Mr. President, Close. Down. That. Prison...

The Government Accountability Office ("GAO") found that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba can be safely closed and the remaining prisoners transferred to prisons on US soil with no ill effects. This should be done immediately. First off, this was a promise made by President Obama before his FIRST term in office, yet we are still discussing it (barely) four years later. One of the prime reasons for using Guantanamo was for security reasons and as a means to keep these enemy combatants from having the right to habeas corpus. With the GAO largely dismissing the security concerns and those combatants left are mostly being held without charges, why is it still open?

With everyone currently raving about Lincoln, rightfully so having seen it myself, there is an applicable part of the movie where President Lincoln is discussing with his cabinet the various things he has done because he felt them necessary and right despite the possibility of the actions being unconstitutional. He was mainly referring to the Emancipation Proclamation but of equal import was his suspension of habeas corpus using his powers as a war time President. These powers were again evoked, with a nod towards President Lincoln and the exigencies required by war, after the attacks of September 11th. The difference between the two, however, is that unlike the Civil War, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that followed the 9/11 attacks and preceded the official War on Terror is very open ended. Thus, the suspension of habeas corpus for those at Guantanamo Bay, and many previously at Guantanamo have been found to have done nothing related to terrorist activity but were simply picked up during the fog of war, remains open ended.

The point of that previous paragraph's aside being, President Obama did not open Guantanamo for that use and has no skin in the game. His promise to close the prison is now almost half a decade old and the GAO has stated that it is more than plausible to safely close it and transfer the prisoners to the continental U.S. So, does President Obama recognize the moral hazards of making decisions that may exist in the gray area where the President's war powers and the unconstitutionality meet like President Lincoln did? And, if so, why is the prison still open at the same time the President is winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Basically, Mr. President, please do as you promised and close down that prison.


IMAGE: Wikipedia.com

The Day the NY Jets Crashed

The day they got clowned by Harry Reid. Here we have just another one of many examples (See Fireman Ed's retirement due to harassment by fellow Jet "fans," anything related to Tebow or manufactured QB controversy, etc.) that has Jets fans hoping for a Mayan Apocalypse before the year is out. Now Harry Reid used to box so I am going to go ahead and assume that he's not a "let us got to the match of football" type Mormon like Mitt Romney, but he still kind of looks like an aged Harry Potter pwning the entire Jets fan base. It is truly embarrassing. The most astonishing part of this Jets season, however, is that they are actually in contention for a Wild Card spot and, due to their cream puff of a remaining schedule, they could win out and crash land (PUNS!) into the playoffs. Considering that the Jets played almost the entire year without their best offensive and defensive players, that would be an accomplishment and very quiet, almost whispered, testimonial to Rex Ryan's abilities as coach, despite all the distractions, and hopefully keeps him at the helm.

Not that anyone should be holding out hope for miracles in the future. The Jets, thanks to the incompetent mismanagement by Tannenbaum and Johnson (I don't care what he says, Woody was definitely instrumental in pushing the Tebow trade), have a hole-y (PUNS!) mess of a roster. Although the offensive line is generally good, there are almost no weapons on offense outside of Holmes. Keller has fallen off despite showing promise last year, a #2 receiver hasn't revealed himself yet, and Shonn Greene has proven himself to be a bust. Bilal Powell has shown some ability this year but he is a small upgrade, if anything, over Greene. Concrete Hands McKnight has yet to shown anything to open up hope that he could be an effective back and, Sparano be damned, the Jets still have not figured out how to use Tebow in the Wildcat. The defensive side, though still looking good this year, is old and much of the Jets' scheme revolves around a healthy Revis. To be fair, Cromartie did a good job in his absence and Sexy Rexy and his lieutenants did a good job of adjusting the defensive scheme so that the D was still effective.

Unless some changes are made, and I do not even know if the front office is competent to make them, the Jets may squeak into the playoffs this year but will most likely remain grounded next. Here's to hoping, I am wrong.


IMAGE: amazon.com

Is Hot Bag of Air That Is Grover Norquist Finally Floating Away?

According to a lot of press lately, which was even accompanied by some minor scolding from his own party, it seems as if Grover Norquist might be losing his kung-fu grip on the balls of the republican party when it comes to anything and everything involving his favorite four letter word... tax. But in the harsh light in the post-election morning, GOP politicians are beginning to realize that the napoleonic GOP tax emperor has no clothes. Or more realistically considering the climate and how the Republicans are polling against the President on the so-called fiscal cliff, they realize that threat of Mr. Norquist holding (most of) their previous anti-tax pledges against them in a future primary battle is rather hollow in the face of refusing to let the Bush tax cuts expire against the highest two tax brackets (I am not even going to get hysterically started on how the Bush tax cuts were ALWAYS supposed to sunset after 10 years). The majority of people support the raising of the wealthiest and most will also blame the GOP if a deal gets done. The bet being made many is that it is a lot more dangerous to the electoral prospects of those involved to obey Grover rather than to ignore him.

The party has not put Grover in the corner yet, however. He is now trying to use the debt ceiling to get what he, and many far-right conservatives in the House as well (to be fair), wants on the fiscal cliff. Boehner has now even stated that "everything has a price" as an barely implicit threat to use the debt ceiling despite the fact that it threatens the full faith and credit of the US, led to a downgrade of the US' credit rating last year and 60% of Americans support raising taxes on the top 2% of Americans (oh, and that little 332 and 51% election win by POTUS).

Due to that last bit, and because the majority of Americans will blame the Republican Party for a failure to avert the fiscal cliff, the President is refusing to back down from either his promise to raise taxes on the top 2% OR his conviction to take the debt ceiling off the table for the future so it can no longer be used as a threat nuclear option bargaining chip by the GOP. As President Obama still appears to have a massive chip stack in front of him, it strikes me as the right play. Not only is the raising of taxes on the wealthiest something he ran hard on and won on this fall, but the debt ceiling argument last year cast a black cloud over the United States last year. The President did not get overly blamed on that, but it still caused many to doubt the sanity of the political process. These negotiations during this lame duck session may be an important step to illustrate that this past election was the first sign that sanity is starting to creep back into our Congressional halls.

Here's to hoping, because the world is still watching. Maybe only with one eye because they have their own shit going on over in the EU and China, but watching nonetheless.

IMAGE: Mediaite via Google Images

THE RETURN

                                                       


No, not of blog posts here. No one gives a damn about that. This is about the GLORIOUS return of the flat top haircut. More specifically, on the basketball courts of this nation.See Exhibits A, Iman Shumpert on the left, and B, Nerlens Noel on the right, and just really soak it in. The world hasn't seen a resurgence of the hair tower of power since the golden years of Patrick Ewing and Kendall Gill (although Shump is looking more like he rolled out of Kid N Play).

I, for one, could not be more excited. I can only intuit that this means a banner year for the NBA, and a NY Knickerbocker's championship banner (he said with the slightest, and saddest, but of hope in his voice). Cheers to you Flat Top. And welcome back.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:

In all honesty, I have no idea how to start one of these things. Do I go fawning and describe how I was an insta-supporter after the 2004 DNC and that the support only strengthened throughout your eventual Presidential campaign/election? Do I mention my recent disappointment, not Andrew Sullivan-like but there nonetheless, at the first debate and the related tightening of the polls? I guess I go lazy and lead with those questions (what hackery!). I was not, however, one of those was most angered by your seeming malaise in the debate but was rather incensed at how easily Mitt Romney lied, obfuscated and changed tack throughout. I suppose he should have been called out, but the shamelessness of it all was almost unbelievable. Even sadder, the American people bought it and, at the very least, Mr. Romney is basically tied with you in the national polls and is right on the bumper in many swing state polls. Some say you should be as pugnacious as Vice President Smokin' Joe Biden, but I, for whatever that is worth, would pledge caution. Call Mr. Romney out, certainly, but do so calmly and civilly. This should not be your concentration, however, as the real reason Americans fell for Mr. Romney's schtick is because they believed it as a viable new course for America that would set them back on the path to prosperity (despite the fact that that path was actually lined with heaps and heaps of cow patties).

With that in mind, why not reframe the debate and bring your own vision for the future to the fore. For instance, the 47% Mr. Romney so easily dismissed are not too lazy or too downtrodden to find work that they must rely on the government dole, many jobs they would have been taking no longer exist because of productivity gains or because corporations looking to pad their already overstuffed earnings have shifted them abroad. Instead of counting them out or writing them off, let's empower them. They do not need redistributive "handouts," they need training for the post-recession new normal. How about we redistribute the money that we have, for far too long, pledged in corporate welfare? Oil companies making billions do not need billions more in subsidies and favorable tax treatment. The banks that have been the beneficiaries of the public's largess derived from our tax dollars are sitting on that money rather than making loans or lowering mortgage rates. They say they are in the business of making profits, not public welfare; I say the American public is no longer in the business of helping them do so. Mr. President, any Wall Street money you were getting is probably already in so there's no holding back now. Mitt Romney is the ultimate plutocrat, so why no embrace the populist within you? Instead of practicing corporate welfare, that money is going to be "earmarked" (let's take that word back too!) for education. And not just improving education in pre-K and kindergarten, areas where it is proven to have the most impact, but also job training to help those out of work land more highly skilled jobs. Lets create more of these jobs by encouraging the modernization of our grid and the retrofitting of buildings that will not only lead to more jobs but will have the added benefit of eliminating wasted in providing heating and electricity for our homes. It even has a tailor-made tagline: "It's not about welfare for people suckling at the public teat, it is removing the already fattened corporations from the teat so our middle class can start the American comeback." Or something. I'm sure your election team can work on that...

Once you've laid that out, ask Mr. Romney was his plan is. Specifically. Ask him how those that have been looking but cannot find a job are going to be helped by the Romney/Ryan plan. Ask him if we are REALLY just hoping for the magic tax cut bean to spur growth once again? How are the policies currently espoused any different from the previous Bush plan? Shouldn't the fact that R.Glenn Hubbard, main Conservative tax cut cheerleader for decades, is the chief economist and seeming architect of economic plans belie the fact that a Romney administration will just be repeating recent history rather than learning from it?

And if Mr. Romney brings up a plan to privatize social security, whooo boy! It could not be easier to point out that the only benefit such a plan would bring would be to Mitt's buddies on Wall Street who would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on that money. They could then charge hundreds of millions of dollars of management fees for the possibility to mismanage the American public's money as bad as the banks did before the Great Depression. Doesn't that sound great?!?

How about immigration? If it doesn't get brought up, bring it up. I think the vast majority of people who are against the DREAM Act were probably not voting for your re-election anyway Mr. President. Ask Mr. Romney where he stands and, if he changes his tune, why he is standing to the left of the spot he stood two months ago. Stress the importance of the need to keep highly educated and highly immigrants, especially those who came to this country for that education, in the country. These are the drivers of innovation and growth that we so desperately need.

I cannot even be bothered to go into the social issues as I've already run too long and I think almost everyone knows where Romney/Ryan stand on that anyway (aside from abortion; where do they stand on that? Okay, maybe bring up abortion after Ryan's VP debate performance). Do not run on the past, except where you need to emphasize that Romney/Ryan will be repeating past mistakes. President Bill Clinton already made the case for you record, it is time for you to make the case for why you are the man to look to for the next 4 years. The refrain from the DNC and from numerous commercials has been about "moving forward," so how about you show the American people where you will be driving us. Many of your supporters are already in the tank and are confident you are to lead us on the right path. It is high time to show the rest of America. You rode into office on the inspirational wave of the change you would bring and you need to inspire Americans to their better natures again.

Thank you for your time Mr. President. The American people are counting on you.

With the utmost sincerity,


NoMas Paine

Opie and Ned: The Effectiveness of Emotional Investment

SPOILER ALERT: Stop reading here to avoid spoilers about both Game of Thrones and Sons of Anarchy.






Forward thinking shows have less and less of a problem offing main characters. Recently, however, certain shows have taken the next leap by having very popular main characters, often representing the "good" in the show, murdered.

The first that comes to mind for many is Lord Eddard (Ned) Stark from Game of Thrones. Amidst all the royal intrigue and jockeying for the Iron Throne, Ned was the ever loyal right-hand man who tried his damnedest to stay a bit above the fray and always do what is right. Despite this, all his good deeds got him, once his homeboy King Robert died, was a shocking (for the TV audience) decapitation. I remember, at the time, sitting in shocked silence with two friends not knowing what to make of this. Game of Thrones, the trend setter that it is, had just killed off a character that had, until that moment, seemed like an integral and necessary part of the show to the viewing audience. HBO was playing a dangerous game as, at least as far as I can remember, a TV show had not killed of such a character until the very end of the show's run. Even Tony Soprano, despite all the beefs he had and the fact that he was a mob boss, did not maybe die until the last episode cut to black.

Ned Stark was very much in my mind this past Tuesday when another favorite show of mine, Sons of Anarchy, killed off the biker gang's Vice President, and Pres Jax Teller's best friend, Opie. The response was a little bit different here as shock was replaced with a light sadness mixed with a tad bit of outrage. Opie was the only character on the show who truly felt fundamentally unchanged by the club and true to who he was. He seemed relatively untarnished. He was easy to like. Not to mention the fact that the initial shock provided by good ole Fast Eddard helped soften the blow of a similar move being made. All that being said, whether it was conscious move by Kurt Sutter and the other show runners, there were striking similarities between the situations. The "good guy(s)" in the viewers' eyes were in the clutches of there enemies and there were scores to be settled. Blood had to be spilled as "blood will have blood." Even how the scenes were shot are strikingly similar (see above). Both main characters take up the center of our (the viewer's) screen as the off-center and only partially seen murderer does his work. And though there are slight differences in the characters' expressions, Opie with his face forward defiantly wearing a smirk and Ned head and shoulders down waiting for the steel, they are both accepting of their fates. Ned is just reluctantly accepting while Opie, due to all the tragedy he's faced, is ready and more than willing for the cruelty of his life, and this life in general, to be over.

The shock and/or sorrow felt by myself, and viewers generally, is quite effective in tying the viewer to the show if done right. And it most likely will be done right since the fact that you are tied enough to the character to care, the writing is pretty damn good already. I guess what I am saying is it in an interesting evolution in television, but future practitioners might want to tread carefully. If the audience is not already invested in the character, it is just a gimmick that will fall flat. But not for you Justified. Make moves.


IMAGES: both Google Images; upper left is Ned Stark and lower right is SAMCRO's Opie.

Repetitions of History

In last week's New Yorker, an article written by Salman Rushdie described his time in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini declared fatwa against him, sentencing him to death, for writing the novel The Satanic Verses. The article is interesting in general but what really stuck was Rushdie's opinion that a lot of the offense and anger that was ginned up was done so for various individuals' and groups' political gain. In Mr. Rushdie's words:

The book that he had written would vanish and be replaced by one that scarcely existed, in which Rushdie referred to the Prophet and his companions as “scums and bums” (he didn’t, though he did allow the characters who persecuted the followers of his fictional Prophet to use abusive language), and called the wives of the Prophet whores (he hadn’t—although whores in a brothel in his imaginary city, Jahilia, take on the names of the Prophet’s wives to arouse their clients, the wives themselves are clearly described as living chastely in the harem). This nonexistent novel was the one against which the rage of Islam would be directed, and after that few people wished to talk about the real book, except, usually, to concur with Hermione Lee’s negative assessment.

In essence, much of the Muslim world was taking offense from a nonexistent book as they did not bother to read the real book, which was respectful of Islam. Then various leaders decided to take the deliberate misconception and utilize that to strengthen their own power bases. As stated by Rushdie:

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was on a state visit to China at the time, and it was speculated that destabilizing her administration had been the demonstrators’ real aim. Religious extremists had long suspected her of secularism, and they wanted to put her on the spot. Not for the last time, “The Satanic Verses” was being used as a football in a political game that had little or nothing to do with it. 

 What is striking is the similarities between the context of Salman Rushdie suffered through and what is currently occurring with the protests over the recent, inflammatory YouTube film "Innocence of Muslims." While, unlike "The Satanic Verses," the latter is clearly meant to be inflammatory, the exaggerated response seems to be the same. In a post-Qaddafi world, there is still a power vacuum that various factions are filling and, in a predominantly Muslim country, raising the ire of the electorate seems a good way to solidify a power base. A new football in the same political game. Further, much like the threatened violence that Rushdie faced, the protests launched against "Innocence of Muslims" was used as cover for a horrific terrorist attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi; an attack in which a dedicated public servant, U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens lost his life.

I guess, despite the "Arab Spring," the more things change, the more they stay the same.

P.S.: I planned to go on about how the purposeful break from reality was also analogous to the entire modus operandi of Fox News, but I don't feel like going on a rant today and, as bad as that network is, they should not be compared to terrorists.

IMAGES: Google Images taken from somewhere else; and Google Images via Newsweek.