Rovito Review

The Truth Shall Set You Free

2009-01-25T13:26:00.002-05:00

As Barack Obama settles into the Oval Office, he has issued a guarantee we all have been pining for since early 2001; transparency in the White House. Imagine, we, the people, may actually have a shot at knowing what our government is up to... one can only dream.

I am duly impressed with Mr. Obama's commitment to pulling back the curtain where George "Oz" Bush hid out for eight years, but I think there's a component in this equation we are all missing.Transparency is only as valuable as the honesty used to make decisions in the first place.

Obama appears, so far, to be willing to tackle the hard issues without the veneer of political correctness, or constant-loop campaigning double speak we've grown accustomed to. Yet, while I've heard him offer platitudes about new challenges that require bold action, I've heard less about some of the blatant realities which got us here.

I recognize that calling out some of these atrocities would likely be political suicide, a risk Obama can't take. He CAN hold the Bush administration accountable for its train wreck policies, and reverse said policies, a measure he's doing pretty well with. However, let's get real about some of the base level issues we face, and what the origins of the problems really are. I will take a microcosm of America, my hometown, as an example to illustrate one of the biggest challenges we face today.

Like it or not, our economy lives and dies by the quality of our education system. Obviously, there are market forces, economic theories, global considerations, a whole host of factors which determine the health of our economy. Yet, education and the economy, two major challenges we face, are inextricably tied to one another. An educated work force, prepared to meet the demands of a changing market, is the only hope of an industrialized nation.

Now, let's travel to Shreveport, Louisiana, a place I'm proud to call my hometown, despite its various, uh, issues. The economy and education have been long-running problems for Shreveport, but instead of even the hope of peaks and vallies, it's just been a long history of downturn, in both areas. Nowhere is my philosophy of education/economic correlation more evident than in Shreveport. The population is ill-prepared to fill 21st century jobs, the education system, by the numbers and the morale, gets worse by the year, and the cycle continues.

Leaders in the community are currently working double time to find solutions to the education crisis, as record numbers of schools become "unacceptable", with the threat of state take-over looming for many schools, and an actual reality for two schools. Proposals include longer school days, retrenchment of staff, curriculum overhaul ( a dubious, vague suggestion, at best), and character ed. It's hard to exactly disagree with some of these recommendations, but wouldn't you agree it seems like more of a band-aid approach than getting to the root of the problem?

The reason leaders are avoiding the origins of the problem is because they are about as messy as it gets. Shreveport has a VERY long fabled history of troubled race relations, with a continuum that includes oppression and degradation toward African-Americans, generalized resentment toward whites, regardless of the individuals beliefs and intentions, and uneasy mixing between the two races. Education has never been particularly valued by the majority of either race in Shreveport, but the higher the poverty rate has risen, the more disdain for education has grown. Also, in the name of political correctness, discipline has effectively been removed from the schools, with a clever mandate coming from on high recently concerning suspensions; regardless of what the kid does, don't suspend him. Hmmm..... one wonders why so many young people are ending up in jail as soon as they become adults. Could it be that the lack of discipline in the schools socialized them to believe consequences simply don't exist?

Now, with all that background, where am I going with this? The bottom line to the education problem in Shreveport is this: African-Americans, on the whole, are not going to listen to a bunch of preaching from a few well-meaning whites espousing the value of education. The trust isn't there, it's not going to happen. The poverty cycle is so wide-spread, and nobody wants to acknowledge that's a huge part of why children aren't doing well in school. The correlations have been proven time and again, but we are so afraid to "insult" any segment of society, we perpetuate their misery instead of enacting pro-active solutions to address the real problems. These facts are very uncomfortable, things leaders wish to sweep under the rug, offering pseudo-solutions instead, with "full transparency". The access to information is welcomed, but what information are we really getting?

President Obama must be mindful of this as he attacks the key issues we face today. His intentions are obviously good, but he may have to say and do some things that make people squirm a little. Cheers to the notion of transparency, but please, let's make sure the basis for decisions involves measures of the God's honest truth.

Disappointment in Illinois

2008-12-09T13:16:00.002-05:00

It is with a heavy heart I blog today...... a man I deemed above reproach has crashed and burned, apparently in a big way. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has taken some very noble service and tossed it with some corruption that can't be ignored.

The layers of disappointment in this one are multiple. The governor of Illinois stood up to a wayward Superintendent I once made a chance acquaintance with further south; he bravely stood toe to toe with Dr. Robert Schiller, a corrupt hatchet man whom, in my experience, made back-door deals, as only the best BUSINESS men can. Yet, he ( Dr. Schiller) was in education, not business. It's my understanding he( Dr. Schiller) is currently a consultant for an education service ( read: think tank for educators), probably one of the best suited positions for him in the free world. The governor of Illinois had the audacious idea to stand up to this man and call him out for the micro-managing charlatan he is. He ran him out on a flag pole and deposed him of the lofty position he had gained in the Illinois Department of Education. This good deed will get lost in the shuffle of some serious allegations.

Moreover, Governor Blagojevich, as recently as yesterday, stood with the little guy, demanding Bank of America deal fairly with some factory workers robbed of their jobs in Chi-Town. There is now speculation the Governor knew what was coming down the pike, trying to head off bad press with a story about his loyalty to the American worker. Cynicism tinges even this, the sweetestof Christmas stories.

Governor Blagojevich squandered these two instances, and, presumably, dozens of others, in favor of participating in "pay to play" politics, something Lynn Sweet, the editor of the Chicago Sun-Times asserts is normal procedure for local politicians. However, no matter how common place it may become, that never makes it right. The tragedy here is two-pronged; not only does another official go down in disgrace as a casualty of money and position, the good deeds committed by the story's villain loses all credit for the positive changes initiated by his hands. Let this serve as a graphic lesson to the incoming public servants elected to institute some much needed change. Check your highly personal ambitions at the door.... please serve at the pleasure of those who elected you. We are waiting for some restored honor to American government, the kind promised by the current administration, yet sorrily not delivered. Please do good, and keep the balance sheet of corruption blank. We are in no mood to abide officials who cash out of the game when a personal opportunity comes along, regardless of how it compromises "We, the People." No amount of good service can erase a vastly corrupt over-step, as we see with Governor Blagojevich today.

The Big "R" appears propelled by the " Big Mo"

2008-12-01T16:16:00.002-05:00

George H.W. Bush famously stated, in his 1980 bid to capture the Republican nomination for the Presidency, his campaign was being propelled by the " Big Mo." This ill-fated comment referred to his decisive defeat of Ronald Reagan in Iowa, with Bush implying the momentum of victory was sweeping him toward the top spot of his party's ticket. The momentum, as we now know, would have to build until 1988, when he rode the wave of his previous opponent's coat tails.

The media informed us today we are currently in a Recession...... Recession with a capital "R"...... a fact most of us have been well aware of for quite some time. Apparently, since December, 2007, our economy has shown signs of recession, with a lower case "r"..... reduced consumerism, reduced access to credit, encroachment on job security, with job loss an increasing reality for millions of Americans. Now, as these conditions have ballooned over the past year, with all elements becoming undeniably worse with each passing month, the lower case "r" has grown into a full-fledged capital "R". We now have "official" confirmation of what the average American has painfully grasped far too long.... our economy is in a world of hurt.

That last phrase was not chosen lightly; we are in a world of hurt. This economic downturn is not exclusively an American problem. Our friends abroad are hurting as well, but as the world turns, where is the center point most look to for prosperity? That answer seems to be changing faster than stocks rise and fall.

Considering the landscape, let us return to the Big "R" and the "Big Mo". We have endured three recessions in the past thirty years, the first one in 1981-82, with unemployment hovering around 10%, inflation bursting at the seams. A messy scene indeed. The government's answer to this crisis? Supply Side economics, Trickle Down theory, whatever one wishes to call a reverse Robin Hood syndrome. Allow the rich to disproportionately skip out on taxes, and they will reinvest into the economy, ensuring prosperity for all. Warren Buffet and George Soros followed this directive, but the majority of the wealthy failed to read that memo.

Then, we entered into the second recession in 1991, with eleven years of G.O.P. leadership, the above mentioned Trickle Down as the order of the day. Bill Clinton seized the moment in 1992, with the Carville styled " It's the Economy, Stupid" motto switching the gears. The "Big Mo" of economic hemorrhaging seemed to be stemmed.

In 2000 we saw a minor blip in the economy, but not severe enough to be labeled a recession. However, post 9-11, the country, understandably, slumped into an economic downturn, with the man at the helm offering the same solution as two Repubs before him; Supply Side to the rescue.

The only trouble is, now we are in the deepest "R" yet..... the current conditions eerily resembling a big "R" that quickly morphed into a Colossal "D". Irresponsible policy created an economic reality we couldn't have fathomed; a tragedy- produced lower case "recession" was actively stoked into a capital "Recession", something most agree could have been avoided. There is a new sheriff in town, and all our wishes rest with him and his talented team, hoping against hope there is a viable plan to slowly, but surely, raise America out of the latest Big "R".... the one we deeply hope does not have the " Big Mo."

Giving Thanks Never Goes Out of Style

2008-11-27T14:43:00.002-05:00

As I sit here waiting for the turkey to be table - ready, with the smells of apple pie and oyster dressing wafting in the air, I realize how fortunate I truly am. In a few minutes I will join with my greatest blessings, family and friends, to celebrate with food, a warm fire and good conversation. All of these elements of our joyous feast sound so basic, so simple, yet they are so precious. More than this, they are more scarce than we may care to acknowledge.

Barack Obama and family were caught by the media yesterday..... they were caught doing a good deed. A local Catholic church hosted Thanksgiving dinner for Chicago's south side residents, providing a much welcomed meal to many hungry souls. Obama did not invite the press to come cover his participation in this event. To my knowledge, the national media did not pick this story up. Yet there it was, for his constituents to see and admire. The best part is, Obama didn't appear to do it for the admiration; he did it for the sheer joy of helping his fellow man. He was also quoted as saying he did it with his daughters to show them how blessed they are, and how important it is to give back when one has a dime, or some time, to spare.

Before my grandfather passed away he, my grandmother and I had a rotating tradition. Every even year we would go see a blockbuster movie Thanksgiving evening, after dinner had been well savored and digested. Every odd year, however, we would go after Thanksgiving dinner and serve at one of the local Soup Kitchens. As a child I preferred serving at the Soup Kitchen,even though movies were a special interest. I used to look in the eyes of the people as we'd serve the turkey and dressing; there was usually a mixture of despair, gratitude, hopelessness, bewilderment, and spirit. I would always smile and try to touch their hand as I gave them their plate.... I sensed a brief, empathetic interaction would be as nourishing for them as the food. Even at ten, eleven, twelve years old, I instinctively understood the need for human dignity, the need to feel cared about. No condescension, no "charity" handshakes; no, a genuine connection, from one human to another. I also instinctively understood I had to take a different approach with children, even the ones my age, than I did with adults. I would ask them about things I knew they would surely have some knowledge of, to establish a common foundation, then just hang for a bit after they'd been served, and I got a fifteen minute break. Connection to nourish the spirit, food to nourish he body.

As you sit around your table today, feeding your mind, body, and soul, feel good about how blessed you are. Give thanks to whom/whatever you feel has a hand in ensuring your blessings. Look around your table and quietly thank each person who is there, thank them for filling the spaces in your heart. Then, as everyone walks out the door, and you return to your kitchen to scrub down the cabinets, and clear the table, reflect on how many blessings you can count, just for today. The delicious meal, the delightful warmth of companionship. These are the things we hold to in life, the blessings we hold so dear. Then, as you thank whom/whatever you feel has brought these things into your life, think of those who aren't as fortunate. What could you do to share your blessings? No grand gestures required; sometimes, the clasp of a hand is good enough.

Obama's Job Plan

2008-11-22T10:14:00.000-05:00

Watch it here

So this is the 'New Deal' of this era.......Not a bad idea. It parallels Roosevelt's plan, but obviously has modern tweaks to it.

It worked once, it can....and hopefully will.....work again.

I hope workforce education and training for 21st century jobs is cornerstone of the plan. We need people who can design and manufacture microchips and infotech, not know how to run a machine in a sock manufacturing plant.

A Quick Observation

2008-11-16T21:13:00.003-05:00

I was sitting in church today wondering how many people actually believed. This is something that has plagued me over the years....when I was Catholic, agnostic, now presumably Episcopalian.....Do people TRULY believe? Or do they go every Sunday out of habit?

The great Richard Dawkins opened my eyes to the world of evolutionary biology, the selfish gene, and memetic theory. Was God truly a delusion? Who knows? I thought that for awhile, but now it seems like the empty void just keeps getting "emptier"....

There's got to be some middle ground for us who are not truly sold on the idea of virgin birth, resurrection, etc. I'm not saying I am an atheist or anything, just a 'questioner'. Atheism is fine for those who prescribe to it. So is Islam. So is Hinduism. So is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't care what faith (or lack there of) anyone holds on to as long as they don't hurt anyone or forcefully convert people.

But anyway, back to my observation. I was literally staring at people today trying to figure out why they were sitting in the pews. I'm sure most were there for the right reasons. Maybe 'right' is not the right word to use. Maybe I'm being confusing, but religion is inherently confusing. Right?

So why are these people coming every week? Why am I? My story is a tad different than most, but I guess we all have the same motives down deep. We're just trying to figure it all out.....

Right? Maybe not?

Finally! Ready, Aim, Fire!

2008-11-16T11:42:00.003-05:00

By all appearances, the American people did a very smart thing on November 4. We finally elected someone who is disciplined, yet adaptable; firm, yet not rigid. Team Obama is demonstrating very good judgment as it prepares to transition into the White House. All appearances indicate we have a president-elect who recognizes the balance between transparency and folly.

At the moment Obama is in a unique position; his every move is scrutinized for clues as to how he will govern, yet he is not quite in a position of governance. Obama clearly sees his station in this temporary no-man's land. He is, wisely, keeping all major decisions close to the vest, even as juicy, titillating bits are "leaked" to keep the media feeding frenzy well oiled. Hillary as Secretary of State? This story has sufficed as fodder for the weekend, giving Team Obama more time to fill in more gaps, without the hot lights of the camera squarely on them. Obama is also taking cues from the Lincoln playbook; Hillary has the chops to fulfill this role, she is a power player in the party, and keeping her so near, yet so far is good strategy. Obama is obviously a man who doesn't take it personally, a crucial characteristic in governance. This one example summarizes the apparent Obama strategy : Team of Rivals, distracting red meat (with reality based substance), tight restrictions of information not ready for prime time (in terms of comprehensive strategy.) If Obama can maintain this operation, he has great prospects for swimming with the sharks.

What does this all mean for the American people? It seems we now have a leader who is the ultimate pragmatist; where Bush has been an antagonistic, secretive despot, Obama

appears to be a practical realist. He wants transparency, but only after the entire map is drawn. He wants to govern for the People, but he is asking the People to give him some latitude to chart the waters before he puts his oars in the water. He is a man of vision, but many times vision can be deceptive; in order to get a completely clear picture, one needs time to bring it all into focus. Obama seems to understand this principle. He is patient, and he will, most likely, ask the American People to marshall all the patience they can muster. Conditions dictate this is going to be a bit protracted; no magic bullets will rescue us, but disciplined, consistent leadership, with a foundation of respect for the "bottom up" nature of some of the problems we face, these components will eventually return some light to a very dark situation. Again, Obama appears to understand the chess element. We have to make deliberate moves, our values in tact, our optimism balanced, our perseverance undeterred. Most importantly, we must commit to remaining undistracted.

Obama seems determined to actually "stay the course." He is not in a sprint; all actions on his part point to him being fully aware of these conditions. Obama appears committed to a ready, aim, fire approach, with full disclosure after the first shot goes across the bay..... but not before. This is the measure of a focused, disciplined leader, our best hope in a time of great uncertainty.

Spaghetti Against the Wall

2008-11-16T10:37:00.002-05:00

Okay, everyone, what is up with our economy? I mean, really, what is truly up? Hank Paulson came out six weeks ago telling us we HAD to get on board with a Congressional bail-out for the financial systems, otherwise liquidity would freeze, leaving small businesses and ever-beleaguered home owners out in the cold. Now, Paulson comes out and tells us " Meh, my bad. We're not buying 'bad assets' (read : troubled mortgages) with the bail-out money after all. We've decided we are going to do something entirely different." Mr. Paulson defended his position late last week by asserting "changing facts" led him to revise his original plan. The sudden burst of adaptability from this administration is welcomed; however, it's a day late, a dollar short, and, frankly, with this cause, seemingly a political two-step swagger.

We now see the auto industry in dire trouble, a predictable turn of events, given the American auto downward spiral we've plainly seen over the last two decades. Some argue that GM should be allowed to fail, they have a poor business model, and that's the way things go in a Capitalist society. There is some validity in this theory. GM has refused to adapt, much as our government has refused to adapt, leaving it vulnerable to implosion, much as the G.O.P. name brand imploded after years of leaders plushly sleeping at the wheel. Should we reward faulty practices through a commitment of more tax dollars, particularly after we've seen a clear abuse of that trust with a recent ploy into our pockets? The answer is mixed, at best. We know we can't trust the current government to implement a plan as proposed; the excuses for revision abound, but the bottom line is this: the recent Bail-out, under Paulson's present direction, is not going to assist the average American. So, we are now told that we are in a fight for our lives, we either commit to helping out the Big Three American auto companies or face dramatic consequences.

I ache for the poor workers and their families, the ones who truly will suffer if GM ultimately goes down. It's not fair, it's not just, it's a complete betrayal of the loyalty they have shown " the company" for so many years. Yet, I can't bring myself to support a measure that would sink more tax payer dollars into an endeavor that fails to under gird the greater good. What is the national benefit if we agree to another bail-out? We know we can't trust the current stewards, we hope and pray we can trust the new guard. Can GM file for protection under bankruptcy, sparing the poor worker, saving the company, while also preventing the country from assuming another debt? If so, why are we having this discussion, with terms set forth to further sink the American economy?

We, the People, need to become better informed on large scale economic issues, as they increasingly affect us all to the same degree. We are no longer in a position to view "politics as local", as former House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously once said. Politics are local, but they are also national, and international. The well being of our families, communities, and beyond are at stake; we no longer have the luxury of thinking local. GM's bottom line has become inextricably connected with the government's bottom line, which, we have seen, has become irremovable from our kitchen tables. The time has come where we each, optimally, have an educated answer to the question " Hey, so what's up with the economy?" Throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping a strand will stick, is no longer an option.

Meltdown Indeed

2008-11-13T14:18:00.002-05:00

As President Bush prepares to "govern" for the duration of his term, legacy concerns seemingly abound. The president is rushing around sucking air out of all kinds of venues; today, he is offering his economic thoughts at The Manhattan Institute. Never one to waste an opportunity, Bush is currently pushing his latest trade agreement, insisting the only way out of our present financial debacle is dependent on forging yet another questionable trade agreement, a measure completely unrelated to the housing and credit crisis. Meltdown indeed.

The meltdown consists of a logical leap we all see takes us off a cliff.... Bush is a master at the Republican tactic of staying on message, delivering said message in a way which confuses the listener into agreement, leaving one without knowing why one lends support. Bush began his speech detailing the economic woes we currently face, seizing particularly on the housing crisis, expressing his shock and dismay over the situation we find ourselves in. He deftly transitioned into why this crisis wasn't due to deregulation, and, further, why government intervention was NOT necessarily the answer! Considering he and his appointed Treasury Secretary authored the largest government bail-out in American history, this rings a bit hollow.

Government has turned a blind eye to corporate greed and excess; this fact, nobody can deny. Yet Bush is trying to run around, shore up his "legacy", and convince the American people that his administration's policy of coddling corporate interests, with the typical neo-con disdain for regulation of any sort, is GOOD for the country, good for the economy in general. I'm not sure about you, but this makes me mad as Hell. After the American people soundly rejected this top heavy style of governance, Bush has the audacity to rub it in our faces that regardless of what conditions on the ground tell us, regardless of what we see in our gas bills, our mortgages, our grocery bills, our friend's faces as they lose their jobs, our grandparent's despair as they choose between groceries and prescription medicine, our sadness as we see our neighbors face foreclosure..... he has the temerity to run around and tell us that despite all this evidence to the contrary, we aren't seeing things correctly. He, obviously, is STILL RIGHT! Can't we see that?

No, actually, Mr.President, we can't. We don't see things your way.... at all. We demonstrated this a week and a half ago at the polls..... we demonstrated this two years ago during the Mid-term elections. The "thumpin" you alluded to? The woodshed Mr. McCain has spoken about since the 2008 election? Those are the new reality for the G.O.P. if the party refuses to change course. The president does his party no favors by adamantly defending policies which clearly have this country in ruin.

I like gracious W. much better. W. on the defense, telling us to suspend our disbelief and buy into his version of the miserable new reality, is more of a pill than most of us can swallow. We spit it right back at him a week and a half ago; please, in service to your country Mr. President, quit trying to force-feed this bitter, deceitful pill most of us are unwilling to stomach.

Anti-Intelluctualism and the G.O.P.

2008-11-11T12:18:00.004-05:00

Check out this story about the G.O.P.'s disaster last week. The narrative is from a right-wing perspective. The author is a good friend of mine and someone who is neither hyper-partisan nor biased.

Buyer Beware: "Trending" Tells Little of the Story

2008-11-07T11:54:00.002-05:00

For those of us who look to "trends" to explain why a particular region voted a certain way in a given election, we may need to reassess our data. A thorough review of past performance, across the states, in the arena of the Electoral College, reveals a few surprises.

For a prime example, look no further than California. It is always taken for granted that Californians will solidly support most Democrats in the majority of elecions, yet "trend data" backs this claim only to a certain extent. Democrats have enjoyed a favorable climate for the past five elections; however, prior to 1992, the previous five elections in California had gone RED. Ronald Reagan was an extremely charismatic, communicative public figure..... a transformational figure, bearing the cult of personality in a similar fashion to Barack Obama, with critics and supporters alike agreeing each man has an "it" quality we rarely see in American politics. Ronald Reagan was a native son of.... CALIFORNIA. California's "red" period can most likely be attributed to this one figure, a symbol, in the mind of many Californians, of the best government possible. Incidentally, most Americans agreed with them, although history has offered a more balanced portrayal of the Reagan years.

Illinois, Barack Obama's home state, is another illustration. Illinois has traditionally been..... RED! The Land of Lincoln, Illinois is now considered an automatic credit in the Democrat column, but it has only become this way in recent times. Illinois was consistently red until 1992, when Governor Bill Clinton brought a "New Democrat" approach to the table, governing more from the center than either polar opposite. Illinois voters liked this new centrist model, and have supported Democrats ever since. So, as we see, another transformational figure literally transformed the political performance of a state.

Vermont is another theoretical liberal bastion; people always assume Vermont will go for the Dems. However..... until 1992, just not true! Vermont citizens had voted red all across the spectrum until the Democratic party demonstrated it could speak to all views, not just the liberal elite.

Conversely, Louisiana is generally lumped in with the "deep south"; this is for some good reasons. However, politically, Louisiana is always a toss-up, or, at least, this used to be true. Louisiana has voted for the winner in every election dating back to 1972, and as we know, there have been both Democratic and Republican victories during this time period. Now, it could logically be argued that Louisiana does, indeed, currently trend Republican. All elections from the past ten years, minus the victory for Kathleen Blanco (D), as governor from 2003-2007, have gone in the Red Column. Still, it is worth noting that Louisiana has not been a "gimme" for any party; until 2008, Louisiana voted for the winner, both Democrat and Republican. Yet, all trends are meant to be broken, and Louisiana ended its winning streak this cycle, supporting John McCain.

The moral of this column is : Don't automatically assume one region of the country is forever branded as "this" or "that." Many factors change these scenarios, including, but not limited to, population shifts, current conditions (foreign and domestic), and, most tellingly, the personality of the candidates. We like to think personal qualities matter little in our selection of a leader, we fancy ourselves as consumers of ideas. We are, for the most part, but we can't deny the appeal of transformational figures; they have flipped the map several times in contemporary history.

We are all Americans.... with a right to change our minds.

The Cabinet and Staff

2008-11-06T08:52:00.004-05:00

President-elect, Barack Obama, has chosen Rahm Emanuel for his chief of staff. Emanuel is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives and can include in his resume as the mastermind of the Democratic Congressional takeover 2 years ago.

Widely considered to be a very intelligent and astute individual who 'works well with others' brings with him experience as he served as policy adviser to President Clinton in the 90's.

Rahm Emanuel is the first pick (and a fantastic one at that) of what I hope to be (and what I predict will be) a broad coalition of both sides of the aisle who are legit and competent individuals.

President-elect Obama will have a serious of very important and highly divisive choices to make within the first 3 months of his administration...including taxes, the war, and of course, the 500-pound elephant in the room, the economy. He is wise to surround himself with the people who will not only question him and test him, but also give him sound advice for the good of the nation, not just politically-charged opinions....ala Karl Rove.

Si Se Puede!

2008-11-05T22:28:00.003-05:00

Last night was a joyous occasion. I feared the morning after, lest it was all a dream. But as I walked down the hallways of the human rights organization in which I work, I was greeted with smiles, hugs, and chirping birds. OK, maybe not chirping birds, but it was surreal, nonetheless.

Do I think Obama’s president-elect status means that the world is going to change overnight? Not so much. An institution is an institution, and there is a long, arduous road to be paved to make any real improvements. But the symbolism of that single moment – eleven o’clock on a gorgeous, autumnal Massachusetts evening – pierced the bedrock of U.S. Anglophilia. I sobbed as I gazed at the expressions of hope and wonder on the faces of the rallying faction as victory was revealed on giant video screens. Faces that said my child can do anything she wants to do. I can be anything I want to be. For the first time in eight years, I was truly proud to be a U.S. citizen.

In the afterglow of an exquisite evening, I approached my career with a new, unassailable optimism that I had lost in the past several years. Of course I still fought for the preservation of human rights and social justice. But this morning, this fight seemed somehow more… possible! Si se puede!

As I sat down at my computer, my faith in the U.S. people renewed, I saw something that reminded me that despite the progress we have made as a nation, we still have a long trek ahead of us. Californians voted to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 was sponsored and backed by assorted religious groups, while opposed by secular parties. The familiar stomach-flip that I associate with the church-state overlaps of the Bush Administration began to creep back. Not today. Not when we’ve come so far.

As I type this, gay-rights advocates are steadfastly working to protect gay rights as human rights. On November 3rd, I would have sighed and longed for a different world. But today? Today we have a different world, and I embrace the fight. Because it is possible. And yes we can!

We Can All Claim Victory

2008-11-04T23:38:00.008-05:00

I cried yesterday when I learned Barack Obama's grandmother, whom contributed a large portion of her life and resources to rearing him, passed away. The fact this happened one day before the election seemed particularly cruel. I know what this pain must feel like; the only family I have is my beloved 91 year old grand"mother", someone who reared me, a lady whom I love more than I can describe. As I achieve things in life, I thank God for giving me the gift of my grandmother, the influence she's had on me, and the blessing of her remaining with me. I am acutely aware of time these days; each milestone I can share with her bears extra meaning, just because she's here to see it. I wept for Barack Obama, on the eve of the most important day in his life.

The angels shined on him tonight..... I personally believe one very special spirit is watching as a sincere, optimistic, dynamic, charismatic, intelligent new leader will take this country toward the hope of better days ahead. After all the slogans and speeches we've heard through this campaign, we finally have reached a new direction, a new dream , a new leader . Barack Obama's grandmother began a new chapter yesterday; Obama himself started a new chapter tonight. We, as a nation, truly begin a new chapter, finding ourselves seeking something better, as a people and as a nation. We are ALL Americans...... we must return to the humility and ingenuity of our nation's promise. We see the success of one man from Illinois, a skinny kid with a funny name, whom used these virtues to prove "Yes, we can."

Once Again Scapegoating Immigrants: An Assault on Hope

2008-11-03T19:38:00.002-05:00

The issue of immigration has once again crept onto the political scene, sadly reminiscent of the 2006 demonization of immigrants. This time, however, the immigrant in question is not one of the millions of undocumented Mexicans living on U.S. soil; rather it is the aunt of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Zeituni Onyango does not deserve to be in the “rat-in-the-hole” position that Saddam served circa the last presidential elections. The media threw a bone the U.S. in 2003 and, voila, Bush got another four years in office. Luckily, twelve years in the White House is not a possibility, but a McCain Administration is, and the person – or people – who leaked the information about Ms. Onyango’s immigration status is obviously jonesing for a McCain-Palin White House.

While the leak itself was deplorable, it was also a reminder of the unwillingness of either candidate to address immigration, despite the atmosphere of terror in which immigrants in the U.S. are forced to live. In 2006 the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency began intensifying its efforts to deal with the undocumented population by conducting a series of large-scale, nationwide workplace raids. ICE’s tactic in dealing with immigration is meant less for its effectiveness than for its dog and pony display to impress the conservative population. Additionally, the raids have served a political purpose: to pressure Congress to pass exploitative temporary guest worker legislation.

The problem? While senators and representatives spend time disagreeing on the language of bills, the human rights of immigrants are being violated. U.S. domestic policy is incompatible with its foreign policies with regard to immigration. If NAFTA destroys the agricultural industry in Mexico and unemployment rises as a result, it is unfair to punish individuals who are escaping economic hardship.

Ms. Onyango represents a subset of the immigrant population, but one that is subject to the same tyrannical policies of ICE. Tens of thousands of individuals enter the U.S. each year in search of asylum. That is, they are fleeing persecution they face for their sex, race, nationality, and/or political beliefs (among others). The denial of asylum has serious and lasting implications for individuals exposed to this Kafkaesque immigration process, the most serious of which is death.

ICE’s raids affect undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and their families. In some instances, U.S. legal permanent residents and citizens have been swept up in raids, sometimes detained for days, weeks, months. In Postville, Iowa, the more than 300 individuals arrested in the raids were held at the National Cattle Congress, a glorified fairgrounds facility. Anecdotes from those who have survived these raids include ICE officials’ mistreatment of women and minors:

“The truth is, they did treat us badly...because some of the women who had young children, who breastfed, I saw because I was near them, they even made them take the milk from their breasts to see if it was true that they had young children. They had almost all of them take milk from their breasts. They even made fun of them. They said - one of them told another to pass an oreo cookie to eat with milk, that they were milking the cows. We were in the next room listening, and the women were crying” (Witness to 2007 New Bedford, MA raids, interviewed in Detained).

Whether or not one believes in amnesty, these raids are an attack on civilization, and violate the most intrinsic, inalienable rights of individuals (the right to family, to health, to amnesty, etc) that were outlined by multiple countries – including the United States – in 1948. Obaman and Biden have stated that the raids are ineffective, while McCain has made no direct reference (and, in fact, has avoided direct questions) pertaining to the inhumane nature of acts that separate families.

The U.S. is sadly behind the curve when it comes to human rights, many believing that human rights are for people who live in other countries or, more disappointingly, that they are just UN propaganda. However, the next president has the opportunity to address yet another ugly blip in U.S. history. Perhaps the first step in respecting human rights is to respect the less fortunate who dwell among us.

"Thanks for the Memories" Appropriate Theme Song on Election Eve

2008-11-03T13:06:00.003-05:00

Bob Hope could never have envisioned the fitting nature of his theme song for future political campaigns. With media access at a fever pitch, more and more citizens have outlets to follow campaigns, creating a collective experience for a whole nation. Indeed, we all can give thanks for the memories.

Some 2008 campaign buzz words/figures/phrases for your consideration: change, historic, Joe the Plumber and his cousin, Joe Six Pack, Hockey Mom, energy independence, mortgage crisis, Wall Street, Main Street, bail-out, SNL, Katie Couric, Troopergate,maverick, health care, "Drill, baby, drill.", rogue, Tina Fey, John McSame, middle class, "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling", Pennsylvania (which has become the new Ohio, which once became the new Florida), senate majority, apparantly, as a late dark horse entry, "Mine, baby, mine.", and, finally, pivotal.

Each of these words/terms/ figures carries one of two connotations; substanitive policy issues and/or pop culture lexicon. In a rather sad commentary, the two have, unfortunately, become hard to distinguish. However, this political season has delivered a little more substance, with a bit less style, than elections in the recent past. Yet, as a nation, we share these experiences with a collective conscience, forming a part of our history, much as many elements of this campaign have addressed historic milestones in our great experiment. We have the first viable African-American candidate for president, the second ever female candidate for vice president, and, lest we forget an important "ism", the oldest man to date to run for president. Another lady some may remember came awfully close to clinching her party's nomination. Yes, thanks for the memories.

Election 2008 is almost in the rear view mirror. However, we do have one more day of civic duty looming on the horizon.... I implore each of you who is reading this, please, if you haven't done so already, go vote! One might note the first word in my list is change; the last word is pivotal. The choosing of this sequence is no accident.

Why we haven't caught Osama Bin Laden: Words from a Solider, Student, and Scholar

2008-11-02T13:58:00.008-05:00

The following essay was written by Damian Riccitelli, a veteran of the War on Terror. He is currently a student at Temple University and is a guest author on the Rovito Review.

"It’s been roughly seven years since 9/11, so where is he? Why don’t we have him? The short answer may come from a former CIA agent who spoke with National Public Radio. He believes Bin Laden is dead. He asks why there are no recent propaganda tapes. Not to mention, never in CIA history has someone completely slipped off the radar this long. This is to say that any human being is going to be subject to at least one mistake or something overseen operationally that would hint being alive. His interview can be heard at this web address http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95285396

It is my understanding that Pakistan is our “ally” in our war on terror. By definition, they are certainly a friendly nation to us and provide us with at least some sort of cooperation and assistance. But is this enough? When I asked my father why the world wasn’t taking military action in Sudan in response to the genocide, he suggested that Pakistan and China get their oil from Sudan and both of them are nuclear countries. He was hinting that we wouldn’t want to make waves with nuclear countries, I suppose. So the same thought applies to the Bin Laden in Pakistan question. We don’t want to make any waves with a country that carries a really big stick?

As for the war on terror, I remember having a friendly debate with CBS “60 minutes” reporter Laura Logan at a coffee shop on a base in Afghanistan as to what exactly the war on terror really is. She said “How can President Bush declare war on an ideal”? Because it’s not the war on “Al Qaeda” or the war on the “Taliban,” at least that not what they say. They say the “war on terror.” But that’s a whole different discussion. Here I want to shed light on why we haven’t been successful in capturing Osama Bin Laden.

After 9/11 the U.S. military had an immediate presence in Afghanistan. A Delta Force commander has just written a book called “Kill Bin Laden”; he cites that he believes he and his unit had Bin Laden on the battlefield in that infamous Tora Bora region battle. He also describes how hard it was to carry out the mission when relying on strict orders from the Pentagon to give most of the operational power to local national fighters. He also says leaders at the Pentagon for reasons unknown, denied his plan to attack Bin Laden from behind over the mountains. The local national fighters quit and went home. The Delta Force commander was only left with an option for a frontal assault on Bin Laden with only about 50 of his own men. He decided to not advance in concern for being extremely outnumbered. Anyone should be able to understand that this was the right thing to do. However, the decision still haunts him. The report can be seen here at this web address http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56e_1223312875

After that initial encounter with Bin Laden, we direct our attention to Pakistan. After all, it’s the safest place for Bin Laden. Think about it, if you had the most powerful country in the world chasing you, where would you go? That’s right, the one place they’re not allowed to go! So the U.S. has a friendly relationship with Pakistan and tries its best to work with their army. But Pakistan is a deep rabbit hole with much to consider. For example, Pakistan’s version of our CIA is called the ISI. It is rumored that the ISI is corrupt and tried to assassinate the President and military dictator General Pervez Musharraf several times. So is Al-Qaeda in everything over there? How can we effectively work with the Pakistani Army if we can’t trust them?

When I was in that area about four years ago, I believe we had about a two-mile limit into Pakistan during operations. Anything past those two miles is forbidden. The demographics for that area consist of tribes, refugees, and Taliban, and Al Qaeda. But, no matter what you believe, I can tell you that no American can waltz into that area without being shot on sight or blown up. The Taliban are everywhere and Al Qaeda too. After 9/11 we smacked the beehive with a baseball bat spreading them out. But I know if I were Bin Laden, I would feel real safe in Pakistan. I also believe the strategy of the U.S. doesn’t include anything that could mirror a “Black Hawk Down” scenario. Surgical strikes like these are extremely risky. Someone suggested to me once that, “Instead of sending10 Blackhawks, why not send 100”? The point they’re trying to make is that we should somehow be granted to step into Pakistan full force. This might have been a possibility had we not gone into Iraq, but even then, the Pakistani government may not be to happy with thousands of troops in their country, and this is where the problem lies. Do we push diplomacy to try and achieve our goals of capturing high value targets such as Bin Laden? Or do we get rougher and demand more access? I say, if you can get undeniable intelligence, you can make a case to the Pakistani government and if their good on their word to help, it should work. But, solid intelligence information is the key. Commanders have said it millions of times around me, “Intelligence drives operations, not the other way around.”

One must also consider Bin Laden’s personal security structure. It was explained to me like this: Imagine you are Bin Laden right now where you are sitting. You would have 10 of your best guards armed to the hilt around your immediate area. Then you would have 20 more guys circling that area. Then, 50 more guys circling that circle, and so on. The idea is that as soon as someone penetrates one of those circles, the information of your presence gets relayed to the center, and just like that, the whole circle begins to move. An aggressor would probably encounter heavy fire while that circle is moving as well, just a thought. I also thought to myself one day in Afghanistan, maybe Bin Laden is worth more as a free man. What if they knew where he was and we’re listening to everything he said. If we monitored that, we would learn everything about Al Qaeda because a lot would come from him. If we killed him, we would lose that pipeline of information...again, just a thought.

So, of the times that we have gotten close, I take a step back and take everything into consideration. In Southwest Asia, there are plenty of places to hide forever if you keep quiet enough; especially if you’re trained by the very organization out to get you. Terrain is grossly underestimated when considering success in the war on terror. I don’t believe at this time we should aggressively enter Pakistan. I believe we need more of our assets there to collect sufficient intelligence so that would be our ticket in. This can be done with our Pakistani ally. So long as we have the intelligence information we need, accompanied by the military assets we need and Pakistan’s help, the capture or kill of Osama Bin Laden is possible. If we don’t receive Pakistan’s help when we have good intelligence, then we might want to radically rethink our relationship with them, because then they just might be accused of “hiding something.” (Wink, wink)

The 60 minutes special that Laura did on our units can be seen here at this web address http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9eebb4f06c."

Ironic Deja Vu : Bush Team Repeats McCain Defeat

2008-11-02T12:02:00.003-05:00

In 2000 most Americans were enjoying prosperous, peaceful times. The country's morale was definitely trending in a positive direction, with no imminent threats to our comfortable lifestyles. It seems, in times like these, Americans develop an appetite for red meat.

In the midst of this success people failed to pay attention to substantive issues; people were too complacent to fathom danger and difficulty. This backdrop provided a perfect opportunity for George Bush to step in and create a career based on fear and smear. Americans were open to embracing the smear in 2000, and, to a greater degree, the fear, in 2004.

John McCain was one of the Bush Team's casualties in 2000; below the belt political tricks sunk McCain's campaign, beginning in South Carolina, with the despicable "illegitimate black baby" accusation. Bush's tactical thugs knew exactly where their target was in each region of the country. They were perceptive and masterful, considering the times, at the game of politics. They were also unethical and immoral, but even these traits were portrayed as "direct" and "unafraid to challenge the status quo." More than half of America bought it, hook, line and, as we've unfortunately discovered, the ultimate sinker.

2008 is a much different landscape. The playbook authored by Karl Rove no longer resonates with most Americans. Yet McCain, in a stunning display of poor judgment, has chosen to use the very group of operatives who destroyed him in 2000 as the ground troops for his campaign. This failure to understand the times we live in does not bode well for McCain's leadership qualifications. We are once again confronted with an inevitable truth: McCain lacks the critical thinking skills to navigate these challenging times.

In opting to work with the Bush operatives McCain has demonstrated a complete void of political instinct. This decision illustrates how far removed McCain's thought process is from present day conditions on the ground. The unconscionable methods which worked in 2000 and 2004 no longer persuade voters; times are simply too tough. The current financial crisis may eventually yield one positive result; Americans may have been thrown overboard often enough where they comprehend the real possibility of the whole country drowning.

It's these conditions that render "going negative" a dead-end strategy. People are paying attention this time, there's too much at stake to avoid civic duty. When people are alert, distraction techniques are far less effective. John McCain has committed several lethal missteps in his campaign, but this miscalculation may be the most deadly of them all. In choosing to align with the group who once demolished his political efforts McCain has, arguably, allowed them to defeat him a second time.

Some true Americana....

2008-10-29T18:33:00.005-04:00

Here's a quick glimpse at a true American:

Barack Obama enjoying the sweet taste of a Yuengling Lager.

Yuengling: America's Heineken

8 more days to go for change!.......but maybe not the way we envision it.

2008-10-27T12:57:00.004-04:00

It is hard to believe that in 8 days, the world will begin the journey of change. However, what is of great concern is the phenomenon of voter disenfranchisement and fraud, which may block this change we so desperately need.

It is embarrassing to even fathom the notion of deliberate rejection of a tax-paying, of-age citizens from voting. Voter suppression is not getting the attention that it demands from the media, the citizenry, and our elected officials. Rest assured, there are both covert and overt operations in place to complete such a hideous and un-American task as denying individuals the right to vote.

Our nation's ideals of freedom and democracy are at it's most fragile. We need to stand up and make sure we protect our right to have a say in our elected democracy.

On election day, make sure you: 1) know where to go, 2) how to contact your county's voter election board in case of any trouble, 3) have your ID, 4) do not wear any political attire to the polls (THEY WILL TRY AND NOT LET YOU VOTE!!!!).

Let's get this right on November 4th. We waited too long for this change. Don't let them take it away from us..................AGAIN.

Campbell's Calls Create Cognitive Dissonance

2008-10-26T12:36:00.006-04:00

Campbell Brown, host of CNN's flagship program No Bias - No Bull, is currently outspoken and offended at the level of coverage regarding the recent RNC shopping spree for Governor Sarah Palin. Brown makes the valid point that women are disproportionately judged by their appearance, putting them at a disadvantage before even one policy statement is spoken. As I listened to Brown expound on her position, I found myself feeling a bit uncomfortable. In my analysis of the many Palin missteps, including the egregious amount of money spent on, shall we say, "appearance enhancers", have I entered the dangerous territory of throwing out the baby with the bath water? As a devout proponent of an egalitarian society,have I still been guilty of perpetuating negative stereotypes against women?

In these particular scenarios, women are placed in a no-win situation. If we neglect our appearance, or make choices that fail to register as "attractive" in the court of public opinion, we risk dismissal at first sight. Hillary Clinton would probably be the first to vouch for this phenomenon, considering the intense scrutiny her appearance has received from the moment she became a public figure. Unfortunately, her substantive campaign, more often than not, was upstaged by her looks. Her message got lost in critiques of her pantsuits, providing a clear mirror for the female archetype imposed by society. The 18 million cracks Hillary successfully struck in the glass ceiling did not remove the reflection of one's appearance, ostensibly the primary criteria used to evaluate women.

So, given all of these facts, let us return to the issue of current import. While this is a debate that is certainly worth the public's attention, it must be noted that Campbell Brown has championed Sarah Palin throughout the whole campaign. In late September Brown, on her program, implored Camp McCain to "Free Sarah", calling for a release of Palin to the press, giving her permission to speak freely. We've recently learned that Republican insiders have known Palin was being deliberately cloistered; Brown would have been privy to this information, being married to Republican consultant Daniel Senor, a contributor at Fox News. Now, as Palin's clothing allowance has come under the microscope, Brown has used this story as a platform to emphasize the fact that women are held to a different standard. I would never quibble with this claim. We are held to an almost impossible standard, so much so that during the Primary season it led me to speculate on what constitutes the ideal female image. We are expected to give good face, project a sense of balanced strength ( feminine and tough), and demonstrate proficiency in all intellectual matters. The last expectation is reasonable; the middle expectation is a bit more of a challenge ( how does one meet a standard of feminine, yet tough as nails?) but the first one is a downright double standard. Unattractive men have made fine leaders since time began. Where is the logic in a system that demands a woman be both an intellectual AND a beautiful fashion plate?

Campbell Brown has, indeed, offered us an opportunity to examine our priorities as a nation, particularly as they relate to measuring female fitness for leadership roles. However, while the emphasis on Palin's spendthrift whirl through two luxury department stores may have been overly played, let us not lose the significance of the judgment issue. It is definitely unreasonable to assert Palin would have been taken seriously had she campaigned in "Hockey Mom" attire, as has been suggested. It is also, however, reasonable to conclude Palin could have vastly reduced the cost of her "make-over", selecting Anne Klien or even Ralph Lauren in favor of Dolce and Gabana or Valentino. Campbell Brown complained about the "Diva" label attached to Palin, claiming it is one more extension of the unfair double standards applied to women. Upon further examination, I must say, if it walks like a Diva, and talks like a Diva, and demands like a Diva..... it's certainly not a duck.

Must- See Political theater : Diva Demands Exposure

2008-10-25T19:55:00.007-04:00

All good dramas have characters who rivet the audience through various traits; a protagonist may be honorable to the point of personal sacrifice, charismatic, with an ability to inspire groups of people, or a common touch, conveying a sense of shared experiences with the audience. These qualities beget empathy, increasing affection for a character whom is easy to identify with. None of these role playing techniques have been lost on Camp McCain- Palin.

However, from the beginning Camp McCain deemed it best to keep Sarah Palin in the shadows, unveiling her under only the strictest, most controlled circumstances. The strategy was casting Palin in the role of "regular",attractive cheerleader. All second wing candidates serve at the pleasure of the one at the top of the ticket, fulfilling duties such as stump attack dog extraordinaire, assuring the American people he/she has the credentials to step into the role of President, should the most dreadful happen, and, perhaps, doing a little dance with the media to keep them ingratiated to the campaign, thus garnering favorable coverage. Sarah Palin has not been allowed to come out and play for the majority of this political season. She failed to play well with others when she was permitted to hop onto the public stage for a brief period, and her spontaneous moments caught on film are now legendary. The Pakistan contradiction debacle served as the genesis for this very site.

At first blush Sarah Palin appears to be a cute, non-threatening figure who may not have much wisdom to offer, a factor which automatically disqualifies her for Second in Command, but she doesn't present as someone who is dangerously aggressive. As we know, looks can be so deceiving.

As if the McCain campaign was not already painfully hemorrhaging in an uphill battle, Palin decided to break out of her confinement this week, giving an impromptu press conference on a tarmac in Colorado, courting journalists in order to get her opinions out there, basically doing the very things Camp McCain wanted her to avoid. It seems she feels she has been mishandled by the campaign, right from the beginning. She feels she has things of value to share, thank you very much. An investment was made to make her look the part, why shouldn't she get to play it?

The most salient problem with Palin's new found voice is this: she and McCain do not seem to be on the same page regarding a variety of issues. The question of Palin's suitability for the office of Vice Presidency has already been raised countless times; coming out in the public square to expressly disagree with her direct superior is an ill-advised move during the last two weeks of a hard fought campaign.

Sarah Palin's restlessness, combined with a lack of self discipline for controlling said restlessness, is evidence for why she was a mistake of epic proportions. The cynic in me, however, says she deserves more credit than we may be giving her. She may know exactly what she is doing. At this point, with the election all but lost, it is possible Palin has her gaze fixed somewhere beyond the 2008 horizon. She may beleive since this endeavor is doomed, she should seize the limited opportunity she still has to imprint herself into the public psyche. The bigger impression she makes in the present makes it that much easier to re-enter the national political arena at a later date. It also stands to reason she is one of those fourth quadrant persons, the ones who don't know what they don't know. McCain and company realized this early on, but Palin has stumbled along in this mode for so long she may be completely unaware. Perhaps her ego prevents her from recognizing her stunning deficits in domestic and foreign policy knowledge. One of her handlers, on an anonymous basis, of course, did label her a Diva.

As McCain careens, head first, to cross the finish line, Sarah Palin has turned this into a three legged race. She is discontented running behind McCain; she is now insisting she be allowed to run side by side, or, possibly ahead, of McCain, peer to peer, equal to equal. The only trouble with this demand is she obviously is not McCain's equal. Regardless of one's politics (mine could not be more diametrically opposed to McCain's if I tried), it can't be denied that McCain possesses some degree of experience which lends itself to claiming some political competencies. In this regard, Sarah Palin is not remotely in the same league. The original concern about the Palin folly involves McCain's judgment; selecting her, with the advanced knowledge of her insufficient credentials, leads one to ask the inevitable question. Why? Why would he have done this? The possible answers range from running a gimmick to appeal to women, or maybe a move to appease the ultra-conservative Republican base. Still, there are so many dimensions to the role of president, it must be noted that McCain may have considered one or two aspects that favored selecting Palin, but he did not account for all the potential pitfalls in this choice. In fact, no real research was done to learn about who Sarah Palin is. We are not in a time period where we can afford to have a one or two dimensional leader; we must have someone who covers all bases, no matter the time or effort this requires.

As Wall Street Continues to Tumble, Palin Engages in Retail Therapy

2008-10-22T14:06:00.002-04:00

The stories which call forth our disbelief seem to be never ending. In yet another news bit that reflects the priorities of the McCain-Palin ticket, we learned today that the GOP spent $150,000.00 on wardrobe and styling costs ( hair, make-up, etc.) for Sarah Palin during the month of September. Mrs. Palin obviously has champagne taste; the new, improved Palin was constructed at the high end store Neiman Marcus, with other expensive professional stylists rounding out her "image consulting" team. When President Reagan was in office, the first lady, Nancy Reagan, was criticized for lavish spending in the first two years of their White House tenure, with unemployment during this period edging 10 %. The shock and disgust over Mrs. Reagan's priorities, encouraging ketchup to be considered as a vegetable for young children dependent on the reduced lunch program, while lining her closet with designer clothes and stocking up on top shelf china, was palpable.

So, here we are, twenty something years later, in the same predicament. The country is either in a recession, or dancing very closely toward one, and we have another GOP fashionesta placing her own image over the needs of a struggling electorate. Only this time, there is added cause for concern; with Nancy Reagan, she was a figurehead, someone Ronald Reagan may have consulted, but only on the most superficial level. Sarah Palin wants to be vice president.... a heartbeat away from being THE president. Her claims of reducing wasteful spending for Alaskan tax payers rings hollow as we've recently discovered she's used an estimated $40,000.00 of their money to fund travel for herself and her family. Now we learn she has engaged in retail therapy of the highest order, using campaign funds to outfit herself in only the finest threads. People, please! During the course of a measly two months we've heard story after story about this woman abusing her power. How many more of these do we need to hear, especially in a time of fiscal crisis?!

With only 13 days left before the election, it is vital we apply pressure on the media to investigate all happenings in this clearly corrupt group of politicians, and demand accountability from the persons in question. Palin has been skewering Obama for his "judgment" of late.... can she really raise this issue with a straight face, as an economic down slide of dramatic proportions prevails, and she mills through the luxury clothes at Neiman's?

The Palin Delusion

2008-10-21T22:52:00.002-04:00

Can you believe that Gov. Palin criticized Sen. Obama at a rally yesterday about his views on Pakistani crossborder incursion from Afghanistan? I wish I was making this up.

Apparently, she forgot the conversation her and I had with each other @ Tony Lukes last month.

The era of lying and deceit needs to end.

Check out the links.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/palin-ignores-her-own-pakistan-remark-while-criticizing-obama/

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/21/politics/fromtheroad/entry4536737.shtml#ccmm

Weekend in Review

2008-10-20T15:36:00.003-04:00

As we slog into the final weeks of the presidential campaign ( two more weeks from tomorrow, to be exact), the "news floats" over the weekend contained some interesting chunks of information.

Perhaps the most striking event of the weekend was Colin Powell's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. Powell, a lifelong Republican, stated he feels Obama is the right man for these specific times, citing Obama's ability to energize and mobilize citizens toward right action. Powell astutely observed we are living in times that require a dynamic leader who can restore the good will we've always enjoyed abroad, as well as someone who can successfully handle the domestic issues we have facing us.

Meanwhile, it was also announced that Obama raised a record 150 million dollars in September, breaking all records for campaign fund raising. McCain has since suggested that Obama's good fortune with fund raising will inevitable lead to a "scandal." That's incredible..... if Obama is ahead in fund raising, it's a scandal; I've no doubt if he were behind, Camp McCain would be crowing about its "whoop" on Team Obama. Will it ever end?

In the midst of all this "real" news, Saturday Night Live brought us some comic relief.... sort of. Sarah Palin was a guest on the show, providing a few opportunities for laugh- out-loud moments, but not from Mrs. Palin herself. She appeared annoyed with the whole process, with a posture of " I can't believe I'm having to schlep with these people." I must admit, however, Palin's attempt to "raise the roof" was pretty hilarious.

This weekend provided some comedy, along with a few serious moments, to keep us fortified in this last stretch of a seemingly endless campaign. Obama stands today with a five point lead over Senator McCain.... but two weeks is an eternity in politics, as has been proven many times before. Obama supporters need not become complacent.... there are many phone calls to make, many doors to be knocked on... it ain't over yet.

Rovito vs. Joe the Plumber

2008-10-18T18:28:00.003-04:00

The links below demonstrate the hypocrisy in the treating of my question with Joe the Plumber's. The conservative machine painted me as a gotcha journalist, but Joe as some patriot asking a simple question. I am sickened.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/plumber-waziristan/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/palin-praises-joe-the-plumber-for-ruining-obamas-photo-op/

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/18/palin-re-counts-obama-story-that-sounds-like-her-own/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview

A call for authors!

2008-10-16T23:43:00.004-04:00

The Rovito Review is growing and is looking to expand its author list. If you are interested (or know someone who is) in giving your opinion on social commentary or political satire, send us an email with your resume and a short writing sample (approx. 4 paragraphs) to: rovitoreview@gmail.com.

-Michael

Update

2008-10-16T23:16:00.001-04:00

The Rovito Review will be switching to a new interface: Ning. I am currently developing the new site and will let everyone know when it is launched.

-Michael

Vetting Lite : Not So Much

2008-10-16T22:15:00.005-04:00

John McCain has made some more "friends" lately, and one of them is someone he thinks the American people should be acquainted with as well. The debate last night provided an introduction of a brand new character on the political stage. "Joe the Plumber", the most recent addition to this marathon campaign, became a disproportional focal point to illustrate the argument against the GOP branded "Spread the Wealth" policy of Barack Obama. In last night's presentation, "Joe" was painted to be an eager entrepreneur, a man filled with a deep desire to buy the plumbing business he currently works for. Yet, with Obama's tax plan, poor Joe will not be able to realize his long held dream. Curse that Barack "Robin Hood" Obama.

Now, naturally, when something like this occurs, the media is all over it. There are accounts of "Joe the Plumber" being contacted during the debate, with journalists asking for a real time response to his new found celebrity.

Here's the deal about Joe; Joe was at an Obama rally in Ohio this past weekend. As Obama made his way through the crowd, Joe got an opportunity to face the Democratic candidate to ask him directly if his tax plan would prevent him from fulfilling his dream of owning the plumbing company he works for. Obama gave a straightforward answer.... if the business nets over $250,000.00, then yes, there would be a 3% increase in his taxes. Of course, all of this was in the context of an assumption that Mr.Joe Plumber reached his goal and acquired the plumbing business he has yearned to own.

McCain's version of the "Joe" scenario received more attention from the candidate than any platform issue, including, but not limited to, education, health care, energy, and judge appointments to the highest Court in the land. John McCain hammered on the plight of "Joe the Plumber" like there was no tomorrow, using this new stage player as the poster child, emblematic figure who represents all small business owners in America! McCain has already asked his favorite new "friend" to join him on the campaign trail to give anecdotal evidence as to why Obama is a wild-eyed wealth distribution maniac. Yet, as we've learned today, there is a slight problem with the homespun story of McCain's new buddy.

"Joe the Plumber" is not a plumber. He works FOR a plumbing company, but he is not a licensed plumber. No, as it turns out, Joe is not a plumber, he is just Joe. Actually, it seems, he's Joe the tax evader; later reports indicate there is a lien on his home imposed by the state of Ohio until he pays approximately $1200.00 in back taxes. He wasn't kidding around with his tax question!

So, once again, Camp McCain has egg on its collective face. Continuing to tout the story of "Joe the Plumber" may not be the wisest move; because, in point of fact, he's not a plumber. Further, he's a tax dodger. Give the media a little more time. I've no doubt this will evolve from " Joe the Plumber" to " Joe Dirt Part II."

The overarching lesson in this latest fiasco, at least for McCain, should be.... VET!!! Vet all persons you attach to your campaign. This would have been a great thing to do with your choice for Vice President, but that horse is out of the gate. However, going forward, if you want to pull in an "everyman" to add a common touch to your stump speeches, fine, but make sure, to the extent possible, they don't leave you looking like a befuddled, baffled old man, wondering what just happened to his "Slam Dunk " stage pony.

Once again, we are confronted with a persistent, stark reality; John McCain is impulsive, erratic, and obviously quick to make a move without doing a sufficient amount of homework. We are not living in times which call for a leader whom is the first one to finish the race. We are living in times which call for a leader whom plotted his course and ran the race intelligently.

Bob Schiefer asked the two candidates last night if they would agree to a cease fire policy regarding negative attacks against one another. One of the combative words Schiefer cited that Obama has used... erratic. How else, precisely, would one classify McCain's behavior, especially in a situation where contrasts and comparisons must be drawn? The pattern which has emerged indicates when McCain is feeling pressed up against the wall ( late August, right now), he tends to lurch toward a "quick-fix" solution that looks good on paper. Yeah, sure, the challenging, complex times we live in will benefit from this style of leadership, no doubt.

McCain and Palin have insisted the American people have a right to know all things about the candidates. There is no alternative for Barack Obama but to call it like he, and a whole host of logical thinkers, see it. This is not a combative act; it's an important distinction which serves to highlight Obama's steady eyes and hands.

Investment verses Incoherent

2008-10-16T01:26:00.006-04:00

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's over.... the debates, at least. Truly, as far as I can see, however, barring a major gaffe of gigantic proportions from Team Obama, this is a wrap. Period.

The candidates did address ( or avoid) each issue, with one candidate offering a vision for the future, while the other candidate stumbled, stuttered, and consistently failed to offer any plans for real change. The following areas were volleyed back and forth :

* The Economy : Obama offered a plan which cuts taxes for 95% of Americans, stimulating the economy through jump starting consumption power in the middle class. Additionally, aspects of other portions of Obama's platform speak to the need for considering our middle class, including health care and education. Obama also proposed closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, strengthening and enforcing appropriate measures in trade agreements, and providing a $4000.00 tax credit to college students for tuition, in exchange for a commitment to public service. Senator McCain offered..... lowering taxes for everyone, but ESPECIALLY the upper 2%. We've been there, done that, McCain. It's not working so well.

* Health Care : Senator Obama assured the American people he fully intends to let individuals keep health care plans they are pleased with. He would like to offer a plan comparable to the insurance enjoyed by Senators and other federal employees, which, he pointed out, will be affordable because of the huge volume of enrolled citizens. Senator Obama also made the salient point that if we implement his proposal we reduce recipients of Medicaid and emergency room visits from the uninsured that drive up premiums for those of us who are insured. Not to mention, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!!! Senator McCain wants to offer a $5000.00 tax credit for all citizens, regardless of age or health conditions, with no mention of how he would handle persons with pre-existing conditions....oh, this is all after he institutes an additional tax. In McCain's words... " Got it?"

* The Environment : Senator Obama offered real solutions to climate change; Senator McCain offered slogans with no substance. The content of this segment reiterated Senator Obama's commitment to alternative energy sources and reduction of foreign oil use with concrete examples of possibilities for making these things happen. McCain said we must find alternative energy sources, and reduce foreign oil consumption..... that was it.

* Education : Finally, finally, education was introduced tonight as a vital issue in this country. Obama once again had a grasp of the issue, demonstrating command of the particulars involved in improving education. He expressed support for charter schools, advocates the student higher education tax credit previously mentioned under the education section, increased spending for Head Start, performance based incentives for teachers ( a measure I personally favor, opposed to automatic step increases), and the role of parental responsibility in a child's school performance. McCain rambled about the Civil Rights Movement.... I was never clear on how he correlated modern education with the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, but I digress.

* An issue which has been neglected, yet is of chief significance, was brought up tonight. The responsibility of appointing one, or, perhaps, more, Supreme Court Justices, was taken directly to both candidates, with a question regarding their respective criteria for appointing judges to this highest Court. In one fell swoop abortion and litmus tests were discussed, with each candidate expressing his views on how these two issues interact, while pulling out qualities required for fair, good judges. This issue cannot be under-estimated..... we have much to lose if the Supreme Court is tilted in a radical right direction.

Obama remained calm and steady, while McCain was visibly perturbed and agitated throughout the debate. He kept his anger to a minimum visibility the first third of the debate, but the remaining portion got the best of him. He once again, through his demeanor, demonstrated a very significant factor : he does not have the temperament to be the leader of the free world. It must be reiterated; imagine Senator McCain sitting down with a foreign leader whom he disagreed with. What good could possibly come from this interaction? Obama has consistently proven he is cool in a crisis, with a reassuring, stable presence in the face of adversity. Read: He has the disposition to be president.

The pundits are saying this was McCain's best debate.... perhaps this is true. However, the bar has not been raised too high for Senator McCain. Conversely, Senator Obama rounded the bases three for three, hitting another home run in this final debate.

I won't even attempt to delve into the inconsequential, negative smut pandering McCain engaged in tonight; it was boring enough the first time.

This was the last debate, and it appears to be curtains for Senator McCain.

What the hell is happening with higher education?

2008-10-15T18:37:00.007-04:00

Coming from the viewpoint of a student, an instructor, and a citizen, I can steadfastly state that higher education is becoming less of a privilege and more of a commodity. Some may disagree with the privilege comment, but isn't higher education supposed to be something to work towards and not take for granted? Are students just supposed to go to college just because? What ever happened to the standards used to keep high the excellence of education, if there ever was one? Why is it that going to college doesn't mean much anymore? Short answer: there is no long term plan to employ this supposed educated workforce. There is hardly oportunity. There is much uncertanity.

If you look at other developed nations, you will take note of highly developed, streamlined vocational training programs. Such programs here in the US are not taken seriously anymore and are discarded for the 'less-off' students. Why is that? I had woodshop in high school and I excelled. I would have loved to have gone to school to get trained in vocational education or even a custom-furniture craftsman....the advice I got from my guidance counselors was that I needed to be serious when choosing my profession. Huh? I was serious.

So I went to college. Four years of undergrad, two years of an M.A. program, and three years and counting for a PhD program, and I am 60,000 dollars in debt. I got off easy. I know others who are much worse off with not as much schooling. I am officially on a 300-month payment plan. If I only paid the bare minimum each month, I think I will be 65 when I finally pay off my loans. I am getting heartburn just thinking about it. I guess I could use my Social Security checks (if it still exists then) to pay off my student loans. That's a good plan, right? My god, save us now from this ridiculous state of affairs!!

They sell colleges to young people. They sell it to their parents. College is a product. It is consumed. It's a dog and pony show for a false sense of financial security fours years from now....and parents are eating this stuff up more ravenously than ever. Higher education has become distant from Joe and Jane Sixpack. Most parents do not know about education standard rankings, quality of professors, accreditation of different departments on a given campus, the reputation of the college's dean, president, or even alumni. Most parents see the commercials, hear the form speeches prepared for their visitation days during the semester, and the faux success stories of how the given college has a 95% employment rate post-graduation. How do colleges even measure that? Does Starbucks count as employment for physics grads?

College seems to be one large commercial ploy to create an entire new generation of young debtors. It's a business, not a place to foster your talents. What ever happened to working hard and succeeding and then having that hard work pay off in one large salary at your dream job? It's just that....a dream. We, the future of academia and society, need to reinstall the basic tenets of a an effective and efficient educational system here in these United States. We need to help our universities become what they were before: bastions of hope and progress where one could become a a success story, not a debtor.

During this campaign season, one person, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, has mentioned education and the sad state of affairs it is in. Why is no one else holding education at the same standards Sen. Dodd currently does? This next administration needs to address not only primary and secondary education woes in terms of inequities of public funding for individual school districts, but also foster vocational schools to create a skilled and educated workforce. Further, let us press our elected officials to raise public assistance funds and grants to assist with those individuals who cannot afford the rising costs of tuition. We want help, not an I.O.U. We want good-paying jobs with healthcare benefits, not part-time work in a cybercafe.

A Right or a Privilege?

2008-10-15T00:37:00.003-04:00

In last week’s Nashville debate, the presidential candidates were asked whether they believed health care was a right or a privilege. Now, whatever one’s answer to that question, we should all be able to agree that it is THE question. The difference between ideologies can be defined just that easily. Does every American have a right to health care, and if so, how much health care, or is even basic health care a privilege to which no one is absolutely entitled? Like many of the issues being debated this election cycle, most voters can’t answer simply “yes,” or “no.” It’s a spectrum question for all but the most radical on both the right and left.

As we all examine the direct causes and effects of the economic downturn, it would be a mistake to discount the rising costs of health care and health insurance and the rising percentage of the average family’s income that is devoted to medical expenses. Some tout “personal responsibility” as the solution to uninsured and underinsured families, but this ignores so many facets of the crisis. It assumes that people are underinsured because they choose to be; because they prioritize other things that are less important; because they would rather get a free ride from someone else than take care of their own families’ needs. No doubt, that is true in some cases. There also, however, is the person whose health problems prevent him obtaining insurance. There is the family that cannot afford private insurance premiums and still maintain basic necessities like food and transportation. And of course, let us not forget the individual who pays those premiums and maintains health insurance, but still finds herself with outrageous bills left to pay because of pre-existing condition exclusions.

We have lived for eight years under an administration that has made great strides in shifting the cost of medical malpractice to its victims, sold to us as “tort reform.” At the same time that laws are passed to make it more difficult and costly to sue health care providers for grossly inadequate care, we see laws passed that protect the monopolies and price inflation by pharmaceutical companies. Far from being a solution to the health care crisis, these policies exacerbate the system’s inequities. That is not an accident.

In these ways, the Republican administration has used health care as its Trojan horse for pushing all sorts of social commentary down our throats. Take for instance, the Department of Health and Human Services proposal to amend and “clarify” the Public Health Service Act, a proposal to allow all health care providers, including assistants and volunteers, to object to providing care and information that contradicts their personal beliefs. Of course we all know where this is going: abortion and birth control. In a city with a Walgreens on every other corner and a CVS on the alternating corners with walk-in clinics in between, perhaps there is no real problem with this. Can’t get your emergency birth control from pharmacist Smith? Try the guy next door. Can’t find a doctor who will give you information on abortion availability? Pull out the phone book. But a large segment of the population doesn’t live in that world. In a rural community with only a few doctors and even fewer pharmacists, we face the very real and very foreseeable possibility of denying access to contraception and family planning to an entire area. To many entire areas. And then pretend that policy has anything to do with Public Health Services? Can we not all agree that contraception is one of the most basic public health services?

And that, after all, is the point. Is health care a right or a privilege? That absolutely is the question. But another question, no less important, is whether providing health care to every resident (no, I didn’t say citizen, or even legal resident) is in the best interests of the society we live in. Perhaps the society we wish we lived in. Can we get from where we are to where we want to be while still denying access to preventive health care, urgent care, palliative care, and so forth, to many of our neighbors? Can we get there by continuing to prioritize the profits of the health care industry over the needs of its clients? Can we get there by taxing health benefits? How do we get there from here?

"Family Values" Takes a Peculiar Fork in the Road

2008-10-14T11:19:00.006-04:00

I don't believe in pulling children of candidates into political commentary. It is in poor taste to use an innocent bystander as fuel for any argument with the slightest political overtone.

There are always, however, circumstances where a particular journey forks, leading everyone into uncharted territory, where hard and fast rules cease to apply. It just so happens the voting public currently finds itself in the midst of such a situation.

Levi Johnston, fiance` of Bristol Palin, Governor Sarah Palin's daughter, decided to insert himself into the national conversation yesterday by providing "exclusive" access to a media source, detailing his plans for the immediate future and beyond. It appears the 18 year old Johnston has dropped out of high school (during his Senior year) in order to take a job offshore; he insists he always intended to marry Palin (they have dated since their freshman year of high school), nothing has changed, and he absolutely wants to go forward with the marriage, fatherhood, the whole nine yards. By all accounts, Johnston is taking the honorable high road regarding his responsibilities.

You know there is a colossal "but" in this story. Johnston is dropping out of high school; their baby is not due until December. So, at that point, he would have four months to complete a goal which would allow him to walk through a wide variety of doors, opposed to a minimal few doors, in an increasingly specialized job market. Johnston is doing the antithesis of what his future mother-in-law, a little over a year ago, implored all Alaskan high school students to do. Perhaps the best initiative to come out of her governance is a platform dedicated to reducing the drop-out rate of Alaskan teen agers. Last year Governor Palin introduced the plan, saying something to the effect of no situation is ever so dire that one should abandon school. There are always options. I must say, this is the only issue to date where I couldn't agree more with Palin's statement.

For the sake of argument let's assume there is a circumstance where attending school,unfortunately, becomes impossible for a high school student. There is another option; secure a GED. When circumstances loosen up, that could be the ticket one would need to pursue higher education.

I would never presume to criticize an individual's right to choose a career path; that decision is truly part and parcel of our guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, when a leader has, correctly, espoused a pro-education platform ( an issue, frankly, we've heard little to nothing about from the McCain Palin campaign), it comes off as a bit hypocritical when she condones her future son-in-law, the father of her unborn grandchild, dropping out of high school. It sends a very mixed signal of the greatest proportion. Governor Palin and Senator McCain have been trumpeting for two weeks the significance of one's character being illustrated by one's associates, and the actions of those associates. What does this say about Sarah Palin's "family values", never mind her stand on education, that she would continue to pursue a personal ambition when an associate of hers, one of the closest order, is about to make a dreadful mistake, compromising his future, her daughter's future, and an unborn baby's future?

The couple keeping the baby is moral and honorable. The young man standing by his obligations, however misguided his plans, is quite commendable. The absence of Sarah Palin at this pivotal time, her neglect to advise and support her daughter and future son-in-law, in person, not through a conference call from the campaign trail, is unforgivable. She is demonstrating a failure of leadership within her own family. The governor knows, as we all do, dropping out of high school is, at best, a risky proposition, with plenty of opportunities for one to fall through the cracks. Education is the key to a secure future..... we deserve a government who believes this as well, demonstrating his or her committment to education, first and foremost, by promoting and providing for it in his or her own family.

Stay out of my voting booth, Padre!

2008-10-12T23:46:00.004-04:00

I went to church today. Admittedly, as a lapsed - sometimes cafeteria - Catholic, I hadn't participated in this institution in years. Aside from the occasional wedding, at least. While living in Philadelphia, I found the archdiocese to be too conservative to quench my liberation theology-variety thirst. And since I moved to the Cambridge, MA area, well, I've been lazy about church-shopping. I like my Saturday evenings and my Sundays. Now that I'm a nine-to-fiver, I love to sleep in when given the chance.

But my dad is sick. Really sick. And I've been feeling overwhelmed. So while driving today, with the windows down and singing my deafening rendition of Prince's "Kiss", I somewhat instinctively pulled into the parking lot of a Catholic church. I wasn't sure if I was planning on entering, except that others were getting out of their cars that were parked near mine. Oh no, I realized, great timing. I had been contemplating maybe sitting in one of the pews in solitude. Perhaps be able to hear myself think for once. Not today. Embarrassed that I looked like I might actually have been stalking the parish, I got out of my car and pretended that I was like any other God-fearing U.S. citizen: gearing up for another Sunday with the Lord.

At one point during the mass I found myself settling into the familiar routine of my childhood and young adulthood. I frequently joke that I was raised by nuns, but it's not too far from the truth: I was educated by the Sisters of Mercy from preschool through high school. For my college years, I opted for the more controversial Jesuits, individuals who taught me the nuanced intermingling of spirituality and social justice. Maybe it wasn't so weird to be back in church after all.

But as I was becoming comfortable in the warm light that was making playful shadows through the stained glass, something happened that shook me to my core: during his homily, the priest reminded the parishioners of the Church's stance on abortion, and to consider this when voting. Whaaat? What about the other tenets of Catholic Social Teaching that emphasize preferential option for the poor and vulnerable...community...simple living and solidarity with the marginalized...human dignity...social justice?

The oversimplification of this election based on one issue is both offensive and dangerous. Morality politics not only threaten to undermine landmark advances in human rights in our country; they also endanger the lives of global citizens. [A brief example: Bush's reinstation of the Mexico City Policy (or Global Gag Rule) - a policy based on pro-life principles - requires international health organizations to forgo comprehensive family planning activities in order to receive vital USAID funding. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and UNFPA are two examples of organizations that lost a portion of their funding from the U.S. These organizations promote equal access to health information and services, as well as combat violence against women, and rely on funding sources in order to ensure their activities reach vulnerable populations. ]

Furthermore, it is inappropriate for priests to persuade their parishioners to vote for one party or candidate over another. I took the liberty of double-checking this on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website. No, there wasn't a McCain-Palin sign hanging over the pulpit, but the negligence of other important social justice issues was tantamount to such a display. What about the Catholic view of migration and immigration (much more liberal than many would guess)? What about issues of poverty? Healthcare? How do these fit in with faith? This was the knowledge I craved.

Sure, we all know Palin loves a good fetus, but when I vote in November, I'll be looking at the larger picture. I'll undoubtedly draw on my education and experiences. And I'm sure, in some ways, that being Catholic - even a lapsed one - colors the lens through which I view current political issues (though in a surprisingly liberal, and I hope Arrupean, way). As a human rights advocate, I would love to hear what my parish priest thinks about a range of pressing issues and how the candidates might address them. It would be great to hear the various contexts in which my work fits. This, however, doesn't mean that I want Jesus' men in black snuggling up against me as I reach to press the button on November 4th.

Dumb and.... Corrupter?

2008-10-11T11:01:00.003-04:00

I am a victim of cognitive dissonance; it is a beautiful, sunny Saturday, and I have a mountain of work to do. Yet, amid all of these factors competing for my attention, I find my mind constantly wandering back to the most recent Palin revelation.

Abuse of power. The very phrase sounds menacing and, frankly, evil. It may not be illegal in the most technical sense, but it does conjure up some very vivid images of someone in authority, using that authority for wrong purposes. In fact, if parsed, abuse of power carries connotations of all the characateristics we find in our worst leaders; self-serving deceit, manipulation of subordinates for personal gain, violating the trust of those one serves to advance a cause which, if known, would likely not meet with a favorable concensus. Abuse of power .... a loaded verdict.

Sarah Palin has been found to have abused her power. Once again, this does not subject her to legal action..... but should she be entrusted with a position that would allow her to perpetuate this behavior at a much higher level? She has already indidcated her desire to expand the authority of the Vice President. She would be a literal heartbeat away from assuming the lead role herself. Abuse of power.....

We know these facts to be true. How big does the crater need to get before America sees the potential for falling into a very dangerous hole?

Smear and Fear Makes the Choice Crystal Clear

2008-10-10T21:58:00.007-04:00

As might be expected in the home stretch of a, shall we say, adverserial campaign, things have turned combative this week. In fact, combat may be too gentle of a description, it might be more accurate to label this week as all-out warfare.

John McCain has seen a tremendous reversal of fortune, and for good reason. Each time he and/or his running mate, the always entertaining Sarah Palin, open their mouths, they remove all doubt as to what kind of leadership we could expect from them. If you've just mentally said to yourself " Well, from what I've seen, we truly would be getting more of the same we've had for eight years." I would respond....I believe you are correct.

Smear and fear. This is the title of the Republican playbook. Find an achilles heel in one's opponent, even if one's running mate apparently is not familiar with the term. It shouldn't be a point of fact, simply a bit of information that is fairly simple to distort. Repeat said item relentlessly. Then repeat some more. Stay on message..... smear the opponent with one hand, manipulate people's greatest fears with the other.

While Republicans typically do not need an invitation to employ these tactics, a curious thing happened earlier this week, something that doesn't quite rate on the truth detector. At a rally in Wisconsin, formatted in the "town hall" configuration McCain is so fond of, numerous supporters stepped up to the mike to make a brief statement. Yet the first one shown by the media wasn't so brief. Basically, an older gentleman claimed that he and his associates felt disinfranchised, wanted to know when McCain was going to grow a backbone and take on Obama directly, because, you see, these voters are MAD! They are MAD that nobody is taking THEIR concerns seriously, mad that Obama is surging in the polls, mad that, (gasp), the other side of the aisle may have a crack at untangeling us from the web we find ourselves trapped in under Neo-Con policies. A succession of speakers followed, each with a variation on the first speaker's sentiments. This was, indeed, a curious event.....

Let's consider for a moment the element of theater in politics. Some candidates take the high road and deliver sincere speeches with thoughtful, reasonable platforms designed to benefit the greater good. However, while it's painful to acknowledge this fact, many more politicians do a bit every time they step on stage. Be it a funny bit, or a grave bit, an impassioned bit, or a heartfelt bit, it's all coming from the same theater. The voice we hear projecting is the candidate's "message"; the real man is the Oz figure behind the curtain, where nobody can see him.

Now, let's revisit the rally in Wisconsin. Isn't it a coincidence these voters all banded together in a small town, in a state where Obama currently enjoys a lead in the polls, to dress McCain down, then promptly beg him to come out swinging harder, give them the red meat they're craving?! Perhaps I'm cynical, but the timing of this plea for more smut smacks of...... posing. These people presented as posers, stunt props, the voice of the "people" appealing to their leader to please make Obama's life more misreable. How could Senator McCain refuse such requests? If the American public feels they haven't gotten a fair share of campaigning which speaks to our utmost base instincts, who is John McCain to deny them this rite of the election cycle?

Let me be more direct.... the rally, in my humble opinion, appears to have been a set-up, a clever, yet somewhat transparent idea for selling the public on the idea that Senator McCain, going forward, would merely answer the call of his constituents. He was now duty bound to deliver the garbage the electorate yearns for, on their front step in the mornings, through their televisions, on the radio, and, of course, on the ever-trusted internet. Let the games begin!

Team McCain, however, once again miscalculated. Polls show most Americans are not impressed with the smear and fear.... in fact, they disapprove of it. So, as of this writing, we have a new direction in the McCain camp, fresh off the trail from the old "new" marching orders given this week. They are diamtetrically opposed.... which makes for some interesting dramatic viewing.

Link to Interview with NPR's Marty Moss-Coane

2008-10-09T18:12:00.003-04:00

This interview touched on government accountability. Check it out.

http://www.whyy.org/91FM/radiotimes.html

Radio RumpRoast Interview on Government Accountability

2008-10-07T22:44:00.004-04:00

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Rumproast/2008/10/09/Radio-Rumproast

Nathan Shrader's latest column: As the Cheese Steak Goes, So Goes the Nation

2008-10-07T22:43:00.002-04:00

Nathan is a great friend of mine and a rising star in politics. Here is a link to his latest article.

http://patownhall.com/article/3576

-Michael

Round Two : Obama Moves Past Talking Points While McCain ...Doesn't.

2008-10-07T22:41:00.007-04:00

As we approach the finish line of this marathon campaign, when candidate fatigue is quite possibly setting in, Americans can take comfort in this fact; we're two down, one to go. The stakes were high tonight, with both McCain and Obama needing a victory, each man for very different reasons. Obama needed to pull this off to ensure no break in his stride, the momentum has been on his side recently, a win tonight could only extend his roll. McCain, conversely, needed a win tonight to convince not only Independents, but his own base, he's still a viable contender.

Flash polls are not entirely reliable..... however, they provide a nice snapshot of immediacy, the gut level reactions felt by the average voter. It appears, according to the data, once again, Obama ran the board. This viewer had the same take-away as the majority of those polled; several factors contributed to this response.

A. The Town Hall format has been fabled to favor John McCain; this arena has been touted as the stage where he would shine. Either Senator McCain was having an off night, or this particular crowd of mixed voters (bi-partisan) failed to inspire him toward a winning performance. Although McCain's demeanor was somewhat modified from the previous debate, the senator presented tonight as condescending, superficial and somewhat confrontational. Once again, McCain did not deliver, with a favorable asset in his corner (tonight's format), just as he fell short in the first debate, with the advantage of his strength serving as the debate topic (foreign policy and national security.)

B. The American people are so eager to hear an actual platform from these two candidates. The electorate has grown weary of tap dancing. People are now demanding these two get serious and concrete regarding their strategy and tactics for achieving success across a broad spectrum of issues. Barack Obama managed to articulate a coherent plan tonight which addressed all key areas of the national conversation, including the economy, job creation, health care, energy independence, the budget (priorities toward the end of reasonable maintenance of services while responsibly curtailing spending), foreign policy and international relations, and climate change. Senator McCain offered one concrete plan that will surely not sit well with the fiscally conservative branch of the party; a buy-out of bad mortgages, at current market value, to assist the ailing economy. This plan would be hugely expensive, as well as, presumably, hugely socialistic by traditional conservative standards. Outside of this ill-conceived proposal, Senator McCain offered no new initiatives, no fresh strategies, nothing tangible to comfort and assure voters that change is, indeed, coming.

C. Finally, the most salient feature of Senator McCain's weak performance tonight was the visceral, highly visible contempt he holds for Senator Obama. Obama has been quoted as saying "We can disagree without being disagreeable", but this is an idea McCain clearly does not embrace. During the debate McCain referred to Senator Obama as though he were an object ( the sure to be repeated instance of nodding toward Obama during a talking point, saying ".... and this one over here."), used humor,as this columnist predicted, to deflect attention from the issue at hand, with attempts at "funny" coming off as snarky digs ( Note to McCain: Definitely don't quit your day job.), and, at the conclusion of the debate, displayed a glaring lack of basic manners, blocking Senator Obama's attempt to shake his hand, instead choosing to sprint out of the hall as soon as possible. If John McCain cannot treat a campaign opponent with more dignity than this, how can we expect him to interact with the global community, particularly those who may not fully agree with his positions? We are no longer operating in an environment where leaders can unofficially declare America as isolated, or unilaterally dictate the rules of engagement. We now live in a global economy, interdependent on other nations to move forward. I should correct myself and say it is possible to conduct foreign policy in this manner, but it hasn't met with stellar results for the past eight years.

We have now seen another commanding performance from the Obama/Biden ticket, with Senator Obama prevailing as an informed, reasoned, poised presidential presence. Those who would argue experience beats judgment and decorum, take a closer look at tonight's debate. Given the current conditions in this country, and where the calendar stands in relation to election day, tonight may have, indeed, been a "game changer."

My Philadelphia Inquirer Op-Ed (10-07-08)

2008-10-07T06:46:00.001-04:00

Mistaken identity and 'gotcha journalism'

A Temple student wasn't trying to trap Sarah Palin. He questioned her as a citizen concerned about his country.

Michael Rovito is pursuing a doctorate in public health at Temple

I spent the Saturday before last attending the Temple University homecoming game with family members visiting from out of town. After the game was over, like many in the crowd, we headed to Tony Luke's on Oregon Avenue for sandwiches.

These were the mundane highlights of our family outing before we got to Tony Luke's to find an unexpected fellow customer: Sarah Palin. The would-be vice president was there to greet voters and get a bite to eat with her daughter.

No one was engaging the Alaska governor beyond small talk. Most of the people in the crowd appeared starstruck, including some Obama supporters we had spotted earlier.

I felt compelled to ask the governor about the U.S. incursions into Pakistan that had been in the news recently. My parents urged me not to, but I thought she might respond in this informal setting.

She did, and I soon found myself in a back-and-forth that was well-documented in news accounts over the next several days. Our exchange drew a lot of attention because Palin said the United States should pursue terrorists into Pakistan's territory - agreeing with Barack Obama and differing from her running mate, John McCain, who had roundly criticized the Democrat for that stance.

To make matters stranger, I awoke the next morning to an e-mail from a journalist named Michael Rovito. He explained that he is a reporter from Wasilla, Alaska, who has been covering Sarah Palin for the last few years. He alerted me that some of the reactions to the reports of my encounter with the governor suggested a case of mistaken identity.

The conspiracy theory went something like this: Michael Rovito of Wasilla, Alaska, tracked Sarah Palin to Philadelphia, donned a Temple T-shirt, and found an opportunity to ask Palin about her foreign-policy views over cheesesteaks. And Palin did not recognize the reporter in his Temple disguise.

Now that I was deep within the Twilight Zone, my reaction was to laugh and search the Internet. I soon discovered that McCain had been asked about the Tony Luke's incident the next morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He retracted Palin's statement and assured the viewing public that Palin agreed with him, not Obama. The exchange also came up in an interview with CBS's Katie Couric, during which McCain and Palin dismissed my question as "gotcha journalism."

Since then, many reporters have asked why I engaged Palin at Tony Luke's, why I asked those questions, whether I thought Palin understood them, if the exchange was authentic, and whether I participated in "gotcha journalism."

Students have asked me about being a voice for voters who can't interact authentically with candidates. Friends have warned me about the backlash I might face as a Democrat who questioned a Republican. My professors, meanwhile, are concerned that "gotcha-journalist" accusations could harm my academic career.

I have made it clear in interviews that I am not a journalist, have no training in journalism, and have no plans to become a journalist. I did not aim to stump Sarah Palin, and she did not seem to take offense at my questions; actually, I thought she responded openly.

I questioned Palin because I am a voter with profound concerns about the ramifications of this election for the future of our country. I don't think that makes me an unusual voter, but rather a typical one. I genuinely wanted to know her thoughts on conducting the war on terror, because a lot of my friends and former students are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I contemplate the communications swirling around me now, I am struck by the tyrannical connotations of being called a "gotcha journalist." I am concerned that this is a blow to the integrity of journalists and informed, taxpaying citizens, who have the right to demand accountability from their elected officials. Why should I, or the journalists who work to inform the public, be scorned for asking fundamental questions such as those I asked?

Tuesday's Showcase : Judgment, Center Stage, in Music City

2008-10-06T18:11:00.007-04:00

Nashville, "Music City", as it is fondly known, will serve as the backdrop for the second presidential debate of the election season. The campus of Belmont University will host the affair; the format is set to resemble a town hall meeting, a configuration which has historically served John McCain very well. However,indications from today's performances on the campaign trail suggest McCain is going to come out swinging, while Obama deftly dodges, with a bit of offense preparation for good measure.

As the numbers for McCain/Palin continue their downward trend, the campaign presents as desperate to slow Obama's momentum, doing whatever it takes to achieve this goal. McCain himself, along with Proxy Palin, stumped over the weekend, into today, with a clear message: Barack Obama hangs with some dangerous folks. The data offered is weak, at best; Obama's colleague ( read: professional associate), Bill Ayers, has been cited most often as the risky character lurking in Obama's cadre of "pals", yet the evidence doesn't bear out this claim. While it is true that Ayers was a radical in the sixties, he is now a professor at Columbia....a bastion of higher education that is hardly known as a haven for harboring terrorists.

Voters have indicated these peripheral issues to which McCain appears attached are not what they are interested in hearing; voters want to know how each candidate plans to handle the hemmoraging economy, foreign relations, military engagement, our education system and health care, among other substanitive matters. This is an encouraging sign for our democracy; the general public's preference for "journalism lite", a necessary conspirator with administrations who mislead the nation, has reduced the quality of news we've received over the past several years. It seems the American people are finally realizing when "we the people" cede our powers for minding the store to perosnalities replete with smoke and mirrors, we end up getting robbed.

Presumably, tomorrow night, the undecided voters here in Nashville will challenge each of the candidates to answer the "big" questions, demanding a little depth beyond talking points and platitudes. It will require each candidate to deliver thoughtful answers based on a solid platform of ideas. The nation is serious about change at this juncture; winging it will not suffice.

It would behoove each candidate to recognize that snark, smears and stylistic devices will not likely be tolerated. This is where McCain's judgment will once again be on display for all to see. If McCain calculates he can use "humor" to deflect the real issues, changing the tone of the debate from informative to combative, he will demonstrate a complete disregard for the nation's longing to hear plans, policies, ideas, and prescriptions for renewing the peace and prosperity that was commonplace eight years ago. Incidentally, President Bush is now at an approval rating commiserate with Richard Nixon's poll ratings.... immediately following his White House departure after Watergate. Only 24% of today's sample thinks Bush is doing a good job; McCain might want to reflect on this number as he prepares his statements for tomorrow night. Bush, Cheney, Rove.... we have tired of these tactics. Obama's momentum will only increase if McCain shows poor judgment, as he did with his choice of running mate, by isisting on using insults and innuendo as departure points for debate dialogue. Senator Obama can then reiterate the argument that judgment just might trump experience as the most important quality for the nation's commander in chief, the first diplomat. Stay tuned....

The Financial Bailout: A National Hobson's Choice

2008-10-05T20:17:00.001-04:00

“But in the present instance I see the necessity of yielding for this time…for the sake of the union, and to save us from the greatest of all Calamities.”

So said Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to fellow Virginian James Monroe as the great argument over “assumption” raged in the summer of 1790. It was, like all events of that day, one which, if not handled with care and political grace, could cause the infant union to fracture. Also characteristic of this debate was the necessity of friends, brothers-in-arms, and nascent statesmen to forge a compromise, or at least a bargain, to discern what was truly in the “national interest”; even as regional and parochial interests became more apparent.

The question was this: Should the federal government assume the debt of the several states, which was then estimated at approximately $25 million. The figures and personalities on each side of the debate wrestled with complex and conflicting notions of regional interests and political philosophy. Alexander Hamilton, a champion of federal consolidation of economic policy and firmly associated with the “urban elite” of merchants, bankers, and speculators, was pitted against the likes of Jefferson, whose deep-seeded skepticism of “money men” and his agrarian roots combined with his philosophical view that the centralization of economic control and power was antithetical to the principles of the Revolution. This feeling greatly superseded any sound and rational discussion of the liquidity of the national economy and the soundness of the public credit so well articulated and championed by Hamilton.

Why should the people of the Old Dominion and other southern states who liquidated much of their war debt be saddled with the debt of the other states? Compounding the issue was the fact that many Revolutionary War veterans had sold their securities (given as compensation during the War) to speculators. The result was a dramatic change in tune by James Madison who, despite opposing feelings during his collaboration with Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, viewed the assumption proposal as antithetical to the Spirit of ’76.

Concurrent with this question was another, perhaps more fundamental question: Where should the seat of the federal government be situated? The debate over the “residency question” naturally pitted the regions against each other to vie for a permanent seat of the federal government (then situated in New York City and soon to reside in Philadelphia). Compelling cases were made for several spots in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and elsewhere.

So what was to be done? As it turns out, the trade-off between assumption and residency designated a Potomac location for the seat of the federal government, with President Washington given the discretion to designate (with a needed surveying assist from Jefferson and Madison) the geographical boundaries of the “Potomac site.” What resulted was a location of the capital separated from, at least in geography, the financial sector in Philadelphia and New York.

In return for the capital on the Potomac, the federal government assumed the debt of the several states; thereby restoring the public credit (for a time), averting a potentially damaging indictment of the feasibility of the newly-created federal system (the multiple defects of the Articles of Confederation fresh in all minds), and serving as a power play by the federal government concerning its primacy in fiscal policy and affairs.

We face a similar question in the current debate over the short and long-term health of our national economy. We are now confronted with somewhat of a Hobson’s Choice: Accept the bailout package in its imperfect form with the hope of long-term economic recovery, or do nothing and hope that the market self-corrects in the long-run. In the short-term, prospects look mediocre at best.

In short, both the system and the actors failed. The system failed due to a long progression of loose regulations on the nature and permissibility of certain investments by various financial services firms (the debate over which is a complex milieu of Congressional authorization, multiple failures by the Federal Reserve, and a collective blind-eye to the issue) and the actors (us) gobbling-up homes and other assets that we could not afford. In short, we are all in this together; just ask anyone who is invested in a mutual fund.

The irony of the allegiances that have cropped-up during this debate are truly incredible. Who would have ever thought that top Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, would join with John Boehner and other high Congressional Republican leadership to back a rescue package proferred by Bush-Paulson-Bernanke? The towering irony of a Republican administration crafting such a plan is perhaps even more remarkable. Of course, chalking this up to mere “irony” may provide an escape hatch and rationalization to the entire affair, realizing that many of the plan’s Congressional supporters truly believe that such a plan is generally sound public policy.

So, will we believe the factional interests and those in denial who claim that this package is a “bailout” for only Wall Street and investment banks who made poor lending decisions because the system allowed for it and ignore the interconnectedness of how (and who) allowed this to come to pass in the first place? Or, like the “Compromise of 1790,” will we accept that multiple points in the system failed and the consequences of inaction are far worse than the needed one-two punch of the recovery plan and comprehensive regulatory reform? Sometimes it may be necessary to rescue those who made foolish decisions to prevent all of us from being drowned in their wake.

-Andrew

Update

2008-10-05T13:01:00.004-04:00

I'm tentatively scheduled to be the guest on RumpRoast.com's BlogRadio show this upcoming Wednesday @ 9pm. There's a link to their site on the 'Keeping You Connected' sidebar. Be sure to check them out as well as my interview.

-Michael

Kathleen Parker's Misfortune Provides Perspective on Fighting GOP City Hall

2008-10-05T11:20:00.004-04:00

Kathleen Parker, a well respected conservative commentator, recently wrote a post on The National Review website, offering an assessment of Sarah Palin's contribution to the 2008 GOP presidential ticket. In Ms. Parker's estimation, Palin would do the party a great favor if she would gracefully offer a reason for stepping off the national stage, leaving John McCain the option of selecting a running mate who brings more gravitas and, frankly, better credentials, to the ticket. A collective gasp could be heard across the country as conservatives choked on their toast and coffee.... how dare one of their own suggest McCain committed an error in judgement, or even worse, express such strong doubts about a fellow Republican, one of the persons charged with the task of keeping the White House in GOP hands?! Ms. Parker will be the first to tell anyone, the response she received regarding her honest assessment called for consideration of a body guard. Thousands of angry Republicans have made their displeasure known, accusing Ms. Parker of everything from treasonous speech to jealousy of Palin's "beauty", claiming Ms. Parker is simply envious of Palin being both gorgeous and powerful. These are, indeed, serious allegations.

Ms. Parker's unfair harrassment dovetails perfectly with the experience that served as the genesis for our site. An ordinary citizen, of extraordinary intelligence and awareness, garnered a fair amount of criticism for doing one of the most patriotic things an American can do; asking a question which reflected a genuine interest in his country, while also demonstrating a better than cursory grasp of foreign policy issues that cover a lot of ground ( War on Terror, international relations.) The ridiculous charges leveled against this act of citizenship have been troubling enough. Yet,we can now evaluate the GOP demand for lockstep compliance with an even broader lens. It is one thing to attack an "elitist graduate student", as one exceedingly charming conservative labeled Mr. Rovito; it is quite another to assault a member of one's own party for articulating sincere concerns about the direction of her party. The overarching, troublesome take-away from the Parker flap is this: The Republicans seem to be saying something to the effect of "We not only call out the dogs on outsiders, we also eat our own. If someone dares to challenge the status quo, there will be a price to pay." Must it be reiterated that some quite frightening regimes ruled with this identical iron fist?

The bigger question, one of the key subjects which begs for attention at the moment, is the notion of "With us or against us." President Bush coined this term on the public stage after 9/11, and it's obviously taken some strong roots among the Republican party faithful. Palin indicated in Thursday night's debate she favors (officially) expanding the authority of the Vice President, giving more rights and privileges to the Veep, particularly as the role relates to presiding over the Senate. Interesting....connect the dots and one can easily see, in a McCain/Palin administration, Sarah Palin could very well have greater powers than Dick Cheney, a man who has been no shrinking violet as VP himself. Couple this with the GOP consensus that you're with us or you're against us, and the eventual outcome of this scenario is quite clear. The Kathleen Parkers of the GOP are no longer welcome at the table; either lend complete support to McCain/Palin, or any other potentially harmful combination we put on your plate, or push your chair back in, you are no longer breaking bread with us. A new motto.... dissension will not be tolerated... and dissenstion includes any shadings of doubt.

Mental health experts will confirm that a reasonable level of doubt, especially in situations with far-reaching consequences, is healthy. It serves as a counterpoint to absolute certainty. President Bush has shown us absolute certainty is absolutely unwise. Considering the lessons we have before us, how wise are we? Only election day results will answer this question.

My response to Gov. Palin misquoting Sec. Albright

2008-10-05T08:11:00.005-04:00

From The Huffington Post....

ROVITO: Let's just call this for what it is already. Gov. Palin is nervous and unprepared. I almost feel sorry for her. Well, I don't feel sorry for the fact that she is continuing to subject herself to this kind of scrutiny. I mean, she can get out whenever she wants. I feel bad for her because she had no choice but to join the ticket and go along for the ride, probably not knowing what was actually in store for her.

Her gaffes continue to define her. The ripple effect from every misnomer/gaffe pushes more and more voters to Obama. The strategy of 'Joe Sixpack' worked for the first 3 weeks of the campaign, but now it's insulting. I come from 'Joe Sixpack' country and everyone that I talk to in Central Pennsylvania finds her more annoying everyday.

My family wanted her to represent them, but not really. How does this make sense? Well, they want someone from 'their ranks' to represent them well and represent them with a sense of direction and clarity, not within the persona of a clueless toadie. Maybe Sarah Palin could have had the qualities of the everyday American and represented us well. We all see how that is turning out.

I say to Gov. Palin: Think about what you really want. The game is almost up. John McCain may have your interests @ heart, but from how they've been treating you, maybe that's not as sound of a statement as it once was.

My Interview on HuffPo with Brett McKenzie

2008-10-04T14:00:00.001-04:00

Check out the interview posted today on HuffingtonPost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brett-ashley-mckenzie/the-gotcha-journalist-an_b_131600.html

Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer

2008-10-03T18:34:00.003-04:00

I have an op-ed coming out in the Philadelphia Inquirer coming out early next week highlighting my perspective of what transpired between Gov. Palin and myself last Saturday. This is a direct response to the Katie Couric interview where Sen. McCain defined me as a 'gotcha journalist'. I'll post the link as soon as it hits the press.

-Michael

Bailout Blues

2008-10-03T13:54:00.004-04:00

The middle class, the engine of our American economy, seems to always bear the burden of financial downturns in this country. It's become a given expectation, the middle class will shore up any disaster, regardless of who imposed the grief. At the moment we are waiting to see if President Bush will sign off on the revised Bail-out bill, approved by Congress, to rescue corporate America. However, the particulars of this circumstance dictates that Wall Street and Main Street are interdependent in this situation, leaving small businesses and Joe Q. Citizen vulnerable if this controversial proposal fails. How did we get here?

"We", the middle class, have been taken advantage of by corporate thieves and desperate politicians, two forces who have created a weak economy, destined to grow weaker, if we reject this seven hundred BILLION dollar package. As I write I'm listening to President Bush "promise" the tax payer a guarantee of oversight and provisions designed to help families and small businesses alike, presenting this corporate welfare racket as the white horse dispatched to save the day. While I recognize the bailout, at this point, is a necessary evil, I resent being told this debacle is ultimately a populist victory. I fail to see where a bailout of corrupt corporations does much to promote my, or any average American's, well being.

It is reasonable that frozen credit markets, a lack of liquidity, will result in more economic downward spiral. We can't allow this to happen. However, we must realize Washington looked the other way as major corporations wrote toxic loans, in bulk, leading us to the brink of financial destruction. We are now being asked to suspend our disbelief,to trust the "leaders" and financiers who created this mess, to shepherd us out of this chaotic collapse. This predicament does not inspire a great deal of confidence for our immediate future; prosperity seems a long distance
from our current position.

In life, there are situations where two alternatives are both unattractive, but one choice is infinitely worse than the other. An imperiled economy, across the board, obviously carries more risk than supporting this irresponsible, completely despicable bill. Indeed we have been left with two unattractive choices, with no assurance the "better" choice will ultimately benefit the bearers of this burden. As we see our middle class eroded each day, an uneasy feeling accompanies this unprecedented legislation; who will the government draw from once the middle class, depleted to the point of extinction, no longer exists?

2008-10-03T09:24:00.000-04:00

new ad: hollywood declares themselves.

Was My Prediction Correct?

2008-10-03T07:04:00.003-04:00

Wow! I was right! The debate was uneventful, to say the least.

Joe Biden was composed and thoughtful...treading carefully not to 'pick on that poor hockey mom' (as what some pundits were concerned about). He didn't misspeak, he didn't gaffe, he sounded......fine, for lack of a better term.

Sarah Palin? She actually did ok.

"Really, Michael?"

Yes, readers, she did alright.

Sarah Palin, as it is pointed out in other posts on the Rovito Review, helped herself and sparked her base...again. She clarified some doubts on whether or not she is ready to lead this nation if Sen. McCain would not be able to fulfill his duties. However, these doubts were probably only clarified with the most conservative of voters, who were already casting their votes for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.

This debate didn't sway any undecided voters to either campaign. If any were wooed by the Vice Presidential candidates' performance, I would predict that Biden's offered some hope to those undecideds that there is a plan out there somewhere that could possibly help our nation crawl from the immoral and unethical depths defined by the last 8 years of the Bush Administration. There were hints of policy peppered in his responses. However, for the most part, he needed to clarify his position on the most surface-level topics as Sarah Palin repeated herself like a 'polly-wants-a-cracker' parrot. If McCain and Palin want to win, they need to state their policies and repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, ad inifinitum. I haven't heard anything related to policy from the McCain camp besides how they want us to shop for our own health insurance. So far, it's all talking points, and no substance.

Palin had about 30 minutes of an organized, clear message...albeit severely rehearsed. After those 30 minutes expired, the talking points began to fall flat and turn stale. Biden was Biden...albeit severely restrained.

So I leave you with this thought? Did this debate leave you with clarity on how these campaigns will run this nation? Did they give you any insight on how our nation will be defined, or redefined, in the international community? I understand this wasn't a lecture that would provide all the answers to all of our questions, but did we gain anything from last night's exchange? My answer, NO.

By the way, what was with all of Gov. Palin's winking?

Folksy Two-Step Provides for Questionable Placement of the "Bar."

2008-10-02T22:38:00.007-04:00

For those who watched tonight's debate, perhaps the most anticipated exchange of recent times, one may be left questioning exactly where the "bar" landed, respectively, for the two vice presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The energy between the two candidates was electric, with an over-all tone of gracious respect. However, while style does matter, as witnessed in last week's inaugural presidential debate, substance should serve as the foundation for deciding who has the capacity to lead, especially in these challenging times.

Sarah Palin brought with her an " aw schucks" sensibility, a folksy charm that surely connected with some voters. Regarding substance, she did re-establish a modicum of credibility, removing one's doubts about her literal aptitude. However, these positives were not sufficient to inspire confidence in her ability to lead. The American people are still left with more questions than answers concerning Palin's "bar." She effectively danced around vital topics, side-stepping key issues with a wink of her eye and a wag of her finger, offering vague criticism of her opponents' positions, yet failing to provide concrete examples of policy directions one could expect in a McCain - Palin administration. Expectations had been set at a "low bar" for Palin, based on extemporaneous responses in recent days (most notably the embarrassing dialogue between our own Michael Rovito and Governor Palin last Saturday), as well as scripted interviews where Palin got flustered, throwing herself off the tracks. It appears Sedona reinvigorated Palin; her team of "preparers" can feel gratified their "student" absorbed her lessons rather nicely. She stayed on message, one of the strengths (or weaknesses, depending on one's perspective) inherent in the Republican platform. Still, shifting from a position of dangerously unaware to neutral, at best, does not take Palin into leadership territory. Initial poll results indicate the American people are not moved; Palin walked away with a one point gain concerning people's belief in her ability to be president of the United States.

Joe Biden garnered less attention going into this debate, but insiders recognized the potential landmines for Obama's running mate. Biden has been known, on occasion, to eat both of his shoes. Senator Biden is notoriously candid ( refreshing, in my humble opinion), a quality that doesn't always lend itself to congenial debates. Tonight, however, Biden was able to modify his delivery in a way that conveyed experience, diplomacy, and a working knowledge of all the pressing issues this country is facing. Biden was able to seal the deal with respect to appearing presidential. Senator Biden delivered on the central point of this debate; which candidate would one trust the most to assume the role of president, should, God forbid, the elected candidate meet his demise? The salient question, which candidate made the best case for serving as this country's chief co-pilot, seems to be roundly answered with Senator Biden's name.

Was this debate a "game changer", as the media is fond if saying? It is doubtful. The conservative constituency was, most likely, reassured that Sarah Palin has the charisma to rally the base, a factor which was lost in the wake of her poor performances over the past two weeks. Conversely, Democrats likely feel comfortably satisfied with Senator Biden's strong performance, noting that he, undoubtedly, resonated with the public as someone who is imminently qualified, ready on day one to serve in whatever capacity he is called to, including President of the United States. Each side of the aisle can breath a sigh of relief regarding major mistakes.

In the final analysis, a fair statement would be Senator Biden helped Senator Obama, while Governor Palin helped herself, redeeming, to an extent, her reputation. She did not, however, help Senator McCain. The bar had been set too low for Palin to jump any rungs above self redemption; achieving this feat was, for Palin, the greatest possible outcome.

Modern Times

2008-10-02T12:54:00.005-04:00

This country was founded on some basic principles and values, including, but not limited to, free speech, self-governance, taxation with representation, and governmental transparency. Our ancestors, having lived under a system which had little tolerance for diversity, were eager to ensure the formation of a new nation where people who embraced these ideals could feel welcomed and secure.

So, what happened?

When did it become suspect and distasteful to be an informed citizen? Isn't the bedrock of democracy a knowledgeable electorate? Who decided we could be taxed in an arbitrary fashion, with no regard for representation that successfully addresses the concerns of the people? Why are we now expected to willingly accept corporate welfare measures, designed, primarily, to benefit private sector entities? Our tax dollars will fund such efforts, just as they've funded a war many in this country do not support. In modern times these practices have become business as usual in Washington.

Neo-Cons love to invoke the Founding Fathers as figures who would surely agree with their world view. Upon further examination, this claim deserves greater analysis.

This past weekend offered a glaring demonstration of how far we, as a nation, have drifted from the ideals our country were truly built on. A young man who is pursuing advanced education, a citizen who is engaged in the events which shape our global community, had a chance to pose a thoughtful question to a political candidate. However, this was not just any candidate; Sarah Palin, the bottom of one of the major party tickets in this year's presidential election, happened to be said candidate. The fall-out from this incident illustrated for America, and the world, how little we expect of our leaders; it also, sadly, confirmed we no longer value dialogue between officials and those they represent. Apparently, we now exclusively value mute compliance.

Michael Rovito showed a respectful, genuine interest in Mrs. Palin's comments as he asked a relevant, intelligent question regarding Pakistan, a nation who is undoubtedly a component in America's War on Terror. Mr. Rovito did not harass Mrs. Palin; he did not belabor a point beyond give-and-take discourse. He simply posed a question which reflected a thorough knowledge of the world stage. Mrs. Palin was ill-equipped to answer his question. In today's political climate, as might be expected, Mr. Rovito, the sensible, informed, involved citizen, was portrayed by the McCain/ Palin campaign and the mainstream media, a heckler determined to "get" Sarah Palin. The media even chose to incorporate Mr. Rovito as one of their own, continually repeating the phrase "gotcha journalism" in connection with Rovito's benign, yet pertinent, question.

In modern times, might we ask, what's wrong with this picture? Transparency has been absent for quite a while... the current administration has apparently intimidated the media into abdicating their unofficial role as the oversight mechanism for government. Citizens are considered "unpatriotic" if they dare to ask questions; questions are no longer considered desirable, they are implications of distrust and disloyalty. Many tyrannical leaders rose to power with these tactics.... a chilling point to ponder.

Sarah Palin couldn't be "gotten" without just cause. In this instance, Mrs. Palin was not being pursued in a game of "gotcha"; rather, she was being asked to explain her position on a foreign policy issue of major proportions. Let's not forget, should John McCain be elected, Mrs. Palin would literally be a heartbeat away from the presidency. We are entitled to know a little about her thoughts on such matters. Sarah Palin felt "gotten" because she was, indeed, caught. She was caught without a stated position, which leads to the logical conclusion she hasn't given this subject much thought. In isolation, this might be a little less troubling. Yet, Mrs. Palin has been "gotten" several times lately, by various sources, on a wide range of topics that matter very much in the governance of this country.

Given all of these facts, one would think the media would provide the much needed oversight mentioned above. Yet, they are handling Mrs. Palin with kid gloves, much as they have President Bush and his administration. At this juncture, anyone who would think to label the media with a "liberal bias" is delusional.

Mr. Rovito did a great service for his country this past weekend. He asked a relevant question the media has refused to present. In doing this, he put the spotlight on several key issues, not the least of which is citizen awareness/participation. He also gave the country a unique opportunity to see a candidate off-script, giving us an honest, albeit limited, appraisal of one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Veep Debate.

2008-10-02T10:42:00.002-04:00

My two cents? Unfortunately, I mostly agree with Michael, however, I'm feeling a bit more optimistic. I want to believe that Senator Biden truly fulfills his role as Obama's VP. I want to see him attack and defend every nuance that exit's Ms. Palin's mouth. This is not a popularity contest, there is no room for congeniality. Sarah Palin is not capable of running this country, so why should she be granted any slack?

I hope he buries her. Respectfully of course, because that's the best way.

-Mora

The Vice Presidential Debate

2008-10-02T10:35:00.000-04:00

It airs tonight @ 9pm Eastern. Any thoughts on how Biden and Palin will respond to each other and the top stories engulfing the news in the past week?

Michael's prediction: It will be a very boring debate. Why? Biden will lay low and not seem too aggressive. He can't come across as attacking her. Palin will have about 3 or 4 zinger responses that will please her base. It will essentially be a draw in terms of debating, but nothing will really come out of this exchange. Anyone disagree?

The springboard for social commentary.

2008-10-02T09:14:00.000-04:00

Hello

I'm sure you've all seen that clip @ Tony Luke's. Quite an experience, actually. If not, here are two links to get you caught up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OUiBUUuqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLHohmFFgXY

I asked a question that any citizen should ask their elected officials.....and then it all blew up. Bizarre actually.

Anyway, this blog is currently under construction. I am compiling a great panel of columnists and social commentators to post their thoughts on American democracy and the state of our nation. We as citizens of these United State need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and words.

More soon.......