The world, particularly the political world, is full of hypocrisy, but there should be limits. Sarah Palin is the darling of the fundamentalist right and the anti-intellectual right. These are the very same people who constantly tout family values, motherhood and child care.

       My liberated women friends will hate me for saying this, but I seriously feel that Sarah Palin is a lousy mother. Why? Because she is putting her career ambitions ahead of her responsibilities as a parent. It is wonderful to have ambitions of becoming President of the United States, however  pie-in-the-sky those aspirations might be. That’s fine if you don’t have five children (Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper), and a grandchild (Tripp) at home. Particularly problematic if one child has physical disabilities requiring special care.

       Wow! I can hear feminists,with whom I usually side,  rising up in outrage.  Don’t you think that a woman  should have the same rights as a man? Don’t you believe that a woman is entitled to a career as well as a family? You of all people should be in favor of women’s rights.

       Right on. I have always believed that women , if they are wiling to undertake the burden, should be able to have it all –– a family and a professional career. I honor women like Barbara Boxer, who has two children as well as a prominent career in the Senate. [For that matter, I equally admire Joe Biden who, as a single parent,  raised two sons while commuting to his Senate job for many years.] But there is a huge difference between two children and five children, not to mention that one has Down Syndrome and requires special time and attention . Not to mention that Bristol, a teenager, has her own child and both are living with Sarah. A rubber band can stretch and stretch and stretch, but there are limits.

       Furthermore, if you want to raise children and have an active career, it is important to choose a career that fits in.  Vice Presidents spend well over half their time travelling all over the country and around the world. A Senator, on the other hand, has a relatively stable residence, perhaps two, not more than that. He or she is able to spend substantial time with young children, when they need you most. [Biden was in the Senate when his children were young. As V.P., he travels extensively, but both the boys are relatively adult.] Sarah Palin apparently has her eye on the Presidency, which also requires a lot of travel and is essentially a 48 hour a day job.

       I know, I know. Her husband Todd can take over the job of raising the kids, though he must keep  quite busy working for an oil company and running his commercial fishing business. Her daughter Bristol can assist. If you can afford it, one can hire nannies. All true but, no matter how you spin it,  it is not the same.  You may dearly and deeply  love your children, and I’m sure that Sarah Palin does, they still need your presence and your time as well as your love if they are to grow up emotionally healthy.

       There are other matters relating to parental obligations. In one of her parting speeches, after turning the Governorship of Alaska over to Sean Parnell, Sarah Palin bitterly criticized the press. She hoped that the media would not attack Governor Parnell’s children the way they had attacked hers. Sarah, I’m sure that will not happen, unless he drags them all over the State as show pieces for political purposes.  Like somebody else we know.

       If my conservative friends really support family values,  motherhood and child care, they should think twice before they stand up at a rally and cheer for Sarah. I’m not holding my breath.

#   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #

I just spent a day watching the Sotomayer hearings on TV. I was appalled.  Was this a serious consideration by a major U.S, Government body of a well-qualified appointee to the highest court in the land? Not the way I viewed it. It was kinderspiel ––a serious piece performed by children.

       True, there were many serious questions about judicial decisions on a number of important court cases. However, these were overwhelmed  by the time spent on thinly veiled attacks on Sonia Sotormayor, a lot of them dealing with a flippant remark she once made in a speech, claiming that a smart Latina with a varied background might render a better judicial decision than a white male lacking such experience. Wow! What an exhibition of bruised egos defending their manhood.

       The remainder was spent making sure that Sotomayor understood that judicial decisions must be based solely on the law and not on one’s race, gender, experiences or biases. Veer from that and you become (horror of horrors!) an ‘activist judge.” Believe me, she understood.  Unfortunately, none of it is true. It is all a fairy tale.

       Over and over, one heard: “Do not countermand existing law;”“Every judge must be committed  every day to not let their personal politics interfere with their decisions”; “Ultimately and completely, the law controls”; “Show fidelity to the law;’ “Never overstep the law.” All of these statements are based on the concept that judges apply the law, not interpret the,law.

       Now, there may be a few laws where this rule applies.  If a law states that “two plus two equals four,” application is simple. You don’t need a lower court, an appeals court and a supreme court for this.  A single judge would suffice. Unfortunately, very few laws are that simple.  The suject matter is complex, and the legalese makes it more so.

       Let me provide a prime example –– the Second Amendment  to the Constitution of the United States.  The amendment states:

       “A well equipped Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people        to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 

       Simple, isn’t it? All you need to do to apply this law is to understand what it mens?  But what does it mean? Does it mean that all Americans have the right to carry guns? Maybe.  But, if so, why is it coupled in the same short paragraph with the need for a well-regulated  Militia? Does that mean that only those in the Militia have the right to carry guns since it is well regulated?

       Many bright legal minds have grappled with this question, and it is only recently that the Supreme court decided (5 to 4) that the first meaning is the correct one. Still unsettled is whether that interpretation applies to the individual States. [Rotsa ruck on that.] But the question was not settled by applying the law; it was settled by interpreting the law. When it comes to interpretation, whether we like it or not, a judge’s race, religion, sex, education, biases, prejudices and upbringing all have their effect. 

       Though they would never admit it, this applies to all judges, regardless of their party affiliations .Just the contrary of the claims constantly made by Republicans during the Sotomayer hearing. This explains why there are so many 5 to 4 decisions. Unfortunately, as a matter of self preservation, Sonia Sotomayor joined the crowd  in this delusion. Politics prevailed.

       As to “ Activist Judges, I can only quote Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who defined an Activist Judge as “one who decides a case in a way you don’t like.”

                                       #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #

Sometimes, one wonders why political contestants, with their highly organized staffs, seem blissfully unaware of very effective attacks they can mount against opponents. Here are some totally unsolicited suggestions for Democratic sound bites to counter Republican sound bites. It would be better, of course, if neither side depended on brief sound bites. However, since liberal policies are less simplistic than Republican ones and consequently require more time to explain. Democrats still need effective sound bites to level the playing field. So, let me play Carl Rove.

                                                  Needy vs greedy

       Democratic recommendations for increasing taxes on the rich often get a lukewarm reception from the public. The problem is that most Americans do not consider “rich” a disparaging term. All of us hope to be rich some day. What about the concept of increasing taxes on the rich so as to give a tax break to the middle class? Using the term “middle class” is like waving a red flag in front of Republicans. They will be up in arms, accusing the Democrats of ”Class Warfare.” Pointing out that Republican tax policies are grounded in class warfare doesn’t work. It is equivalent to children snarling at each other, “You started it.” “No, you started it.” Let’s be creative. In referring to a fairer tax distribution, never promote it as the rich vs the poor ormiddle class. Call it “the greedy vs the needy.” The public understands need and they certainly understand greed. Proclaim to the world: “Democratic tax breaks are needed to protect the needy from the greedy.”

                                    Bush is a flip-flopper.

       During the previous Presidential campaign,  Republican TV ads and the rhetoric of their candidates kept feeding us the following mantra: “John Kerry is a flip-flopper.” Maybe so. He certainly had expressed varied opinions on what he would call “complex issues.” But so had George W. Bush. During his first campaign, he advertised himself as “a uniter, not a divider.” He then proceeded to divide the country to a degree rarely equaled by previous Presidents. He promised to keep the United States  out of “nation building,” and proceeded to do exactly the opposite.. Just a small selection of his many flip-flops.

       To a lesser degree. Johm McCain did the same. In dealing with this flip-flop flap, I fail to understand why Democrats were not putting out TV ads and gleefully yelling, “George W. Bush is a flip-flopper.” John McCain is a flip-flopper If it achieved nothing else, it should certainly have lessened any impact that similar accusations against Kerry or any other Democratic candidate may have had.

     Do you want  a Government  bureaucrat standing between  you and your Doctor?

        In the present debate about health care, Democrats are seeking to allow every citizen to choose a federal insurance policy (similar to Medicare) instead of one with private insurance companies as intermediaries.  Republicans are putting up a fierce fight against giving us this choice. So, in every TV interview and in every Republican piece in the press, we constantly hear the question. “Do you want  a Government  bureaucrat standing between  you and your Doctor? A good question , but with an obvious answer, which Democrats are failing to use. In any debate or discussion on the subject,, Democrats should ask, Do you want  an Insurance Company  bureaucrat standing between  you and your Doctor?

                                      Reactionary

       In the 2004 campaign, using another shorthand epithet against Kerry, Republicans constantly harped on the   refrain that Kerry is a “Massachusetts liberal.” How to counter this? You could point out that most people who are anti-liberal are still in favor of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, reduced prices for pharmaceuticals,  environmental safeguards — all liberal ideas. Unfortunately, reason does not prevail here when matched against the knee-jerk reaction that Republicans have created around the word “liberal.” It is time to use their tactics in reverse. Never use the word ” conservatives.” The term “conservative” is too mild; it has no sharp edges.”Neanderthal” might be a good alternative, but its edges are a little too strong,  sort of like name calling. No, a great synonym for conservative is the two-edged word “reactionary.” My dictionary defines reactionary as “extremely conservative.” However, an alternative definition is “opposing progress.” Great. From now on, when Democrats speak of Bush and the Republicans, they should never call them conservatives. John McCain is a reactionary, reactionary reactionary.

                                      Borrow and borrow. Spend and spend.

       Another 5-second slogan which Republicans use to frighten the public with is to provide a negative image of the Democrats as the party of “Tax and tax. Spend and spend.” This is an easy accusation to deal with. The answer: don’t bother being defensive. It takes too long to explain why this misrepresentation is not true. Instead, counterattack. Repeat over and over. Republicans are the party of “Borrow and borrow. Spend and spend.”

                                      Where are you leading us?

       During election battles,  the public has been  bombarded with the claim that, in times like these, the United States needs a proven leader. The equation “McCain = Leadership” was tossed at us time and again. Was McCain a great leader? This writer thinks of him as a cheerleader rather than a leader, but people of good will may disagree. The problem is that everyone is asking the wrong question. The important question is, “Where are you leading us?” Roosevelt was a great leader. Napoleon was a great leader. One led us towards peace and prosperity, the other to war and chaos. Democrats should not quibble over Republicans leadership qualities. Instead, they should keep asking, “Where are you leading us?”

                                      Co-President Cheney

       Borrowing a leaf from Carl Rove’s book, use a few vocabulary modifications to change people’s perceptions. Politically, Bush was and is obviously more popular than Dick Cheney. However, according to political savants, people vote for the President, not the Vice-President, so it makes no difference. So, stop referring to Vice-President Cheney. Always refer to him as “Co President Cheney.” The truth is, according to the few knowledgeable people in the Beltway who are willing to talk, Cheney was in reality Co-President. George W. loved the trappings of the Presidency, the pomp and glory. He also loved political campaigning, where he could be his folksy best. What he didn’t like was the nitty-gritty of day-to-day management of the Government. Essentially, Cheney covered  all of that. He was in fact the most powerful Vice-President in our history — more like a Co-President.Why not acquaint the public with reality. Pound this point home often enough, and the voters will have to decide if they really want to listen to the recent (or future) tirades of Co-President Cheney.

                                     Listen to the experts

       Whenever Republicans want people to go along with their ideas without too much analysis, they call for “Common sense solutions.” What do they  mean by common sense solutions? They mean that, to solve problems, we should, ignore the advice of experts.. That’s odd. If our car breaks down, we go to an expert. If we have health problems, we seek help from a Doctor, another expert. We choose experts to prepare our tax returns, to help plan vacations, to guide us in our investments. Why then, in even more important political matters which actively affect our lives, should we fall back on “common sense?” Experts of course can be wrong. Science can be wrong. With our limited experiences, however, are we more apt to be right using our common sense? Common sense tells us the world is flat. Science tells us it’s not. Which should we believe when it comes to global warming, stem cell research and environmental controls? When Republicans  call for common sense, they are asking you to go along with their druthers rather than seeking expert advice. Common sense should tell us that we should all listen to the experts.      

      It is a pity that we should have to resort to sound bites to decide who should be ourPresident or Senator or Congressman. Open and reasoned discussions of issues would be far better. But, since we live in the real political world, it is time that Democrats took the sound-bite bull by the horns and wrestled it to victory.

                                                         #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #

Dear Governor Sanford:

       May I call you Mark?  Listen to my advice.  Mark, DO NOT RESIGN!. Resist the pressures of both Democrats and your fellow Republicans. I believe that you have been a good Governor.  That’s all that counts. Your personal life is your personal life.

       Those demanding that you resign should understand. You fell in love. Some may feel that you are a little long in the tooth for such passions. I don’t. Frankly, I believe that you are lucky to experience intense love for your soulmate.It has been a long time since I have felt such strong emotions and, frankly, I am jealous.

       Those pushing for your resignation obviously do not remember the experience of being in love.  Alternatively, their political prerogatives are stronger than their memories or their feelings.Of course, you have done some stupid things, such as being out of state for five days  without informing your Lt. Governor as to where you could be reached in an emergency.   But, in the words of an old song, “When your heart’s on fire, you must realize, smoke gets in your eyes.”

       Thankfully, I am not an opportunistic Democrat longing for your seat.  Nor am I an ardent Republican urging you to stay because I fear that your Lt. Governor Andre Bauer would be a weak candidate who would lose to a Democrat in the next election. 

       Believe it or not, I am an ardent lifelong Democratic liberal, who hates most of the things you stand for.But I have been deeply in love and remember the feelings and their intensity  I understand.  You fell in love. It shows that you are human, and I respect that.Many of your detractors have probably had their own lapses from grace, most likely from lust rather than from love.

       Mark, hang in there. Do not quit. Continue doing a good job as Governor. For your children’s sake, save your marriage, if possible. Six months from now, all this brouhaha and the demands for your resignation will just be a bad memory.

Good luck.

Marv Rubinstein

Amazing! Rep Paul Broun, a Rpublican from Georegia stood up in the U.S. House of Representatives the other day and called global warming a “hoax.” We quote:

“Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpretate  out of the scientific comunity.  It is a hoax.  There is no scientific consensus.”

       Where in this world does this man exist?  What kind of scientists has he been talking to? Almost all scientists, with very few exceptions, believe exactly the oposite and have openly so stated in interviews  and in scientific papers. This is a crazy statement, made up of whole cloth.Does Rep Broun also state that most scientists believe that the world is flat?

       In a world witrh millions of books and other sources of information, it is amazing how many people are totally ignorant of fundamental facts.  I hear that about a third of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. In the Muslim world, large numbers of people believe that Jews were responsible for 9/11. An unbelievable number of Americans have doubts about Evolution. Google, where ar’t thou? It is bad enough to be ignorant, but worse when you really want to remain ignorant.

Worse than the totally inaccurate  ranting of Rep.Broun is the fact that his statement was greeted with applause.We are dealing with those who know not and know not that they know not. 

                                                   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #   #