Tuesday, March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

       Let's hear a round of applause (if it's only me is it one hand clapping?) for federal judge Glen Davidson, a former Tupelo, Mississippi, prosecutor named to the bench by Ronald Reagan.      Why?  It starts with Constance McMillen, a self-identified lesbian since eighth grade and now a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School.  She wanted to take her girlfriend to the prom.  The school said no, she could attend alone or with a male date but not as part of a same-sex couple.  Could she wear a tuxedo?  No, again.      The American Civil Liberties Union, bless its litigious heart, wrote a letter protesting these rulings and the school--isn't there some way we can make everyone unhappy--canceled the prom.  The ACLU then sued on McMillen's behalf.      Enter Judge Davidson who ruled, the New York Times reports, that the First Amendment's right of self-expression ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press....") is denied when a student is barred from attending the prom with a same-sex date.  He also ruled that McMillen's right to communicate a message was infringed when the school said she couldn't wear a tux.      The judge did not order the school to restage the prom because McMillen's family is planning to hold one of their own which their daughter, dressed as she pleases, will obviously attend.      Still, it's a fine story with a fine moral.  The school behaved shabbily and the good guys (well, girls) won.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Monday, March 29, 2010

March 27, 2010

         On this day in 1973, the last U.S. troops left what was then South Vietnam. That probably decided the war, but didn't end it.  Saigon, the Southern capital, fell to the Communist North in 1975.   We had half a million troops in South Vietnam at one point, but we lost the war.       It's a twisted history.  Vietnam had been a French colony before World War II. Japan conquered it during that war, but Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh took it back as the war was ending and proclaimed independence.  France said no, we want our colony back and the Allies, for reasons I have never understood, went along.  Ho conquered the French in 1954;  the country was split in two, North and South.  Ho, Vietnam's George Washington, wanted the whole country and fought for it.  He died in 1969 and did not see his victory.        It was a costly war.  58,000 Americans died in it and many more Vietnamese. But in the end America and Vietnam became friendly, exchanged ambassadors and all that.  The last time I was in Hanoi, some years ago now, it was full of middle aged American men saying things like, "I was at La Drang," "I was at Cu Chi," and so on--veterans come back to revisit their war.      I hope we're that lucky this time.  When Iraq's Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the first President Bush threw him out of it and then stopped, saying his coalition would crumble if he went further.  His son did go further and it did - crumble, that is.  Most Americans would like to leave Iraq;  we hoped the recent elections would help us in that, but the losers are all demanding recounts and the way out is far from clear.      Afghanistan?  I'd like to see us out of there, too, but the Karzai government is widely reported to be crooked and lazy and the odds seem good that if we leave the Taliban will march back in.      Sometimes winning on the battlefield doesn't solve your problems
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Saturday, March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

          If the recent Senate debate on health care convinced you the place is broken, I think you're right.  And now, the Washington Post reports, some relatively young senators are thinking about trying to reform the place.      The Post quotes Tom Udall, elected in 2008, as saying, "The more the American people understand the system's broken, the more they are going to support rules reform."   Older member, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, 92, who has served in Congress longer than anybody, ever, says the reformers are "grossly misguided...Extended deliberations and debate, when used judiciously, protect every senator and the interest of their constituents and are essential to the protection of the liberties of a free people."  "Used judiciously" means, I think, used whenever a particular senator wants to use them.      Well, the Senate is not a democracy, of course.  It doesn't run by majority rule.  Bernard Sanders of Vermont converted to reform after Richard Shelby of Alabama  placed a hold on dozens of President Obama's nominees to various agencies because of an unrelated dispute on a funding matter in Shelby's home state.  "I think the average person would say, 'Excuse me. That's nuts,' " said Sanders.        I think their case for changing the rules is strong.  Will it happen?  It takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules.  Don't hold your breath
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

March 23, 2010

          I used to cover the Congress some.  I don't miss it all that often, but I'd love to have been there this past Sunday.  History was being made.      Some stink bombs were being thrown too, of course.  Anti-health care demonstrators spotted Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, who was for the bill, and yelled a racial insult--it begins with "n"--at him;  they spotted Barney Frank, an openly gay member from Massachusetts--and shouted a sexual insult--it begins with an "f."  Well, maybe you can't make history without a little of the worst of us oozing out but it was worth it.     But then the arms started getting twisted.  Ceci Connolly has a wonderful account in today's Washington Post.  There was Dennis Kucinich, the one-time Boy Mayor of Cleveland, switching.  I wonder if he creaked.  But my favorite was  Democrat Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania.  According to the Post he announced his "no" vote Sunday afternoon.  A few hours later his phone rang.  It was Obama.          "I want to give you something to think about before the vote," the President said.  "Picture yourself on Monday morning.  You wake up and look at the paper. It's the greatest thing Congress has done in fifty years.  And you were on the wrong team."  Altmire voted aye.  The bill passed.      It's easy to make fun of Congress.  We all sometimes do.  But every once in a while they get a big one right.  And when that happens, it's pretty sweet.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Monday, March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

       The most recent health care debate didn't really last longer than World War II;  it only seemed that way.  And it really is historic--right up there with Medicare in 1965 and Social Security in the 1930s.  Wow, Congress!  Well done.  And thank you, Mr. President, for pushing Congress until it did act.      The process isn't quite over.  The Senate and House have both passed the Senate bill, so it becomes law.  But there's also a reconciliation package--some House-approved changes to the Senate bill--under a procedure which will prevent it being filibustered once the Senate takes it up.  That's supposed to happen this week, but even if it doesn't, the Senate bill is on its way to the President's desk.      This is good news in a great many ways.  For years, we've been the only developed country without health insurance for just about everybody.  That will change now.  As the bill phases in over the next several years, thirty-two million Americans who don't now have health insurance will get it.  Pretty hard to argue against that.  Some costs will go up;  Medicare payments will rise.  As someone who pays them, I'll happily accept the increase because of those thirty-two million of us who'll be getting coverage.  And it may not all work perfectly, of course;  few laws do.  But we can change the parts that don't work, amend them in the years to come.      There's only one downside.  The approval process was rancorous and partisan.  Zero Republicans voted for the program.  One GOP Congressman shouted "You lie" at the President as he spoke in favor of the bill.  That's bad for politics, bad for the Congress, bad for the country.     How bad?  We'll have to wait to find out. 

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

March 16, 2010

     I wonder if they still mention My Lai in history classes in American schools. Maybe not.  It was a low point in our war in Vietnam, but wars are full of low points and this one may now be forgotten.      Anyway, what happened was that on this date in 1968, 2nd. Lt. William Calley led a platoon of C Company, 20th Infantry Regiment, into a village named My Lai and ordered them to shoot and kill a large number--probably a hundred or more, witnesses disagreed--of unarmed civilians.  Some of his soldiers refused to fire; most obeyed the order.      The story got out because an Army photographer named Ronald Haeberle was there and took some pictures.   I can still remember Mike Wallace on CBS's "60 Minutes" asking Paul Meadlo, one of Calley's men,  "And women?" 'Yes, sir.'  And children?  'Yes, sir.'  And babies?  'Yes.'"      Calley was court-martialed. (I covered the trial). His defense was, first, that he was simply obeying orders.  His company commander, Ernest Medina, denied giving any such order and was acquitted later in a separate court martial.  Calley's second defense was, hey, this is war. Unarmed civilians?  "They were all the enemy, sir. They were all to be destroyed."      Calley was convicted.  Five of the six officers on the jury that convicted him had served in Vietnam.  Among those outraged by the verdict:  then Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, who asked Georgians to drive for a week with their headlights on in protest.  Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor but in fact served only three and a half years of house arrest at Ft. Benning.      He worked after his release at his wife's father's jewelry store in Columbus, Georgia.  They separated a few years ago.  He lives in retirement now in Atlanta.     The philosopher George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  William Calley's story is from an old war, from our past.  Any lessons, do you think, for the ones we are in today?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Monday, March 15, 2010

March 15, 2010

       This is make-or-break week for the President's health care bill.  The question is:  is it also a make-or-break week for the President?  The answer, I think, is no.      Failure would mark President Obama as less than successful in getting Congress to go along with his agenda.  But that's not the kind of president-shattering defeat that a foreign policy loss or a bad war would be.  Harry Truman, as president, spent a fair amount of time cussing out the "good-for-nothing 80th Congress" as he used to call it.  He was sometimes nicknamed "Give 'em hell Harry," but as an ex-president always insisted, "I never gave anybody hell.  I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."  Anyway, the voters liked Truman just fine and elected him over the favored Republican Tom Dewey in 1948.      Bill Clinton failed to get health care through Congress but also was reelected. He came to grief only later, of course--sex with a White House intern and all that.      But it does seem odd.  The United States is, I think, the only developed country in which people don't have health insurance.  When I lived in Britain in the 1960s, you could choose public or private care.  My wife didn't like waiting rooms so our daughter was born with private care, which worked just fine.  But a friend with a rare allergy was diagnosed and treated under National Health and that worked out just fine as well.      Sooner or later, surely, we'll decide that all Americans need health care too. Just maybe not in 2010
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

       Nobody ever said Congress isn't a weird place.  Or if they did, they were  wrong.      Comes now the case of ex-Congressman Eric Massa, who resigned this week.  The New York Democrat was accused, or maybe suspected, of groping his staff.  He first said he tickled them.  Men, not just women.  I don't think I've tickled a guy since I was seven.  Maybe eight.      Then he told Fox News he'd groped them too.  "Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me.  It was my 50th birthday.  It was 'kill the old guy.'  You can take anything out of context."  I guess so, ex-Congressman, but what context, exactly, was that?      All this came after Massa alleged party leaders forced him out because he was going to vote against the health care bill.  They denied it and to be fair it doesn't seem as if Massa needed much help in resigning.  Kind of self-inflicted, don't you think?      Anyway, health care will be a close vote in the House.  It passed by just five votes last time and some of the yes votes then were from Members who don't like the Senate version, which they will apparently be asked to vote for this time.  One Republican who also was going to resign says he'll stay on for a bit just to vote no.  The one Republican who voted for it says he'll vote no now too.      And then it would go back to the Senate, which would be asked to approve the final compromise version.  Under the rules they won't be allowed to filibuster, but they will be allowed to offer amendments, and more amendments, and still more.  Just straightforward legislating, right? 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

March 9, 2010

       I was going to write about health care today.  It's complicated and the chances of some bill passing Congress--problematic.  But then I got a thank-you note that changed my whole day.      It's from my best friend's great-nephew, a four year old named Parks.  I had sent the family a Christmas check to buy Parks some books.  Yes, at four he likes them.  Yesterday I got a thank-you note--the first note, a proud pop added, that his son had ever written.      Some of the letters are almost as large as books, and you know there were a couple of parental editors leaning over young Parks' shoulder as he wrote, but still---      "Dear Bruce," he wrote. "Thank you for my books.  I love books...I am learning to write my letters.  Have a great day. Love, Parks."       Wow!  Love to you too, Parks, and to your parents who have passed along their love of books, which I share,  to you.  I'm proud of you and proud of them.  Love of books is something we'll all share all our lives long.  Keep reading, please.      Love, Bruce 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Thursday, March 4, 2010

March 4, 2010

       This column is about step dancing.  It's a dance popular among African-Americans, very active, a black friend tells me--never seen it myself--with a lot of athletic, cheerleader-like moves.      They had a national step-dancing competition last month, the Washington Post reports, and the damndest thing happened:  a team of white college girls from Arkansas won.  Outrage?  You bet.      So five days later, after the result set off what the Post calls "a national ruckus," the organizers said hey, we made a scoring mistake.  A black team from Indiana University tied the white girls for first, actually.  They'll both get the $100,000 first prize.  End of outrage?  You bet not.  When the whites were first announced as winners, the emcee told the mostly black crowd not to be so surprised.  "Stepping is for everybody," he said, "If you can step, you can step."      It's a black dance, sure, but it turns out the white team from Arkansas had been stepping for sixteen years.  They knew how to do it.  The video was shot by Anthony Antoine, a community activist in Atlanta who posted it, he said, "just so my girl friend could see how good these girls really were."  Viewer comments were so harsh friends urged him to take the video off the internet.  He wouldn't.  He thought the white girls had won anyway.  And he gets the last word.      "I would really like to think there actually was a scoring problem," he said, "but I just don't think so... I would just have to conclude that we have a lot of work to do racially speaking."      Yes.  I wonder how many white teams will compete next year.     
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

March 2, 2010

       The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Well, we don't have militias much any more; we've the National Guard.  You don't bring your own guns to their meetings, but we do have continuing arguments about the right to bear those arms.      The latest, to be argued today in the Supreme Court, involves some Chicago residents upset with that city's 28-year-old handgun ban. The plaintiffs are not your standard gun-rights types.  They are:  the Lawsons--she was home alone when three men tried to jimmy open her back door;  76-year-old Otis McDonald, whose house has been broken into three times;  and a retired police officer who says, "The law only prohibits the actions of those who are law-abiding."  Regular folks all.  Selecting sympathetic plaintiffs is part of the game, of course.  Juries are more likely to sympathize with these four than with, say, the National Rifle Association.      In 2008 the Supremes struck down a similar handgun ban in Washington, D.C. But it's a federal city, of course.  The Court must now decide whether that ruling applies to state and local laws too.       We'll see how it goes. The ruling in the D.C. case was, if I remember rightly, 5--4.          
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile