Welcome, February 2010

Welcome, gentle readers, to the twelfth edition of Robbinsense.

In our 100-day assessment of the president’s performance, Robbinsense gave Mr. Obama a C to C-. We had a number of comments from readers that our assessment was harsh and premature. Two weeks ago we passed the next significant milestone, the one-year mark. With approval ratings tumbling toward 50%, the election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts, and a shocking ruling from the Supreme Court, it appears that our assessment may have been on the money.

We have still seen no significant change from the mess that Mr. Obama inherited, nor have we seen as yet any evidence that such change might be forthcoming. Operations in Washington appear to be on track with “business as usual”, instead of “change that you can believe in”.

Considering the impact of recent events and the gravity of the situation, our February issue will focus on this matter. Jackson Dave takes a look at where we are and speculates on where we might go. The issues currently on track are many and deep. I want to apologize up front for the length of Jack's essay. We try, at Robbinsense, to keep our articles under 2000 words, but this was apparently impossible.

Correspondent Bill Jellick, from our Boulder desk presents an additional view. Bill’s an obstreperous sort and usually stirs up the pot.

Additionally, our editorial staff presents an over-view on war in the late 20^th Century.

Next month we’ll take a look at facts and figures. Also, we'll try to get to the most protean, if not compelling, enigmatic and controversial political force (or is that farce) of our age: Sarah Barracuda, herself. Where are we going? And why? Does Jackson Dave really sport a Sarah Palin for president bumper sticker?

Robbinsense will endeavor to publish between the first and fifth day of every month. If you wish to be notified of new posts, contact the publisher; otherwise, just stop in for a pique. If you enjoy an article, please pass our site on to your friends; and don’t hesitate to insert comments---this is a "public forum". (Under “Select Profile” you may select “anonymous” or input your name under “Name/URL”. Leave “URL” blank---unless you have one. If all else fails, send an email to the publisher. Posted comments cannot be altered; they can only be deleted. If you wish to edit a comment, post your corrected comment and notify the publisher by email.)

Happy Reading

Year-One Assessment

by Jackson Dave

In 1989 the Berlin Wall was dismantled by joyful East Berliners. Soon the Soviet Union collapsed. To a naïve world, it appeared that a new era of peace was at hand; the Pax Americana would descend and the world would become a better place for all….sure!

Disruption of the world order, held in place by the cold war, blew the lid off hostilities and hatred that have festered for generations. Poverty and injustice persist worldwide. In short order, genocide in East Timor expanded; Somalia erupted in warfare, dragging a reluctant U. S. response…then Bosnia, Montenegro, genocide, mass-mutilation in Sierra Leone…on and on. In only 15 to 20 years we find a world more dangerous than the one featuring our controlled proxy wars against our “evil”, imaginary rival.

Move forward 20 years and re-visit the euphoria felt by many over the election of a black man to our presidency. Not only did we eclipse our legacy of slavery and racism, but the political order of the “neocon” was swept away with the disgraced Bush administration. Now embarrassed Republicans would recognize the sour fruit of their political extremism and begin to co-operate in national revitalization…sure!

Three weeks ago, again the lid was blown off. Consensus is exposed as a house of cards, and the Supreme Court of our land---the third pillar of our precious government---is exposed as a bunch of political hacks. What’s going on?

To this point, your editorial staff at Robbinsense has engaged in a tacit policy of “political” avoidance. But what we see emerging in recent weeks is so steeped in political swamp-dredgery that we are compelled to speak to it.

Mr. Obama has been exposed as a cerebral, somewhat bland technocrat who can command a dais and inspire with rhetoric, but has no apparent gift for leadership. Of the many promises made during the campaign few have been fulfilled, and many have been sidetracked by his own dithering. (Approximately 125 of 500 promises have been kept.) One promise, however, that has been kept was his striving for bipartisanship. This has been naively pursued even in the face of obstinate obstructionism by Republicans.

At the one-year mark, we should have seen one, maybe both wars brought to an end; we should have seen healthcare reform; Gitmo should have been closed; torture as well as torture-by-proxy (extraordinary rendition) should have been categorically renounced (instead of just stopped, sort of); financial institutions should have been brought to heel with solid regulation ending the practices that brought us to the brink of ruin; we should bear a new face of international cooperation, putting an end to our “war on terror”.

Instead, the wars go on, with expanded troop levels in Afghanistan, now wide-spread bombing in Pakistan, lingering military presence and killing in Iraq. We are still widely regarded as world policeman and bully. Terrorism, on the heels of international outrage stalks us on our streets and in our skies. Our financial structure with massive infusions of cash from the government has rebounded, bringing health to Wall Street while Main Street remains on life support with 11% unemployment and manufacturing stagnation. Interest rates are bottoming out, retarding investment, while banks have a choke-hold on personal credit, thumbing their noses at the tax payers who bailed them out. Collateral debt obligations, as well as credit default swaps and mind boggling hedge-funding go on their merry way with bankers pulling huge salary bonuses right under our noses.

Republicans succeeded in delaying healthcare reform “until somebody died”, as Tom Coburn prayed on the Senate floor. (In this case it was the Kennedy Democratic Senate seat.) After advocating a (wildly sensible) tax on soda pop, and with moderate support from congress, the president allowed the effort to die before resistance from the food industry. In the face of bi-partisan support, he opposed the "family care-givers stipend", which would compensate family members for tending to vets with traumatic brain injury, affecting 22% of those injured in our current wars. Even on the environmental front, Mr. Obama recently put on hold impending regulation to reclaim salmon habitat, leaving the Pacific Coho on life support. The Obama plan adopts the Bush plan’s legal and scientific clap-trap in its entirety! “Bush Lite!” On and on it goes…

The Massachusetts Senatorial election was not a repudiation of Mr. Obama, so much as it was a shot across the bow letting this government know that “change we can believe in” has been a farce, and this government has but another six to eight months to engage.

Beyond Mr. Obama, congress is a disgrace, absorbed by fund raising to stoke political and personal greed. As healthcare reform sunk into oblivion, Max Baucus (D-Mont), heading the Democratic effort opened up his campaign to a $4 million contribution from the industry he was supposed to be reforming. Senators Lieberman (I-Conn.), Bayh (D-Ind.), Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) accepted millions from the insurance industry then promptly opposed the “public option”.

This putrid Congress lies at the very heart of our government. And if that’s not bad enough, the third leg of our government, the Supreme Court, is equally determined to continue “politics” as usual, opening floodgates for the river of money that’s destroying us. How is our technocrat president going to make a dent in this political deluge while continuing the political game that brought us to this point? Our only hope is for citizens to stand up and DEMAND that the president perform and reform. We hope this Massachusetts shocker is precisely that.

As for the Republicans, where do we begin?

We assume that the first order of government is on behalf of the public good. Yet one need only look at our election process to realize that the majority of the people in government must have a personal agenda and ambition to wade into this swamp. Can one of our two major parties blatantly appear to have no concern for the welfare of this nation whatsoever? Would that be the party that runs Patriotism up its flagpole as a pillar of its public stance?

Republicans, for the last year, have engaged in a campaign of “NO”. Their policy of blocking all significant legislation is a policy of political “scorched earth.” Even in good times this might be seen as naked obstructionism, but coming now when we’re confronting economic and financial melt-down, budgetary crisis at all levels of government, failing infrastructure, multiple wars on behalf of Republican doctrine, one might think that the public wouldn’t tolerate it.

Republicans, in a frantic chase to posture themselves for the next election cycle, demonize the president, calling him Hitler, his programs “communistic”. Having demonized the president or his programs with hyperbolic calumny, they place themselves in a position from which it is political suicide to compromise. In the meantime, as long as they can block any real change, Republicans can prevent a turn-around in our country’s fortunes that might be credited to Democrats.

While we acknowledge that both parties tend to operate the same way, recall that George W. Bush received cooperation from Democratic legislators, not only in his economic agenda, but also his war plans. Likewise, in 1981, with Ronald Reagan’s solid mandate, Democrats made no concerted effort to block his agenda. Fully 1/3 of House Democrats voted for the ill-fated Reagan economic agenda, billed as “voodoo economics” by his own VP and panned by his budget director, David Stockman, who in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, called it a “Trojan Horse”. (To save face, Reagan kept Stockman on, but he was effectively muzzled.)

So can Republicans be appeased by any policy? In the mid nineties America experienced unparalleled prosperity. Bill Clinton, a solid centrist, dropped Republican-opposed healthcare reform. He abandoned gays in the military, giving us “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”; he balanced the budget, pushed and passed NAFTA, and enacted welfare reform that significantly reduced welfare rolls. He also pushed an anti-crime agenda, expanding the scope of the war on drugs and imposing mandatory sentencing guidelines. This is a record that would make any Republican wildly proud. A logical person would presume that they would love him. But no, the Republicans loathed Bill Clinton and derailed his second term with investigations and eventual impeachment. Republicans are not motivated by issues---even their own issues! Republicans are motivated by power. They use issues to manipulate ignorant people.

In the struggle to enact healthcare reform, Democrats invested valuable months in trying to gain bipartisan support. Over and over, Republican demands for revisions and amendments were fielded, with hundreds of amendments approved. So many amendments were enacted that the AMA and insurance companies endorsed the bill! It broadly tracked the Republican alternative to the 1993 Clinton healthcare bill, with new cost-controlling devises favored by both parties! And how many Republicans voted for this package? None! The entire process was a charade, a delay tactic. Republicans are only interested in discrediting the Democratic president.

Their “policy” plan is simple and harkens back generations. Until the 1930s, our government, patterned after British tradition, had no provision for helping citizens during hard times. When the economy spiraled in after October, 1929, millions were thrown out of work and into extreme poverty. Co-incidentally, abnormal weather patterns and disastrous farming techniques left soils vulnerable to depletion and erosion in the Midwest. This brought about “The Dust Bowl," which drove additional millions from their destroyed homes and farms. Republicans blocked any efforts for congress to intervene, and under (Republican) Herbert Hoover, the government did nothing to help these people.

When FDR came to power in 1933, Republicans opposed programs that might help the needy. Roosevelt was demonized for driving up the national debt, labeled “Communist” and Fascist , another Hitler, (in power at the time in Germany). Does that sound familiar?

Calling FDR or President Obama “Hitler” or “Communist” is preposterous beyond consideration. But this is still the Republican plan: Just throw out accusations, names, calumny---however outrageous---(“death panels”)---and keep hammering it to see what eventually sticks. We are so dumb that eventually after hearing it, enough people start to make the desired association. Again, the strategy is not to achieve any kind of meaningful legislation---it’s only to derail the Democrats and get Republicans back in power.

This pathetic spectacle of Congress is like a small-town football team trying to organize. The community is wildly enthusiastic because Billy Farrell has a Favre-like, rapier arm. But Johnny Martin, with no arm, has the only football in town. He refuses to let the team use his ball unless he gets to play quarterback. Rather than field a team with no passing game, they just squabble, leaving the town frustrated and confused. The Democratic majority could have pressed a decent bill to the floor for debate and allowed the public to watch in disgust as Republicans filibuster. But no, the Dems are in collusion and wrangle for the 60-vote super-majority, which forced enough concessions from recalcitrant blue-dogs that the Republicans could achieve, and the country could see a bill that was by then pork-laden, unwieldy and unpopular.

As this essay goes to press, a backlog of 70 executive administration appointments is being held up by Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala) on behalf of two minor pork-barrel projects for his state. In the face of wide-spread distrust of their own congressional delegation by the public (45%), Republicans (who supposedly oppose earmarks) stand lock-step behind Shelby in blocking any and all public business of the Obama Administration.

Beyond this mess, the sad truth appears to be that the common American has been dumbed down to the point that no expression of evidence or logic can sway him from what he wants to believe. When our stupidity is validated by smarmy politicians, we like them! It’s easier to accept ourselves as we are than to think and change! Middle-class Americans believe Republican lies because they're being told they are victims. This is a disgusting, yet wildly effective technique for manipulating gullible or ignorant people. It also undermines any sincere efforts that Mr. Obama or the Democrats may put forward.

As for the Supreme Court:

Since Richard Nixon’s presidency, a central feature of Republican and conservative rhetoric has been to attack “judicial activism”, a vague term used to describe the (Republican, Earl) Warren court and anything with a liberal outcome. Turns out this only applies when it serves ideological convenience.

Brown vs. Board of Education, widely regarded as the greatest moment in Supreme Court history, was opposed by Republicans because it up-ended an 89-year precedent of Jim Crow. “Brown” overturned Plessey vs. Ferguson, and was handed down by unanimous vote. There was no partisanship on the panel. But the Roberts court’s campaign finance decision makes “conservative” rhetoric laughable. It eliminates a key component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. “McCain” was a continuation of statutes piling up since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration. There is not a shred of evidence that the framers of the 1^st Amendment wished to protect the prerogatives of corporations to sway elections. For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government. Where, oh where is the conservative outcry over this monstrosity? Yet the court has dramatically restricted free speech in other areas, such as government employees and students. These people are colossal hypocrites!

Misconduct on the court is obvious.

Any freshman law student knows “jurisprudence” demands that a judge excuse himself from a case where personal conflict exists. Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned..."

For nearly three years, former Vice President Dick Cheney had been fighting demands that he reveal whether he met with energy industry officials, including Kenneth Lay when Lay was chairman of Enron, while Cheney was formulating the president's energy policy. A lower court ruled that Cheney must turn over documents detailing who met with his task force; but on Dec. 15, 2002 the high court announced it would hear his appeal. In a flagrant, public misstep, Judge Antonin Scalia, a personal friend of Cheney, went duck-hunting with his friend while Cheney was under indictment before his own court! Did Judge Scalia recuse himself from the panel? No, he voted on behalf of his friend!

This same stinking cabal put George W. Bush in the Whitehouse after losing the election of 2000, and has now assured that Republicans will dominate this government indefinitely, or until the people of this country stop it. (Recall that with countless irregularities, the Florida Supreme court had mandated a recount of the Florida vote. Our framers mandated that the STATES would control election of the president.)

Still, in the interim period during confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, we heard conservatives wailing over possible “activist” tendencies of a Latina judge.

Supreme Court judges are “supposed to be” politically impartial, but if they’re not, too bad. There is no recourse within the constitution to deal with improper behavior. The president can refuse to enforce their rulings, risking impeachment himself; but the judges cannot be impeached. Congress may pass legislation to circumvent bad policy, but that again may be over-ruled. In any case, our current ability to predict Supreme Court decisions by weighing in the two parties’ political preferences is a case study in the character of the nominees placed before the Senate. It also marks a low in our nation’s descent into corrosive partisanship.

There is recourse for this decision. Congress could mandate that actual funding sources for ALL campaign-related material must be prominently displayed. If the court can enforce “freedom of speech” for corporations, Congress can mandate that the public be informed of who’s speaking! For films or advertising, large, prominent indication of the sponsors should be indicated both at the beginning and end of the material. This must preclude “straw man” references to bogus, front groups (“Citizens for Better Government”, or such dribble) that hide the real sponsors. When intelligent people see that Exxon/Mobile or Bear Stearns funded an attack ad, it could easily back-fire. We can be certain, however, that Republicans will oppose such a measure.

Progress over the last year? Obviously we're on a better track than under President Bush. We feel confident that we're in vastly better shape than we would have been under would-be President McCain, even if he had followed through on all of his promises!

But the struggle for healthcare reform casts too much light on Mr. Obama's performance to ignore. In a politically motivated drive to pass (any) healthcare reform, the president sold out to the political interests that would inevitably oppose the bill. By taking the "public option" off the table and requiring people to buy over-priced policies (whether government sponsored or not), he was throwing meat to the industry. A bill that would drive insurance stocks up cannot be a good bill, and ultimately would solve nothing! The hope and promise that propelled Mr. Obama to office---the expectation that this man would reform "politics as usual"---has been betrayed. Needing a microscope to find change, we grade the president: D, not passing. Congress gets an F; the Supreme Court F-; The Republican leadership in congress: F---.

The only practical solution to this and many of our political problems is campaign reform. Real reform is impossible unless we DEMAND it by promising to remove every recalcitrant bum from office who stands in its path. Asking voters to actually do this, however, is spitting into the wind. But with strong leadership, this is something that the president may be able to accomplish. If Mr. Obama is to regain momentum and the public esteem that he brought to office, he must begin by attacking the government itself, and delivering the kind of reform that he promised. The Massachusetts election is an opening salvo from the public, though it appears after his swearing in that Scott Brown is a dubious choice to begin the campaign. Stay tuned.

Jackson Dave is a staff writer on Robbinsense

Political Perspective

by William Jellick

Boulder, Colorado. So how did we get to this point? Are we now, like California, so deeply divided that as a nation we're becoming ungovernable? I have a feeling it has something more to do with the Republican Party than anything else. Employing strategies and tactics characterized by a scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs ethic requires them to fight against everything proposed by the Democratic administration (even supporting the troops (gasp)) lest their opponents bask in the glow of some success.

Analyzing their behavior, Republicans appear to have 3 goals, in this order: 1) gain power and dominance, 2) prevent those who have the power they crave from using it and 3) destroy whatever government they happen to belong to regardless of whether or not they happen to be the governing party.

When out of power they throw all their energy into destroying those who are in power. Their tenacity and focus is remarkable. In fact, if it wasn't so deadly it would be admirable. They have no pretense of trying to work with their opponents - they simply denounce all opposition with a zealousness of conviction that echoes a religious cult. Any action that they did not initiate, and some that they did initiate that might now have the potential to help an opponent, is tagged as ruinous to life as we know it. If this reckless policy is not imminently dangerous, it’s likely to be "the first step down a slippery slope to certain oblivion."

Democrats are deemed “evil” and unpatriotic if they don't work (agree) with Republicans in power. And because of goal #2 above, Republican rules prohibit supporting any Democratic initiative, even if it is one that they would typically champion. They make their position brazenly obvious: a Democrat can never be right on an issue, even if it's a position that is usually considered to be a “Republican” issue. An opponent can never be strong enough on (pick one) a) National Security, b) supporting business, c) patriotism. “A Democrat can never be right”, to paraphrase Mary Matalin.

Their rhetoric, always designed to mislead, is riddled with exaggerations, innuendos and outright lies, and is delivered with a righteousness that Moses himself would envy. They expect bi-partisan cooperation from their opponents but do not reciprocate. Everything they believe (and those “beliefs” are frequently as changeable as the weather) is unquestionably right when they alone express them. Everybody else is wrong.

We cannot function as a democracy with our 2nd largest political party in the grip of such insanity. Why must Senate Democrats have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority to get ANY legislation passed, but turn into “patriotic” rubber stamps for Republican policies when the Reps. have less than a 60-vote majority? It’s like dealing with a hysterical person - or a child. Reason is futile.

So what to do? Since think-tank programmed propaganda will fall like atomic rain no matter what, should the Democrats just push through their agenda and brace for the fallout? What Democratic political capital would be jeopardized that isn't already eroding because of hesitation brought on by---fear of Republican hysteria influencing the next election? It will happen anyway, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. So is it best to just leave the Republicans to their hyper-politicizations and get on with the business of governing without them? Absolutely.

A thread of the Republican narrative myth says that the “left” has been using these same tactics for years and therefore it's only fitting that Republicans should follow same. But when you read everyday Americans’ opinions you often hear that they are fed up with Washington or that they want the parties to stop bickering. They don't pick sides, although they really should because knowing who is instigating the bickering would help them understand what is happening to our government and inform their vote.

Now it may be that the Democrats actually did provide the inspiration for the Atwater/Ailes/Rove Willy Horton-style of dirty, misleading, divisive and incendiary politics that have come to be synonymous with the Republican Party. However, that (if ever true) is ancient history and gone from most peoples' memory. The Republicans, with their “only we can be right” posture stand naked and alone - exposed as practitioners of a political style that thwarts democracy and creates divisions deep in our body politic that promotes extremism and radical actions.

It is time for President Obama to recognize this. His opponents aren't tough negotiators - they don't negotiate at all. Their “our way or the highway” approach is their only position. He has precious little time left to take action before our fickle, uninformed, low-information electorate “throws the bums out” and returns the carpetbaggers to power. And one thing they do have down is what to do with power when they get it.

William Jellick is an Information Technology consultant.

wjellick@yahoo.com

On War

The most salient issue in “politics as usual” is inertia around the war machine. We cannot know what resides in Mr. Obama’s heart in regard to continuing our fighting, bombing, killing…in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan… But there’s no easy answer here. The American public was coerced into supporting this misbegotten conflict, and while most see that we were duped, we are still ambivalent.

Mr. Obama is a cautious and cerebral man, trying to do what’s politically expedient. He’s trying to avoid mistakes that may compromise his presidency. He’s being influenced by the noisy rabble on the right and its ability to sway public opinion.

Republicans have a large stake in these wars. Aside from starting them, they have wholeheartedly supported their continuation, and will continue to so---by any Democratic president. The cynicism of the Republican’s position is that by wishing the worst for Mr. Obama, they also wish the worst for our country. The dilemma for Mr. Obama is that while continuing the wars will keep the right at bay, it assures that violence will continue and almost surely return to us. Continuation of war is politically safe for Mr. Obama; his opposition from the left is soft. Outrage from the right would be deafening if he pulled out, because staying the course validates the right! If Mr. Obama ended the wars and brought peace, Republican war policy would be exposed for the disaster that it’s been. The Republicans’ only hope for absolution would be terrorist attacks. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the Republican establishment will be overjoyed by terrorist attacks on this country while Mr. Obama is president is wildly naïve.

The irony here is that any Republican president could safely end these wars. The Republican establishment and noise machine will spin it as a triumph, and Democrats will be delighted with the only ultimate resolution. (Mr. Bush couldn’t stop them because that would have been an admission of mistakes.)

Half a century ago and half a world away, we find a Democratic president on the horns of a similar dilemma. At the close of WW II, Ho Chi Minh (our ally during the war) asked President Truman to help him keep the French out of Vietnam. Under advice from the State Department, Truman foolishly refused. (Roosevelt hated the French and had no intention of allowing them to re-claim their Southeast Asia colonies.) So Ho looked to the Soviet Union for assistance, setting the stage for the hottest of our many “proxy” wars with Russia. When the French left Vietnam in 1954, Eisenhower, proposing his "Domino Theory", took up the cause, delivering arms, "aid" and advisors to support Ngo Dinh Diem, a cruel and corrupt dictator. Fed by hatred of Diem, civil war intensified. Kennedy, hemmed in by his own campaign strategy of “out-Nixoning Nixon”, continued this woeful policy, but with great ambivalence.

Mr. Johnson assumed the presidency knowing that he was unpopular and considering himself an “interloper”. As such he was reluctant to reverse Kennedy’s position without himself being elected to office. Johnson agonized for sleepless months over his options, not wanting to commit to war, but still captive of the inertia of the cold war and “common knowledge” of Eisenhower's domino theory.

During the 1964 presidential campaign, Nixon and Goldwater were evoking wild enthusiasm from Republicans by pushing American commitment to expand the war. When Goldwater won the nomination and amped up his campaign, Johnson, pummeled by America's military naivete and captive of his patron's "bear any burden, pay any price", looked for some way to defuse his rival’s jingoistic support. In August, at the height of the campaign, a small incident occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin that gave Johnson the pretense to expand the war and show his mettle. Congress passed the resolution, and Johnson began bombing North Vietnam. Turns out, Democratic support for the war was tepid at best. Johnson won the election in a landslide because of broad apprehension over Goldwater; but having made his bargain with the devil, he couldn’t find his way out. Politically, it came to a Republican to extract us from that war.

There are striking similarities between the Vietnam debacle and our current dilemma in the Mid East. Perhaps the most striking difference is the contrasting character of the two “enemies”. Vietnam was a safe harbor for our military adventures because the Vietnamese were a gentle, agrarian society. We could safely dance there without bringing it back home. Our adversaries in the Middle East are not gentle, loving and docile people. This tar-baby has thorns; and it’s coming back after us. Killing these people does not slake their blood lust. Someone must extract us from this mess without using guns, bombs and missiles. Someone must use intelligence, diplomacy and a totally new approach to the problem. This is CHANGE, and it’s the essence of what our president “offered” us in words during his campaign. And it’s what we desperately need now.

In a 1936 speech, Ret. General Smedley Butler, twice decorated with the Medal of Honor, stated, “War is a racket….. I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Nothing has changed.

For the past hundred years, time and again we (should) have learned that wars can only be won politically. Much as guns and bombs couldn’t defeat the Vietnamese without bringing on global war, military means won’t accomplish our goals in the Middle East. Our war machine is an enormous hazardous to us, as it will fall into the hands of reckless and naïve leaders whom we will be reckless and naïve enough to put into office. We’ll never know what would have happened if in 1964 President Johnson had said, “No” to war. But we know all too well what happened when he said, “Yes.”

Capital Crimes

Sept 15, 2009:

Over the course of two hours, nurses attempted 18 times last month to find a vein in Romell Broom in which to inject the convicted murderer with a lethal combination of drugs. Broom even tried to help them, massaging his arms and straightening tubes. At one point, the needle hit bone. Finally, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland called off the execution -- for the day, at least.

A rare occurrence?

Ohio, 2006: The execution of Joseph Lewis Clark took close to 90 minutes after executioners had trouble finding a vein. "It don't work, it don't work," Clark told them. Eventually, authorities closed the curtains so that the witnesses couldn't see the disgusting spectacle.

Ohio, 2007: Executioners worked for 90 minutes to insert an intravenous line into Christopher J. Newton, who finally had to ask for a bathroom break.

That's three botched executions of the 14 conducted, or attempted, in Ohio since 2006. After the Broom fiasco, one would think that Gov. Strickland would extend a moratorium on executions until Ohio devised a more humane procedure. Instead, while a federal court pondered Broom's case, the state went ahead with plans to execute a 15th death-row inmate in September. Only after the federal court delayed that execution pending judicial review of bungled injections did Strickland give that inmate, and another scheduled to die in November, 5-month reprieves. He did not delay planned executions in December, January and February.

Ohio is not the only state to have performed lengthy, botched executions. In California, executions have been suspended for nearly three years after concerns that a paralytic agent in the injections might be causing some prisoners to suffocate, while still conscious, without being able to show their discomfort. It seems obvious that Ohio should stop executions until it has developed a better procedure, and that the nation should use that time to ponder whether the death penalty reflects the kind of society we want to be.

Outside of Ohio, the national trend is for declining numbers of executions. Notably, Illinois Republican Governor, George Ryan (now serving a 6-year prison term for corruption) stopped executions in 2000 because of failures in the system. The moratorium was extended by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (arrested in 2009 on charges of fraud and bribery), and again by present Gov. Pat Quinn. These conscientious governors had the compassion and integrity to see through the corruption in our capital justice system, if not in their own administration of executive power… And then there’s California.

While nationally, the number of death sentences issued this year is the lowest since reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, California has defied the national trend. We tend to think of Texas as the Capital Punishment Capital---but California is at the top in capital convictions. In fact, Los Angeles County handed down more capital punishment sentences last year (13) than any state outside California. Texas issued nine death sentences, opposed to 29 convictions in California, and 97 in all other states combined. While we have not seen an execution in over 4 years, our condemned population of 697 is by far the largest in the nation (3,279).

L. A. County prosecutors have been seeking death in fewer cases than they did a decade ago, but the percentage of verdicts going to death is up. Some observers believe that judges are restricting the time allowed to lawyers in jury selection. Some think that jurors have become cynical about defendants’ abused childhoods. According to one veteran defense attorney, “There is less tolerance, less understanding from more and more jurors”.

California’s capital system is widely known as the least efficient in the nation, having executed only 13 since Rose Bird and two other Brown-appointed judges were impeached for blocking executions in 1986. The annual cost of keeping convicts on death row in this state, as opposed to life sentencing, is estimated at $137 million. This comes to $195,000 per prisoner per year---paid for by our state’s unbalanced budget. Much of this expense comes through the lengthy appeals process. All death penalty cases are automatically appealed and all defendants are assigned an attorney for a process that can take more than five years. On the other hand, there are reports of the accused seeking the death penalty on behalf of the “Cadillac” treatment afforded to the condemned, combined with the unlikelihood of execution. (For confinement alone, the average annual cost for the condemned is $90,000. The cost of holding the elderly averages about $70,000 for people over 60, compared to regular confinement at $34,150.)

Michael Morales and Ricky Ortega were convicted of the murder of Tokay High School student Terri Winchell in 1981. Both have spent more than two decades behind bars, but the cost of delivering justice to the two men responsible for this brutal death differs by millions.

Sentenced to life in prison without parole, Ortega has cost California taxpayers $800,000 since 1983. But based on the average cost of 11 executions over 27 years, state and federal taxpayers have paid some $250 million pursuing the death sentence handed down to Morales. The great majority of this comes down to state-sponsored “welfare” for lawyers. What do we get for this kind of investment? Is the value of vengeance this dear?

So people have reached the limit of tolerance as crime has escalated, right? Wrong. As reported in The Times, Dec 24, ’09, for the seventh straight year crime in L. A. County has declined. Homicide (capital crime) numbers are at a 40-year low. “It is a different world,” said Police Chief Charlie Beck, a 32-year veteran of the force. “There was a time when it was the opposite of today — when it seemed there was no limit on the potential for things to get worse and worse. The whole outlook has shifted now.” The number of property-related crimes, such as burglary and theft, also declined this year, including a surprisingly large drop in the number of stolen automobiles. According to LAPD figures, violent crimes fell about 10% from last year, while burglary and other property crimes declined 8%. The Sheriff’s Department, which patrols dozens of cities and unincorporated communities, reported similar results for the year, with overall serious crime down more than 11%, including a 23% decline in homicides. Yet our prison population continues to swell, largely because of "three strikes" and dubious drug laws.

But still, many continue to favor capital punishment. There is no softening the horror of Broom's crimes. He abducted a 14-year-old girl at knife-point and then raped and killed her. Even if he endured last month's ordeal 10 times over, the state still wouldn't be putting him through the terror and suffering he inflicted on his victim.

Yet that's precisely the point. The state is not Broom, nor should we want it to carry out our sadistic bidding. The survivors of a murder victim often yearn for vindication or simply a sense of closure, and we might too if we were in their shoes. But is it the job of the state to carry out that desire? What about the “better angels” of our nature? Part of why this nation has constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment is because (supposedly) we as a society want to maintain the highest moral character. Yet the United States, alone among Western industrial powers, still administers the death penalty. And still we have "esteemed" legislators, like Orrin Hatch (R. Utah) who would tell us, "Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life."

It appears that we, expressed as jurors and voters, demand vengeance---blood. And while much of the present controversy over the death penalty swirls around the “humaneness” of the method, are we really concerned by this? While hangings have almost vanished from our land, and electrocutions have waned since the practice was dramatized by the 1999 movie “The Green Mile”, more and more states have adopted this obviously imperfect practice of lethal injection.

But there’s a technique which would easily fit any criteria for “humane” that unmasks our pretense. The military has used “altitude chambers” for years in pilot and astronaut training to acquaint pilots with the dangers of high altitude. This device could easily be adapted for capital punishment.

An altitude chamber is the opposite of a “decompression chamber”, commonly used to coax dissolved nitrogen from the blood stream of divers. The altitude chamber is an enclosed room from which air is gradually removed.

Atmospheric pressure near sea level (where most of us live) is about 14 psi. At 6 psi a person loses “useful” consciousness, while around 4 psi he loses actual consciousness. Soon, with declining pressure, he dies. It is certain; it is completely painless---the victim, sensing only pressure corrections in the ears, slips out with no discomfort. No pain, no chains, no spectacle, no drama. The rate at which the decompression occurs could be scheduled to extend from as little as five minutes to as long as one wishes, (although at about 30 minutes one would begin to experience nausea from “altitude sickness”.) In the chamber the victim could be seated comfortably, or lying down; his favorite music could be piped in...not a bad way out! (This would surely offend the vengeance set!) Given this option, persistence with more cumbersome and controversial methods of execution can only be justified by inertia, politics---or perhaps by public demand for pain and drama.

In summation, crime in general is down; capital crime is down even more. Capital punishment is notoriously unequally administered, with only the poor convicted. The administration of capital punishment is wildly expensive, sadistically applied and ineffective as a deterrent. Our drastic increase in this instrument of justice doesn't come from crime, doesn't come from prosecutors, is completely unwarranted by the state budget. This trend comes from us! It comes from anger, intolerance and impatience. We demand death at the ballot box and in the jury box.

In any case, Robbinsense opposes the death penalty. For those who embrace “swift justice”, we need only consider that in the short time since the availability of DNA testing, 14 have been exonerated by it. Since reinstatement of the death penalty, 119 condemned have been cleared and freed. How many innocents over the last hundred years have we put to death? We hope our readers will consider their opinions and passions.

The Jury Experience

by Roving Reporter Randoid

The Jury Waiting Room

Every year around springtime I get the call: report to the Ventura County Hall of Justice for jury duty. And every year I spend the day reading a novel, working a crossword puzzle, or just staring at the wall waiting to be called upon to perform my jury service. And the call never comes. Every year it’s the same, except for this year.

I was spending my time chatting with a woman from Simi Valley when the call came for a group of jurors to report to a courtroom. Her name was called and off she went. As I waited for the day to pass I couldn’t help but feel a bit sorry for her as Simi Valley is on the eastern side of the county, 40 miles away. I live in Oak View, which is on the western side of the county, and, if she was selected to be on a jury, I know the drive she was facing. Years ago, I used to make the 50-mile commute to work in Simi Valley.

A short while later there was another call for jurors. Except this time the jurors were to report to the courthouse in Simi Valley, “a very unusual occurrence, one that hardly ever happens,” if the jury clerk can be believed. There were about 150 prospective jurors remaining in the jury pool and they needed 60 people. I figured that my odds were roughly 5 to 2 against that I would be selected but as I heard my name called, suddenly I didn’t feel all that lucky.

The Jury Selection Process

I’ve always wanted to be on a jury. I had never been in a courtroom let alone taken part in the judicial process. I wasn’t looking forward to my daily 100-mile round trip but I was eager for my first jury experience. Twelve prospective jurors were called along with eight alternates. My name was the last one called. Once again I assessed my chances of making it on the jury. I did the math – 12 jurors, plus 2 alternates, that’s 14 jurors. As juror number 20, I thought my chances of getting on the jury were slim. I needn’t have worried.

The judge gave us a brief overview of the case. A woman drove her SUV into the path of a motorcycle rider. The woman was unhurt but the motorcycle rider received various head, neck, and shoulder injuries. Guilt for the accident was already established, as the driver of the SUV was found to be totally responsible for the accident. The motorcycle rider (plaintiff) was suing the driver of the SUV for damages. I was disappointed that I was going to serve on a civil case and not a case that involved a verdict of guilty or not guilty. But, no matter, here I was.

Over the next two days the court labored through the jury selection process. Each juror was asked probing questions regarding their job, finances, and their personal life. Perhaps answers to all of these questions are important, but in front of 60 other strangers plus at least 12 court personnel? I couldn’t help but cringe at hearing some of the personal revelations that were offered up to the court. Putting all of that aside, the excuses that people offered to get off the jury were shocking.

This was a civil case and our task was to decide how much, if any, compensation was due to the victim. One of the jurors was a mountain bike rider and he made it obvious that he had an axe to grind with anyone that sat behind the wheel of a car. Without hearing any testimony he offered up his opinion that the plaintiff should get maximum compensation. (Uh, not exactly the open mind we’re looking for on the jury. However, if it was your intention to avoid jury duty, then it was very well-played sir. You’re excused.) Another guy said he didn’t care what evidence was presented he wasn’t going to give “this jerk” any money. (Huh? Don’t you want to hear any evidence, any evidence at all? No? Well, thank you for your service. Please crawl away.)

Well, after hearing two days worth of excruciatingly painful courtroom declarations detailing financial, physical, and emotional hardships we had a jury. Also, it came as no surprise to me that I went from prospective juror number 20 to juror number 7.

The Case

As previously mentioned, this case involved an SUV driving into the path of a motorcycle rider. Upon impact, the motorcycle rider was thrown face-first into the SUV. It was not difficult to imagine that the rider received head, neck, and shoulder injuries resulting from this accident. To that end, the plaintiff’s attorney produced several expert witnesses in the form of accident investigators and doctors to support the injury claims. As it happens, the motorcycle rider was a Vietnam veteran. And, as a result of the accident, his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) re-surfaced. Professional care providers from the Veterans Administration testified to this also. The expert witness testimony was very convincing and the plaintiff’s attorney did an excellent job in presenting their argument.

Now it was time for the defense to present their side of the case. The first thing the defense attorney did was to try and deceive the jury. On the day of the accident there were two different people with the same last name treated for their injuries at the local hospital. One of the treated parties, the plaintiff, complained of head, neck, and shoulder injuries that were consistent with the claimed injuries. The other party, the one with the same last name as the plaintiff, had minor complaints that were not consistent with the claimed injuries. The defense attorney tried to convince us, the jury, that the plaintiff was the person with the minor complaints. The plaintiff’s attorney made short work of exposing this shameful tactic and letting the truth be known.

Besides this ruse, the defense called only one expert witness. A doctor, who examined the plaintiff for less than 10 minutes, testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were minor. Under cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney attacked this doctor’s credibility and competence and, in the process, ripped his testimony to shreds. After this fiasco the defense rested their case.

In short, the testimony in this case was so overwhelming in favor of the plaintiff that, if this had been a prize fight, they would have stopped it. After a week of testimony, the judge gave us his instructions, emphasizing that we should consider this case based only on what we heard in the courtroom. Based on what I heard, I thought this case was a “slam dunk” in favor of the plaintiff. Jeez, was I in for a surprise!

The Jury Deliberation Room

The jury had several issues to decide upon. The issues were prior pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, an aggravation of the PTSD issue, and medical expenses. Each issue carried a price tag of monetary damages. This was a civil case, and unlike a criminal case, a unanimous verdict was not necessary. Our jury needed a majority decision of 9-3 for each issue. Simple enough, I thought, we’ll be out of here in an hour or two. After all, the plaintiff’s attorney made mincemeat out of the defense attorney – to the winners go the spoils!

We took a vote on each issue and I received a shock. We were split completely down the middle – four jurors in favor of the plaintiff, four jurors in favor of the defense, and four jurors that couldn’t make a rational decision if their life depended upon it. The four jurors that favored the defense were adamant in their refusal to award any monetary damages. The four “no opinion” jurors were much closer to the “no monetary award” position, presumably because taking that position involved little or no thinking their part.

Over the next three days discussions became arguments, coaxing became coercing, and constructive criticism gave way to outright insults. The four “no opinion” jurors participated less and less as the discussions became more heated. The longer things dragged on, the four “no monetary award” jurors became more unified and intractable in their position. We called for court testimony to be read back in the jury room in hopes of changing some minds but it made no difference. It became obvious that court testimony was no match against a prejudiced position.

On the third day, one of the fervent “no monetary award” jurors announced that she had an important appointment and that she would be willing to change her position in order to bring the deliberations to a close. So we decided on a monetary award that I considered was still too low. For a brief time I considered changing my vote so that a decision could not be reached, thereby creating a hung jury. In the end I relented and went along with the negotiated award. The plaintiff’s medical expenses were being met so I figured that was as good as it was going to get.

Conclusion

So after reading novels and working crossword puzzles for years I finally got what I had hoped for – to be on a jury. The old saying, “Be careful what you wish for, it may come true” comes to mind. I must say that I did enjoy the trial portion of being on a jury, although that was far outweighed by the sour taste of the jury deliberation experience. Initially, I was a bit dubious at the prospect of twelve people trying to come to a decision regarding money, which required some talent for negotiation and compromise. Now, I am no longer a “bit dubious,” but I am completely dubious of a jury being competent enough to make these types of decisions. As for being on a jury, I’ve done it and I am no longer curious about being on another.

Randoid is a Robbinsense staff writer