R.I.P. Senator Ted Kennedy

Edward "Teddy" Kennedy, the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, died last night after years-long battle with brain cancer. Known as the "liberal lion of the US Senate" he was the second longest serving member of the current US Senate (nearly 50 years of service) after the nonagenarian Senator Bob Byrd, the Democrat of West Virginia. He was well-known to be a staunch advocate for liberal causes in the US Senate but never dogmatic enough to preclude any compromises with his Republican counterparts.

I met him once when I was living in Washington, DC. It was at forum for National and Community Service on Capitol Hill and there were a whole bunch of us trying to push for more funding for the AmeriCorps program. Ted Kennedy, as the ranking member of the Senate's Health, Education and Labor committee, was a big supporter of the AmeriCorps program and had worked to pass its funding renewal in the US Congress despite the vehement opposition from the Republican-majority at the time.

I remember seeing Senator Kennedy as a larger than life figure (literally and figuratively) but he presented himself as a very caring grandpa, full of compassion, understanding and wisdom. I was simply awestruck by his humility and attentiveness to our issues. And also this is a Kennedy for god's sake! In flesh and breathing right in front of me. I might not have the chance to meet the older Kennedys - JFK and Bobby in particular - but at least I have sat a mere 5 feet away from the youngest of the Kennedy siblings. It was truly an unforgettable experience for me.

Senator Kennedy, may you rest in peace now. Rest assured that your endeavors for peace, justice and equality in past five decades will not be in vain. The struggle lives on.

Woman on the Court

I believe President Obama has made a great pick by nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court to fill the seat vacated by the retiring Justice David Souter. The significance of this nomination is two-fold: she will be the first Hispanic Justice on the US Supreme Court, and she will add another female voice on the bench alongside the lone Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The former President Bush could have nominated another female Justice to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor but instead chose the arch-conservative Samuel Alito. By nominating Judge Sotomayor President Obama has done a great service to both the causes of the Latino people and the feminist movement. A stroke of political genius though it doesn't take a rocket scientist - or a political scientist for that matter - to figure out that politics-wise, Judge Sotomayor is the best pick out of all the other candidates.

Judge Sotomayor, all the best in your Senate confirmation hearing and we look forward to seeing you on the nation's highest judicial bench soon.

Slight correction...

I made a mistake in the previous post of not making the distinction between 60 members of the US Senate who are Democrats or Democrat-friendly and the reality of all 60 of them will vote in unison along party line. By being the majority party in the US Senate, the Democrats have the right to appoint their members to chairmanship in various committees and sub-committees, a very powerful position that allows the party the control of the Senate agenda and the substance and extent of the legislative debate.

But when it comes to actual full Senate vote, the Democratic Senate majority whip will still have to keep all his troops in line and coerce or cajole them into voting unanimously. This is an extremely hard task to accomplish as it takes a delicate balancing act of equal measures of threat and reward. It's very unlikely that the Democratic party will muster ALL 60 votes every time an important issue comes up and it'll have to pick its battles carefully. Senators are generally highly egotistical people and like to maintain the occasional independent streaks. There will be times when they choose to strike out on their own and it will incumbent on the Democratic Senate leadership to decide when will that time be.

Okay, enough of the lesson in American Politics 101. It reminds me of the time when I taught "Introduction to American Government" class to a bunch of American high school students.

Filibuster-proof now... Yes!!!

This is the best news that came out of Washington, DC in a while. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced that he's switching party from Republican to Democrat. It's about time, Mr. Senator! The switch effectively gives the Democrats de facto control of the US Senate with the filibuster-proof 60 votes (pending the Minnesota State Supreme Court decision on the recent senate race dispute between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and his Democratic challenger, Al Franken).* Still, it's a game-changer; and earth-shattering as far as I'm concerned. It's fucking amazing!

What does the switch mean for the new Obama administration? It means that Obama can now introduce far-reaching programs without being obstructed by the few recalcitrant right-wingers in the Senate (Democrats, since the 2006 midterm elections, already have a majority control of the House of Representatives). The future bodes well for America, at least theoretically, as this new, unexpected opportunity blazes the path toward seriously addressing all critical issues faced by the country such as the deep recession, unemployment, out-of-control health care costs, immigration reform, Social Security insolvency, global warming, two-front wars, national security and myriad others.

For starters, a complete pull-out of US troops from Iraq can now be carried out without the fear of a Republican reprisal. Many of the Bush's damaging policies can be rescinded such as tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, abolish the USA Patriot Act, drop the illegal wiretapping program, radically revamp the No Child Left Behind Act in favor of a more comprehensive evaluation of students' and teachers' performance, rein in the unchecked influence of Wall Street, create a universal health care system for all, strengthen the Clean Water and Clean Air Act, build green energy infrastructures, re-sign the Kyoto Protocol, diplomatically engage Iran, Syria, and Hamas and the list goes on and on.

Another deep impact of this new makeup of the US Senate is the very real possibility of wresting control of the US Supreme Court from the conservatives. US Senate gets to approve the President's appointees for the Supreme Court, and this is a lifetime appointment. The votes on the Court right now on controversial issues such as abortion, terrorism, free speech, etc have generally been a highly contentious 5-4 in favor of the conservative justices. Now the liberals can be rest assured that for the next eight years (or more!) any vacancy on the Court will be filled with justices who are sympathetic to our causes. The 88-year old Justice John Paul Stevens can finally retire now and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg can rest and take care of her ailing health. One can also hope that the no-good Uncle Tom, ultra-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black person on the Court, just drops dead and be replaced with somebody who is more worthy of following the footsteps of the first black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall.

Wow, this is great fucking news! I see good things ahead from now on. The US can again become what it claims to be: Land of the free and the home of the brave. The last time I felt almost this way was when Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont changed from Republican to Independent (but sides with the Democrats on most issues) as soon as the Republicans took control of the US Senate in 2001. The US Senate at the time was deadlocked at 50-50 with VP Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. Sen. Jeffords defection effectively gave the Democrats 51-49 control of the US Senate, and thus preventing a Republican clean sweep of all three branches of the government.

* Filibuster is a peculiar parliamentary tactic used in the US Senate (the only legislative body in the world I know that practices it) by the minority party to block any legislation currently being debated. The US Senate will then need a super-majority vote of 60 in order to override the filibuster or the President's veto, for that matter. Filibuster in the old days entails a Senator talking non-stop for many, many hours without yielding the floor to his fellow Senators. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a well-known racist from South Carolina, once talked non-stop for more than 24 hours trying to block the Civil Rights legislation from being passed (he failed). Now there's no more Senator giving long-winded filibuster speech; a threat of filibuster is enough. Whenever the minority party issues a filibuster threat, the majority party has to then muster a minimum of 60 votes in order to pass that piece of legislation. This has resulted in many deadlocks and severely watered-down legislations in the past few years.

Note: For a great fictional depiction of filibuster watch Jimmy Stewart's 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Team of Rivals or Opportunist Politics?

Like most global citizens, I was overwhelmed with pride and joy when Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. My eyes were almost welled with tears - maybe there were a sniffling or two - as I witnessed a black man ascended to the highest office in land after over two hundred years of history marred with racial injustices and inhuman subjugation. Despite this truly defining moment in American history, one has to be cautious, or perhaps hold a healthy skepticism, of what the Obama administration will be in the coming years. The fact remains that while he is indeed the fresh air needed to cleanse the toxic swampy atmosphere of Beltway politics, he has managed to pick a cabinet team solely consists of old Washington hands, particularly Clintonistas. How well this rather unfortunate cabinet selection bode for the administration's future policy-making endeavors shall remain to be seen but as I presently look into the political crystal glass, the forecasts seem to be a bit cloudy with scattering rains.

Domestically, I think, is where Obama administration will make its biggest and long-lasting impact. The Democrats are pretty unified on this front and my impression is that virtually every Democrat is clamoring for FDR-like New Deal solutions to the host of domestic problems the US is gravely facing right now. Massive investment in public infrastructure such as highways, national and state parks, energy utilities and such to boost domestic employment and GDP can be expected from the administration. There will also be a vigorous push for self-sacrifice and community involvement through AmeriCorps and other voluntary-type programs. Huge injection of spending is also to be expected in the education sector especially early-childhood and free lunch programs, an increase Pell grants for tertiary education and an expansion of job retraining program to combat un- and under-employment. As far as domestic policies go, depending on the degree of hostility he faces from the Congressional Republicans, I think Obama has the chance to be an FDR reincarnate. Just make sure that the money goes to people who deserve it and not the Wall Street fat cats who feed at the public trough.

Internationally is where Obama will be facing his greatest challenge and I honestly think his achievements in this arena will be mediocre at best - unless if he's willing to make a sharp radical break from the Clinton paradigm, which now looks highly unlikely. Three major international issues will sure to occupy most, if not all, of the administration's time: global warming, war on terror (Iraq and Afghanistan), and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The first issue, global warming, is highly doable: Kyoto treaty will be re-ratified by the US and the administration will play an active role in combating global warming and other environmental problems - domestically and internationally. But the possibility for success in the latter two issues - war on terror and Arab-Israeli conflict - seems pretty bleak.

Obama has changed his Iraq policy numerous times that it's hard to pinpoint what he will do now that he actually has the power to make the change. If I'm not mistaken, he last advocated for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq within a 16-month time frame and redirect two divisions to Afghanistan. This is obviously a far cry from his earlier call for an immediate withdrawal. When the grinding reality of Beltway politics of compromising and wheeling-dealing finally sets in, the 16-month turns to 24 and full withdrawal turns to partial. The Uniter becomes The (seriously compromised) Compromiser!

The Arab-Israeli conflict will be the biggest disappointment of all for the Obama administration if he does not deviate from the current track laid before him by former Clinton aides. This is already evident in Obama's mostly muted and occasionally inane response to the Gaza massacre by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). For as long as the US refuses to negotiate on equal terms with the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, and sever its "special relationship" with Israel, no meaningful and sustainable peace can be attained in the region. Hamas, along with other "terrorist-designate" groups like Iran, must be diplomatically engaged and be brought to the negotiating table to engender trust and cooperation. The years of reckless display of brute military strength and half-hearted diplomacy have failed miserably and it's about time to try a novel approach.

It's very unlikely that US approach to the Middle East, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict, is going to be radically changed. A cursory look at the coterie of Obama aides reveals a tight-knit group of hardcore pro-Zionist hacks like Rahm Emmanuel, Dennis Ross, etc; essentially people the Israeli embassy in the US and the all-powerful America-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) have direct access to. If the best Obama can offer the Palestinian is the bantustan-like, highly deformed and deeply unfair two-state solution similar to the Clinton's 2000 Camp David summit, then his approach will be a total failure.

I don't pretend to know the solution to the intractable Arab-Israeli conflict but there are several first steps the new administration can adopt toward presenting itself as an honest broker, namely severely cutting the annual military and foreign aid to Israel to the tune of 30 billion dollars, which reinstatement contingent on Israel completely dismantling all illegal settlements beyond the Green Line and returning dispossessed land back to the Palestinians. Threats have been used to this effect but as usual it's more hot-air rhetoric than anything else. Also get Hamas to the negotiating table despite the vehement refusal of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas won power through democratic means - unlike its Fatah counterpart in West Bank - and should not be placed in the same league as Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and it deserves a seat among other players in the region. Ultimately, the US has to look beyond the two-state solution and push for untried radical idea such as the one-state solution. I read somewhere that before Obama ran for the presidency, in Chicago, he befriended Ali Abunimah, the founder of Electronic Intifada and the vocal proponent of the one-state solution. Maybe it will do his administration good if he reads Abunimah's book on finding a solution to the conflict. Better yet, get him into the administration in an advisory capacity as a countervailing force to the dominant Zionist perspective. I've listened to Ali Abunimah's lectures several times and he's such an erudite and level-headed speaker who makes a highly compelling case for the one-state solution, of which I wholeheartedly agree with.

I believe that the only way that Obama administration can be successful in the foreign policy arena is to first be successful domestically. Only when he has solved many of the current domestic crises he then will be gifted with a deep political cachet and high approval rating to be in turn used to solve some of the seemingly intractable global conflicts. This is especially important to have in his arsenal as the opposition from the establishment and other vested interests will be relentless and ferocious. Failure or sub-par results in dealing with domestic crises will not bode well for his foreign policies as his opponents can use the former to clobber him on the latter. I'm still keeping the fire of faith alive though the candle is flickering rather erratically right now. But boy, it will a one fantastically tumultuous ride for the next eight years - okay, I'm being a bit presumptious here!

Creative Counter-insurgency?

Now this is a funny news bit: CIA offers Viagra to win support from older Afghan warlords. I don't really know what to make of this new development in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. Will it be successful or will it join the long list of CIA's tactical blunders over the years? But the Viagra strategy smacks of the discredited age-old imperial indirect rule through the heads of clans. Back in the days of colonial yore former imperial powers such as the British and the Dutch ruled their colonies through control of local leaders by bribing them with wealth and power. It worked for a while until the people got tired of the exploitation and corruption and rose up against both their leaders and the colonial powers. The rationale behind this colonial strategy is the assumption that people are docile and absolutely submissive to their leaders and that the leaders have the moral legitimacy to rule, whether it's divine or hereditary. Maybe it holds true to a certain extent but there comes a time when the abuses of power become too much to bear and the exploitation draws blood a pint too much, the people are left with no option but to cross the threshold of unquestioned fealty and rebel against their leaders. This is especially so when there is a presence of a catalyst with an alternate power center that offers superior moral legitimacy, derived from, say, religion or political ideology. Anyway, I hope these Viagras, in addition to being used to stroke the warlords' aging libidos, can also help to open up the tribal societies for development in education, infrastructure and gender issues. Winning hearts and minds, as cliched as it sounds, is still an integral part of the war on terror and it has to be handled with acute sensitivity and empathy for local idiosyncrasies.

President-elect, Barack Hussein Obama. YEAH!!!

I'm just beyond words right now. Simply speechless. It feels so surreal and almost unbelievable. I'm afraid that when I wake up in the morning and this all turns out to be just a sweet dream. But it isn't. This is for real and it is going to be here. To be in the US right now in one of its most momentous day in its history is plain indescribable and it will be a memory forever etched in my mind to be told and retold to the generations to come. Yes, I was there and I was a small though not insignificant part of the American history. To even think that the Blacks having to endure the segregated and repressive past when they weren't even allowed to vote to finally come to this day when the nation elected its first Black President is breathtakingly astounding--all this within the past 40 years or so! Most people I have talked to, especially Black people who lived through the racist era, never thought this day would come in their lifetime, the day when the Americans elect their Black President. The day of hope and the promise of a shining future has come and it will stand witness to the much needed seismic change in the society only seen once in a generation. Franklin Roosevelt had his New Deal, Lyndon Johnson had his Great Society and Obama will soon make his far-reaching mark in the years to come. This is only the beginning and a great leap forward across the dark abyss this country has been mired in for the past 8 years.

I still feel like I'm walking on the air right now defying gravity. I still have goosebumps and chills running down my spine every time I think about this day, and I don't think I can sleep tonight. It feels so awesome and privileged to be a part of this amazing history! It has been a long and torturous (pun intended!) 8 years but it has been well worth the wait. Yes, we can! Si, Se Puede! Barack n Roll!!

p/s: In my state, State of Wisconsin, Obama prevails over McCain 56% to 43% (13-point margin!). Wisconsin has never voted a Republican President since 1988 and is not about to do it this time around. Wisconsinites know better! When I look at the state's electoral map broken down by counties, I have never seen so much "blue" (color of the Democrats) all over the state. Wisconsin has 72 counties and only 14 went "red" (Republican) and most of them by the slimmest of margin. Simply spectacular!!

SNL Obama-Clinton Debate Parody

Okay, chalk up another thing that I miss while living here in Indonesia: The Saturday Night Live. Well, I guess I also miss the Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report, so make it three things then. Election year always provide a good fodder for comedy writers, and this SNL skit is just one of many. Now that the writers are back from the recent strike, there should be more good stuff down the pipeline leading up to the election day. I just wish that the internet connection here is fast enough so I can watch all these videos. Well, there's only so much one can ask for...

Election Fever...

It's the voting season right now, and I don't mean choosing Jackass 1 over Jerkoff 2 in American Idol or Malaysia's Akademi Fantasia, though Jackass/Jerkoff dichotomy is still applicable to politics. This is the double-whammy year for me since both Malaysia and the US will hold their national elections soon: March 8 for Malaysia and November 4 for the US. I, for one, will not vote in Malaysia, though I do follow the elections very closely. My reasons: I'm not registered to vote in Malaysia (a conscious decision on my part) but more importantly, I believe the election is highly unfair to the Opposition and heavily favors the government. But I will vote in the US, even if my preferred candidate, Barack Obama, improbably lose the Democratic party nomination to Hillary Clinton.

Yes, I'm well aware of the criticism: if we don't vote the change into government, then how can we introduce change to system? This is assuming that change can only be made from inside the system. Well, even if the Opposition candidates manage to overcome the long odds and various undemocratic measures employed by the government, there is still the overwhelming dominance of the government faction to contend with in the Parliament. Assuming that if the Opposition manage to pass some kind of watered-down electoral reform law, the government faction can still challenge it in the courts, and with the pathetic state of affairs of the subservient Malaysian judiciary right now, the law will almost guaranteed to be struck down as unconstitutional. Yes, I'm a cynic and I do blame my social science background for making me one.. haha.

Below is the excerpt from an interview of the current chief of the Malaysian Election Commissions (EC), Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, done by MalaysiaKini, 24 Sept 2003. The vignettes of the interview go to show that the EC is simply a tool of the government to further entrench and sustain its dominance and to foil the challenges from the Opposition. Look at the inane comment about the role of EC as an "independent body." Does everything has to be laid out word-for-word in the Federal Constitution in order for it to be perfectly understood? An analogy can be made to a judge in the Lina Joy's apostasy case when he said that if Muslims have the right to revert to other religions, then the Constitution would have explicitly mentioned it. Yeah, it's as though the Article 3 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of religion, has no meaning whatsoever. Fuckin' dumbass! And by the way, EC's job is not just to set up the polling booth. If that's the case, then the government can just hire the building contractor. This guy has no fuckin' clue whatsoever about the functions and the responsibility of EC and what does free and fair election mean. In the Malaysian case, certainly the right man for the job! Anyway, here are parts of the interview:

_________________________________________

But isn’t the EC meant to be an independent body?

No, never ever. You look at the constitution, what does it say? That there shall be a commission that enjoys the public confidence. It does not say ‘an independent commission’.

But to enjoy public confidence, you need to be independent.

Not necessarily so. It means that we have to do our job but the basic guidelines are that we must conduct a free and fair election. (This does) not necessarily mean you are independent. How could you be independent? There is no one EC in this world that is truly independent.

You can never escape from the government of the day from being involved in elections. Whether the EC is seen to be independent - fair and free - depends on one important fact: how tolerant is the ruling party? In most Western countries, the party in power is tolerant. They take criticism openly. Here, we have not come to that level.

He (Opposition leader, Lim Kit Siang) raised these kind of issues like money politics. I asked him: ‘What money politics? You expect me to have eyes and ears to be everywhere (and monitor) who take or give money? That’s not my duty. I just put the polling booth and then you vote. Whether you vote for money, I do not know. But if you know, you take them to court.’ He said he does not believe in judiciary, they are unfair. (But) then you (can’t) blame me.

___________________________________________

The current electoral system in Malaysia is heavily stacked against the Opposition and the electoral arena, I think, is the least effective way to affect radical changes in the presently corrupt system. The best example is the 1999 General Elections, when the Opposition failed to inflict major damage to the government's hegemony though the prevailing socio-economic conditions was positively in its favor. The only real meaningful change has to come from outside i.e. the civil society. The civil society David almost succeeded in 1998-99 in toppling the BN Goliath, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. It was one stone short from knocking down the juggernaut. The Bersih and Hindraf campaigns are good signs that the civil society is again gearing up for a more prominent role in the Malaysian socio-political system. This, coupled with possible major inroads made by the Opposition parties in this upcoming elections, will hopefully bear real pressure on the BN-led government to reform itself. To hope for an Opposition-led government following this election is wishful thinking. The target is to weaken BN's 90 percent near-absolute majority in the Parliament to just 50 percent simple majority.

As much as I wish for radical changes in Malaysia a la Indonesia's Reformasi, I know that it is not realistic. In the Indonesian case, the 1997-98 economic crisis (Krismon aka Krisis Moneter in local parlance) was just the final nail in Suharto's coffin, which had been preceded by various political crises at least since the late 1980s. Still, change is change, and I take whatever change I can get for now and keep my hopes up for more in the future. And I also hope to prove wrong the old French adage: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same)--in case if the Opposition does come to power someday.

Another reason to vote for Obama

People always ask me, "Why Mac? Sure, it looks cool and all but practical? Hell no!" As a life-long Apple Macintosh user I'm immuned to these kinds of doubt-castings especially during the pre-iPod, Intel-chip days, when Apple computers were only seen as the niche for anti-establishment, fool-hardy users. Following the release of iPod for PC users, Apple has finally managed to penetrate into the consciousness of the mainstream computer users and force people to do a double-take on its products. Now I'm happy that iPod has reached a name recognition that makes it synonymous with the product, like Xerox for copy machine or Aqua for bottled water (only applicable in Indonesia).

So obviously I'm thrilled that finally somebody is making a parallel between Mac-PC rivalry and Obama-Clinton nomination race . As an Obama backer and a Mac user I heartily agree with the article's analogy. And I do hope that Mac, or should I say Obama, prevails come November.

The next President of the US...

Make no mistake, this is the man who will lead America for the next eight years. I was virtually walking on the air when I heard about his stunning victory in the Iowa caucus by trouncing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (and not counting other minor Democratic candidates) by such a huge margin. For a non-white Presidential candidate to win convincingly in a lily-white state such as Iowa (95% white) says something about his character and how the issue of race has been a non-factor (so far) in the 2008 Presidential campaign. A win in the New Hampshire primary (another lily-white state, albeit with a markedly different socio-economic makeup) on Tuesday, January 8 will turn Obama into the undisputed Democratic Presidential nominee as the Obama-mania snowballs across various other state primaries. Nobody wants to back a loser, right? Come August at the Democratic Convention in Denver, he will have a lock on the nomination. With the public support for the Republican party in the gutters right now, the Democratic Presidential nominee is all but guaranteed for a seat in the Oval Office. President Obama does have a nice ring to it! To all the Beltway pundits who have discounted Obama's candidacy and have for all intents and purposes anointed Hillary as the de facto Democratic nominee, take your bitter pill and shove it up your collective know-nothing asses. Let's Barack n' Roll!

RIP Molly Ivins

In times of mass hysteria and widespread paranoia, Molly was one of the few brave souls who dared to say that the emperor has no cloth. Her razor-sharp wit and biting political satire, laced with downhome Texan aphorisms, never failed to coax a chuckle or two from even the most jaded and bleakest liberal in the post-911 era. We shall miss you immensely. Rest in peace, Molly.

Throw The Bums Out Already!!!

CHECK UP-TO-DATE RESULTS

2006 SENATE election results

2006 HOUSE election results

Wisconsin election results

I haven't been this excited about an election, a midterm election at that, since I volunteered for the Nader's presidential campaign in 2000. Twelve years of Republican domination of the government is long enough; it's time to throw those fear-mongering, war-loving, people-hating, gun-toting bums out of office. There is a certain giddiness in the air among the Democratic circle of the prospect to regain control of Congress, not unlike the tectonic shift in 1994 that swept in the Gingrich "revolutionaries" and ended the Democrats' forty-year stranglehold on Congress.

While the Republicans back in 1994 put forth their so-called "Contract With America" manifesto--essentially a reiteration of their agenda in a much simplified, bullet-point format--there is no equivalent of far-reaching, ideologically-significant, much less unified, political tract on the Democratic side currently. Why is this the case, and will its absence bear any impact on the voters' perception of the Democrats and the Democratic party?

As a "Big Tent" party that has to juggle wildly diverse, frequently contradicting, interests of its components, for the Democratic party to come up with a coherent, universally-agreed manifesto is simply next to impossible. Here's an overview of the groups currently seeking political shelter under the Democratic umbrella: the centrist New Democrats; the conservative blue-dog Democrats, mostly the southern "Dixiecrats"; the Old Left pro-labor but socially-conservative Democrats (mostly from the decaying Industrial Belt of the Midwest); the New Left liberals who formed the radical wing of the party; and others. This is not including further division within these groups, especially among the New Left liberals, ranging from the moderately liberal members who are content with gradual, incremental changes in government to the more ideologically-driven members who are seeking wider systemic and cultural changes. The diversity of the party is also reflected in its demographic; blacks, hispanics, women, gays and lesbians help to dictate the direction, and not to add, the fate, of the Democratic party. This simply illustrates the sheer impossibility of reconciling these divergent interests and maintaining party discipline.

Compare this to the 1994 Republican political machine. The Republican party (GOP) is effectively divided into two camps: the socially-conservative faction and the economically-conservative faction. While there are many differences--culturally and ideologically--between these two conservative groups, they do share several intersecting interests and both are willing to cast aside differences for the sake of greater political expediency, manifested in the institutional success of the GOP. There are much, much less points of contention within the GOP, which allow for greater party discipline and the dissemination of coherent, unified political messages. It's much easier to whip its members into submission and exclude a few fringe dissenting components, namely the pathetic Log Cabin Republicans (the so-called gays and lesbians faction of the GOP). It also helps that an overwhelming majority of the GOP are racially mono-dimensional. Different racial groups face different sets of issues, and not having to deal with other races' issues, at least substantively, is certainly a huge asset for the GOP. This also explains why the GOP was successful in proposing "Contract With America" while the present Democrats could not even agree on what strategies to employ to take advantage of Bush's immense unpopularity, much less coming up with a universally-agreed, far-reaching and politically-shattering platform for public consumption.

Will the lack of high-minded ideals hamper the Democrats' success in the election today? Or will Bush's rock-bottom approval rating, the Iraqi quagmire, and the Republican party's corruption (and sexual) scandals be enough to motivate erstwhile conservatives and the cantankerous independents to vote Democratic? If it's moral and political outrage that fuels voters, then the Democratic party holds a bright chance of making an enormous gain in this election since voters would vote not for the party per se, but simply for the sake of change in leadership. Since this is a two-party system, the only pragmatic choice left on the ballot is the Democratic party. If voters still place a higher value on ideology and concrete party platform over their anti-incumbent indignation, then there is less of a chance for the Democratic party to win convincingly in this election.

Here's my lazy prediction on today's election, especially in the battleground states, and I'll not comment on the Wisconsin's election since the Democratic victory here is a foregone conclusion. Mark Green? Dave Magnum? John Gard? Give me a break!

Ohio: Democratic sweep - both gubernatorial and senatorial races. The fact that the Republican National Committee pulled out funding for Ohio Republican candidates a few weeks before the election is a tell-tale sign that it has all but given up on winning these races.

Pennsylvania: Another Democratic sweep - As long as Senator Rick "Man-on-Animal" Santorum is kicked out of office, I don't care how the rest of elections go. Bob Casey Jr. will kick Santorum's ass in the Senate race and Ed Rendell will retain his governorship. Let this be a lesson to Lynn Swann that popularity on the football field does not translate into a viable political vehicle.

Missouri: Claire McCaskill will eke out a victory over Republican Jim Talent in the Senate race.

Montana: Republican Conrad Burns is facing a stiff challenge from Jon Tester, and Tester will come out ahead in the final count (this is my upset prediction).

Michigan: Democratic senator, Debbie Stabenow, will retain her seat.

Virginia: It'll be close and as much as I'd love to see the racist Republican George Allen voted out of the office, I think he'll still manage to squeeze in a victory, thanks to the ever-growing conservative exurban (between suburban and rural) population and the tepid challenge from the Democratic opponent, Jim Webb.

Note: I don't comment on any House races because they are too numerous, but my overall sense is that the Democrats will make major inroads in traditionally-conservative districts and win a lot of them.

It then begs the final question: Will there be any significant changes, and most importantly, reversal of Bush's destructive policies AND a robust check on the executive branch, if the Democrats manage to take over Congress? I doubt it, but that's the reality of a two-party system--choosing the lesser of two evils.

News in Not-So Brief

I know I haven't been very diligent in updating this blog especially now during this month-long winter break. Yeah, I admit I'm just too damn lazy and I simply don't feel like doing anything besides sleeping, eating junk food, watching TV/movies, doing crosswords puzzles and reading novels, mainly to compensate for the previous gruelling semester. I think I did okay although my relentless effort to lobby aacaan Kannikar for an A in my Thai class fell a bit short; she gave me an AB. Getting A's for the three other classes more than make up for the shortfall. Perfection is way too overrated!

Anyway, there's just so much to write about, politics-wise. Here in the US, the whole Jack Abramoff brouhaha sends shockwave through the Washington political establishment following his guilt admission for bribery and his willingness to cooperate with Federal prosecutors to implicate others. This has led to the rash of major Washington politicos divesting "Abramoff hot-money" from their campaign chests in a hurry to rid themselves of any perceived or real improprieties. Yeah, like these people are angels to begin with.

Down deep in the heart of the Lone Star state, Abramoff's bosom buddy, Tom DeLay, also known by his Congressional sobriquet "The Hammer," is deeply embroiled in his own political hot-water in Texas facing several charges on money laundering and racketeering. He had already been forced to resign his Majority Leader position in the House and we can only hope that this former pest exterminator will go back to his old job spraying bugs and rats.

Another big issue in Washington, DC right now, at least for political junkies like me, is the Supreme Court confirmation fight in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee will start the hearing on Samuel Alito, so dubbed "Scalito," not for lack of reasons, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. The term "Scalito" is simply a neologism derived from his comparison with the current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Both are orthodox Roman Catholics with Italian immigrant background, and most importantly, both are staunch Conservatives. While Scalia is known for his caustic dissents, razor-sharp wit and a wry sense of humor--a law professor actually did a survey based on the court's transcripts and found that Scalia is the funniest among all the nine justices in terms of inducing laughters during oral arguments--Alito is more of a soft-spoken, pensive, controlled type.

But this certainly does not, in any way, soften his conservative credentials, and rest assured that once seated on the bench, he will no doubt be a part of the hardline conservative nexus along with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts--not unlike the infamous "Four Horsemen" of the Supreme Court during the FDR administration who blocked every piece of the New Deal legislations. As much as I hate seeing another hardline right-winger gets a lifetime appointment to the Court--Sandy O'Connor is somewhat a moderate but her majority vote in Bush v. Gore is totally despicable--I think Alito will get through the brutal confirmation process virtually unscathed, probably not as smooth as the recent John Roberts's confirmation as Chief Justice but definitely not as polarizing and vitriolic--and "pornographic"--as Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing back in 1991. No, Alito will not get "Borked," a reference to the failed confirmation of Robert Bork in 1987, and there will not be another Anita Hill testifying on Alito's sexual lewdness. Leading Wisconsin Senator on the Judiciary Committee, Russ Feingold, while has not ruled out the possibility of a filibuster, has decided to take a less combative tack in this confirmation process. Feingold voted to confirm John Roberts, much to the dismay of the liberals, and he will vote to confirm Alito. I'll speculate on Russ's so-called "strategic votes" vis-a-vis his 2008 Presidential aspiration in another column.

On a more lighter--and strange--note, the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews in New York City are up-in-arms against Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to ban baby circumcision due to the three recent deaths from such practice. Mind you that this practice is not done by a well-trained doctor; instead a religious practitioner known as mohel performs the rite, akin to the tok mudim in traditional Malay customs. The babies died from neonatal herpes, and how did the babies get herpes if their mothers do not have disease? Well, funny you ask. Instead of using alcohol or any sterilizing agents, the rabbis who perform this ritual suck the blood from the circumcision wound to clean it. Yeah, you heard right. Herpes virus can be transmitted from the open cold sores around the rabbis' mouth. That's why you don't kiss somebody with herpes on the mouth--or engage in fellatio or cunnilingus, for that matter--when he/she is having the cold sore bouts. But this Jewish ritualistic circumcision (metzitzah b'peh) certainly gives the phrase "licking one's wound" a whole new meaning and anatomical imagery. I sense a latent pedophilic-homoeroticism here.

By the way, here's a quote from the said NY Times article about why the Hasidic Jews are so hell-bent on this issue:

"What has been promised to us prior to the recent elections - and this was the only request we made - was that the subject of metzitzah b'peh should be completely untouched by the city department of health," the editorial (of a Yiddish newspaper) said. "This and only this was the reason why thousands of Orthodox Jews registered themselves to vote, undersigned a petition to the mayor, came out in droves, men, women and children, to an unprecedented rally."

Who would have thought circumcision forms the bedrock principle of Western democratic practice, namely voting rights! Who cares about the plights of the poor, the socio-economic injustices, corrupt public officials or abuse of powers, right? As long as I can suck blood from babies' penises, all is fine and dandy!

Bolton A to Z.

I just find this fascinating: The reasons, from A to Z, why John Bolton should not be confirmed for the UN ambassadorship.

He's an Arrogant, Belligerent, Combative, Domineering, Egomaniacal, Fascistic, Grandstanding, Hate-driven, Intimidating, Jingoistic, Kleptomaniac (he helped steal an election), Lying, Mendacious, Naysaying, Obstreperous, Peevish, Quarrelsome, Repressive, Short-fused, Truculent, Untruthful, Vengeful, Warmongering, Xenophobic Yahoo who has Zero business being the country's ambassador to the UN!*

* Thanks to Skip Mendler of the Billionaires for Bush for this cheeky Bolton alphabet soup.

Jingo bell, Jingo bell, Jingo all the way...

Jingo-ism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy.

The infamously jingoistic country music superstar, Toby Keith, is in town tonight for a concert at the Bradley Center. Opening up for Toby Keith would be the only person that can proudly stand to the right of him on the political spectrum, the Motorcity Madman himself, Ted Nugent. Who could forget his forgettable classic '70s hit, Cat Scratch Fever? Unfortunately, it so happened that I had to work tonight! By the way, to those who are out-of-the-loop, I have been working part-time (10-15 hours a week) at the Bradley Center's parking structure for about six months now, well-endowed with the supreme authority to tell people where they can (or cannot) park their cars.

Anyway, tonight did feel like a deja vu of the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York last September. Though there weren't as many pickup trucks (along with the requisite shotgun rack in the back, Confederate flag window decal, and the longhorn hood ornament) as I thought they would be, an overwhelming majority of the cars, trucks, SUVs, and minivans were festooned with the Bush/Cheney 2004 stickers. I was thinking to myself, "There has to be a city record been broken here, maybe for the largest Republican gathering ever smack in the middle of downtown Milwaukee." Even the Bush rally/a-thousand-dollar-a-plate breakfast last November across the street at the US Cellular Arena didn't draw this much crowd. Granted that fifty bucks to be Shockin' Y'all (the title of his latest album) by Toby the Jingo is way cheaper than a thousand smackeroos needed to be Shocked and Awed by the bumbling Emperor Bush II.

Based on my perfunctory survey on the demographic of the concert-goers, it is safe to assume that White people with cowboy hats and boots comprised of the 99.8 percent of all the concert-goers. I did see at least three non-Whites among the teeming crowds, which accounted for the other 0.2 percent. Still, there is a strong chance that I could have mistaken those three people with a bunch of overly-tanned White folks. By the way, Toby the Jingo seems like a perfect future addition to the much disparaged Tolerance campaign that featured the "gay" SpongeBob SquarePant. Somebody needs to set SpongeBob straight (pun intended)! Can I suggest a red-white-blue Dingo costume for Toby the Jingo? FYI, a dingo is a rabid Australian wild dog.

Anyway, I did catch bits of Ted Nugent's act, which I'm sad to report that it didn't really live up to his reputation. Seemed pretty lame to me, without all the pyrotechnics and juvenile stunts. I guess they were afraid that the humongous American flag banner hung in the background would catch fire and be burned to smithereens, which would be deemed sacrilegious for these people. No red-blooded, freedom-loving Americans can be caught dead defacing the Old Glory; only sissy-ass, Commie-loving, America-hating liberals would stoop to doing something "deplorable" like that. Earth to so-called "freedom-loving" people, flag-burning is a protected speech, as embodied in the two landmark rulings of the US Supreme Court: The 1989 Texas v. Johnson and the 1990 US v. Eichman cases. But I digress.

Sidenote: If anyone is interested in reading the Bahasa Malaysia literary work written by non-Malays--in this case, Malaysian Indians--check out this website. I do wish that non-Malay BM writers could garner more publicity for their illuminating work, and to drag the language out of the sole dominance of the Malays. I bet that even most Malays cannot write half as good in BM as can these Indian writers. Including me.

Queer Bob for the square pants

Sponge Bob is gay? Damn, who would have thought of that! As a matter of fact, it was the self-righteous moralistic loonies at the Focus on Family, headed by the Christian fundamentalist numbnut, Dr. James Dobson, that came out with this outrageous statement. Yep, the same guy who is the main cohort of the equally delusional Reverend Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and the nutcases at the Christian Coalition. It was Reverend Falwell who once called The Teletubbies gay and agents of the radical homosexual agenda just because he thought the characters were trying to promote the gay culture through coded messages and innuendos.

Well, here's the NY Times article that covers the story. Remember, these are the very same people that form the main support base for Bush and the Republican Party. In case if you're wondering why Bush is doing things he's doing now, just remember that the apple doesn't fall far from tree, or in this case, his right-wing Christian fundamentalist base.

*Use fido666 as username and pukimak as password to access the NY Times website.

I Have A Dream

I'd be lying if I say I never thought about my future significant other, my soulmate, my partner-in-crime, or whatever adoring terms that people use. But, it was the least of my priority until I watched Tavis Smiley interviewed Coretta Scott King, Dr. King's smart and eloquent widow, on his show last night. Seeing this brave, resolute and independent woman stands, not behind her man, but right by his side, simply shows the importance of living a life with someone who shares similar values and ideals. Coretta King is the perfect mirror image of her late husband, and she knew exactly what she was getting into when she married Dr. King. For starters, death threats, FBI probes, imprisonment, beatings, taunts, house-bombing, and ultimately culminated in the assassination of Dr. King in Memphis on April 4, 1968. Coretta King never re-marries--how can you find a man big enough to fill the void left by the martyr? Anyway, my questions are what makes a person an ideal partner, and does the ideal partner exist for everyone?

I don't know the answers to the questions above, and my understanding is that the definition of an ideal partner falls under two camps: Perfect compatibility and opposite attraction. Perfect compatibility basically means finding a partner that is a carbon copy of you, one that shares the same interests, ideals, values, temperements, etc. Opposite attraction is essentially a derivative of the Newton law of physics, which states that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. It means there's a Yin to a Yang, an Abbott to a Costello, an electron to a positron, a Labu to a Labi, et al.

So, which is the right definition? I'm most partial to the former definition, perfect compatibility, but I'd like to slightly change it to near-perfect compatibility. I think total congruency in relationship is not good. What fun would it be if your significant other thinks and acts exactly like you. It'd be an utterly dull and boring relationship, to say the least. Some people might prefer the latter definition but I've seen this definition work in real life, though it might be superficially ideal, it does take a lot of effort, perseverance and tolerance to make the relationship to work and last. A good example of the opposite attraction relationship is my parents, and the emotional toll of it is just astonishing though the marriage seems fine on the surface. It is simply the road I'm not willing to travel on.

What do I look for in a woman? While I cannot deny the sheer importance of physical attraction--human beings are indeed social animals and act accordingly come mating time--it is not the be-all, end-all characteristic. Nothing turns me on more than intelligence, independence, and self-confidence. I know a lot of men are intimidated by intelligent, successful and confident women, especially when the women are smarter and make more money than them, but for me, I relish them. That's why I've always been drawn to lawyers and the professorial types, like a moth to the flame. As for the lawyer type, I say that since I used to live in Washington, DC, and DC does have the highest number of lawyers per capita in the US (I think!), and it seemed like every other girl I went out with was either a lawyer or a law student.

Anyway, I just want to say that I'm a man of modest but seemingly complicated needs. I remember this whacked-out dream I used to have about settling down with a woman. Her name is Sasha and she's a public-interest lawyer that provides pro bono legal assistance to low-income people. She's a mutt: parts Irish, Indonesian, Jewish, and Dutch (go figure!). We met in school, in the International Human Rights Law class to be exact, when I was still in graduate school and she was just starting her Third Year Law. I was sitting next to her in the lecture hall and we hit it off almost instantaneously. We went out for coffee after class, and met for coffee again the next day. Later that weekend we had our first official date when we went to see this esoteric foreign film, visited the art museum, and ate at this exotic restaurant. We then shot some pools at a local bar and watched some live music, and later spent the night sitting by Lake Mendota (did I mention this was in UW-Madison?) talking about everything and nothing. We had our first kiss by the lake and finally I walked her back to her apartment to cap off the fabulous night. I first met her family at the Thanksgiving dinner and they were such cool people. She finished her law school and decided to move back to her hometown, Chicago, to work and live with her parents for a while. We took turns visiting each other every weekend since Chicago-Madison is only about two hours drive. In my final year in grad school, I took her back home to Malaysia, and she fit in perfectly. Later, I proposed to her on top of Gunung Tahan (?) after hours of hiking through the jungle trails and she said yes. We got married in the US to avoid the mandatory kursus kahwin in Malaysia. Soon after I got my doctorate, I was offered an adjunct teaching job at DePaul University in Chicago to teach Intro to Comparative Politics and Political Islam in SE Asia, while she was working with the Legal Aid Society of Chicago. After a year, I got a job offer to teach at Australian National University (ANU) and off we went to Oz. Since she can't practice law in Australia, she decided to go back to school to get a PhD in Comparative Law. After several years in Oz, we decided to go back to Malaysia for good; I joined the Political Science faculty at UKM and she joined the Law faculty at UIA. Long story short, we have two beautiful daughters and we all live happily ever after bla bla bla bla bla...

Enough already! Geez... what has gotten into me tonight? Well, the first half of the story is somewhat true; it's an amalgam of my experiences with different persons that I've been with at different times. The second half of the story is totally made-up and fictitious though I don't mind the part about me being a professor. Maybe this dream is a manisfestation of my secret longings and subliminal hopes, but to tell the truth, I don't care if it ever comes to realization or not. Whatever happens happens and I'm just going to let the old Malay adage "jodoh dan maut di tangan tuhan" (soulmate and death are in the hands of God) guide me in my way.

What an Orwellian world it is!

Everybody who reads George Orwell's "1984"--an indictment of any totalitarian and fascistic regimes--certainly remembers this oft-repeated mantra in the book: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Well, there is a chilling similarity between the the society created by Orwell in his book and the conduct of the Bush administration. Here are some of the Orwellian-speak used by the Bush administration to deceive the masses, compiled by Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the brilliant and feisty editor of The Nation magazine:

BI-PARTISANSHIP, n. When conservative Republicans work together with moderate Republicans to pass legislation Democrats hate.

CLARIFY, v. Repeating the same lie over and over again.

CLEAN, adj. The word used to modify any aspect of the environment Republican legislation allows corporations to pollute, poison, or destroy.

FAIRER, adj. Regressive.

FAITH, n. The stubborn belief that God approves of Republican moral values despite the preponderance of textual evidence to the contrary.

FAITH COMMUNITY, n. Evangelicals, because they are saved, and hawkish conservative Jews, because they are useful. Israel is the bait-on-the-hook just waiting for God to take that Rapturous bite.

FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, n. A Republican who is in the minority.

FREEDOM, n. What Arabs want but can't achieve on their own without Western military intervention. It bears a striking resemblance to chaos.

GROWTH, n. The justification for tax cuts for the rich. What happens to the deficits when Republicans cut taxes on the rich.

HONESTY, n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences: "Freedom is on the march."

HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY, n. The invasion of any sovereign nation whose leadership Republicans don't like.

HUMBLED adj. What a Republican says right after a close election and right before he governs in an arrogant manner. 

MORAL VALUES, n. Hatred of homosexuals dressed up in Biblical language.

MANDATE, n. What a Republican claims to possess when only 49 percent of the voting public loathes him instead of 51 percent.

THE MEDIA, n. Immoral elitist liberally-biased traitors who should leave Republicans alone so they can complete God's work on Earth in peace and quiet, behind closed doors.

PHILOSOPHY, n. Religion.

SIMPLIFY, tr. v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors.

SLAVE, n. A person without legal rights, e,g. a fetus.

BONUS DEFINITION: NEOCONSERVATIVES, n. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes.

Morality in American Politics: Part Deux

I was researching materials for my paper when I found this interesting opinion piece in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's archive. The opinion piece was written before the presidential election but the issue that it raised is all the more relevant today.

Bush's faith message: More moral than thou
October 16, 2004
by Gregory Stanford

President George W. Bush wears his religion like a badge. He avowed anew last week in the debate that God is a big part of his life.

He champions the cause of the religious right, which argues that morality should figure into the public arena and which criticizes the so-called secular humanists for shoo-shooing it away.

In truth, all this talk of religion and morality does make me a bit uncomfortable, but not for reasons the religious right may assume. I believe religion is just too sacred and too personal a notion to be casually tossed around.

Remember when football players fell into the habit of showboating after big plays — a practice not so evident any more, due to a crackdown. Anyhow, the practice made me cringe. I was brought up not to swagger on the playing field.

Well, the frequent invocation of God or Jesus or faith or religion brings to mind such showboating.

This column itself is making me a trifle uncomfortable in that it dwells on personal religion and morality. One risk of such a discussion is that you set yourself up as morally superior.

The truth is I don’t walk in the shoes of the Christian right, so I really can’t judge. Hence, I would prefer to not even broach the topic. But the religious right has forced the issue by so aggressively pushing its version of morality into the public sphere and attacking those with a different vision.

Yes, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential hopeful, acknowledges faith plays a role in his life, too. But he doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve.

The religious right asserts a monopoly on morality. What it favors is moral; what it opposes is immoral. But some of us of more liberal mindsets can’t help but notice inconsistencies. The most classic example is a tag Bush applies to himself: pro-life. He will protect the life of fetuses and even of embryos.

Yet, he supports capital punishment, and he unnecessarily rushed to war in Iraq, where thousands of humans have died along with, doubtless (given mathematical probability), fetuses and embryos still in wombs. Should he amend his tag to pro-some-life?

And if he is truly so pro-life, why does the president seem so callous to the fate of poor children, whose quality of life is bleak and whose ranks have grown under his watch? Why doesn’t he become more aggressive in improving their lot?

The president’s economic policies — which favor the rich at the expense of the working class and which the religious right supports — also give off the odor of immorality.

Ditto, the deceptive Swift boat ads. Yes, he kept his distance, but only to keep the smear from rubbing off on him, too. Wouldn’t a more moral president have intervened to keep the ads from running?

The right’s comeback is that the left has appealed to God and morality, too. That’s true.

After all, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. invoked the Almighty in leading the civil rights movement. And the Berrigan brothers — Catholic priests Dan Berrigan, a Jesuit and poet, and Phil Berrigan, a Josephite — invoked the pacifist Christ to explain their opposition to the Vietnam War.

But these leftists seem more morally consistent and their cause more just.

Yes, I know, my myopia just may be showing. But somehow the equality of human beings seems a more noble cause than does the condemnation of homosexuality and being anti-Vietnam War seems more Christ-like than being pro-Iraq War.

King exhorted his followers to act non-violently and to love their enemies — in the spirit of the Gospels.

The Berrigan brothers also found the exhortation to non-violence in the Gospels. And the brothers, who opposed abortion, were consistent in their pro-life beliefs.

In contrast, intolerance and inconsistency seem to characterize the right. And to judge from its ready support of the Iraq war, the right is too quick to embrace violence as a solution to the world’s ills.

“Prayer and religion sustain me,” the president said last week. “I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.”

But I fear he believes God is actually on his side in Iraq — the mirror of the belief held by the jihadists who support suicide bombs.

I fear he believes we are indeed picking up where the old Crusades left off — converting the heathens to the American way of doing things.

I fear faith and patriotism may be getting all dangerously ajumble.