Tony's Blog

Are you one of those baby boomers whose VCR light is still blinking? I mean, do you still have a VCR? If you do, I’ll take the gamble and bet you’re 50 or older. Have you ever spoken with someone in their 20’s, 30’s or 40’s (though those of us in this highly evolved 40 age bracket bridge the 8-track tape, the VCR and DVD) about their entertainment centers? If you have, you’re well aware that the VCR is not in the ballpark. In fact, if you’ve even uttered the letters V-C-R, you’re opening yourself up to a wise crack like, “Hey, old man, did you know that Paul McCartney was in a group called the Beatles, before Wings?” Not good for the baby boomer, ageless ego.

So, if you have any VCR-oriented questions, not to mention questions about computers and the Internet, save yourself from the ridicule of the kids. I’ve got a safe place for you to go where your questions will be answered for free without a hint of hostility. Visit Ask The Tech at: http://askthetech.experienceseniorpower.com. Marc Funaro, president of Advantex LLC (www.advantex.net), a web development company, and self described “computer geek” will answer your questions --- and he’ll be friendly about it.

Boomers and Nutrition

OK, so baby boomers get the bum wrap of wanting to cheat mortality, as if that’s a bad thing! Well, I’m no nutritionist, but recently the Vemma Nutrition Program joined our online baby boomer community at www.experienceseniorpower.com. Vemma bills itself as an all-in-one "juice product and a vitamin/mineral supplement." It maintains it will “…kick your health and energy levels into overdrive.”

This is from Vemma’s website:

Vemma unites the antioxidant-rich power of mangosteen — a fruit used for centuries by Asian health practitioners for its nutritional benefits — with rich plant-source minerals, organic glyconutrient-rich aloe vera and decaffeinated organic green tea along with a full spectrum of antioxidant vitamins to create the most powerful liquid antioxidant nutrition program anywhere. (www.myvemma.com/rmjsjas7)

You be the judge. Vemma offers a full money back guarantee.

My Republican friend is at it, again. You know, the guy who likes to talk politics at the gym when I’m at my worst and most distracted --- pumping iron and working up a sweat on the cross trainer. Let’s call him “Richard.” I think the name fits on a couple of levels. Richard’s that ever present, tormenting gadfly. I can just hear the thoughts rattling around in his head. “Let me kick the progressive when he’s out of breath, blue in the face, spent --- burned out and lacking any intellectual energy!”

So, a couple of days ago, there I am just about an hour into my cardio routine. I’m not looking pretty, and I’m sure not in the mental space for a political give and take. And right on cue, here comes Richard. Guess what he wants to discuss? No, not the war in Iraq, even though Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week that he wants a timetable in place for withdrawal of American troops. No, not that more than half the members Iraq's parliament voted last Tuesday to end the U.S. occupation of their country (Richard is still waiting for U.S. troops to be greeted as liberators.) No, not that al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan, not to mention al Qaeda’s growing presence throughout south Asia. No, not that Americans are losing the economic war at home to staggering increases in fuel costs, rising food prices, growing unemployment, and a mortgage crisis that has seen tens of thousands of Americans lose their homes to foreclosure.

No, Richard wants to talk about Michelle Obama’s 1985 thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. No, I’m not making this up. In her thesis, a 21-year-old Ms. Robinson considered whether black alumni would continue to identify with and support the black community, after education at the predominantly white Princeton University. She concluded this was not to be.

“I began this study questioning my own attitudes as a future alumnus,” she wrote. “I wondered whether or not my education at Princeton would affect my identification with the black community. I hoped these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the Black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility. " 

Of the 400 black Princeton graduates who received Ms. Robinson’s questionnaire, some 20% responded.  Richard is one of many on the right who read hate, racism and segregation in these and other references throughout Ms. Robinson’s 96-page thesis.

The young Ms. Robinson writes that choosing to attend Princeton would likely mean "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

To Richard, this means Mrs. Obama, and by extension Senator Obama, and of course the Obama daughters, Malia Ann (age 10) and Natasha ("Sasha" age 7), are racist and will push a militant “Black Power” agenda from the White House, sure to alienate American whites.

Princeton has helped promote the perception that there’s something to hide, by pulling the thesis from its library until after this year’s presidential election. This fueled the National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg to “…wonder why.” The Obama campaign, rightly, has released the thesis in its entirety.

I mean, c’mon. By now, don’t Americans get the GOP fear card? It worked in 2004. Although they tried playing it again in 2006, its luster began to fade. But in 2008, here it is again --- dusted off and rolled out for one more ride. Is it all the Republicans have left in the tank? Isn’t this too far out there for even Richard and his friends? Any day now, I’m sure the “uniter, not the divider” in the White House will address this for the divisive, fear-mongering it is. He’ll stress the country should focus on the national and international crises we face, and put an end to any talk that clouds this focus. Hasn’t he always?

A Republican friend (yes, we bleeding hearts have a soft spot for the misguided) recently interrupted my workout at the gym to quiz me about Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments. My friend, after committing to memory the talking points of the Republican National Committee (that's Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) must have mistaken me for Kirk Watson, the Texas State Senator and Obama supporter who was incapable of naming one Obama legislative accomplishment during his now infamous interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball.

Now, I know this goes without saying, but we're talking about my friend and his friends --- the less than 30 percent of Americans who actually believe the policies of the Bush Administration are working. You know, that spending $10 billon a month on a war of choice in Iraq is a sound investment in our future, and that borrowing from the Chinese to make up the difference is thoughtful economic policy. So, I have to say it. Just because one supporter can't recite Obama's legislative accomplishments doesn't mean Obama doesn't have legislative accomplishments.

We can fall back on history to argue that before Abraham Lincoln (consistently rated among our nation's top two presidents by historians) was elected president, his political resume was short on substance, as a former member of the Illinois House of Representatives, a former one-term congressman and an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate. We can argue that Lincoln's predecessor, President James Buchanan (consistently rated among the worst of our chief executives), was a great president-in-waiting because as a former ambassador to both Russia and Britain and a former Secretary of State, he had the gold standard of political resumes. We can fall back on history to make the argument that political experience or lack of it is not a harbinger of things to come. But, we shouldn't.

We shouldn't shy away from the debate, because we can win it. The fact is Barack Obama has scored significant legislative successes in his young political career. And, you don't have to take my word for it. Just check out politifact.com, and its story about the 2003 legislation Obama sponsored as an Illinois state senator to expand income eligibility for KidCare and FamilyCare, state health insurance programs for low-income families. When the law passed, more than 150,000 people became eligible and received health insurance.

Or, how about Obama's work in Illinois to reform the state's notorious death penalty laws? This is from the Associated Press.

While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state's notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded. The changes enacted in 2003 reformed a system that had sent 13 people to death row, only to have them released because they were later determine to be innocent or had been convicted using improper methods. "Without Barack's energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place," said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.

Then there's the bill Senator Obama co-sponsored with Senator Richard Lugar, the former Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to add the destruction of conventional arms stockpiles to U.S. agreements already on the books with foreign governments to destroy unsecured weapons of mass destruction.

I've got a lot more. So, in the words of the man who currently resides in the White House, the guy who had all that international experience before assuming office, “bring 'em on.”

With the 2008 Veepstakes just beginning, I'll make the case for former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida.

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Graham opposed the war in Iraq. He said it would divert U.S. attention from what he believed was the right fight in Afghanistan. In February 2002, after meeting with military leaders and reviewing U.S. intelligence, Graham concluded a war with Iraq would be a distraction that would end poorly. Score one for Graham.

In 2000, before the U.S. war on terrorism was in vogue, Senator Graham co-sponsored the Port and Maritime Security Act, which  among other provisions (1) required ships to electronically forward their cargo manifests to port before gaining clearance for entry, (2) prohibited the unloading of improperly documented cargo, (3) directed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to review antiterrorism measures maintained by foreign ports, and (4) permitted U.S. ports to deny entry to ships calling on ports with ineffective antiterrorism measures. Score two for Graham.

Each of Graham's three terms in the U.S. Senate came after impressive Florida victories. In 1986, Graham defeated incumbent Senator Paula Hawkins 55% to 45%. Graham was re-elected in 1992 over Bill Grant 66% to 34% and in 1998 by a 63% to 37% margin over Charlie Crist, Florida's popular current governor and John McCain supporter. Graham's position as Senator Obama's number two would blunt much of the machine Crist will tap to get out the vote for McCain. Score three for Graham.

Florida is a crucial swing state. Graham never lost a Florida election. He won nine in a row. His first in 1966 gave him a seat  in Florida's House of Representatives. His last victory came 22 years later in 1998, when Florida voters sent Graham back to the U.S. Senate for the third and final time. Score four for Graham.

At age 62 in November, Graham, the respected intelligence expert, will be the grizzled and Washington-tested counter balance to the fresh and youthful 47-year-old Obama. Score five for Graham, and one big one for the United States of America.

Top that!

Poor Dubya. He’s running out of time to play on our fears and further his “compassionate conservative” agenda. But, he’s trying desperately to leave no fear unturned before next January. If he’s not careful, he’ll have Poppy Bush in tears again, and soon.

The 43rd president of the United States was in Israel this week to address the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, representing you, me and all Americans in wishing our ally well as it marked its 60th anniversary. Thousands of miles from Washington to applaud an ally that has thrived in a neighborhood bent on its destruction, he just couldn’t help himself. Rather than respectful prose for a people who have triumphed over genocide from the sands of antiquity to the ghettos, crematoriums and torture chambers of Europe, George Bush relived the memory of Europe 1938 and the Munich Pact, an agreement triggering the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia and the beginning of what would ultimately take the lives of six million Jews. Our president, the former college cheerleader, cheered not for the Jews in his midst. Their shared pain was of no consequence to the man who at the time of his 2000 coronation had traveled to fewer places and gained less world experience than any presidential candidate in modern American history. No, King George cheered once again for his sure thing --- fear.

What he said: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.''

What he meant: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Barack Obama will sit down with the world’s dictators and terrorists. Obama will try to reason with the unreasonable. He’ll be played the fool, and we’ll suffer for it. No longer will our war on terror be limited to faraway places. This war will now be fought on the streets of US cities.

Can January 20, 2009 come fast enough? The idea that talking to your enemies is somehow a waste of time is out of the same Bushie “you’re either with us or against us” playbook. Obscure the facts by arousing a country’s fears and it will follow blindly --- like maybe into a war against a country that has neither the capability nor the desire to “bring 'em on.” But Dubya has never cared much about fact, or truth, for that matter. Let’s use Israel as an example. For centuries, Jewish and Arab lives have been sacrificed in a fight over land. Israeli and Arab blood the consequence as warfare grew more technologically advanced. In spite of the bloodshed, and due in large part to recognition of it, the warring parties turned to diplomatic efforts (keyword: talks). Israel, Egypt and Jordan now share peaceful borders, while the Israelis and Syrians reportedly discuss the future of the Golan Heights. Talking doesn’t work, huh?

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did more than talk to Hitler in 1938. To avert war, Chamberlain “appeased” the Nazis desire to occupy the Sudetenland, an area of Czechoslovakia where ethnic Germans formed a majority of the population. Chamberlain gave away land. History shows us that what Chamberlain believed was an agreement to trade land for peace, was actually the green light Hitler needed to occupy all of Czechoslovakia and soon thereafter roll into Poland and the beginning of World War II.

When has Barack Obama said he would look the other way while Hamas or Iran rolled into Israel? Obama has shown a willingness to speak with our enemies in hopes of finding common ground, regardless of how minimal, and move from saber rattling to constructive dialogue. If I recall a Republican president named Nixon took the same approach with both Mao and Brezhnev, and was hailed for initiating the first thaw of the Cold War.

For Bush to take a solemn moment on the world stage to get down and dirty is par for the course. We’ve grown accustomed to his offensive misuse of office to further the crash and burn politics of the GOP. Remember that Bush Cheney ’04 campaign video of deceased Americans being carried from the rubble of the Word Trade Center?

But for John McCain to float the idea that Hamas is pulling for Obama to win the general election because Obama is somehow soft on terrorism is a lie, and hypocritical. Two years ago after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, it was McCain who said in an interview with James Rubin for British television that: “They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy.” To be clear, Obama has said emphatically that he would not engage Hamas in any dialogue until it changed its policy toward terrorism and Israel.

Two years ago Poppy Bush broke down in tears when addressing the Florida legislature, sharing his take on his son Jeb's leadership abilities. "A true measure of a man is how you handle victory and how you handle defeat...," Bush sobbed. Jeb Bush lost the race for Florida governor in 1994, before winning the first of his two terms in 1998.

But through his tears, you have to wonder if Poppy was crying for the way his other son handled victory, manipulating our fears to fight a war of choice that's killed more than 4,000 US troops, cost US taxpayers $500 billion and counting, driven our economy to near recession, and severely damaged America's reputation abroad.

Fear did not come cheap. We bought it in 2004. Will be buy it again in 2008?