Picture a polling place on election day, with a group of poll watchers standing just inside the door. It’s not raining, or particularly cold out – they are avoiding a group of individuals that are accosting voters on their way in to vote, using threatening language against anyone that they think shouldn’t be voting. Their goal is obviously to control the polls for the day, and prevent “undesirables” from voting at all by playing on their fears of retribution, brandishing weapons, and acting in a menacing manner. Add that it is an historic presidential election, with a great deal on the line for many groups of people nationwide. The results could either signal the end of an era, or rekindle the fires of discontent and hatred. While it could have been the election of 1860, or even 1960, it was actually the 2008 presidential election, and whites were the targets.

And given the evidence above, and the fact that the defendants never appeared in court to contest the charges, this should have been a slam dunk case for the Department of Justice. Normally, this should have been dealt with quietly, and disappeared from the headlines. But here we are, heading on two years later, and Fox News is resurrecting this story practically daily thanks to a whistle blower named J. Christian Adams.

Of course the easy solution would be to immediately discount the allegations made by Adams, given the fact that he is now engaged in writing on politics for Pajamas Media. But perhaps that isn’t wise. Pajamas Media is nothing if they’re not loyal, and they’ve provided readers with a list of former Department of Justice officials willing to make public statements in support of what Adams has said, or simply in support him personally and professionally.

And the problem is that while the Bush Administration levied the charges against these men, the Obama Administration has chosen to drop the charges. This is not “news”. Of course, there’s debate on whether or not it deserves major coverage. There is plenty for one to read on this throughout the conservative media outlets, but it’s buried deep on sites like MSNBC. But this is an issue of law – not politics – or at least it should be.

Beyond the politicking within the current administration, there is the problem of the radicals involved in the initial crimes – voter intimidation. Glenn Beck, for better or worse, decided to devote his entire program today to this issue. Of course he is drawing many lines between otherwise unconnected individuals and situations. But the most important point that he has bothered to point out is the historical significance of this situation. It is repetition of our past of racism, and the fact that unfortunately, racism knows no bounds. It is neither the property of Democrats nor Republicans alone, but both, as long as “we the people” stand by and allow it.

In the coming days and weeks, there will undoubtedly be more information brought to light about this situation. There are some journalists out there that are determined to find out precisely how high this decision to ignore the rule of law went in the administration. It has been a great many years since we’ve had a man sitting in the Oval Office that was honestly willing to stand up and say what needs to be said in a situation like this. “The President–whoever he is–has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.” His name was Harry S. Truman, he had a placard on his desk that said “The Buck Stops Here”, and he was a Democrat. That placard still sits in the Truman Library – has been there since 1957. Perhaps the curators there will let Obama borrow it for inspiration.

  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

Now that everyone has had their chance to complain about all of the major players in the BP Oil Spill, it’s time to take a moment and reflect on what it all really means. The Congressional Hearing with Tony Hayward started off with quite a bit to keep the media hopping. While there was just a little coverage on the crazy woman that decided to cover herself in oil (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), the big story of the day was Congressman Barton, and his apology to Hayward.

Personally, since the dust has somewhat settled, I am thinking that the mainstream media and most bloggers alike would have been better off focusing on the crazy lady. First of all, the whole situation was blown out of proportion primarily because Barton’s speech was too long, and that made it possible for the press to edit at will. Now, if he’d said just one sentence – “I’m sorry that our President has found it necessary to dispense with the use of our court system to settle the financial end of this disaster” – the headlines, and the situation, would be much different. Primarily, I suspect that the crazy lady would have been lead on the evening news.

Hayward has been tripping over his tongue since the explosion, and it is easy to understand why just about everyone has no desire to see anyone play nice with him. While the GOP has been blaming Obama for not meeting with Hayward until nearly 60 days after the explosion, there’s room to wonder whether or not the BP executive had anything to do with the delays.

If one bothered to keep up with the British press, one would know that as of June 6th, Hayward was saying there was no need to meet with Obama. Of course this is coming from a man who in mid-May was severely downplaying the entire situation. All in all, Hayward is a public relations nightmare, and even Slate.com has taken a stab at evaluating the company from that perspective.

And that brings us back to Congressman Barton and his beleaguered statement. Although I can’t pretend to understand precisely what prompted the Congressman’s apology, I can figure out that it probably stung Hayward rather severely. Since Hayward was so arrogant about our legal system, I can understand why he wouldn’t be comfortable with any of our leaders suggesting that he be left to its not-so-tender mercies.

“This is America—come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.”

That statement was met with a fair amount of righteous indignation when it was made early on in the situation. But apparently it was forgotten, or not even considered in the context of Barton’s statement. We were stuck on being called “little people”, or something like that, I suppose. And while creating a Federal fund out of monies from BP to disburse to those affected by the spill might sound like a lovely idea in comparison with the long process of lawsuits, perhaps that’s precisely what BP wants. Maybe it will be like the age-old question – which came first, the chicken or the egg? – did BP offer billions to Obama before or after the president came up with the idea to handle the finances of the clean-up without lawsuits against BP?

Now that’s the practical end of the situation, and Barton waded into the murky ideological end. While it might be tempting to immediately assume that because Barton is a Republican and received monies from oil companies directly related to the disaster, he was speaking from greed, that isn’t necessarily a correct assumption. If one bothered to listen to the entire speech that is now splattered all over the web, Barton talked about taking money as a Congressman in consideration for a favor as an example paralleling what Obama is doing with BP. He was pointing out that Obama was allowing BP to side-step legal actions by paying what can only be considered at this point as an out-of-court settlement on behalf of thousands of litigants that were never granted the ability to obtain legal counsel.

The problems in our legal system, particularly the fact that lawsuits of this nature can take years to settle, are the first justifications for this course of action. It is a fair argument, but so is the case for limited Federal intervention in the legal system. There is no reason to simply ignore the option of temporarily creating deadlines for settlements of cases against BP. Extra personnel would be needed, and that would cost money – however it is already typical for court costs to be bundled into settlements. BP could be left footing the bill for judges, magistrates, and court personnel. States and localities could be given the ability to appoint and hire the people needed temporarily. Since BP has already demonstrated that they are willing to pay for the clean up, there is no reason to think that monies could not be acquired from them to pay for these people up front. Regardless, this is a far better option than telling the world – and businesses – that we have no problem with dispensing with silly things like due process for the sake of politicians saving face.

  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

UC Irvine has done something that many probably would never consider as an option for any campus in the UC system – it is recommending the suspension of a student organization on the grounds of hate speech. A Muslim student organization found it necessary to lie to campus officials about its involvement in an organized protest against Israel through the disruption of a speech given by an Israeli official. Yes, I am intentionally generalizing the details on this for a very good reason.

Consider this situation any way you like, inserting whatever group you like – switch Muslim and Israeli, if you like. Or maybe insert Christian and Atheist, or vice versa. Perhaps even Democrat and Republican. Then consider how outraged you happen to be with each situation.

The bottom line is that these students intentionally orchestrated an activity with the specific purpose of disrupting a school activity. The fact that it involved two specific racial groups that happen to be at war with each other exacerbated the situation, and raised the situation to not only a simple offense against school policies, but also made it an offense against laws forbidding hate crimes. They got lucky that they didn’t end up facing harassment and disturbing the peace charges with any applicable counts under hate crime statutes.

They should also consider themselves lucky that they are not at a school with much more stringent policies when it comes to making a mockery of the institution. That is precisely what they did. UC Irvine has suffered at least a little from this entire situation – it does nothing for their reputation with Israel, and undoubtedly other governmental entities.

The really disturbing situation is that student leaders have come out in defense of this group of students. Apparently the reputation of their institution is meaningless to them. If it was a matter of these students assembling outside the hall where this speech was given, carrying protest signs, it would be absolutely justifiable to defend their right to do so, assuming that they did so peacefully, without accosting anyone, or doing damage to any property. But interrupting a speaker on campus with hate-filled speech is utterly inappropriate, and indefensible.

  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark
© 2010 Everything in Its Own Time Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha

Secured for spam by MLW and Associates, LLP's Super CAPTCHASecured by Super-CAPTCHA © 2009-2010 MLW & Associates, LLP. All rights reserved.

Featuring WPMU Bloglist Widget by YD