Captives of Technology

We all love the Internet. We all love technology , and sure do love all the toys and games and other voltage vampires that with which we can clutter up our lives. But our love of technology can also have its downside. It can make us fragile and dependent and ultimately fragile and brittle.

Let me give you an example. Yesterday, I had a meeting scheduled in my office with an attorney who needed to travel from midtown Manhattan to the downtown area. An hour before the meeting she called me and said her internet had crashed and wanted to know which subway to take. When she finally arrived, I said,"you know, not too long ago people would have known to just look at the subway map in the station." She was stunned as the thought never occurred to her. She was totally dependent on her electronic life and once it crashed so did some of her ability to interact with the world. We are not talking calculating orbital mechanics, just looking at a map, and in that, her mind collapsed on itself.

Think of it. We need GPS units where once road maps were sufficient. We need individual cell phones , and in some cases multiple cell phones, to stay in touch at all times. Blackberries that keep you tethered to work 24/7. And god help the "crackberry" addict who can't get a fix.

Our military has become increasingly dependent on technology do to the level of the individual infantryman and researchers are trying mightily to hook him into an ever increasingly web of electronic complexity. I find it interesting to note that the people we currently are fighting are for the most part living a less complicated, in fact almost pre-industrial existence in mountains, and they themselves realize that their weak point is their reliance on technology, such as the internet and easily intercepted electronic communications.

Written materials exist for millennia. People still read and interpret ancient Sanskrit on written on clay tablets and Egyptian hieroglyphics on stone and parchment. Please tell me the shelf life of a book downloaded onto a Kindle? If your hard drive has ever crashed or your IPod battery died, you know the answer.

Technology makes us smarter but not wiser. We live in the milliseconds and ignore the moments. As we access a world of knowledge we lose contact with our neighbors and ourselves.

Quo Vadis?

A New Low at High Altitude.

I just knew it was going to happen. I knew it. An airline is considering installing pay toilets in its airplanes. Read this article then tell me the options if you don't have the correct change.

DUBLIN - When nature calls at 30,000 feet, is $1.40 a wee price to pay? Or could it force passengers without correct change into a whole new kind of holding pattern?

The head of budget European airline Ryanair unleashed a flood of indignation and potty humor Friday when he suggested that future passengers might be obliged to insert a British pound coin for access to the lavatory to get some in-flight relief.

Airline chief Michael O'Leary suggested that installing pay toilets would lower ticket costs and make flying, somehow, easier for all.

It's a neat trick when he says that he is doing it for the benefit of the passengers.

I still think that ultimately the airlines will address their costs and security in a manner that requires that the passengers be handled pretty much like cargo. You want to travel. Great. Get to the airport, remove all of your clothes, go through security, don a one-time-use paper gown and take enough airline supplied Valium to put you out for the duration of the flight. You'll be packed into a "personalized travel pod" (which resembles a cheap coffin) and stacked like palletized cargo in the airplane's interior, which is now entirely outfitted as a cargo carrier. Arrive at your destination, wake up, get dressed, and leave.

The airlines would love to do this. No more flight attendants to pay and pension off. An airplane packed to the gills. No Complaints. No meals, no beverages, no movies, and no crying, cranky babies (some passengers might like this, too, especially if you have every had to sit in front of a crying baby who persists in kicking your seat for 6 hours!)

Coming soon to an airline near you!

A Conversation with a Friend on the Constitution and Obama

The following is an e-mail conversation TRM had with a friend:

From: Friend
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009
To: TRM
Subject: FYI



Second Amendment Absent in Supreme Court Gun Ruling

Tony Mauro
02-24-2009

In spite of its recent support for an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted an expansive reading of the federal law that bans possession of firearms by those who have been convicted of felonies or of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

The meaning of the phrase about misdemeanors was the issue in United States v. Hayes, decided by a 7-2 vote in a decision available here.

West Virginia resident Randy Hayes was prosecuted under that section of the law in 2005. The predicate crime that triggered the law in his case was a 1994 state conviction on charges of battery, where his victim was his wife.

But Hayes claimed that since the crime was simple battery, and was not specific to battery against a family member, it should not have triggered the firearm possession law. Hayes lost at the district court level, but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the law comes into play only when the predicate crime has "as an element a domestic relationship." In other words, even though Hayes' victim actually was his wife, the appeals court said it does not count as a predicate crime because the crime was not specific to domestic violence.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the 4th Circuit's approach would "frustrate Congress' manifest purpose" in including domestic violence crimes among the crimes that would result in loss of firearms. "If the Fourth Circuit were right in its analysis of the controlling legislation," Ginsburg said in announcing the ruling from the bench, "Congress' enactment would have been a dead letter in the majority of states from the very moment of its passage." Congress added the domestic violence provision in 1996.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said that "right off the bat," the law should be read to require that a domestic relationship be an element of the predicate offense. Roberts also said that implementing the majority's view will entail "significant problems," requiring prosecutors to research the relationships in past crimes, rather than simply going by the category of the crime.

The case drew interest in part as a test of the strength of the right to bear firearms in the wake of D.C. v. Heller, last year's landmark declaration of an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment Foundation filed a brief in the Hayes case, urging the Court to adopt the narrower interpretation and to allow states leeway in defining crimes.

But, as Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman points out on his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, neither Heller nor the Second Amendment played a role in Hayes. "The Second Amendment and Heller do not even get mentioned by the dissenters, even though the majority's ruling would seem to provide a green light to jurisdictions looking for pretty easy ways to functionally work around the rights supposedly championed in Heller."

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence applauded the decision. "In its first gun case since the landmark Heller decision, the Court wisely upheld this reasonable restriction, said center president Paul Helmke. "Today's ruling is the right one for victims of domestic abuse and to protect law enforcement officers who are our first responders to domestic violence incidents."

This article first appeared on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: TRM
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009
To: Friend
Subject: RE: FYI





And this is news:



http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-administration-revives-assault-weapons-debate-2009-02-26.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From: Friend
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009
To: TRM
Subject: RE: FYI



This further confirms that despite all that blather about Obama being a “centrist,” he remains the same far-left ultraliberal that his voting record shows he’s always been. His honeymoon will, I think, prove very brief as his lack of any true leadership or managerial experience in an executive capacity becomes more and more clear to more and more people. And despite all that hurrahing about the Democrats being in control in Congress, a significant number of them come from the more conservative states and are not going to blindly follow the other lemmings as Obama leads them over the cliff to sure defeat in the next Congressional election, at which point my prognostication is that the economy will still be in the toilet, except that we’ll owe trillions more than we do now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: TRM
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009
To: Friend
Subject: RE: FYI



First, I do not share your total pessimism about the economy (In fact, if I had any money, I would start to invest in the market at this point for long term purposes. As Baron Rothschild is reported to have said, “The time to buy is when blood flows in the streets.”). But this is an area where every “expert”, regardless of philosophy or party affiliation, is only guessing. There are very good reasons why economics is called “the dismal science”.



Second, Nancy Pelosi said that the House will not take up the issue of automatic weapons controls precisely because she does not want to force the more conservative Democrats into a comfort zone with the Republicans, who may be their more natural allies. She knows that would be the beginning of a political disaster.



Third, if Obama does turn out to be swimming outside the political mainstream, then the electorate will have to wait just about 20 months for mid-term elections to let him know what they think.



So cheer up!

Skelator Speaks

Did you catch Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's Republican response to President Obama's address to Congress? Wow! What a disaster. Not only did Jindal look like death warmed over, but he spoke in this weird sing-song kind of voice that made me think he really wanted to replace the late Mr. Rogers in his neighborhood. "Can we say government is bad, boys and girls?" "Who needs to monitor those silly volcanoes that might blow up and kill a couple of people? Not us! We can take our train to fantasy land."

From a political perspective, Jindal's argument left me wondering just where the hell this guy has been living for the past few years? Doesn't he think the federal government is needed to warn people of major dangers, like approaching hurricanes? Or does he think that individual citizens can band together to do that sort of stuff themselves. Oh, wait. They have. It's called a "government". There was just too much evidence last night that Bobby Jindal has quaffed the Nancy Reagan "Just Say No!" Kool-Aid. Hell. even Republicans thought that he was a disaster:



Paul Krugman also was less than impressed by the Louisiana governor-here:

February 25, 2009, 11:08 am
What should government do? A Jindal meditation

What is the appropriate role of government?

Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that.

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

So, Bobby Jindal, go stand in the corner for five years.

Nancy Reagan Republicans

Did you see the President's address to the joint session of Congress? Did you notice that their Republicans were so partisan in their response to his address that they sat on their hands almost every time an applause line came up? So much for President Obama's attempt at bipartisanship and healing the antagonism that has corroded political discourse since Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" days (when he also shut down the government because he wasn't asked to sit up front with President Clinton during a ride on Air Force One!.

So here we are at the economic precipice and the Republicans can offer nothing more constructive than their basic " No!" .

"No!" to the stimulus bill.

"No!" to bank bailouts.

"NO!". "NO!" "NO!" They sound like a two year old in the middle of a tantrum. I sort of expect them to threaten to hold their collective breath until they turn blue if they don't get their way.

The Republicans need to be reminded of two facts. First, a Democrat was elected President. Second, the Democrats control both houses of Congress. Being out of power usually means being "the loyal opposition" but Gingrich taught his Republicans that "opposition" is better than "loyal opposition" and his particular brand of acid corroded political discourse for almost two decades.

Maybe the Republicans can't help themselves. To all intents and purposes they have controlled either the presidency or congress or both for more than 20 years. They are exhausted, corrupt, and totally devoid of ideas. They are forced to resort to the old Republican standbys of cutting taxes and small government when clearly some new thinking is called for. Ask the voters for confirmation of that fact.

But the Republicans are totally out of gas and following the lead of Nancy Reagan. All they can do at this point is just say "NO!"

On Becoming an American

A reliable corespondent conveyed the following to me:

I was departing the federal courthouse in Brooklyn this morning and I ran into a smiling, obviously happy, polyglot group; Asians, Latinos, Caucasians, males and females from every continent. I had an idea as to what brought them to the steps of the courthouse, but, nosy person that I am, I sidled up to one man and asked why they were there.

"We have just been sworn in as citizens," replied the middle aged, obviously Latin man. I couldn't resist and I asked, "Oh, and how do you feel?"

With a huge smile he replied,"I feel very proud and I feel safe."

The Warrior Obama

Previously, I wrote about the Obama administration's position regarding prisoners held in Bagram. Obama is prepared to substantially increase American troop strength in Afghanistan with a concomitant draw down in Iraq. Now readthis article, which indicates that Obama might be widening the scope of US Predator attacks and covert operations against Al Qeada and Taliban forces in Pakistan.

Throughout his campaign Obama stated that the war in Iraq took our eye off the prize in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real center of Al Qeada and its threat to the United States.

Obama seems to be concentrating efforts on the real bad guys now. Will he press the attack? Will he risk Pakistani objections to American incursions into Pakistani territory in order to kill Al Qeada and Taliban? Will he send covert ground forces into Pakistan?

Pakistan is a dangerous enigma. It allows Al Qaeda and the Taliban to take control of the province of Swat. It withdraws its troops from a battle against the militants. Its intelligence agency, ISI, plays all sides simultaneously (and was it involved in the Mumbai terrorist attack?).

How will Obama make his bones as commander in chief in this battle? Will be be a leftist warrior? Obama has some complicated political calculations to consider. He always said he would withdraw from Iraq and his leftist supporters cheered. Will they still cheer his beefed up military effort in Afghanistan/Pakistan or will they turn on him in short order? And if they attack him on his military stance in the subcontinent, will he deplete his political power at home to the extent that his domestic program grinds to a halt?

Just asking.

Liberal Tears

The Obama administration continues to set its own course, often to the consternation of its liberal supporters. Right now, liberals are donning ashes and sack cloth as the Obama administration decided to continue a policy established by the Bush administration, specifically, the denial of United States constitutional rights to combatants being held in Afghanistan. See this.

An administration spokesperson explains the difference between this position and the status of Guantanamo prisoners thusly:

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

I'm shocked, shocked, that the American Civil Liberties Union is having a hissy fit:

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

I would like to hear how the ACLU would handle those folks in Afghanistan who are hiding among the indigenous population and firing weapons at American troops. They are not constituted as uniformed army representing an established state so they can't be considered soldiers in a traditional sense and thereby be accorded the rights of the Geneva Convention. Would ACLU prefer that these guys be handled like common street criminals and accorded all of the constitutional protections? Should they be read their Miranda rights? Would they like US forces to collect physical and testimonial evidence to be presented in a court of law?

Please, ACLU, tell me how you would like to handle these people.

Obama Wins / Obama Loses

I'm tired of all of the professional pundits who are trying the score the twenty-five day old Obama administration like some sort of Olympic ice skating event. He won in the stimulus bill because he got almost $800 BILLION dollars passed by the House and Senate He lost with the stimulus bill because he didn't get everything he wanted. He was too bold. He was too timid.

BASTA! ENOUGH!

Even Roosevelt has 100 days to give some direction to the country when he took office. But our insane 24/7 cable news cycle requires instantaneous assessment of every administration twitch with a twitters tweet and a pundits palaver.

For the past few weeks I was tempted to join in the chorus of the chattering class with my own assessments, but each time I moved to the keyboard I found myself saying, "But he's only been there a week (or two weeks.. or three weeks)".

It will take time to turn around the economy and you must admit that his team has hit the ground running. Think of the chaos and confusion that reigned just weeks ago when W was still in charge. Now we have a President who can put together a cogent argument while 30 days a go we had someone in charge who stumbled over a simple sentence.

So try to relax, gang. This is not the end of the world. With time, money and effort things will get better. Promise.

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics. Always a toxic mix. It happened when New York Governor Al Smith ran for President in 1928. When John Kennedy ran for President in 1960 many people launched the canard that he would take orders from the Vatican. He counterattacked and said that he would not take orders from religious officials and that he would abide by the separation of church and state.

It seems that some people on the political side are getting it right, but some religious powers might need a lesson in how we do things in this democracy. take a look at this.

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict, underscoring the Vatican's ruling on an issue that divides Americans, told U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday that Catholic politicians and legislators cannot back abortion rights.

Pelosi, a powerful U.S. politician who is Catholic and pro-choice, has been accused by U.S. bishops in the past of misrepresenting Church teachings on abortion.

"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural and moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death ..." a Vatican statement said.

Senatorial Power

Until the mess in Minnesota is resolved and that state can finally seat either Democrat Al Franken or Republican Norm Coleman as its senator, major power resides in the hands of two ladies from Maine. Read this piece from the Washington Post.

The Dictator's Dream

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez can now change his title to "Dictator" or "President for Life" or something suitable after that country's referendum removing term limits passed. I'll leave it for the Latin America experts to figure our why the people voted for it, if in fact the election wasn't rigged, but what I do know is that another dictator has been permanently empowered in the region.

Republican Suicide

With the results of the last election so devastating to the Republican party, it seems that they have taken the role of the loyal opposition a little too literally. Their straight party "nays" on the stimulus bill in the House shows without a doubt that they value their own political solidarity more than they value the people who are losing their jobs and home at an ever increasing rate.

Saturday Night Live hit the nail on the head last night.

Best Headline Ever

Here.

Childish Behavior

I've been saving this one for when I ran a little dry ( I prefer a nice cabernet--in a glass!).

Obama in Vegas

Just contemplating the political world and mixing in a little nonsense. Let's play Vegas odds-maker:

The odds of:

Obama being impeached in his first term. Let's see, I think three presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. (That's impeached by the House of representatives, not convicted by the Senate). So that is a startling 3 out of 44. But Nixon and Clinton were impeached in there second terms,so the odds drop to 1 in 44 for first term impeachment.

Obama being impeached in his second term.. oops. 2 out of hmm.. how many president have had second terms? I seem to count 15. Of these, two, Clinton and Nixon were impeached. How about those odds? So , let's say his odds of being impeached, if he gets a second term are 8-1.

Odds of Obama getting a second term..1 in 2 chances. figure its slightly higher than 50% unless he is an utter disaster. But when you look at W., who was an utter disaster, and the fact that the got a second term (hell, he never should have had a FIRST term!), well, maybe 60%.

Odds of Obama getting the economy going in the first year of his presidency 4-1. second year- even.

Odds of Obama dealing with inflation in his first term: 2-1. In his second term- even.

Odds that Obama will achieve his goal and bring a new kind of civil politics to Washington- zero!

Odds that Obama will get a stimulus package through congress and on his desk in February-2-1. In March-even.

Odds that Obama will get to select one Supreme Court justice- prohibitive favorite at 1-2. Two justices-even. Three justices 3-1. Four justices- 10-1.

You can play his game at home, too or join the fun here!

Camp GITMO

It is an interesting position President Obama now finds himself in regarding closing the detention facility (prison/interrogation center) at Guantanemo. Yes, president has ordered that the facility be closed within a year. And yes, news that person released from GITMO have gone back to the Al Queda front lines sort of argues strongly against releasing a lot of these folks.

The question before our constitutional law professor of a president is: How to handle these guys within the structure of American and international law when they don't abide by law. Repatriation to their"home countries" does not seem like a solution designed to keep the bad guys from getting back into the fight. Transferring them to American prisons might be an option, but what is their status? They have not been tried or convicted of crimes nor are they being considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

So Obama did fulfill his pledge to order the closing of GITMO, but he has so far failed to come up with a viable plan as to what to do with these guys. Look for GITMO to stay open a little longer than expected as "unforeseen" problems delay GITMO's closing.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is..

running out of money.

Government printing presses will be turning red-hot as they crank out all those dollars to stimulate the American economy and, by extension, the world economy.

They say there is no movement in the credit markets. Now, I don't know too much about economics, and I suspect that even folks with a lot of initials after the names don't really know all that much either, but when you have no movement, a high colonic is the answer. For the economy that comes in the form of dollars.

Personally, I think one of those high colonics should be delivered on an hourly basis to all those smart boys and girls, investment bankers all, who brought down our economy with their boundless greed and unsurpassed inventiveness. I mean, you really have to be inventive to create and buy into a financial instrument you don't even understand. The banker and securities dudes and dudettes didn't even know what they were buying and selling.

I mean, how smart can an MBA be? George W. Bush got one from Yale, fer crisakes! And did Bush EVER do anything good? This is a guy who failed upward! From pilot to oil to baseball to governor to president. I challenge you to name one endeavor where he succeeded!

I would never hire anyone with an MBA. Personally, I believe that a smart liberal arts guy can run rings around an MBA simply because the liberal arts guy, like a history major, would be smart enough to ask, "what does this mean?" and wait for a decent explanation.

I can't stand all these media types who are so eager to report that we are in a second "Great Depression." One was enough, please! Besides, we have so many more market safeguards and government mechanisms in place that didn't exist in the 1930s. The FDIC, that agency that insures your bank deposits to $250,000, didn't exist back then so there was a run on the banks as people tried to get out their cash before the bank collapsed. Now if a bank collapses, basically the depositor's money is safe and they just deal with a different corporate entity. And unemployment is absolutely nowhere near the tidal wave it was in the 1930s. So to all the hyenas clamoring about another Great Depression, two words: "SHUT UP!"

So it is left for the Obama administration to print a ton of money to goose the economy so that it starts running, but then to throttle back in time to prevent runaway inflation, which is what you have when a lot of dollars start chasing fewer goods (which is what will happen with all the manufacturers laying off people and cutting production). This is what happened in the 1970s when the Johnson administration decided not to raise taxes to pay for the Vietnam war and decided instead to run the money presses. These measures eventually inflated the economy to the point where credit card interest rates were running at 25%. Remember when Nixon ineffectively implemented price and wage controls? Remember Gerald Ford's "WIN" button, "WIN" standing for "Whip Inflation Now"? Not a pretty sight!

The Obama team has to have a deft sense of the economy to know when to floor it and when to ease off the gas and not to overshoot the target. Obama has to steer a course cleanly between the Scylla of recession/depression and the Charybdis of inflation.

Oh, George W. Bush actually did do one thing right. He finally left Washington.

OBAMA - Day One- Sorta

To quiet the paranoid and insane the president retook the oath office office. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts used a script this time. He screwed up last time. And it is only 35 words. Mark it down to the Chief's hubris.

Fist day in office: no torture, transparency in government. George Mitchell as Mid-East envoy. FOIA executive order. closing CIA secret prisons. freezing senior staff salaries. Rules against conflicts of interest and revolving door service between government and lobbying.

Not bad for "day one."

Change you can believe in. I'm impressed. My hope for a better country increases.

Did you see Moammar Kadaffy's op-ed piece in the New York Times today where he calls for a one state solution in Israel-Palestine, an Israstine? I was struck by his almost reasonable tone, his sense of place for Jews , as well as his great degree of naivete. But still, it was a worthy effort from someone who once inhabited Bush's "Axis of Evil". I would love to talk to him about his change of direction from terrorist supporter to a visionary of peace. Remember, this is a guy Reagan tried to kill.

There is always hope. And where hope exists the possibilities are endless.

Have faith. Work hard.

Inauguration Thoughts

I still believe Obama's speech was lackluster but when you consider how momentous this day was, could any speech live up to the occasion?

Obama's speech was of a perfect length. Americans are in no mood for a reprise of William Henry Harrison's oratory.

What the hell was that "poem"? I know what she was trying to do, but she did not carry it off with skill or any degree of emotion. Grade of "F", Teach!

I enjoyed Yo Yo Ma and Itzack Perlman's performance. I was wondering how these musicians were able to finger their instruments in the cold.

Barack Obama can not change the world overnight.Heck, the only thing he can change overnight is his underwear. But I feel confident that we have a president who has a great degree of political acumen, a matching amount of political capital to spend, is capable of analyzing the condition of this country, and that he can put forth a full effort to solve these problems. We are all in a better place tonight.

The stock market dropped more than 300 points today. Every passing day proves the market movers and shakers are less intelligent than the dirty water hot dog vendors on the sidewalk outside the NYSE.

I hope Obama's first executive order bans those endless telephone voice mail systems with the endless loops designed to prevent you from talking to a real, live person.

Obama's election proves that the United States is not a racist country, but do not doubt that there still are plenty of racists out there.

I hope Obama's election lifts the vision of countless black children who mistaken thought that education and proper speech was too white and not "keepin' it real". I hope the kids pull up their pants, turn off the hip hop and open a book. I hope some of them think that they can be like Barack Obama if they follow that path. I hope the black male prison population drops precipitously.

Hope will not change the world. But you can't change the world without it.Tonight, so many of us have it.