MANDELA, THE BRITISH GOLF OPEN AND IMMORTALITY.

What have Nelson Mandela and the British Golf Open have in common? A clue - the Open begins on the third Thursday of every July. Still don't get it - Mandela's birthday is July 18th. ( Now declared Mandela Day by the United Nations).  So what you say. Will it just so happens that twice in the last three years, the august Open has been the stage for tributes to Mandela that highlight the very essence of who and what this towering giant represents.  In 2010 and 2012 the Open was won by two Afrikaans speaking South Africans  -  27year old Louis Oosthuizen and  42 year old Ernie Els. The former in his acceptance speech in dedicating his win to Mandela maintained "What he has done for South Africa is unbelievable". Els, who grew up in the latter stages of apartheid waxed on the impact Mandela had meant to South African Democracy. He detailed that Mandela had called him up in 1993 to congratulate him after he had been the first South African to win an Open in the new "Rainbow Era". Now with his latest triumph he could again acknowledge Mandela and he hoped he could share a drink with him in the famed Claret Cup.

WHAT MAKES MANDELA TICK?

This type of public adulation of a politician by sporting heroes is unheard of and merits some analysis of what has lead up to Mandela's status. To describe him as an icon does not help - there are so many of those around. The secret of Mandela's magic is that he has combined so many roles into one being. He has done what no public figure has ever done before. He has combined the roles of activist, politician and empathetic, honest and non-judgemental human being into one. More than that he has not seperated these roles. They have all been present all of the time. His actions have been congruent with his words. In an era where tired cynicism greets almost anything politicians do or say Mandela stands out like a towering beacon.

Mandela never ever ducked an issue or a position because of expediency. He never was a Communist but he refused to disavow those Communists who were on his side in the fight for the rights of Africans. His political position would have been more powerful if he just abandoned the "fellow travelers" but he refused to do so just for expediency and just "use" them.

Mandela's philosophy has been to seek social justice from the word go. In so doing he was always deferential and understanding of his detractors' views. He has maintained that the hardest challenge in life was to change oneself. If one believes that you should love your enemy as well as your neighbor this value is personified in Mandela.

MANDELA AS FREEDOM FIGHTER

South Arica in those early years in the 60's, when "apartheid" was being institutionalized, was a tough arena to be fighting for equality. He was a disenfranchised black in a sea of white bigotry.The ANC had experienced  five decades of trying to impact the South African scene with attempts at peaceful change - all of which were met with more and more restrictive legislation, police brutality and finally a banning order. Eventually he elected  to go underground and perpetrate sabotage not involving risk of life. Sooner or later with the massive security apparatus in place one or other informer would have to lead to his arrest. (This is something, one believes that Mandela must have anticipated as happening sooner or later).  But before that transpired he captured the imagination of  South Africa and world. He was called the "Black Pimpernel". While originally he was the great orator persuading the masses now he was now underground organizing and trying to shake the white electorate's complacency with some sense of reality.

The West were at the height of the Cold War and Mandela and his causes were linked with Communism so only lip service was payed to his and the disenfranschised Africans plight. In fact most South African Opposition was being crushed under "The Suppression of Communism Act". Mandela was being tarred with the brush that the Communists were supporting him and he was furthering their aims. He countered that the government sought to lable all of it's opponents as communists.

RIVONIA SABOTAGE TRIAL 1963 - 1964:

This landmark trial where Mandela and 7 others were sentenced to life imprisonment was a turning point in the history of South Africa. Mandela had already endured a Treason Trial lasting 5 years where he was acquited  with a 130 others and was at the time serving a 5 year sentence for leaving the country without a permit and inciting a strike. The Government had tightened up it's legislation. It did not have to prove Treason for the death penalty they just had to prove sabotage. No one had to die.  You were subject to the death penalty even if there was no intent to kill or harm you just had to have blown up a building or an electric pylon or have planned to do so. The Government pursued the death penalty, with a vengeance, for the Rivonia trial on the basis of sabotage. The facts were never going to be in dispute at the Rivonia trial it was just going to be the sentence.

MANDELA'S STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK.

Mandela's statement from the dock has to go down in history. He has been described as South Africa's Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln rolled into one. The speech was the clearest and most eloquent exposition of the South African situation at the time, the reason for his actions, for which he took responsibility for, and his hope for a just and equitable solution to the South African situation.  Most significantly there was a lack of rancor and anger.  There was no resorting to name calling such as imperialists or fascists or insulting the court. There was empathy at the possibility of the Court not understanding how he may have come to his decision and how the African frustration could lead to violence. At no stage did he allude to the visciousness and vindictiveness of the prosecution and their pleading for the death sentence. What is really amazing is that the Mandela statement is as valid today as it was then. Other than a couple of policy issues he was as true to his word in 1995 as he was in 1964. It was a well reasoned argument which showed his razor sharp mind, his intellect and his grasp of history.

He outlined the African influences in his life and how they had made him hope that he might have the opportunity to make his own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. He, piecemeal, pulled apart the argument that the new radical sabotage group that he had formed was at the direction of international communism or that it was the ANC's policy to accept violence. The only concession obtained from the ANC was that they would not discipline any member who also joined Mandela's small group for enjoining violence.  For 50 years the ANC'c policy was against violence and it was the government that had used violence. The ANC as an organization would not change.

He delved into the history of those oppressed that felt they had to, as a last resort, use violence. He alluded to the Anglo Boer war that was the attempt current members of the Government were involved  in their fight for freedom. The latter had left scars in the South African community. He spoke of the Israeli underground resistance against the British. He gave his reason as to why he resorted to sabotage was in the hope that it would bring economic disruption and bring the country to it's senses.

He stated that the ANC had never advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure in South Africa, nor ever condemned the capitalist society. He admired the British and American systems of demorcacy that the Communist abored. However theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression was a luxury he could not afford.

He went through the disparities and inequalities in education, labor opportunity and voting rights that the Africans endured. This created poverty and a lack of human dignity.

"All we want is equal rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy. This fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution that will grant freedom and harmony for all. The ANC has spent a half a century fighting racialism and when it triumphs it will not change that policy".

"I have dedicated my life to the struggle and I have fought against white and black domination. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die"

MANDELA IN PRISON 

The Government hoped that by putting prisoners of different factions of African resistance together on the Robben Island prison they would sow dissension. They had not counted on Mandela's skills in involving all in constructive debate and discussion. What Mandela did on Robben Island was ultimately to ensure that the friction between rival opposition groups would be minimal on his release. The education of political prisoners from all walks of life and of differing ideologies at "Mandela University" became legend.

Meanwhile Mandela's persona was used as an international rallying point for "the cause". He became larger than life and slowly but surely anti- apartheid groups through out the world formed. His presence in prison was in and out of the news for nearly 3 decades. Whether it was Helen Suzman, that tireless lone white parliamentarian, visiting him annually or some or other rally protesting for his release he never ever was out of the public eye for any length of time.

JAY H ELL was fortunate to have a discussion with one of  his warders in the early 80's. The warder had been recruited from the former Rhodesia as a result of his "skills" at dealing with high profile political prisoners. At that stage overtures were already being made to Mandela about a release. These included going to the Transkei, where his nephew George Mantanzima, a Government puppet, was in charge. The warder said there was a calmness and serenity about Mandela - he was not about to compromise on history. He was ready to talk with the authorities and they knew where he was. 

Mandela was transferred from Robben Island in 1982 to the Cape Mainland to Pollsmoor prison. There was speculation as to the reason for the move. The most plausible explanation was given by the then Nationalist Government Minister of Justice, Kobie Coetzee, was they needed to have negotiations with Mandela.

MANDELA THE  HUMAN BEING

Robben Island was a painful personal exile for Mandela. He was estranged from his family. His letters to his wife and his daughters reflect the pain and angst at not being there as a father and a husband. He counsels understanding and care but is helpless on the day to day issues. He recognizes the hell Winnie is going through and the constant harassment she s subjected too by the Government.

His anger is not taken out on those ordinary souls that are his jailers. He shows incredible empathy with ordinary functionaries who are just "doing a job". Empathy that he would follow through on being released.

1985 "CONDITIONAL PARDON"

In 1985 President Botha offered Mandela a conditional pardon. If he would renounce violence he would be released. At this stage Mandela still could not be officially quoted as he was banned under the "Suppression of Communism Act". His daughter Zinzi read his reply. He maintained that only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter contracts. There was also no way he would accept release while other political prisoners remained incarcerated. 

 VICTOR VERSTER PRISON.

In December 1988 the Nationalist Government moved Mandela to a warder's home in the Victor Verster prison in the beautiful Paarl valley. He had a home, a cook and a swimming pool. Negotiations about the future of South Africa were obviously beginning in earnest. Simultaneously wide ranging discussions were taking place in London with exile ANC groups. Private groups including those lead by former Progressive Party leader Van Zyl Slabbert and businessmen were also now a regular feature in negotiations. One disturbing feature about his stay at Verster was reports that his wife Winnie was running out of control with a gang of thugs in Soweto again causing great pain at his helplessness.

FREE AT LAST

In 1990 he was released amidst national and international coverage. All details that needed to be hammered out had been concluded. He was the last of the political prisoners to be released. A mass meeting was to be held in Cape Town and they were running late. The crowd at the Grand Parade were getting restive. Winnie counseled going directly to Johannesburg - an action that would have created havoc and riots in Cape Town as the assembled would have concluded that it was because of the Government. Nelson respectfully listened to everyone's point of view and then stated that they he had made a commitment and he would stand by it.

PRESIDENCY AND BEFORE

Mandela was still officially the Vice President of the ANC and in spite of his de facto leadership he always respectfully deferred to Oliver Tamboo the now nominal President. Thus until the situation officially changed he showed deference to his life long partner and friend. 

There was extensive black on black violence between Chief Buthelezi's Zulus and the Xhosa ANC tribe to which Mandela belonged. Mandela and Mandela only was able to get a truce engineered as Buthelezi conceded. 

The South African Defense Force, was under a far from willing partner to the "New South Africa", General Viljoen. Again Mandela, with the aid of, it is said of former Prime Minister Botha, cajoled and reassured this opponent, who was the darling of the far right to be onsides.

There was to be no revenge - no Nuremberg trials. Rather the country would be healed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here perpetrators of apartheid's excesses could confess to their crimes and if they were "sincere" would get amnesty. Not for one moment did he harp on De Klerk's past role in the apartheid government. He just moved forward.

The Judiciary who had applied apartheid law was left untouched. He accepted their bona fides and commitment to the rule of law.

Robben Island would become a Museum and the guides were to be former political prisoners as well as former prison wardens. 

There is a myth that not much was done in Mandela's Presidency but the list of legislation was impressive and sweeping. 

He needed to prove the skeptics wrong. He had to find a balance between effecting change and not frightening off foreign investment and white skills in South Africa. Of course this would evoke criticism from both camps but he was steadfast. As he had said 30 years ago he would not tolerate white or black domination.

When Mandela wrote his autobiography Long Walk To Freedom he did not imply that gaining universal franchise was the end of the struggle. It was only the beginning of the end. He was not about to allow this hard fought victory to end in South Africa becoming yet another African basket case. There was a still a long long walk.

MANDELA AND SPORT

Mandela was aware of the great bond sports could create. He was also aware how obsessed the country was on Rugby Football. It was a religion among the Afrikaners. In 1995 South Africa were hosts to the World Cup and he became personally involved with the South African team. The film Invictus chronicles his involvement and joy at seeing the Rainbow Nation celebrate. A few steps had already been taken in the Long Walk. 

His interest in the success of South Africans of all colors in all arenas continued until such time as his health failed. Charlize Theron after winning her Oscar also saluted Mandela and they celebrated effusively and publically.

RETIREMENT

After retirement he worked enthusiastically on projects including  his Foundation and his number one Project Aids. Again his non judgemental and non confrontative philosophy was in evidence on the issue of Aids. Mbecki his successor, for whatever reasons had displayed a total disregard to this devastating pandemic. All Mandela needed to have done was to criticize him and there is no way Mbecki could have withstood the pressure and would have to have delivered the resources needed to combat this scourge. However, Mandela elected rather to lead an international campaign to educate and provide the resources needed to prevent and treat this modern day epidemic. He partnered with President Clinton, Bono and the rest to set up an infrastructure to meet the problem. President George Bush also delivered. So again he responded to a crises by acting rather then by attack. This in a situation where he had been personally involved. His eldest son had died of Aids at the age of 54.

On a personal level his connection with all has lead to many a tale. Just to illustrate the esteem he was held in at all levels of society and his warm empathetic response to "generosity" the tale of a former warder's action will suffice. 

Mandela's memorabilia fetch large sums of money. This has hindered the ability of his library to obtain many crucial pieces. (The prosecutor in the Rivonia trial is reported to have sold his notes and presumably exhibits for millions of dollars). One of Mandela's prison diaries were "missing". A former warder, who had it in his possession, felt compelled to hand it back to the Mandela organization. Mandela in a public ceremony thanked him, saying that they were just two old men who have joint needs and values. He praised him for his generosity returning an artifact that would have afforded him millions.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

It is doubtful that a nation owes as much to any one person as South Africans owe to Madiba as he is affectionately called.  Not only did he avoid a bloodbath he created a mileu whereby the transition to a nonracial society has been seamless. The world also owes this empathetic and principled statesman a debt of gratitude for his example and leadership.

The battle in South Africa is still not won. There are those that regard Mandela as a sell out and are hell bent to go on the Mugabe path. They do not understand that the path to freedom is a long long walk. The politicians that have followed him are the same old same old. So one can just pray that his influence will linger on long enough to prevent violence and irrationality.

The more Mandela's contribution is recognized the less likely this is to happen. So perhaps the Royal and Ancient Golf Club will incorporate a tribute to his greatness in their championship - even if a South African doesn't win.























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ge

CAN ROMNEY'S BAIN PAIN GO AWAY?

One really wonders what the Romney camp are thinking. The writing has been on the wall ever since Gingrich labelled him as a vulture venture capitalist. (See Blog 1/13/12 Romney Wounded and Bleeding). At that stage the "Anyone But Romney" mood was the vogue with Romney getting 25% of the Republican Primary vote and consistently running second to the "Anyone but Romney" candidate du jour. Romney had no answer to the Bain attacks then and he has none now


Romney elected to run on his Bain business experience and should have had all the angles covered on his tenure with Bain then and if he didn't he has had over 6 months to get them down pat. Obama has merely taken up where Gingrich, Perry, Santorum et al left off. Obama has even been joined by respected Republican columnists such as George Will and the Republican Governor of Alabama who have all told Romney to produce all the documents being asked of him including his last 12 years tax returns. 

Team Obama have taken a leaf out of the Karl Rove, (Bush's Brain), playbook. They have attacked Romney on his supposed business strength much as George 43 attacked Kerry on his supposed military service strength. The advantage that the Obama team has over Rove is that Rove and the swift boaters largely had to write the narrative about Kerry and then attack it while Romney has created his own narrative. The Obama ad about Romney outsourcing jobs at Bain and investing in tax havens while singing America the Brave is devastating .

ROMNEY NARRATIVE

Romney has maintained that his Bain experience qualifies him to be President. America is in a financial mess and needs a businessman to bail it out. He is a succesful businessman who made pots of money at Bain so he is your man. Q. E. D.

The only problem is that Romney made money for himself mostly at the expense of the American worker and American taxpayer. All team Obama has to do is to detail how he did it. As JAY H. ELL opined in an earlier blog, Romney is a poster child for everything Obama wanted to run against. 

He fired workers and he said he enjoyed firing. The latter in another context but the damage was already done. He has money in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Swiss Banks. He paid less tax than most in the middle class. He outsourced jobs oversea. All of this was legitimate and legal, Senator Lindsay Graham, a  Romney defender maintained. "The tax system is there to be gamed". One can hardly as a patriotic American run on "Let's all game the System".


EVERYONE IS ADDING TO THE NARRATIVE


There is a narrative around the narrative on the tax returns. What can there be in them that makes Romney defy the cardinal rule of a cause celebre? - Get the disputed documents as fast as possible and control the damage. Some speculate that it is payments from Bain when he supposedly was no longer working for them. (His retrospective resignation from Bain was hardly a show stopper). Others say there even more "unpatriotic" investments than have been released already.  


Maybe he should have payed more taxes? There is speculation that he used the $35 million spent on the 2008 Presidential Campaign as a tax deduction which would be illegal. Romney made 100's of millions of dollars and maybe every cent was structured in a way to pay as little tax as possible. 


There is a complicated theory put forward by the tax lawyer, Mark Maremont, whereby Romney may have created two types of shares for Bain. He put his potentially highest capital gain shares in his untaxed Retirement Account and the more low risk ones in his ordinary account. (The latter guaranteed that he would never loose on the deal regardless of outcome). So whatever happened he could not loose and if he hit the Jackpot, which he often did, gigantic sums accumulated tax free in his Retirement Account. 


Then there is Joshua Green of Bloomberg Finance who says that maybe Romney lost so much in the crash in 2008 that he carried forward his losses to 2009 and paid NO Federal taxes in that year. This theory has lead to speculation that maybe in that crash he went short on the House mortgages or bet on the bank bail outs cashing in hugely on everyone's misery. 


Whatever the reason(s) Romney appears to be prepared, for the moment, to risk his Presidential chances on not releasing his tax returns. He is defiant. He really should reconsider. I cannot believe that the real story can be as bad as all of this.


So in the teeth of bad unemployment numbers the story is still Romney, his taxes and his version of capitalism.


ROMNEY CAN'T GET OUT OF HIS OWN WAY


Romney insists on defining himself to suit Obama's election manifesto. He attacked Obama for bailing out the motor car industry.  That really doesn't go down too well in the Midwest swing states where the Motor Industry is concentrated.    

Meanwhile Romney squirms and whines. "Obama should fight on the issues not just smear him - Obama should apologize - Romney may have been nominally head and CEO of Bain drawing a salary but wasn't running Bain when the outsourcing occured - John Kerry's wife didn't show her tax returns!" His final stance is that he will not apologize for being a successful business man.  

Obama just ups the ante by maintaining that Romney will create 800,000 jobs if he becomes President  - all outsourced oversea by doing away with the tax on companies' foreign earnings - Romney would not be the Commander in Chief he would be the Outsourcer in Chief.


What is coming up next will be the issue of financial regulation which Obama is "for" and Romney is "against". This has to be a key issue in the light of the unfolding Libor scandal where the unregulated financial institutions once again proved that they need to be regulated. This has the makings of a long long story with mortgages, pension funds, cities and states loosing money while the trusted financial institutions, (the job creators), played monopoly with real property, (other peoples).


There is also in the wings the Ryan budget that Romney has signed onto. That budget is not exactly being trotted out by the Republicans will be introduced by the Obama campaign. As far as they are concerned another gift. For starters it gets rid of Medicare and Medicaid as it exists today.


WHAT HAS ROMNEY GOING FOR HIM?

1. In spite of all of this Romney is still in the game. He is nothing if not resilient and he is not far behind Obama in the national polls.
" It is the economy stupid".


2. Romney has pots and pots of money with which he hopes to drown out the narrative he has created for himself. He has all the so called "interest" and "support" groups that are allowed, anonymously, to spend and collect unlimited sums of money to further his cause. There are endless corporations and institutions who are really Romney's main constituency. They are ready to make the "investment" to continue on in their merry way. Do the Oil Companies, for example, really want to loose their lucrative research and development subsidies?

3. He has history on his side. No incumbent has won reelection with the unemployment number above 8%. Romney is calling Obamacare a tax increase even though he steadfastly maintained that Romneycare wasn't. He thinks that it is a winning issue for him.   

4. The Republican State legislatures are trying to even out the demographic that is working against Romney by changing voter registration laws that will make it harder for the poor, Hispanics and African Americans to vote.

5. He can inspire with his Vice Presidential choice but the odds are he will go true to form and name someone who is a white male lackluster candidate. They keep mentioning Condie Rice who keeps putting the kybosh on the idea. Anyway she is pro choice, like Romney used to be, and he needs that like a hole in his head.       


6. Obama has not exactly a stellar economic record to run on. "Yes We Can" has morphed into "Forward". The starry eyed base is not nearly so worked up. For a large part of his Presidency he tried unsuccessfully to compromise with the Republicans. (See Blog, 12/7/10, "Obama - From "Yes we can" to "Yes we cave"). Obama turned out to be a far more inspiring candidate than he was a President. Such is the reality of politics.


7. At the end of the day Romney will have all the money and that he believes could win it for him. His support groups are said to be buying all the TV time in the swing states for August and October. In fact this has really made team Obama quite agitated and they have been sending out e -mail after email every day pleading for money.

However the debates are usually the most watched adverts and they are for free. Romney was pretty uninspiring in the Republican debates. Here he is up against Obama in an area that is his forte. Also the moderators' questions have to bring up all his narratives again and that cannot be something that he is looking forward to.


Objectively, the Republicans have to be pretty desperate and there are even murmurings that Romney is only the "presumptive" nominee and maybe the convention could pull a rabbit out of the hat. Now that would be a real miracle!




    

PENN STATE - A FAILED STATE

There are so many aspects to the the Penn State University Crisis, where a former football coach has been found guilty of egregious acts of childhood sexual abuse, that one hardly knows where to begin. These aspects include the whole issue of child abuse, the idolatry of sport and the devastation of the victims and the others caught up in the maelstrom of this saga. These issues will be dealt with later. This blog deals with the corrupt inner workings of the University.


A decade and a half after the matter first surfaced at Penn State, The University Board of Trustees initiated an investigation into the whole affair. This was conducted by Louis Freeh, a former FBI Director and gives us insight into the inner workings at Penn State. 


THE POWER OF INSTITUTIONS


The area that JAY H. ELL would like to look at is the incredible power that institutions and corporations wield in the USA. In fact  they are the most powerful political entities in the USA - even more powerful than the States themselves that make up the Federation. Of the institutions the Universities stand out as the most powerful and influential. They are even more powerful than the Medieval Churches of the Middle Ages. 


 Major Universities' total resources and budgets, run into billions -  multiples more than the budgets of US towns of populations of over 200,000. The allegation against these powerful entities is that they are run like banana republics with not even token acknowledgement to the rule of law, due process and the world around them. 


Looking at the comprehensive Freeh report it is patently obvious that Penn State behaved as if they are above the law. This blog will show that Penn State have a history of this autocratic behavior and a previous well publicized incident did nothing to set into motion checks and balances that might have avoided this catastrophe.


FREEH REPORT FINDINGS


1. The highest administrative officials of the University, including the President, ignored the State and Federal Laws regarding the reporting of Child Sexual Abuse. Also they totally ignored the provisions of the Federal Clery Act which lays out the provisions as to what a University has to do in relation to criminal activities on the Campus


2. These selfsame administrative officials ignored their own University Policies for the protection of minors on University Property.


3. While these administrative officials did not report the allegations to the Board of Trustees the Freeh report faults the Board. They are the Body ultimately responsible for the University and did not introduce compulsory policies for the reporting of such incidents to them. The Freeh report further criticizes them for not effecting reasonable oversight.


4. The officials, knowing of the allegations against Sandusky, allowed a situation whereby Sandusky, after retirement, was given open access to the University facilities including locker and shower rooms where he continued to abuse minors. 


5. Not only did these administrative officials not report Sandusky's behavior to authorities, no-one is on record of confronting him with these allegations.


6. Sandusky was inexplicably paid a $168,000 on his retirement. While the investigations into Sandusky were in progress, one of the most famous of the officials at fault, the legendary Chief Football coach, was negotiating a several million dollar retirement package with the other administrative officials.


7. The report details incidents were the University officials were swift to act against those who had been involved in minor incidents that they perceived to be not in the University's "best interests". The purpose of this inclusion was to illustrate the unashamed hypocrisy of the officials.


8. The report also reflects the culture at Penn State where Janitors, aware of Sandusky's behavior, were too frightened to report it as they believed it would lead to their being terminated.


UPSHOT.


The upshot of this outrageous behavior is now public knowledge.  At least a dozen minors were serially sexually abused and raped over at least a decade and a half by Sandusky. This was allowed to happen and even facilitated because these officials were presumably acting in the University's "best interests". It stands to reason that with all the e mails flying around - Freeh's group examined  3.5 million e - mails - that 100's of University officials must of known about it. Yet not a whisper to the authorities as these officials must have believed, like the janitors, that reporting this would be "treason" and not be considered in the Universities "best interests". They obviously perceived they would be fired. 


Hardly a culture conducive to the pursuit of truth.


However, for what it is worth the National Collegiate of Athletic Associates and Department of Education are now in the process of investigating Penn State. Two of the administrative officials have been charged criminally for their failure to report the incidents and other charges may follow. Like all things too late this is far too little.


WATER BUFFALO INCIDENT.


A much publicized incident occured in 1993 at Penn State that should have alerted the Board of Trustees that their top level administrators were out of control. A group of predominantly African American sorority sisters were kicking up a ruckus outside the window of a dormitory were students were studying and sleeping. Several students remonstrated with them some shouting racial epithets. Two of the male remonstrators were charged by the University authorities. One of these was a former yeshiva student, Mr. Eden Jacobowicz. He was charged with racial harassment in that he called the rowdy students Water Buffalo.


 Several expert witnesses testified that the hebrew term Behema was a slang word meaning water buffalo, which was used to describe a rowdy person, but to no avail. This issue dragged on for months garnering national and international attention. The University still arbitrarily found Mr. Jacobowicz guilty of racial harassment in a kangaroo court hearing. His original University appointed advisor told him to except a sentence that included probation and entering the offense into his University record. 


During the process the administrators issued press gag orders and exhibited other autocratic behaviors and after months of one embarrassing exposure after another they finally agreed to withdraw the charges if Jacobowicz apologized to the women. This he did willingly since from the word go he had offered to do so if the term had offended them.


The second student charged was Mr. Jacobowicz's dormitory partner. He was just present when the "offense" took place. He accepted the punishment meted out by the University as he maintained that he could not afford lawyers. After the resolution of Mr. Jacobowicz's case the University was approached to nullify the roommate's conviction. The University flat out refused. 


In their book written in 1999, "The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses", Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate detail this and several other instances of this nature in other Universities in the United States.


AFTERMATH OF THE WATER BUFFALO INCIDENT.


The Board of Trustee's silence was loud and clear. 


There was no adverse consequences within the University to any of the officials involved from the President down. At least one of those involved in the Jacobowicz affair was central to yet another University cause celebre. Larry Moneta, a former Vice Provost of Penn State, was slap bang in the middle of the infamous 2006 Duke University Lacrosse case. There several students were arbitrarily suspended on what turned out to be a patently bogus claim of gang rape. Moneta's actions there resulted in litigation against him and the University.


AND ON AND ON IT GOES.....


On Friday 13th July 2012 the Chicago Tribune ran two stories on their front page. They lead with the Freeh report on Penn State. Their second lead was yet another scandal at the University of Illinois where a University Official's husband had been handed a no compete contract of $4.6 million. The mandatory state oversight had been ignored. A member of a watch dog panel maintained that the University of Illinois was acting "above the law". 


In 2009 the University was involved in a widely publicized scandal where it was shown that those with political and university connections were unfairly admitted to the prestigious Urbana - Champagne campus. Disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevitch, The Illinois Senate President, The Illinois House Speaker, the Illinois State Treasurer and several elected Illinois representatives were among those to receive favors. Nearly the whole Board of Trustees resigned as a result. 


There appears no end to it all. A recent book by Benjamin Ginsberg,"The Fall of Faculty : The Rise of The All Administrative University and Why It Matters", goes into endless detail as to how Universities have run amuck. 


Some of the powerful autonomous independent Universities are going the way of all banana republics and have become failed states.

THE ROBERT'S SUPREME COURT AND OBAMACARE PART 2

Winston Churchill, famously said, that you can trust America to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else! After almost 70 years of Presidential attempts, including Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon, to reform health care, the Obama Affordable Health Care Act is, finally, a reality.

The Founding Fathers in their "naive" wisdom left the final decision making, on what was to be "constitutional" or not, to 9 individuals, appointed for life. They were to arbitrate the rules as to the way the country was to be run. While, these venerable well intentioned patricians, could not have envisioned PACS and the like, they were ultimately relying on the conscience and responsibility of individuals, given this single honor, to make "the right calls".

JAY H. Ell expected this Health Care decision as he could not believe that a Chief Justice, who has the responsibility of the Court's legacy, would allow this law to be rescinded. (Blog The Robert's Supreme Court and Obamacare). The only sadness is that Roberts could not convince any of the other Conservative "wise" men to see, what was happening in an historical context. It was left to him alone.

EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSE.

In the days leading up to the decision you could not find a pundit, commentator or journalist who predicted this outcome. Jeffrey Toobin, the CNN legal analyst had written off Obama's case as a "train wreck". Bill O'Reilly the Fox talk show host had stated that there was no way on earth that the individual mandate would be declared constitutional. Very few, if anyone were prepared for this outcome.

 The Republican response to the Robert's Supreme Court decision was vitriolic. Their media leader Rush Limbaugh implied that Roberts was a Judas and berated "that idiot" Bush who appointed him. The Republican leader of the House maintained that it may be constitutional but it was wrong. The Republican leader of the Senate said that the Court had endorsed a solution to a disease that was worse than the problem. The Republican Presidential candidate, Romney, who introduced this exact same program in Massachusetts, capsulated the Republican opposition to the decision, "On the first day of his Presidency he would move to reverse Obamacare". 

The Democratic response was stunned shock. Then unashamed jubilation followed. Obama had a host of responses prepared and to his joy he could dust off his "victory" speech -  He did not do this for political reasons he did it because it was right. It was time to move on. This was good for all of America, ( not to mention his goodself who had achieved what everyone else has been trying to do for generations).

 

WHY

The American Supreme Court has the potential for disaster - especially in this day and age of political polarization. The Judges are political appointees who are appointed for life. (Although in the case of Scalia it seems forever!). The last 4 Chief Justices have all been appointed by Republicans Presidents.

 

Yet, other than for the past two Rehnquest decades, the Court has had a strong societal bent. Even during Rehnquest's reign there was only one short period when they went totally "political". This after Sandra Day O' Connor had resigned. (In her days there were two swing votes hers and Kennedy.) Her departure gave us the Bush v Gore decision which had ziltch constitutional support. (The Court refused to allow a recount in Florida reversing a decision of the Florida Supreme Court in an area which was totally under State control. However, as Justice Scalia says every time he is questioned about it, "We were the laughing stock of the world with this hiatus. It is time to move on and forget about it".)

 

REPUBLICAN CHIEF JUSTICES.

 

In 1953 Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. He had stellar Republican credentials.  He had been Dewey's Vice Presidential running mate in the 1948 election when Truman beat Dewey against all odds. He had been Republican Governor of California 3 times. He was considered a true blue Conservative. He declared the American Japanese a threat during World 11 and was a mover of having them interned. (A decision he subsequently deeply regretted).

 

In no time at all he set about revoltionizing American Society. Brown v Board of Education was the beginning of the end of segregated schools. Warren worked night and day to get a unanimous decision. The mantra that separate facilities were inherently unequal was born and this began the unraveling of segregation in the USA. Several other judgments seperating State and Church followed such as no school prayers. Civil rights and due process were two other areas he advanced. No wonder Eisenhower maintained that appointing Warren as Chief Justice was "The biggest damn fool decision I ever made".

 

WARREN E BURGER 1969 

 

Warren Burger was appointed by Richard Nixon in 1969. He was thought to be a strict constructionist and had given speeches on the subject. He had criticized Earl Warren. Yet by the 70's it was more than evident that he would expand on Warren's liberal legacy. Rulings on abortion, school segregation, capitol punishment and Church and State seperation emanated from his bench.

 

WILLIAM REHNQUEST  1986

 

Not only was Rehnquest the longest serving Chief Justice, serving in that capacity until 2005, he had been on the Supreme Court since 1972 as an Associate Justice. Ironically, he is best known for his minority opinions in the Burger Court opposing most of the Progressive legislation. His association with the Highest Court goes back even further. He was a clerk to Justice Jackson in 1952 - 1953 and was said to have drafted an opinion against the Brown v Board of Education majority opinion. He denied this in the 1986 Senate hearings on his appointment as Chief Justice.

He was legal advisor to Barry Goldwater in his 1964 presidential bid. Thus his Conservative credentials were impeccable.

 

While he was a strict Constructionist and the Associate Judges appointed to his Court became more and more conservative, most commentators believe that he made little impact on the existing social order as defined by his predecessors. He is most famous for the Bush v Gore decision and for better or worse that will be his legacy. As his term progressed the court became more and politically polarized. This particularly so with the substitution of  Justice Allito for Sandra O' Conner.

 

He was very popular with his colleagues affording them respect and equal opportunity to write opnions.

 

JOHN ROBERTS  2005

 

It was in this mileu that Chief Justice Roberts entered the arena. In his confirmation hearings it was quite clear that he is constructionist. However, as a Chief Justice he would believe that one should act more like an "umpire' than a judicial activist. He quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes, the celebrated jurist, that where there is a close call on an Act of Congress's constitutionality, one should favor Congress. 

 

Also, as a result, particularly, of his Court's decisions on equating money as free speech and thereby opening the floodgates to election money, he recognized and stated that the Supreme Court was loosing it's credibility as an Independant Branch of Government. In polls over half the population believed that it was merely an extension of the partisan legislative divide between Democrats and Republicans. His Court was known as the Kennedy court as a result of that Justice being considered the swing vote in every 5-4 decision. A Time Cover had depicted Kennedy not Roberts as the decider in legislation.  His Court and his leadership was being marginalized.

 

Roberts also has a sense of history. Much of what the Warren and Burger Courts did is the unchallenged way of the land today - desegregation, civil liberties and the like. He was now on the cusp of two historical decisions. The legitimacy of the Arizona's far reaching immigration law and Health Care. He could still get on the right side of history, in terms of being a Constructionist.

 

One cannot see the Immigration problem with 12,000,000 illegal souls being solved the draconian Arizona way. The constitutional solution to that challenge was relatively simple. You cannot have 52  State Immigration policies and this is clearly a Federal Government activity so the harsh Arizona legislation could be struck down. Furthemore, the Court invited a challenge on the one provision ruled constitutional - the "show your papers" component. 

 

The Affordable Health Care Act was not so easy to solve in terms of his philosophy. It does not present as easy a Consitutional out as did the Arizona Immigration Laws.  However it was an Act of Congress and one could envision in a few decades that Universal Health Care will as much be part of the landscape as Medicare, Social Security, desegregation, voting rights and the like. In order to support this Act he ignored totally the Government argument for it's legitimacy - Commerce and defined the Compulsory Mandate as a tax which the Federal Government are perfectly entitled to institute.

 

THE FUTURE

 

Much depends on who the future Associate Judges will be. However, it is highly unlikely that the Court will go back into it's partisan stupor. Nor is it likely that Robert's will sit idly by and let an Associate Judge define the legacy of his Court.

Also there is no chance that Obamacare will be repealed. In the unlikely event that Romney was elected he would need 60 Senate votes to repeal it and that is not going to happen.

ROMNEY - GOP'S LAST WHITE HOPE

There is little doubt that the "Old grey donkey ain't what she used to be", and JAY H. ELL has blogged about this in one way or another for some time, for example in ROMNEY THE GOP'S LAST HOORAH. For practical purposes the party's platform has been hijacked by the Tea Party and they are really a right wing, social conservative Liberterian party who do not tolerate compromise. 

In fact we are witnessing the demise of the GOP as we have known it in the twentieth century. The only reason it is somehow hanging together is because it's Presidential nominee, who to get the nomination took over the right wing Tea Party manifesto, was a standard bearer of the old GOP philosophy. So the establishment GOP live in the hope that, when this nightmare ends and Romney is elected President, he will be kissed on the head by Karl Rove and wake up as a Reagan/Bush compassionate compromising conservative. 

It is not going to happen. In the highly unlikely event that Romney does get elected he will be a prisoner of the right. The majority Tea Party controlled Republican Congress has allowed Speaker Boehner to be their spokesperson at a steep price. He made a tax/slashed expenditure deal with Obama and the Tea Party axed it. Romney too would do what he was told. There is nothing in his behavior that can make one believe otherwise. His only consistent goal has been his desire to become President.

WHY THE END

Opinion polls are invariably about national viewpoints. The Presidency is not a national election but rather a State one. The largest states getting the most electoral votes. Thus California, New York and Illinois - all certain states for Obama already give him a 108 votes of the 270 he needs to be elected. (Obama received 360 electoral votes in 2008). Also, the States that are marginal have increasing numbers of Latino voters. To a lesser extent there are greater increases of African American voters and youth as well. All demographics which favor Obama. Also women who are more consistent voters than men favor Obama.

(The Latinos are the fastest growing section in the USA and together with other minority groups are scheduled to be in the majority in America by mid century).

Thus for this election the key demographic is the Latin American vote. The latter favor Obama by 63% to 23%. The Latin American TV channels, that are extremely influential, favor Obama. Romney went all the way to the right on the "immigration problem". He really has no hope of cutting into that lead. And for the Republican Party this is only going to grow much worse. The Tea Party dominated party are supporting and initiating even more legislation perceived as anti Latino. They support the demand of "papers" from every suspicious individual who could be "illegal".  (Shades of the South African apartheid "pass" laws). The controversial Arizona immigration law is about to be tested in the Supreme Court and if stands there are other Republican Governors ready to follow suit. Hardly a recipe to attract the Latin American vote.

BACK TO THIS ELECTION

Obama just has to hold on to some of the marginal states that he won in the last election and several of the marginal states have potentially far more additional Latino votes. (There are other marginal states with other factors that give Obama an edge that are not going to be dealt with in this blog). 

In the marginal States that the Republicans would like to win back from the Democrats the latter's 2008 majority is reflected first and  additional potential Latino vote in the next column:

FLORIDA:           234,000   710,000
COLORADO:      219,000   243,000
NEW MEXICO:  126,000   203,000
VIRGINIA:          235,000   201,000
NEVADA:           121,000   182,000

In a few states that the Republicans won there are also large potential additional Latino voters that may influence the outcome. The Republican majority is mentioned first and the additional potential Latino vote in the next column:

GEORGIA:        205,000  208,000
ARIZONA:       195,000   575,000
TEXAS:            950,000   800,000

Thus with all the crucial demographics in his favor Obama has to be the odds on favorite to win. Remember Obama can even loose a few states and still win. 

IMPACT ON REPUBLICAN PARTY

For this election Romney is soldiering on and to these realities he replies, "It is the economy stupid".

However for the Republican party there has to be a reinvention. The demographics are going to get worse and they can no longer be a party just attractive to White elderly males. The most important reality is that they have to recognize that the minorities are on their way to being the majority and the Party has to recognize their needs. Also they have to recognize that compromise is the name of the game in US politics. The Tea Party agenda is not going to cut it.

Party reinventions are about as old as American Politics. It was after all a Republican, Lincoln who fought the Civil War to release slaves. It was about a half a century ago when the Lyndon Johnson had to shed the Democratically controlled South to the Republicans with the introduction of Civil Rights. We are obviously due for another one if the Republicans are going to remain competitive.

BUSH 45?

Jed Bush has already gone against party orthodoxy by attacking the party's agenda in the throes of an election. This is an unheared of heresy by such a high profile Republican.

Jed, a former highly successful Floridian Governor, said what all the Republican establishment are thinking. This no compromise attitude is getting the Republicans nowhere. This immediately brought Grover Norquist, the Republican patrician, to maintain that Bush was foolish and bizarre. Norquist is the activist that had all the Republicans sign pledges that they would not increase taxes under any circumstances. Jed Bush reminded the faithful that this Republican party would not have embraced "even" Ronald Reagan.

Jed Bush is one of the few Republicans that has some credibility among the Latin American community. He married one of them and converted to Catholicism. He is also considered the brightest of the Bush progeny. Barbara Bush remarked when George W. was elected that she would never have imagined that he would be the one to follow his dad. Jed seemed far more likely to do so.

So it looks as if there is already is a champion to remodel the GOP.

Can you imagine 2016 with a Bush versus a Clinton? It would be like old times. And there is always Chelsea and a Bush grandchild to look forward to!

......... In the meantime Obama has fired his first shot across the bows to retain and increase the Latino vote. He has ordered no more deportations of young "illegal" Latinos and those who have served in the military. Latinos are ecstatic and the current GOP have gone ballistic.

WISCONSIN, THE GOP, OBAMA AND LABOR

 Governor Walker of Wisconsin has survived a recall election contest that was hyped up to be a barometer of the Republican's chances for this year's Presidential election. It was hyped up by the media and the Republican Party. The Democratic establishment gave the whole exercise a bye. Walker had infringed Trade Union bargaining rights and had incensed a large section of the Democratic and Trade Union establishment enough for them to obtain a million and a half signatures for a recall vote. 


Walker received massive support from the Republican establishment with Governor after Governor making pilgrimage to Wisconsin in support of him. More significant is the $30 million Karl Rove and his cohorts threw into the race - by far the majority coming from outside Wisconsin. The Democratic contender, the Milwaukee Mayor Barrett, by contrast garnered $4 million nearly all of it from Wisconsin. 


The lack of Democratic establishment support was highlighted by liberal Ed Schultz of MSNBC Television who had passionately campaigned for Walker's ouster. One night, in Prime Time, he implored Deborah Wasserman, the DNC National Chairman, to cut a check for $500,000 for expenses needed by the recall Walker campaign. He just could not understand the Democratic establishment's disinterest in this race.


WHY NO DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL INVOLVEMENT.


The one skill that the Obama team has, is undoubtedly in electioneering. They after all outmanouvered the Clintons. The issue in Wisconsin was about Union bargaining rights. The latter something dear and central to Democratic hearts. However, the whole confrontation took place in an atmosphere where there is an over 8% unemployment rate. The Democratic powers that be obviously read that the Independents, especially the unemployed ones, would have scant sympathy for the bewailing of loss of rights of those employed versus those that have no employment at all. They therefore felt they would risk Union ire by not giving money and high powered official presence but just pay lip service to the Unions' "just" cause.


IT WORKED


The exit polling data proved the Dems right. Obama was supported 51% to between 41% and 44% as the Presidential choice by the recall voters. Most significantly the same percentages confirmed that Obama was more likely to improve the middle class economic plight than Romney. So Obama and the Democratic establishment non involvement had succeeded in not clouding the swing voters' minds. They seperated the Walker recall from the Obama election manifesto.


As a bonus to the Democratic cause was the fact that the Democrats won back the Wisconsin senate. A number of Republican senators were in recall elections as well. One of them lost and the Democrats now control the Wisconsin Senate. While this may seem a pyrhic victory as November is almost upon us and the Senate are not due to meet again, nothing can stop the Democratic majority from calling an emergency session to limit Walker's powers.


REALITY


Obama and the Democratic establishment are conducting a massive online financial drive which has been very successful. The newest incentive to get supporters to donate is - look what can happen when we are outspent 8 to 1! ( Incidentally, there is no way that the Democrats can be outspent 8 to 1 if they compete).


Walker has been thrust into the national limelight as a torchbearer for the Republican cause. The downside is that he is slap bang in the middle of an investigation on irregularities and embezzlement of funds in his campaign to become Governor. Thirteen Walker aides are prepared to give testimony against those already charged in this scandal. Walker himself has already withdrawn $160,000 from campaign funds for his own legal defense. The Republicans need a scandal of this nature for a newly anointed savior like a hole in the head. But there is nothing they can do to spin it as a "political" move. It has already gone too far. They have gone out on a limb to support Walker.


So while team Obama would have preferred a Walker ouster they were really in a win win situation. They have lost no ground in Wisconsin. The Unions will not desert them and even those voters who are prepared to support a Republican Governor a few months before an election would rather vote for Obama as President. And there is now a Democratic Wisconsin Senate. Not a bad way to lose.


So much for Wisconsin being a swing State.


THE REAL LOSER


The real loser was organized labor. It was a fight they had to fight and they lost. It will give those Republican Governors who are also thinking of cutting Union bargaining power courage to go ahead. There has been a steady whittling away of Union power for decades and this another landmark set back.

OBAMA AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE

CRASH BAM ALICAZAM...


A few months ago President Obama, ostensibly, out of the blue,   announced his support for same sex marriage. Well not quite out of the blue as he was "forced" into his announcement as a result of Vice President Biden, supposedly, shooting his mouth off at a "Meet The Press" interview. In the interview Biden articulated his support for same sex marriage. Biden has, publicly, apologized for putting the President in such a "tough spot". Obama has "forgiven" Biden because he knew Biden was speaking "from the heart".


But Biden's "Meet The Press" interview was a reasoned defense of the Administration's position, in general, and his statement on same sex marriage was a touching statement of belief - and not a rash impromptu gaffe. Also what really is the evidence, that Obama finally, pronouncing the logical consequences of all his pro gay positions, is going to do him any harm in the forthcoming election? 

In fact if one wanted to be cynical the whole episode is a stroke of political genius. It looks like an evolutionary advance of Karl Rove's playbook. The latter Republican strategist, also referred to as "Bush's Brain", believes that you attack our opponent's strengths. Obama has taken this all one step further  - you lead with your supposed weaknesses.

OBAMA'S THOUGHT PROCESSES

Obama has been a most outspoken and proactive supporter of gay rights and as to regard to marriage, as Biden reminded us, was in the process of evolving his attitude. In his announcement Obama was very much in tune with the now slight majority of American opinion, on the subject, according to the latest Gallop Poll. This showed that, notwithstanding the State referendums, over 50% of Americans were in favor. Also he relayed his thinking process as being on the basis of fairness and anti discrimination - "How could he explain to his daughters why the parents of a one of their friends could not get married"?

He appeared to connect with the dilemna the religious were having between knowing and accepting same sex couples and the logical outcome of allowing them to marry. All this taking place in an environment where for decades decent caring individuals have "come out of the closet". There are TV programs about same  sex couples and scores of personalities are known and recognized as gay. In one sense he was even behind the curve and as has been said he did not want to be on the wrong side of history.

ROMNEY

This announcement was the last thing Romney wanted or expected. The ball was in his court. His response was insipid stating that he "understood that there were differing opinions", but he was against. He then kind of compromised and said adoption by gay couples, presumably not married, should be left up to the individual states. 


He maintained that the economy was the issue he wanted to focus on. Once again his statements of the 90's were trotted out where in the Senatorial race against Ted Kennedy he had claimed to be left of  Kennedy on the issue. An Obama advertisement, (that just happened to be ready), attacked him to be uncaring and discriminatory to couples that happened to be same sex. On top of that an article appeared in the Washington Post where he was shown to be a sadistic bully as a student who was perceived to be gay.


So Obama's statement served to put Romney once again on the defensive. Also it showed him once again as a flip flopping opportunist and an uncaring one at that.


MOBILIZATION OF THE BASE.

The gays and the lesbians have formed highly successful activist groups in the past and  have been a very vocal and active minority fighting for their rights. Gay interests are served in both main parties by national committees.  This pronouncement is certainly going to activate the Democratic group to work harder for Obama. There are a sizable group of Republican gays who have had to swallow their ambitions in favor of their other conservative convictions. Once again they are being asked to be second class citizens. It is fair to say that this state of affairs is hardly likely to make them work harder for Romney. 


While no-one really knows what numbers one is talking about, the percentage of gays is variously estimated as being between 4 and 10%, they are an important group politically. This particularly so when one realizes that only about 50% of the citizens vote and gays are politically far more aware than the general population.


DOWNSIDE


What if Santorum was right? He has stated that the President has given the GOP a great opportunity with this decision. He urged Romney to use it! The fundamentalist sermons have been that much more vehement against Obama. But were any of the choir going to vote for Obama anyway? Romney never took Santorum's advice and dropped the issue like a ton of bricks.


One group that could have produced a tinge of worry is his African American base.  They are the one group where the majority  are against same sex marriage. But the preachers, who are out in full force on Sundays, were for the most part against the policy but still for Obama. The polls now show that the majority of African American now favor same sex marriage.


AT THE END OF THE DAY.


This move put Romney on the defensive and emphasized his dependence on the Conservative Republican base. Romney is being given little breathing space to work on getting the centrist independents on board. He has been made to keep his eye on the base.  Also revered independent minded leaders such as Colin Powell have come out in favor of Obama's position.


Rove and his Political Action Committee will have to rethink their ads where they were going to say that, "Once re-elected Obama will advocate for same sex marriage", - he has already. So whether this has slightly hindered or helped Obama at this stage is not really the point. He has blunted the type of social attack that the Republicans have used in the past few elections to mobilize the base as election day approaches. 

However, this was a gutsy move by Obama and the jury is still out. It involved risk. However a few months after the event no - one is talking very much about it and Obama's move has probably proved the right one. The only two groups are still regarding it as central are the Gays and Lesbians and that can only be positive for Obama.


One only wishes Obama would take the same chances governing as he does electioneering.