held.

In an abrupt shift of position, Democrat leaders in the Senate handed Mr. Obama a stunning defeat, voting overwhelmingly to strip the $80 million the half-black President had requested to shutter the Cuba detention facility. The vote was 90-6, another bi-partisan action.

Democrats read polls and tend to fashion their policy decisions based upon the results, whether or not those results are in the best interests of the country. On January 20, 2009, a Gallup poll revealed that Americans were leaning against closing Guantanamo. 45% said it should not be closed, 35% said it should be closed, and 20% had no opinion on the matter. On April 27, 55% of Americans said they favored the use of harsh interrogative techniques. Pelosi received poor marks: only 31% approved of the way she had been handling the matter while 47% disagree with her handling of it. 

These polls have led to increased pressure from members of both parties expressing concern for their constituents and wondering where the detainees would be moved. Recall that Mr. Obama has been asking European countries to accept the suspected terrorist detainees, only to suffer stern rebukes. His fall back position has been that he would bring them into the United States and place them in civilian prisons, a move strongly rejected by almost every community in the nation except for tiny Hardin, Montana. There, faced with hard times, local officials offered to accept Guantanamo’s castoffs. It seems Hardin had a brand new but empty $27 million 464-bed prison, which the Town had built thinking that the rest of the state would pay to house their prisoners. That proffer was quickly rescinded, however, by both Montana’s Democrat Senators and its one Republican House member.

Mr. Obama’s move is also opposed by many prominent personages. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) was unequivocal on the matter, insisting that terrorism suspects will never reach American shores: “You can’t put them in prison unless you release them,” he said. “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been outspoken for weeks on the subject. On Tuesday, May 19, he said he hoped the Democrat decision to de-fund the closing was a prelude to keeping the camp open and dangerous terrorism suspects offshore where they belong. “Guantanamo is the perfect place for these terrorists,” he said. “However, if the President ends up sticking to his decision to close it next January, obviously they need a place to be. It ought not to be the United States of America.”

Also weighing in was FBI Director Robert Mueller. Appointed by President Bush in 2001 for a ten-year term, he told a congressional panel that he had concerns about bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to prisons in the U.S. Among the risks he cited is “the potential for individuals undertaking attacks on those prisons in the United States” to free their fellow terrorists.      

And Senator Lamar Smith (R-TX) said: “No good purpose is served by allowing terrorists, who trained at terrorist training camps, to come into the U.S. and live among us. Guantanamo Bay was never intended to be an Ellis Island.”

As noted above, President Obama campaigned on a promise to close Guantanamo, claiming that it was somehow an embarrassment to us before our allies around the world. Apparently that’s because some prisoners there have been exposed to so-called “harsh interrogative techniques,” which Mr. Obama alleges amount to torture. Without explaining why this was so, he recently promised to close the facility by January 22, 2010. And that same Harry Reid, on May 20, in laying out his party’s rationale for stripping the funds from the funding bill said, “Guantanamo makes us less safe.” He didn’t explain why, either and since many of the 240 prisoners remaining in “Gitmo” are considered too dangerous to release, Reid should be asked why keeping them there makes us less safe.

Democrat verbal attacks on the CIA, enhanced interrogation techniques, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with the Senate hearing just begun in Washington, will leave this country more vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks. Dismantling the policies and protections begun by the Bush Administration after September 11 is neither wise nor prudent. In view of the recent poll showing that 37% of those previously released from Guantanamo have returned to their terrorist ways, releasing more of them is a valid concern. Furthermore, making public secret memoranda outlining our interrogation methods flies in the face of reason since it will provide our enemies with valuable data about what to expect if captured.

Republican leaders should strongly oppose all Democrat efforts in this regard. “You can’t play politics with national security,” former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin said. “Obama is clearly on the defensive here. He turned this into a values fight. This is not about moral relativism. Evil people want to kill innocents. Seeking to defend ourselves is not an abrogation of our values.”

Indeed, that a free society does not have to sit back and allow itself to be destroyed by its enemies, but can take all necessary and prudent means to defend itself, is a lesson the United States learned early in the Cold War. That lesson should be applied here.

Into the void steps Jesse Ventura, who, like Cheney, has been making the rounds on television talk-shows in recent weeks.  The former Minnesota governor brings a unique perspective to the current debate on torture.  As a Navy Seal, Ventura underwent torture at SERE (Survival Escape Resistance Evasion) school.  As Ventura told Larry King last week on CNN,

“It was a required school you had to go to prior to going to the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam.  I was waterboarded, it is torture…You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and an hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.”

That jab at Cheney also distinguishes Ventura from other politicians past or present who decry torture but tend to soften their rhetoric in the name of decorum.  Ventura pulls no punches in the debate over torture and his credentials as a Navy Seal who underwent torture in training make his arguments wholly unassailable.  Contrasting his own service to his country to Dick Cheney’s, Ventura told King,

“Here’s a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War.  Clearly, he’s a coward. He wouldn’t go when it was his time to go and now he’s a chickenhawk.  Now he’s this big, tough guy who wants this hardcore policy and he’s the guy who sanctioned all this torture by calling it ‘enhanced interrogation’.”

Monday morning, Ventura went on “The View” and sparred with Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the show’s resident right-wing ideologue.  Hasselbeck asked Ventura what he thought of Nancy Pelosi’s saying that the CIA lied to her about what interrogation techniques were being used at Guantanamo Bay.  Ventura replied,

“If we hadn’t waterboarded in the first place, none of that would be a controversy, would it?  Torture is torture.  If you’re going to be a country that follows the rule of law, which we are, torture is illegal.”

Apparently, Hasselbeck believes that anyone who opposes torture is on the “left” and asking about Nancy Pelosi is a clever question. 

These days Ventura lives in Mexico and surfs obsessively.  He follows American politics from afar, but is still a dynamic, powerful voice in American political culture.  At a time when Dick Cheney can make huge sums of money speaking at conferences like next week’s American Enterprise Institute gathering, defending torture and slamming the rule of law along the way, it’s refreshing to have a counterweight, a heavyweight, like Jesse Ventura.

The planting season has not begun, but there’s a whole lot of sowing going on with “The New Birth of Freedom.”

Like some organic farmers, a new path is being cleared and new pesticide and chemical-free seeds grown with hopes of a unified and plentiful future harvest are expected to be planted Tuesday with Barack Obama’s presidential inauguration.

Preparation includes using the brown mulch (older sturdy and woody materials) and the green (fertilizer) for composting with new reflections and renewal. With a new well of water and a breath of fresh air, Americans hope Obama’s team of some new, educated and inspired people will help us reap a different but rich crop to lead and feed not only Americans internally and externally, but to share new matter with the world. Some local and national leaders are now more optimistic about leading with the sustenance charge, “Go, Green” in more ways than one, both eco-friendly and financially.

The upcoming presidential inauguration of the nation’s 44th president is one not free of sparks, but full of “firsts” with the leader consistently leaving and creating legacies with youths and others as he tills for a new marketplace and stimulus while the nation is in a financial crisis.  (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, Obama’s plan for jobs and economic recovery has been met with opposition in Congress, particularly with its price tag of $775 billion.)

Martez Jackson, 16 said, “I would have voted for Obama because I think he can change the world.”

President Elect Obama paid honor recently to his hero by visiting the Lincoln Memorial with his family.  Abraham Lincoln overcame poverty and began his political career as a lawyer and inspirational speaker in Illinois before becoming the 16th President and leader of the Northern States. An avid eater of root vegetables, Lincoln became president during a very turbulent period, 1861 – 1865, of United States history. Obama’s upcoming plans include riding a train along parts of the same path Lincoln, an abolitionist, traveled from Philadelphia to Washington prior to assuming the Presidency and having to lead the country, split over slavery, during the Civil War. 

Obama has mentioned Lincoln, a Republican, in his memoirs and has been inspired by his popular speeches including the Gettysburg Address. (Obama’s tribute to Lincoln includes being sworn in with the same Bible). Inaugural week festivities highlight Lincoln’s accomplishments including his dreams of freedom for every citizen. Obama assumes the nation’s top office during political, social and economic upheaval, but he hopes for a unifying transition from the Republican George W. Bush administration.  

Despite the turbulence, the nation’s new president, Obama is armed with new packets of inspired American and African youth due to his birth and roots, national leaders here and foreign leaders elsewhere. Some surveys indicate there’s a new energy of cooperation without combustion that can be felt in the air. 

Change is going to come, some exclaim! 

Obama’s intellect, youthfulness and ability to overcome his past including social and cultural barriers have propelled this first-term United States senator to success.  The general public has voted and Obama is posed to lead as the inexperienced rainmaker. Yes, he has battled controversy in Chicago with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor and there was hot water surrounding his former United States Senate seat with his replacement, Roland Burris, 71, the former Illinois state attorney general.  There are allegations looming that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Obama’s United States Senate seat and now there are pending impeachment proceedings of the Illinois governor.  Also, some gay activists were initially displeased with Obama’s selection of megachurch pastor, the Rev. Rick Warren, author of “Purpose Driven Life” as part of the Inauguration Day activities but openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson was extended an inaugural pulpit. 

And the boy-child turned man shall continue to mediate and lead them.  Like the planter who grows with “Great Expectations,” Obama is as hopeful as author Charles Dickens.  He seemed to have embraced his philosophy of fighting against injustice, feeding the poor and helping the oppressed. Obama is a risk taker, courageous and undaunted by his failures, but prepared to accept success.

Teens in the Atlanta metropolitan area at Tri-Cities High School in East Point, GA have spoken reassuredly about his election and presidential inauguration. Unable to vote, their collective voices have taken the mysticism out of the election and they have given Obama their stamp of approval.

Dru Simpson, 14, said, “Yes, I would’ve voted for Obama if I was 18. The reason, I would have voted for him is because I think (he) would make a big change in America.” His skin color is just a plus to the fact that he is a good man.”

Megan Oykahire, 15, echoed Simpson’s sentiment. “Yes, I would have voted for Obama if I were 18. I would have voted for him, not only for his skin color but his political outtakes on the country. (Obama) being Black just adds to the awe he’s filled me with. He is the first African- American president this country has had; his color and race is not the only thing worth while about him.”

The country’s fiscal state of affairs is important to teens, too.  According to Carl Choice, 17, “The reason I would have voted for him is because I can see that he’s going to make a change for the United States and its economy.”

Can we keep hope alive with a different color rainbow for future generations? 

This is the birth month for healthy financial, spiritual and political resolutions in 2009.  According to Jill Rowland of Nature’s Corner Market in Marietta, GA, Instead of “going on a (new) diet”…there should be a “conscious effort to change purchasing and lifestyle habits with the focus on being healthy, and loading up on nutrient dense foods.  The weight loss is an added benefit.”

Making an adjustment physically and spiritually including having a new President Elect can be alarming and daunting to some. Some senior citizens have compared the present state of economic affairs to the Great Depression. But some leaders hope there will be more energy and a slow but progressive and durable journey towards restructuring a better economy for all Americans and the world.

US consumer confidence dropped to a record low in December, influenced by the grim unemployment statistics and ever-plummeting home prices caused by the credit freeze and a record number of mortgage foreclosures. According to a recent survey, the US housing market is suffering its worst slump since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

To battle the recession, the US Federal Reserve has drastically slashed its key interest rates from its September 2007 level of 5.25% down to almost zero, warning that “the outlook for economic activity has weakened further” and predicting that rates would stay at their presently low levels “for some time”. This is the lowest it has been since 1954 and represents an increased risk of inflation the lower it drops. Already infusing billions into the banks and financial institutions, the Federal Reserve is also buying up bad mortgage debt and deliberating upon the wisdom of buying government bonds, as did the Japanese government in its fight against deflation in the late 1990s.

In a recent speech, President-elect Obama said that he and his administration would likewise be doing their utmost to boost the economy, as the central bank’s means were not having the desired result quickly enough. “We are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession, which is to lower interest rates,” he said. “That’s why the economic recovery plan is so absolutely critical.” Mr. Obama has vowed to create at least 2.5 million jobs within his first 2 years of office, as well as upgrading the nation’s infrastructure.

As for government/corporate corruption – or “extravagance”, if you prefer, this is undeniably on the rise, or rather public awareness has grown as the topic edges into the media spotlight and more information is made available.

Barack Obama has advised the Senate to veto the nomination of Mr. Roland Burris, the individual proposed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich – currently facing corruption charges – to fill Mr. Obama’s vacant seat in the US Senate. Mr Burris, 71, was attorney general for the State of Illinois from 1991 to 1995, also unsuccessfully running for the Senate and position of Illinois governor in 1984 and 1994, respectively. “Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant,” said Mr Obama. “But the Senate made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision,” also adding that Mr. Blogojevich himself should resign. Mr. Blagojevich, who continues to deny all misconduct, however, has vociferously opposed all calls for him to step down. “Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man,” he said. Which did not impress Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid one iota, “Anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois.”

Then there’s the scandal surrounding hedge fund guru Bernard Madoff, facing fraud charges to the tune of $50bn, which has already had global repercussions. Released on $10 million bail, he is currently under house arrest and next scheduled to appear in court on January 12.

What has been referred to as a “serious agency breakdown” by SEC head Christopher Cox, has led to his initiating an internal enquiry to discover just why the Security Exchange Commission (America’s major financial regulatory authority) had been unable to detect the fraud sooner, despite having received warnings about Madoff’s doings as early as 1999. Said Mr, Cox said, “Credible and specific allegations regarding Mr Madoff’s financial wrongdoing, going back to at least 1999, were repeatedly brought to the attention of SEC staff, but were never recommended to the commission for action.”

Victims of Madoff’s “Ponzi” scheme (after Charles Ponzi, known to have first used it in 1919, which basically means using money from Peter to pay Paul, or new investor funds to repay old) include some of the world’s largest banks and financial institutions, as well as many charity organizations, and hundreds of private investors, with potential losses running into billions. Among them is the Bank of Santander, Spain’s largest bank and owner of UK banks Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingle, together with the UK’s HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland who, between them all face losses of upwards of $5bn. France’s second-largest bank, Crédit Mutuel, and Japanese financial giant Nomura are facing potential losses of up to $303 million, while charity organizations, New York’s JEHT and Stephen Spielberg’s Wunderkinder Foundation among them, have also suffered huge losses.

This far-reaching fraud has already claimed the life of at least one victim. Kirk Stephenson, 47, COO of private equity company Olivant, overcome by financial ruin, died after flinging himself in front of a morning commuter train in Buckinghamshire less than two weeks ago.

And while US homeowners are struggling to make ends meet, the government is dishing out billions of bucks worth of bailouts to the auto industry and finance sector. A study conducted by Associated Press has revealed what is actually happening to taxpayers’ dollars: In 2007, the amount of $1.6bn was paid out in salaries, bonuses, and other executive compensation to the top dogs of the very banks and financial institutions that Congress has just seen fit to bail out.

In a society where incompetence and poor performance seems to be abundantly rewarded, AP’s research (based on annual financial statements filed with the SEC) revealed that the aggregate sum given to about 600 executives would easily cover the costs of bailing out 53 of the 116 banks that have so far been “rescued” – at a cost of $188bn. Rewards were even granted to the executives of those banks whose pitiful performance last year presaged the very financial meltdown that sent them scurrying to D.C. for a handout. Although some did, in fact, scale down their exec compensation in line with their poor results, benefits totaling millions of dollars were still paid out, taking the form of everything from cash bonuses and stock options to personal use of company jets and chauffeured limousines, memberships in exclusive clubs, luxury vacations, professional management services and expensive home security systems, averaging out at $2.6 million per head. Here are some specifics:

Goldman Sachs president and CEO Lloyd Blankfein got almost $54 million in compensation last year, with the company’s top five execs receiving a total of $242 million, although the company announced that seven of their head honchos will be forgoing cash and stock bonuses this year and working for their basic salaries of $600K. The Company’s spend on auto leasing and chauffeurs amounted to as much as $233K per exec.

Compensation to Richard D. Fairbank, Capital One Financial Corp. chairman was reduced by $1 million, but he still walked away with $17 million in stock options. The company received just over $3.5bn bailout money in mid-November. San Francisco’s Wells Fargo, recipient of $25bn taxpayer funds, gave $20K to each of its top execs to pay for “personal financial planners”. As did Bank of New York Mellon Corp., who gave their CEO Robert P. Kelly $66,748 to pay his personal financial planner, over and above his $975K salary and $7.5 million bonus, as well as spending just under $179K for his chauffeur driven limo and $846K to relocate from Pittsburgh to Manhattan. JPMorgan Chase, given a $25bn bailout, paid just over $211K for chairman James Dimon’s jet travel from Chicago to New York. And we all remember the scandal surrounding insurance conglomerate American International Group Inc. who, after receiving a bailout totaling $150bn in October, treated its execs to a luxury vacation at an exclusive California spa-resort at a cost of $500K, so as to “relieve their stress”.

But the record holder must still be Merrill Lynch CEO John A. Thain, former Goldman Sachs CEO, who earned $83 million last year, ($57,692 salary, $15 million bonus upon signing his management contract with an extra $68 million worth of stock options) as a special reward for his company’s $7.8bn loss, although he only joined the company in December so cannot actually be blamed for that year’s poor results. Still, to public outrage, he is insisting on his $10 million cash bonus for this year, when Merrill Lynch has already received billions worth of bailout money.

The TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program), specifically designed to buy up bad mortgage debt and other distressed assets, was redefined last month, whereby the Treasury was directed by the current administration to infuse funds directly into the banks and financial institutions in order to stabilize the economy; setting certain limits on executive compensation and golden parachutes to exiting execs, without actually putting a ceiling on such salaries and bonuses. Nor did Congress seem to require any formal business plan, nor details as to what use would be made of the bailout funds so cavalierly granted to these institutions.

Six of the financial institutions that received billions of taxpayers’ money (including Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley) continue to own and operate fleets of company jets used to transport their execs, citing reasons of “security” to explain the personal use to which some of these aircraft are put. While others have explained to their shareholders that jet and chauffeured limousine travel give their top management “time to focus on their jobs,” despite the disdain and media outrage to which the CEOs of the Big Three car makers were subjected in October, when they flew to Washington from Detroit in three separate corporate jets to ask for a federal bailout. But banking and financial execs seem to have been immune to such criticism. Probably because they didn’t have to go begging to Congress, so no one asked how they got there.

Which brings us back to AIG with seven aircraft – one of the largest fleets among all bailout beneficiaries, only exceeded by Bank of America (who received $15bn bailout money) with nine aircraft: “Our aircraft are being used very sparingly right now,” said an AIC spokesman, although, as a gesture, the company has canceled its order for four new planes.

As far as the producers of private jets are concerned, it’s all just a tempest in a teacup. “What people don’t understand is that business jets are mobile offices,” said a Gulfstream spokesman, adding that the media shit storm has not affected business nor reduced the orders for new aircraft.

Now that the US banking and auto industries have received billions of dollars from the American taxpayers, despite their common histories of greed and excess, poor management and resistance to both self-regulation and technological change, the question must be asked: Who is next in line? Is it the airlines? The shopping malls and real estate companies? Is it the Hollywood film industry and/or the music business – both known to be excessively greedy and change-resistant? With Washington dishing out free cash, all have indicated their eagerness to partake and the government seems inclined to continue doling out the funds; despite the fact that the Treasury’s emergency measures have not put a stop to the haemorhaging.

The government must act more forcefully and not shy away from imposing regulation and supervision upon the banks, financial institutions and markets, instead of bailing them out and allowing them to continue their transgressions, virtually financing them to perpetuate the damage. This is not the 1980s, where real assets were in play; the current crisis involves virtual, derivative financial products of no discernible value. And no one really knows where it will end… Mr. Obama certainly has his work cut out for him.

But some news that has recently come to my attention makes me suspect that Obama might not be eligible to be the next American President.  First of all Obama is not officially the U. S. President just yet because the Electoral College doesn’t vote until December 15th.   Officially the 44th United States president is not decided until all the electoral votes are cast on this date.   Congress must then tally the votes, and finally declare an official winner on January 6th, 2009. 

The reminder of how our country works aside we must not forget that in the constitution of the United States Of America it states “no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

There are some key points to a lawsuit that was filed by Phillip Berg, back in August of 2008, contesting the eligibility of Barack, for the office of the U. S.  Presidency.   The argument is Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and later relocated herself and son, Barack, to Indonesia, but not before naturalizing herself in Indonesia.  Since Barack was a minor, and in his mothers custody at this point in his life, he would also be naturalized.  Furthermore Mr. Obama failed to take his oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old and thus regaining his U. S. citizenship status.

So is the man legally able to be President or not? The supreme court will have to decide.

For those of you reading this from inside or outside the US I am sure this is like watching the same movie 100 times. The ending is always the same. And it fascinates me that every time the political machine revs up for another Presidential run the masses show up at the “theater of life” reading to buy yet another ticket.

And let me cut off the naysayers out there who are saying “what is this guy ranting about? You’re just being negative.” To you I say “oh is that so?” when perhaps I should say “you’re kidding me right?”

If history has taught you anything it has at least taught you this. Man has failed miserably to bring an effective positive change by means of any form of government. And the fact that it is better in one place than it may be in another is not a comfort in the big picture. I mean I would rather be shot to death than brutally beaten but that doesn’t mean either is any good.

So here we are in 2008 and are welcoming in the 44th President of the USA. What has changed? Well of course there are subtle things that can occur by ushering in any new leader. In fact Barack Obama being the first African-American to be elected in a country full of racial hatred is an improvement. But while some may see that as a sign for change I see that as a futile effort to find optimism. It is still a half glassed world. So regardless of if you see it half empty or half full the amount of water is still the same.

So while I personally would love to see the sickness and perversion of bigotry eradicated this by no means has changed the minds of those depraved individuals who continue to well up in hate every time they see any one who is non-white. Racial tolerance is not racial harmony. There are too many people who will never see the human race as the only race. So while I will take more tolerance over no tolerance I will not call this a change by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as the man himself? Well honestly I am suspicious of any one who enters into the world of demons. Politics is a feces infested swamp that quite frankly is a threat to humanity. While there are logistical reasons to have a semblance of order and governments somewhat deliver that semblance, politics and politicians are still a necessary evil at best. No matter how much you dress them or government up it still is a nesting ground for corruption and extortion.

And yes there are individuals within government who live the delusion and give an honest effort for a change but for what does there effort account for? And on the other hand while I abhor man’s political ruse that he flaunts to appear to care for his fellow man, I whole-heartedly obey the law. I also do whatever is within my power to actually help those in need. You don’t have to go to far to find someone who needs help and I don’t need a nefarious branch of government to assist me in helping others.

What about the economic debacle and the hope of recovery? Yeah what about it? Why do you think we are in this place to begin with? Because corruption breeds corruption. Treacherous acts permeate the government and are interwoven into the business world. They go hand and hand. In fact many people in government sit on committees and panels of big business. They sit on the board of trustees in some cases. The only reason anything good will result in the way of recovery will simply be a result of corporate juggernauts need to reel in their greed a bit and let society catch up so they can go in for another kill. Sometimes you can kill the goose that lays the golden egg if you’re not careful. This is what has happened. And it will seem to get better and it will happen again. One of these days they may jump off a cliff to high though. But the point is no change will result in the economy based on what a politician does. It takes greedy influential people to tone it down a bit. Wealthy people influence the market and the world economy as a whole.

Here is the bottom line. Millions of people play the lottery everyday hoping to be that one person who hits the big one. Knowing full well they have a better chance of getting struck by lightning! And yet they want to believe. So it is after every election. People want to believe, they want to drink the koolaide. People want a false sense of security.

And while it is nice to be positive it is foolhardy to be naive. November 4, 2008 was just like any other day when it’s all said and done. New Sheriff, in the same decrepit town. The day that nothing changed.

The only real change in this world you are going to experience will be a result of you personally reaching out to a neighbor in need. So cross your fingers and focus on that. Give something to your local school, a family down on their luck, or a friend or person in the community who just lost his job. That is the closest thing to real honest to goodness change of any impact any one will see.

I walked to the square.

I walked into the center of the square, next to the U.S. Armed Forces Recruiting Station, on the island between Broadway and 7th Avenue. I stood there in awe of all of the Herculean neon signs…

 and TV screens I suddenly found towering all around me.

Then I walked past the recruiting station and walked down the island toward ABC Studios. I crossed the street and stood on the corner in front of ABC Studios and took a picture of the crowd across the street on the island, where there was broadcasting equipment set up, including a camera mounted on a boom for panning shots of the audience.

Then I went back over onto the island myself and stayed on the island on the other side of the metal barrier for the duration of the event.

When I first arrived at Times Square, there didn’t seem to be as many people as one might expect, however, in time, it became miserably crowded. The atmosphere was wonderful, as long as you weren’t a McCain supporter. Every time it was announced that Obama had won a state, cheers and chants rung out from the crowd, and when it was announced McCain had won a state, people would boo, which I didn’t like. (Since Obama was winning, booing the opponent just added to the pain of loss, and it is poor sportsmanship. It’s acceptable to be a sore loser, but there is no excuse for being a sore winner.) Despite that, there was a wonderful feeling of harmony and solidarity.

People were taking pictures left and right, there were press all over the place, from newspapers, television and radio.

They swung the camera, that was mounted on the boom, over us several times. I thought it was a really odd-looking thing, like a mechanical one-eyed monster sinisterly eyeballing the crowd for some devious scheme, or like Big Brother (reference to George Orwell’s novel 1984, not the “reality” show). However, to everyone else, it was just a camera, and they all screamed and waved at it.

After what seemed like an unusually short time (for American presidential elections), it was announced that Barack Obama was to be the next President of the United States and the words “BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT-ELECT” started running across one of the screens.

In addition to the chanting “Obama!”, ”Yes We Can!” and “Yes We Did!” and the screaming, hooting, hollaring and the arm-waving, cars drove by honking their horns, their passengers and drivers chanting, hanging out the windows. All strangers cheering together for Obama’s victory. All united by Obama.

People’s cheers and chants grew deafening, arms were flailing, jubilation spread, some got teary-eyed with pride and joy…

 and others, perhaps, with sadness of loss.