Educating Sarah

There has been considerable talk about whether Governor Sarah Palin will become a new leader of the Republican Party. She did provide a spark to the McCain campaign and showed herself to be a highly attractive and gifted public speaker. Although some say she hurt McCain’s chances, I feel that she probably helped energize the Republican base of conservatives and the evangelicals.

In an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Palin indicated that she would be open to running for president in 2012. She said: “If there is an open door for me somewhere—this is what I always pray—don’t let me miss the open door…. Show me where the open door is, even if it’s cracked open a little bit, maybe I’ll plow right on through that.”

So the question remains, should Palin now become leader of the Republicans? Should she be seriously considered as a candidate for president in 2012? The answer is, probably not. There is a lot of evidence that Sarah Palin is a woefully uneducated person. It is true that America should be open to leadership by all kinds of people from all walks of life. But do we really want to be lead by a person who, by most definitions, has barely enough knowledge to be mayor of Wasilla?

During the campaign we got some hints of the rift that developed between Palin and the people who ran the McCain campaign. These people leaked word that Palin was a “diva” or a “whack-job.” But they did not give very much detail. Since the election, we have gotten more information from McCain aides about the split. Carl Cameron of Fox News reported that the McCain Campaign advisors felt that Sarah Palin lacked the degree of knowledge necessary to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

According to Cameron, although she is governor of a state that abuts Canada, Palin did not know what countries were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada, the U.S., and Mexico). This kind of ignorance would be excusable in an ordinary person, but we want our leaders to be smarter than the average jerk.

Apparently, in a debate that took place when she was running for office in Alaska, Palin said that Creationism should be taught in the schools along with Evolution. Combine this with her interest in banning books from the library and you have someone who, in my opinion, is intellectually challenged.

McCain people say that it was a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with Palin. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric, and then blamed her staff when the interview was a disaster. Fox News reported that after the Couric interview, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings about herself in the morning and throw "tantrums" over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.

According to Newsweek, Palin's shopping spree was more extensive than previously reported. McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. In the beginning, one senior aide told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and three more for the campaign. Instead, Palin began buying clothes, shoes, luggage, jewelry and accessories for herself and her family from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband and children. An angry McCain aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”

Some people feel that she can become a better-educated person if she runs for the Senate or takes the Senate seat of Ted Stevens. They say that she can pick-up the kind of knowledge of government, politics, world affairs, geography, and economics necessary to present herself as a viable candidate for president. I doubt it. She is forty-four years old. If she has not become a well-educated person by now, I doubt she will become one in the next four years.

The Spoils of Victory

Now that Barack Obama and the Democrats have resoundingly defeated John McCain and the Republicans, there will be much talk about uniting the nation and bringing people together. That is all well and good, but I believe that the campaign will have been for naught if the Democrats do not take advantage of this opportunity to enact some desperately needed legislation.

President-elect Obama has made clear that he considers the economy to be issue number one. Lame-duck Bush has indicated that he might veto an economic stimulus package during the coming months. If Congress and Bush have not already done so by the time Obama takes office, he will have to submit and Congress will have to enact a massive economic stimulus package, including the extension of unemployment benefits, aide to the states, and public works projects.

We need a mammoth program to repair and rebuild our infrastructure. This will provide needed jobs and get America working again. As Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, has said: in times like this it is necessary for the government to spend substantial amounts of money even if it means large deficits.

The next thing that needs to be done is the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. This will not end the war against terror, but it will lower the cost in lives and money of that war. We will have to redirect some of the troops to Afghanistan where our real enemies are located. That should have been done long ago.

Frankly, I do not care whether conservatives consider health care legislation to be socialistic. This country has suffered for too long with an inadequate health care system. It is time to provide universal health insurance. The program announced by Barack Obama may be adequate, but I hope Democratic members of Congress can convince him to create one that is more like the single-payer system used by European countries. There should be mandatory health insurance for all Americans, not just children. Moreover, Congress must abolish the Medicare Part D drug program, a boondoggle for the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, and enact a program for seniors that covers all prescription medications as part of Medicare.

Congress needs to eliminate both tax breaks for oil companies and tax loopholes for rich corporations. We need to tax the windfall profits of oil companies, and thereby force them to invest their profits in alternative sources of energy. We need to repeal the tax breaks given by Bush to wealthy Americans and provide tax relief for the middle class. Moreover, Congress should provide tax relief for companies creating jobs in America.

Congress needs to protect America from the rapacious oil and gas industries and permanently prevent oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge as well as in additional offshore areas and in the 360,000 acres of public land recently opened by Bush for drilling in Utah. In addition, Congress should mandate that the oil companies begin drilling in the millions of acres where they already have leases--or lose those leases. Congress should also pass legislation supporting and encouraging companies engaged in alternative energy exploration and development. Such legislation could create many thousands of new jobs.

Bush and his head-in-the-sand Republicans have ignored the coming calamity of global warming for far too long. Democrats, aided by responsible Republicans, must now enact legislation to save our planet from disaster. We need laws that compel the big industries beloved by Bush to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. We need laws that compel auto manufacturers to lower carbon emissions and increase gas efficiency. And we need to sign the Koyoto Accord and other accords in order to bring the United States into line with foreign countries in the fight against global warming.

President Obama should also take this country out of the dark ages by reversing many of Bush’s executive orders, including rules regarding governmental investment in stem-cell research. Further, Congress should protect poor people from freezing to death this winter by promptly renewing and increasing funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

There are other programs which need to be enacted. During the past few years, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress were able to stifle these initiatives with vetoes and endless filibusters, but after January 20th it should be possible to go forward. Unity is a fine thing, but we have waited too long for Congress to get going.

Socialism

The McCain campaign and its supporters are claiming that we will have “socialism” if Barack Obama is elected. That kind of sloppy talk reveals ignorance about the meaning of the word “socialism” and about the principles that guide Obama and the Democratic Party.

McCain insists that Barack Obama’s plan to repeal the tax breaks given to wealthy Americans by the Bush Administration is socialism. It is no such thing. It is simply a return to the tax rates that prevailed during the Clinton Administration when we experienced enormous prosperity. America has had a graduated income tax since at least 1913. It is not a redistribution of the wealth. The idea behind it is that wealthier people can afford higher tax rates than middle income and poor people. It is not socialism. It is simple fairness.

Socialism is a system in which the production and distribution of goods is owned by a centralized government that plans and controls the economy. That is something very different from a democracy that supports free enterprise and seeks only to regulate commerce for the benefit of the populace.

Our forefathers envisioned a liberal democracy by inserting the “Commerce Clause” into the Constitution. In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. Connected to this specific power is the general power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers." (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18).

The Constitution has several provisions guaranteeing free enterprise. But nowhere does the Constitution guarantee enterprise free from any control or regulation by the government. Who would want that? Who would want to abolish all laws preventing fraud, prohibiting child labor, controlling monopolies, protecting consumers, and encouraging competition? Who would want to do away with the food and drug laws, environmental laws, product safety, air safety, and job safety laws and regulations? Such laws are not socialistic. They are the opposite of socialism. They are not enacted to eliminate capitalism. They are enacted to make commerce work better and to protect people.

The conservative Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat—Barack Obama-- for the first time in its 150-year history. It describes him as a “pragmatic centrist.” That is a long way from being a socialist.

Obama is more conservative than those of us who would like to see a single-payer health insurance system. His program would keep all private and employer-based health insurance in place, and would provide only that people without any insurance be able to buy health insurance from the federal government. If you look at Obama’s programs, you can see that they are aimed at strengthening free enterprise.

If John McCain thinks Obama’s policies are socialistic, what are McCain’s policies? McCain wants the government to buy-up $300 billion worth of bad mortgages. Why is that less socialistic than Obama’s proposals? McCain calls for tighter regulation of the banks and securities industry? Why is that less socialistic than Obama’s proposals? Let’s face it, McCain knows very well that Obama is not a socialist, but he is willing to say anything now that his poll numbers are low.

True liberals seek to prevent government from interfering with our freedoms. A liberal’s idea of democracy is for government to help people do things that they cannot do for themselves. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not forms of Socialism. They are humane programs aimed at making life bearable for seniors and poor people.

Some people have claimed that the government bailout of financial institutions (supported by McCain and carried-out by the conservative Bush Administration) is a form of socialism. On the contrary, it is a program that fits perfectly with the doctrine of free enterprise. The government is not taking-over the banks, it is simply investing cash in the banks in order to make them solvent and better able to carry-out their business of lending money.

The current financial crisis did not arise from too much government regulation. It resulted from the cancellation by a Republican President and Republican Congress of laws and regulations that would have prevented the banks and brokers from playing dice with the mortgage market. As the recent crisis has demonstrated, capitalism works best when it is properly regulated. Barack Obama and liberal Democrats do not seek socialism. They seek only to regulate capitalism for the benefit of all Americans.

The Measure of the Man

As I watched the debates between Barack Obama and John McCain, it occurred to me that Obama might not be just a good president. He might be a great president. There is something about him that makes me consider the possibility that he could be part of the answer that the world is looking for. I have looked for these qualities of greatness in many world leaders but none have matched my hopes and expectations. Perhaps I will find them in Barack Obama. I cannot predict the future, but I am filled with hope for our nation under Barack Obama.

Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, founder of the conservative National Review Magazine, has left the magazine and announced his support for Barack Obama. In his announcement, Buckley said some important things. He described Obama as “a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect.”

John McCain does not show evidence of such greatness. Buckley has written that: “This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once first-class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget ‘by the end of my first term.’ Who, really, believes that?” Buckley adds that McCain’s “ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?”

David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, wrote in a recent column: “We’ve been watching Barack Obama for two years now, and in all that time there hasn’t been a moment in which he has publicly lost his self-control. This has been a period of tumult, combat, exhaustion and crisis. And yet there hasn’t been a moment when he has displayed rage, resentment, fear, anxiety, bitterness, tears, ecstasy, self-pity or impulsiveness.” Brooks went on to say: “It is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president.”

Obama has shown a steady, presidential mien, while McCain has shown a pettiness and inconsistency. McCain has also shown poor judgment. Look at his choice of Sarah Palin as vice presidential candidate. If anything happened to Obama, I would feel safe having Joe Biden take over the reins of government. But what if John McCain died? Would you really feel secure having Sarah Palin take over the most important position in the world? Can you imagine her sitting down with world leaders and negotiating peace, trade, and the world economy?

I wonder whether the presidential race is close because Senator Obama is half African American and half Caucasian. I recently received an e-mail that asked the following questions: What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said 'I do' to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to standards? What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5 Savings & Loan corruption? What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker? If these things were true, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are? Consider the educational accomplishments of the candidates:

Barack Obama: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations; Harvard Law School- Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude, President of the Harvard Law Review. Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and also a B.A. in Political Science; Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.).

McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 out of 899. Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester; North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study; University of Idaho - 2 semesters – journalism; Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester; University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.

I do not know what it takes to be a great world leader. But I know that the world is looking for greatness, and there is something special about Barack Obama. He is a person of remarkable intellect, with unusual qualities of judiciousness, vision, compassion, and decency. He could be the answer to a lot of hopes and dreams.

The McCain Campaign Turns Ugly

Everyone predicted it. All of the liberal commentators predicted that when the going got tough in the presidential campaign, John McCain and the Republican leaders would cease debating the issues and would stoop to ugly, negative, personal attacks against Barack Obama.

It is the modus operandi used by Republicans in recent presidential elections. Now we have a broad campaign by McCain and his spokesmen to paint Barack Obama as a dangerous radical.

Sarah Palin, who is more of a hissing snake than a pit bull with lipstick, speaks about Obama “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” She is referring to William Ayers, a college professor in Chicago who was once a member of the “Weather Underground,” a radical 1960s anti-war organization. The Republicans want to charge Obama with guilt by association because of actions that were committed by the Weathermen back when Barack was eight years old.

When Barack Obama first came into contact with William Ayers over thirty years later, Ayers was a rehabilitated and respectable Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author or editor of 15 books on education. Ayers was an advisor to Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley who recently stated that he has long consulted Ayers on school issues and called him "a valued member of the Chicago community." The city gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for his work on behalf of education..

Obama and Ayers first met in 1995 when they were separately appointed to a committee designed to reform and improve education in Chicago and throughout the United States. There is no evidence that Obama and Ayers ever became “pals” or social friends. They were simply acquaintances. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted a gathering at which then State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor for her State Senate seat.

Compare Obama’s casual acquaintanceship with Ayers to John McCain’s disgraceful embroilment with a con man and (ultimately) convicted felon named Charles Keating. In the 1980s Keating, who lived in Arizona, was the owner of American Continental Corporation (American) which was the parent owner of a California bank named “Lincoln Savings and Loan Association” (Lincoln). Keating liked to spread his money around Washington, and had paid for considerable influence with a number of Senators, including McCain.

McCain was a close personal friend of Keating’s. Between 1982 and 1987 McCain received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, in April 1986, McCain’s wife Cindy and her father, Jim Hensley, invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center. McCain and his family made nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard Keating’s private jet. Three of the trips were made as vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

Beginning in 1986, Lincoln came under investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) because of risky investments that were exposing the government’s insurance funds to huge losses. Keating decided to collect on his financial investment in the Senate and called upon McCain and four other senators (Collectively known as the “Keating Five”) to intervene with the FHLBB and stop the investigation.

The Keating Five met with the FHLBB on two separate occasions, and put strong pressure on the board to ease-up on Lincoln. As a result of those meetings, the FHLBB delayed action against Lincoln. During this time, because American was desperate for cash, Keating arranged for bank employees to convince depositors to swap their federally-insured certificates of deposit for higher-yielding but uninsured bond certificates of American. Later, when American and Lincoln collapsed in bankruptcy, investors lost millions of dollars. Keating was subsequently prosecuted in a $1.1 billion fraud and racketeering action and was sentenced to twelve years in prison.

The Senate Ethics Committee held hearings. McCain ratted on his fellow senators and leaked to reporters which senators were most responsible for doing Keating’s bidding. The Committee let McCain off with a slap on the wrist, criticizing him for “poor judgment.” Critics denounced the “whitewashing” of McCain. Tom Fitzpatrick of the Phoenix News Times condemned McCain as the “Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five.”

One thing became clear. McCain, who claimed to be a “straight talk” maverick, was a commodity that could be purchased in Washington D.C. for the right price.

John McCain and John Edwards

Republicans had a gleeful time talking about the infidelities of John Edwards, former Democratic candidate for president. One writer in the Gazette proclaimed that Edwards’ philandering was part of a picture “which ought to be viewed as evidence that something is desperately wrong.” In other words, John Edwards’ infidelity was one sign of a disintegrating society. If marital infidelity is a sign of a decadent society, than society has been decadent for a very long time.

I have a great big question to ask. What about the philandering of John McCain? What is the difference between John Edwards and John McCain? Why did Edwards get all of the publicity? He was no longer a factor in the election when the story broke. Despite his political irrelevance, the media, especially the Republican Broadcasting Company (Fox News), continued for weeks to harp on Edwards’ affair with another woman. But John McCain, whose story is central to today’s news, and whose story was identical to that of John Edwards, got a free pass.

Let’s go back a little. Before his tour of duty in Vietnam, McCain married a model from Philadelphia named Carol Shepp. While he was imprisoned by the North Vietnamese, she was in an automobile wreck. Her car skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. She was thrown through her car's windshield and left seriously injured. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries. She refused to let them tell her imprisoned husband about her injuries.

When Carol was discharged from the hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons were forced to cut away large sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter. Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But by the time John McCain came home from Vietnam and learned for the first time about her injuries, she had gained weight.

After his return from Vietnam, and while still married to Carol, McCain was promoted to Squadron Commander. In this role he used his authority to arrange flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and engage in extra-marital affairs. Such behavior was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates.

In 1979, at a military reception in Honolulu, McCain met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy and politically-connected Arizona family. Cindy's father founded the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor. Cindy was 18 years younger than McCain’s wife, Carol. In his book, McCain described their first meeting: "She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident…. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel (He didn’t mention that he was still married to Carol). By the evening's end, I was in love."

McCain then began an affair with Cindy. He later dumped his crippled wife. He filed for divorce from Carol in 1980, stating in court records that the marriage was "irretrievably broken." A month after the divorce, he married Cindy—his current wife.

Republicans have traditionally occupied the holier-than-thou pedestal of sanctity while accusing Democrats of being the agents of Satan. Why is it that John Edwards is portrayed as a complete cad while nothing is said about the identical behavior of John McCain? One hears that some of the women who voted for Hillary Clinton are switching to McCain. Perhaps these women would like to consider McCain’s behavior toward his first wife.

I do not condemn Edwards or McCain for their infidelities. They are both human. The sin that is more deserving of condemnation is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of modern-day Republican leaders. In the “Inferno,” Dante consigned hypocrites to the next to lowest circle of Hell, the Eighth. The Republicans had better hope that Dante’s great epic poem is not prophetic.

Sarah Palin, Book Burner?

In the years 221 to 213 B.C., the emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, built two walls; the Great Wall of China and a wall against enlightenment. After erecting his barrier against the Mongolian tribes, the emperor ordered that all the books of the philosophers be burned. We can never know what wisdom and knowledge, what ancient histories and commentaries went up in the smoke of that Oriental holocaust.

It has always been a practice by tyrants and dictators to burn books. The Nazis burned the books of Bertolt Brecht, Sigmund Freud, Heinrich Heine, Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, H.G. Wells, and every kind of thinker and philosopher, in a ceremony in Berlin. Book-burning was carried out in China long after the time of Emperor Qin. Under Mao, there were numerous book-burnings.

According to a 2004 UN report, the current Chinese government seized and publicly destroyed hundreds of thousands of Falun Dafa books and materials as part of its anti-Falun Gong campaign. Arab countries have witnessed the widespread burning of “Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie

Down through the ages, books have posed a threat to the smug insularity of people whose well-being is sustained by the status quo. Books have never been a match for incendiary people with a burning hatred of new ideas and unfamiliar philosophies.

Now, 22 centuries after Qin Shi Huang, the book burners are still hard at work trying to ban books from school and public libraries. This is particularly ominous to someone like me whose life has been deeply immersed in the world of books. It comes as an ill-omen for me to learn that the Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, while mayor of that Alaskan metropolis, Wasilla, looked into the possibility of banning books from the local library.

According to The New York Times and Time Magazine, shortly after she became mayor, Sarah Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books on the ground that the books contained improper material. The librarian was aghast and pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship.” Mayor Palin fired the librarian shortly thereafter but changed course after residents made a strong show of support.

It is characteristic of those opposing books that they have not read them. Indeed, such persons usually have not read much of anything. The average book-burner is perplexed by the profundity of People magazine and mystified by the erudition of Reader’s Digest. He is a stranger in the world of ideas, and new ideas generate fear and anger in his heart. But he wins many battles.

There have been conflicts all over the country with people who want to ban or burn some of our most cherished classic literature such as Bernard Malamud’s “The Fixer,” Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse Five,” Richard Wright’s “Black Boy,” Theodore Dreiser’s “Sister Carrie,” John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies,” Shirley Jackson’s award-winning short-story classic, “The Lottery,” and “The Diary of Ann Frank.”

In recent years there have been many efforts to ban books from school and public libraries. The Miami-Dade School District banned a book entitled: “A Visit to Cuba,” by Alta Schrier. There have been several incidents of Harry Potter books being burned. In 2005, the Muhlenburg Pa. school board voted to ban "The Buffalo Tree," a novel set in a juvenile detention center and narrated by a tough, 12-year-old boy incarcerated there.

One high school principal who confiscated copies of “Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller, claimed that local ministers had complained of its “vulgar language.” The principal admitted he had never read the play. Yes, there is some vulgar language in this, the greatest American play. But when I read about incidents like this I feel like uttering a lot of vulgar language.

So it is with some concern that I learn that the Republican candidate for Vice President is one of those who would consider banning books. The greatest threat to our freedom comes not from outside, but from right-wing zealots and religious fanatics who wish to ban our most treasured literature, and from left-wing ideologues who would outlaw books that are not politically correct.