The Curse of the Mid-Terms...

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark' - Marcellus to Horatio, Hamlet - Act I

To borrow a Shakespearian political analogy, all is not well within the political hierarchy of the Democratic Party. As feared by many of us within the progressive movement, and in keeping with the decades old trend in off presidential year elections, the party that doesn't currently hold the White House has been swept back to power in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two years after President Obama was handed the biggest crock of economic you know what on a plate by W, and despite trojan work by the White House and the Democratic majority to haul the American economy back from the edge of the proverbial cliff, the speed of recovery, or lack thereof, has proved crucial in deciding who will control at least half of the Congress for the next two years.

As I write, the Republicans stand to gain somwhere in the region of 65 house seats in the 435 member assembly, taking their number to approximately 243 in advance of the official swearing in ceremony for the 112th Congress in the first week of January 2011. To give these results some historical context, neither party has experienced such a significant swing against it since the elections of 1946; surpassing even the 54 seat swing in membership from the Democrats to the Republicans in 1994 - Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America' you might recall.

Perhaps this is an obvious statement but these results are not good news for President Obama and don't augur well for him in terms of advancing his agenda of change during the remaining two years of his term as President. After two years of obstructionist politics and being the party of 'No', we will now finally see if the Repiblicans have either the ability or the guts to co-govern. The so-called Tea Party patriots, a couple of whom were elected during this election cycle (more anon) and whose mantra is to oppose everything that the federal government represents, will now have to decide whether they will stand by their so-called principals or actually display some bipartisanship in government. It was easy for them to stand on the sidelines and oppose everything that the Democrats have done to fix the horrific mess that was created by eight years of disastrous Republican rule when you know that voter resentment is on your side and you don't have any practical and workable solutions of your own to present. If you think that the political gridlock in Washington D.C. during the past two years was bad, brace yourself for Congress to potentially come to a standstill once John Boehner becomes the Majority Leader in January.

Riding on the coattails of President Obama's landslide victory in 2008, Democrats increased their majorities to record numbers in both the House and Senate that year. On the first day of Obama's presidency, Democrats had a 77 seat majority in the House and an 18 seat majority in the Senate (if you include the 2 Independent senators who traditionally have caucused with the Democrats). Notwithstanding these majorities, the Democrats passed 240 legislative bills in the House which ultimately died on the floor of the Senate because of almost absolute Republican opposition and because the Democrats didn't have a 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the 100 seat Senate. How is that for bipartisanship for you? Now, the same Republican leadership who didn't lift a finger to aid the Democrats to try and right the ship of state in a time of unprecedented economic and social upheavel in the country, are now the same folks who are saying that because the voters have given them back the majority, they (the GOP) will do the right thing by the American people. I remain unconvinced.

As you might expect, many Republican leaders have pointed to the popularity (or perceived popularity) of the Tea Party, for many of the gains they made in this year's mid-terms. When you analyze the numbers, the candidates and the winners and losers, the reality is actually somewhat different. I completely agree that the anger at government that was fermented and crystalized by the Tea Party movement helped greatly to energize the Republican base in a year when no matter what Democrats did, they were in for a hiding. The actual number of true Tea Party candidates however, (who ultimately ran as Republicans) that were elected this year, can be counted on two hands. Notable examples include Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, both of whom will be going to the Senate. On the other hand, in some cases Tea Party candidates who actually defeated establishment GOP candidates in their respective Republican primaries earlier this year ended up weakening the chances the Republicans might have had in that state to win back a seat from the Democrats. Examples include Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada.

If there is any good news to come out of these elections it is that the Democrats still retain control of the United States Senate (albeit with a smaller majority) and President Obama's popularity remains pretty consistent, in the mid to high 50%'s. The conventional wisdom among the political cognoscenti is that President Obama remains reasonably popular going into the second half of his (hopefully) first term. The message that was delivered, loud and clear, at the polls this November is that both parties in Congress must stop the bickering, end the gridlock within Washington and get on with doing the business of the American people. We shall see.

Oh, and by the way. Twenty eight years after he last served as Governor, Jerry Brown easily defeated former eBay CEO Meg Whitman to once again become Governor of California at the ripe old age of 72. Current San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was elected to be Lieutenant Governor - with an eye no doubt to succeeding Brown in due course. Proposition 19 - the initiative to legalize marijuana in California, lost by a vote of 54% - 46%, going down by a half million votes, out of a total of 7.4M cast.

P.S. The San Francisco Giants won their first baseball World Series this month since the club relocated to California from New York in 1957. The city is alive - Go Giants!!

Religiosity

'I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice" - President John F. Kennedy, speaking on the issue of religion at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12th 1960.

It is perhaps fitting that as I write I am on an airplane, headed to the airport named after America's 35th president, and to a city that is once again embroiled in religious controversy. The problem is that it is a phony controversy. The latest brouhaha surrounds a plan to build a Muslim community center in the heart of New York City, a few blocks from that hallowed acreage known as Ground Zero, the site of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks and location of the soon to be unveiled memorial to the victims of that awful tragedy.

The right wing media noise machine, the religious nut jobs and surprise, surprise the leadership of the Republican Party are up in arms over plans to build the Muslim community center, a development that is perfectly legal and has received the backing of the mayor of New York and the President of the United States. The religious zealots who are trying everything in their power to stop this proposal from going ahead are using the argument that it is somehow un-American to allow free people to gather in a spirit of community and practice their faith without fear of reprisal. Their logic of course is because the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam by less than two dozen extremists, the entire Muslim race should not only be discrimminated against, but if these people had their way, persecuted as well.

It is pretty nauseating to listen to the Republicans in particular as they deliver their regular diatribe of hate mongering and racial insensitivity. This is the party of Lincoln, a man whose presidency, and the history of the United States, was defined by his promise to deliver emancipation for black Americans. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a civil war that was fought so that every citizen could be free from racial discrimination and be guaranteed equal rights under the law.

Once again, religion is being used as a weapon of hatred and racism. It's sickening to watch this same old movie play out one more time. Will we, as mortal human beings, ever learn from the lessons of history? As it relates to this issue, it doesn't appear so.

Juan Trippe* Too Many For Aer Lingus

'You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer" - Frank Zappa (1940-1993), composer, guitarist, record producer, film director and founder of 'The Mothers of Invention'

The inter-war years of 1918-1939 have long been referred to as the 'golden age' in aviation history. Ten years after Louis Bleriot flew the English Channel from Calais to Dover in 1909, Captain John Alcock and Lieutenant Arthur Brown landed safely in Clifden, becoming the first pilots to successfully fly across the Atlantic. Steady improvements in manufacturing know how, technology and instrumentation contributed in no small part to these early successes, so much so that in 1927 Charles Lindbergh became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic, marking the end of an extraordinary first quarter century of aviation pioneering. These momentous milestones in the early history of the airplane brought to an end once and for all the glorious era of the airship. The last of the great zeppelins was disassembled in 1940; a timeline hastened no doubt by the tragic Hindenburg airship disaster of 1937.

At around the same time that Howard Hughes was setting, and resetting multiple air speed records and Adolf Hitler was building the German Luftwaffe into the awesome aerial force that would inflict blitzkrieg on Western Europe, Aer Lingus Teoranta was officially registered as an arline. The date was May 22nd 1936. The airline's first commercial flight five days later, from Dublin to Bristol, was somewhat overshadowed however by the news of the maiden voyage of the luxury liner, 'The Queen Mary', an event that stole the newspaper as well as the newsreel headlines. That being said, at a time when the economic war between the Free State and Britain was having a devastating effect on the young republic, the establishment of a national airline that saw the start of fresh trading, tourism and cultural ties with our neighbor across the Irish Sea was a positive step forward. The air battle for the skies over Britain and the war in Europe stymied the growth of the young airline as regional British airports became inaccessible for commercial flights. At the same time German armies were overrunning the continent before finally giving way to the incessant Allied bombing campaign that pulverized Europe's air infrastructure.

While American aid in the form of the Marshall Plan was helping to rebuild Europe after the war, Aer Lingus began to expand its service to a wider network of British airports as well as planting its first aeronautical routes in some of Europe's oldest capitals. For the first time the Irish diaspora, many of whom had emigrated in the 1930's and immediately after the war and who were located in England in particular, had the ability to fly home at Christmas time or return for the funeral of a loved one. The airline however had its eye on the potential market that existed within the estimated 40 million (at that time) ethnic Irish who lived on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in the United States. Aer Lingus planned to launch a transatlantic route as early as 1947 but a confluence of economic and political circumstances delayed the plan for another decade. It would be 1958 before the first transatlantic Aer Lingus flights to New York's 'Idlewild' airport (later renamed in memory of the assassinated president) would take off from Shannon. Service to America would remain unbroken for 52 years until news came down from the company's management in June that the airline would discontinue service from Shannon to New York and Boston for a 'trial period' from January 5th to March 27th 2011. But more about that later...

James Joyce once referred to the Atlantic Ocean as the 'bowl of bitter tears'. By the time Aer Lingus finally launched its transatlantic service in 1958 the Irish diaspora in America had swelled still further. Chronic emigration during the 1950's brought on by a decade of economic stagnation only made the story of the Irish in America that much more heartbreaking. For the vast majority who left their homeland they knew it was possibly was the last time they would see their family and friends again. News from home came in the form of a hand written letter or a card on a birthday, St. Patrick's Day and at Christmas. The Irish worked hard and saved their money, often sending cash home to help bring a beloved brother, sister, nephew or niece to the great cauldron of opportunity that was America. The launch of the transatlantic route gave the Irish in America the possibility for the first time to travel home on holidays. The reality however was that for the vast majority of the diaspora it was literally only a once in a lifetime opportunity and that was due to one thing, cost. In 1958, an economy class ticket from New York to Shannon was the equivalent of $1883 in today's money - many times the annual salary of a 'JFK carpenter'. Still, the door had been opened and over the course of the next two generations, millions of Irish in America saw the land of their birth again or the home of their forefathers for the first time.

My first trip to the U.S. was sometime around 1998. By that time Aer Lingus had expanded its North American network to the point here cities like Newark, Chicago and Los Angeles had been added. In later years, and after much lobbying from the Irish in the Bay Area, twice weekly direct flights commenced from San Francisco. That route would sadly last less than two years. In the late 1990's and again in the early 2000's I must have flown from Shannon to London Heathrow with Aer Lingus about 200 times. There was a time when I could sketch the layout of Heathrow terminals 1 and 2 on the back of an envelope. Then unbelievably, inexplicably, Aer Lingus abandoned the Heathrow slots they had had for decades. Only after a massive public outcry, intensive lobbying by politicians across the country and a renegotiation of terms with the unions and staff was the route reinstated in March 2009.

For years I have often times gone out of my way, both in terms of flight schedules and financial cost, to give my business to Aer Lingus when traveling back to Ireland. I always felt I was a little closer to home every time I boarded the green airplane with the shamrock on it, whether I was in New York, Boston, Chicago, L.A. or San Francisco. I completely understand that Aer Lingus is a business and as such has to operate profitably to sustain itself through the current tough economic climate and to be ready to expand again in the future when things turn around. On the other hand I am only one of many who believe that Aer Lingus has been hugely inefficient for many years and that the airline is top heavy with staff. I would also agree that a very strong argument can be made that this state of affairs exists largely because Aer Lingus was essentially a government run organization for generations, bringing with it all the classic symptoms of bureaucracy, inefficiency and a culture of entitlement. Organizations need to be lean and nimble to survive in a turbulent 21st global economy. Suspending services from Shannon to Boston and JFK for 3 months (including St. Patrick's Day) in 2011 is not the way to do it.

*Juan Trippe (1899-1981) was an American airline entrepreneur and the founder of Pan American Airways. An airline visionary, he was almost as equally famous for his long running battle for control of the skies with his arch nemesis, Howard Hughes.

Counselor - A Life at the edge of history

On May 17th last I was privileged to be part of a small group of approximately 150 people to attend a fascinating, and sometimes moving, "fireside chat" type conversation between Ted Sorensen, the former legal counsel, policy adviser and chief speech writer for Senator (1952-1960) and latterly President Kennedy (1961-1963), and Pulitzer Prize winning historian Professor David Kennedy of Stanford University, California. The event was hosted by the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.

At 82 years old Sorensen is almost blind, one of the after effects of a severe stroke he suffered in 2001. That being said he is a wonderfully articulate and vocally impressive man. His delivery style is that of a man who has been writing all his life and he possesses an extraordinary command of historical facts and personal memories. One of the questions posed by Professor Kennedy was to describe the relationship he (Sorensen) had with President Kennedy as it related to speech writing. Sorensen described this relationship as "collaborative" where he would create a first draft for JFK's review, Kennedy would edit and make small changes or request deletions, Sorensen would re-draft and they would continue in this vein until the final text was agreed.

Remember, he is the man who drafted every major speech given by JFK from 1952 to 1963 including the famous "Ask not what your country can do for you..." inaugural address, the American University speech of June 10th 1963, Kennedy's civil rights 'moral issue' speech to the nation the very next day and his brilliant address to Dail Eireann (the Irish parliament) on June 28th 1963, among many, many others.

It was fascinating to hear this man's firsthand accounts of his experiences in the White House, at the side of the President, while tumultuous events like the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crisis, the civil rights demonstrations and the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded around them.

At the book signing afterwards, I shook his hand. He told me that the speech he wrote that JFK delivered to Dail Eireann on June 28th 1963 was one of his favorites. He then proceeded to sign my book and for good measure recited, verbatim, off the top of his head, a verse from "The Foggy Dew".

The political implosion of the GOP

"The hardest job for a politician today is to have the courage to be a moderate. It's easy to take an extreme position" - Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-1978), U.S. Senator from Minnesota 1949-1965 and 1971-1978 and 38th Vice President 1965-1969.

The recent senatorial primary results from three key states have given us a taste of what is to come this fall. A couple of weeks after an unprecedented outcome in Utah, where a sitting, two term Republican senator was defeated in his party's state primary for the upcoming November election, nervous candidates in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Arkansas watched closely to see if they were next to incur the wrath of a deeply frustrated electorate. The results from those races show that Democrats need to be concerned for the future of a hefty number of elected members come November; however the really big story here is that the Republican Party is eating itself alive - more anon.

The history of politics in the United States shows that in off year elections (i.e. when there is no presidential election) the party that currently holds the White House suffers some, and often significant losses in the congressional and senatorial races that are commonly referred to as the 'mid-term' elections. Congressmen (a generic term that refers to male and female representatives) are up for election every two years, are elected to the House of Representatives and are 438 in number. The United States Senate on the other hand contains 100 members who are elected to six year terms. Depending on timing, there may be anything from twenty to forty senatorial seats up for grabs in off year elections.

There is one thing we know for sure. There is huge anti-incumbent sentiment among the electorate right now. It is highly likely that this will reflect itself in Democrats losing some congressional and senatorial seats in November. As I mentioned earlier, this is par for the course in American politics. However, we are beginning to see a trend emerge from the primaries that have taken place thus far and it is not one that augurs well for Republicans. Here is a quick summary.

First, there is the Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist. Charlie is a moderate, which means that he holds some views that appeal to Democratic voters. He sided with President Obama in 2009 by voicing his support in favor of the president $875B stimulus package, which brought down on him the ire of the Republican establishment and the Tea Party nut jobs. With his governorship due to end this year, Crist is running for the Senate. Until a month ago he was running as a Republican. That was until the GOP establishment came out in support of Crist's opponent, the far more conservative Tea Party candidate, Marco Rubio, resulting in Crist breaking with the Republican Party and changing his affiliation to Independent. And yes, he is still running for the Senate.

A number of weeks ago, incumbent GOP senator Bob Bennett of Utah, a man with a record of voting conservative 86% of the time, was unceremoniously dumped from the November state ballot by losing his party's primary election. The reason? He wasn't conservative enough. In Kentucky, an eye surgeon named Rand Paul, the unelected son of longtime Republican congressman, former Liberterian Party candidate for President and darling of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul, defeated the establishment Republican candidate in that state's GOP senatorial primary this month.

You see the pattern emerging here? Existing, well established and respected GOP incumbents, many of whom lean to the far right politically, are being tossed out on their backsides because they are deemed to be not conservative enough by the Tea Party mob who are vying to take control of the Republican Party. There is a bitter, ideological war going on within the GOP that has the potential to tear it apart.

Anti-incumbent feeling isn't confined to Republicans. Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania (yes, the same Arlen Spector of the Warren Commission who authored the infamous 'magic bullet theory' to explain how one bullet inflicted seven separate wounds on President Kennedy and Governor Connolly in Dallas 47 years ago) has lost his state's Democratic primary election for a possible 6th term. Why is this important and why was he defeated? There are two plausible reasons; a) even though Spector was a senator for 30 years he was the victim of the anti-incumbent tsunami that we can see building across the country, or b) which in my opinion is the more likely, Spector, for 29 of his 30 years in the senate was a Republican! He switched parties in 2009 to become a Democrat, openly acknowledging that if he remained a Republican this year he would likely have a very difficult primary challenge. Guess what, he changed parties and still lost. Here was a guy who voted for the Iraq War, voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans and in the end I think Pennsylvania Democrats just couldn't get the image of Arlen Spector the Republican out of their minds. He lost to a retired three star admiral and two term congressman named Joe Sestak.

Finally, let me say this about the so called Tea Party tidal wave. At a post election rally, Rand Paul said that he wants to be part of a revolution to "take the country back". Really? Back where exactly? Back to 30 years of Reagan/Bush economics and a doctrine of complete deregulation of the banks and the financial markets? Back to an era of tax cuts for only the top 1% of earners? Back to a policy of pre-emptive war and unilateralism? How far back does he, and the so called Tea Party movement, want to take us - 1776? Give me a break.....

Take the Money and Run (The Steve Miller Band, 1976)

"Money, and not morality, is the principal of commercial nations" - Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd President of the United States (}1801 -1809)

So here we go again. Get ready for round two. A month after the historic passage of the most groundbreaking and morally responsible legislation in half a century, health care reform, President Obama is once again circling the wagons to take on another special interest behemoth. This time it is the banks and financial institutions, the cognoscenti that play with the nation's money by day and drink martinis after five, the aristocracy of corporate America, the fat cats of Wall Street and their enablers and supporters on K Street (home of corporate lobbyists in Washington D.C.)

Buoyed by their achievement in passing significant health care reform, a bill that will provide medical insurance to an additional 32 million Americans, the Democratic majority in Congress is posied to pass the toughest financial regulatory reform since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's. Back then FDR didn't a lawyer or a banker to design and implement the changes needed to eliminate the corrupt practices that had brought on the stock market crash of 1929. Instead, he tapped Joseph P. Kennedy (yes, that Joe Kennedy) to be the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In the words of one Washington columnist...'the best way to catch the pirates, Roosevelt figured, was to hire another pirate', and he got Captain Kidd himself when he chose Kennedy. Unfortunately President Obama doesn't have a Kennedyesque candidate over at the SEC to take the lead in beating the Wall Street chairmen into submission. In addition to his own significant fortitude and determination however, Obama has an experienced and wily Vice President, a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and perhaps most importantly, the majority of the American people on his side as he steps into the ring with another special interest heavyweight.

Perhaps not surprisingly, standing alongside the banks in complete opposition to any kind of reform on the financial sector, is the Republican Party. It seems inconceivable to me that after taking the side of the insurance companies over the concerns of the American people in the recent health care debate (not one member of the Republican Party, in either the House or the Senate, voted in favor of the health care legislation), the GOP thinks it is good politics to get into bed with the very institutions that have angered and outraged the American people perhaps more than any other.

The Republican Party has succumbed to the will of it's most hard right, conservative members (as well as the anti government fervor being generated by the so called Tea Party movement) and is taking an absolutely huge gamble leading up to November's mid term elections. It is that the American people will be more angry at the current administration for not turning around the economy as quickly as they think they should have (and vote Democrats out of office) than understanding that the economic mess that Obama inherited was the worse since the Great Depression. The gamble also assumes that the American people won't give any credit to Democrats for passing significant health care legislation (and probably financial regulatory reform, thereby handcuffing to some degree the very institutions that caused the financial meltdown) as well as steadying the economic ship of state. It's an argument I don't buy and I believe it is a gamble that they will ultimately lose.

Here is the history. Thanks in large part to the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt, America's banks, and by default the U.S. economy, prospered in the thirty five years after World War II. Then along comes Ronald Reagan, propagandist in chief for the concept of small government and less federal regulation of private enterprise (including financial markets and banking practices). For all his qualities or leadership and communication skills, one should also remember that Reagan has been publicly speaking out against so called "socialized medicine" since 1961. A direct result of Reagan economics (i.e. deregulation) was the famous "Savings and Loans" crisis of 1980's and 1990's, during which 747 separate financials institutions in the United States failed. The cost of that crisis, twenty years ago, was approximately $160B, the vast majority of which was paid for by way of a financial bailout during the presidency of none other than George H.W. Bush.

So, here we are in 2010 and Republican's are not only up in arms because the Obama adminsitration had to bail out the nations's banks in the same way W's father had to two decades ago, but perhaps more appallingly, they are now standing side by side with the very banks that precipitated the current financial crisis, a crisis caused by the predatory and corrupt practices that came into existence as a direct result of the Reagan policy of deregulation in the 1980's.

The hypocrisy of these people is stomach churning. Remember, the mess that was created here in the United States is one that has been replicated in dozens of countries across the world, where predatory, unethical and often illegal banking practices have wreaked havoc on economies and people's lives. There is one common theme however, in every case the tax payer has to pick up the tab.

We may not have a 21st century Joseph P. Kennedy to whip these leeches into submission but my money is on President Obama to take the fight to Wall Street and pass the most significant financial regulatory reform since the New Deal.

Israel and the Queen of the Pantsuits

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the state of Israel on trial" - Ariel Sharon - (b.1928), the 11th prime minister of Israel (2001-2006) and often referred to as "The Butcher of Beirut"

On a number of occasions over the past seven plus years of this column I have addressed and issue that has been with us now for a couple of generations and that is the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. More specifically I have discussed the plight of the Palestinians and their struggle for not only international recognition as a people but also the birth of their own nation. I don't think that is unreasonable to say that Irish people, to a large degree, feel a natural affinity to the cause of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, having ourselves fought for hundreds of years to establish our own independence. In the modern era one cannot talk about the Arab-Israeli situation without also discussing the role of America as Israel's benefactor in the Middle East and the power of the pro Israel lobby in the United States.

Since the country came into existence in 1948, the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has revolved around its relationship with Israel. For sixty years American support for Israel has been unwavering, whether that support be measured in financial, diplomatic or material terms. It is hard to comprehend why the most powerful nation in the world would choose to sometimes jeopardize its own security (by inflaming the Arab world) and put serious strain on long time international relationships by obstinately sticking by Israel through thick and thin, human rights violation after human rights violation. Since World War II, successive U.S. presidents (with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, who was a notorious anti-Semite), have pandered to the will of the pro Israel lobby. Time and again the international community has witnessed the brutality of Israel's continued aggression towards its regional neighbours, with little or no reprimand from Washington. Personally speaking, it is a state of affairs that has frustrated me greatly for a long time.

U.S. timidity towards Israeli belligerence may well be at an end however, at least for the duration of Barack Obama's presidency. In March, on the day Vice President Joe Biden arrived in the country, the Israeli interior ministry announced a housing expansion in a Jewish community in North Jerusalem, a very touchy subject with Washington, not to mention the Palestinians, who regard Jerusalem as their historical and spiritual capital. Biden, while in the country, condemned the action. A couple of days later, after discussing with President Obama specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton read Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu the riot act during a well publicized 45 minute telephone conversation, calling the earlier action on housing an "insulting" to America and its efforts to broker an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Clinton says that she expects Israel to take real and concrete steps towards advancing the peace process.

Finally. Its about time the United States stopped pampering Israel. Kudos to Hillary Clinton for calling them out over another blatant act of intimidation and belligerence. Maybe the U.S. is waking up to what the rest of the world has known for decades, but I doubt it.

Tea baggers (aka racists) of the world unite

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd" - Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher, mathematician and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature (1950)

In late 2009 the word "teabagger" officially entered the lexicon when it was short listed by the Oxford American Dictionary for their "Word of the Year" competition. The rise of the so called Tea Party movement in the last couple of years has created a fascinating, and yes, frightening, new dynamic in the American body politic, one which may well cause serious difficulties for both Republican and Democratic candidate's in November's mid term elections. While the movement publicizes that its charter is to protest government tax and spending policies and reduce what its members see as the rise of federal influence in their daily lives, the truth is that the Tea Party has evolved into a right wing, ultra conservative, overtly racist organization. More of that anon.

The genesis of the current Tea Party movement was born out of the Liberterian Party, a political party formed in 1971 and headquartered in Washington D.C. Its political platform advocates strong civil liberties, less government regulation and involvement in the daily lives of citizens, fiscal responsibility and a non interventionist foreign policy. Current Republican congressman Ron Paul ran as a Liberterian Party candidate for President in 1988, and while he remains in the GOP tent, he is seen by many as one of the more moderate, saner voices in the Republican Party.

The problem for Republicans is that the Tea Party movement has unashamedly morphed into an organization of racists. Their common enemy is President Obama. They are apoplectic that their comfortable white supremacist existence has been turned upside down by the election of an intelligent, charismatic black man. Some of their racism is subtle, more of it is blatant and in your face. The subtle racism is reflected in a strong anti immigration stance and their opposition to health care reform and affirmative action. Their public displays of racism have been at their rallies where the most vicious signs, banners and pictures of President Obama have been visible to the entire world. What's worse is that many prominent Republican politicians, including the Minority Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Whip, have made speeches at these rallies, openly identifying themselves with these right wing nut jobs. They continue to call Obama a socialist. This of course is just a euphemism for you know what. But guess what?

The Tea Party movement is causing a big problem for the Republican Party. Republican National Committe chairman Michael Steele is openly courting the Tea Party leadership in an effort to merge the parties because he knows that they have the potential to take seats away from the GOP in this year's congressional elections. The Tea Party has moved so far to the right on the political spectrum that even semi conservative Republicans like John McCain are no longer considered conservative enough and are in the fight of their lives to hold their seats this November. To cite one example, in Arizona, former Republican congressman and current darling of the Tea Party movement, J.D. Hayworth, has announced that he will run against McCain in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate this summer, handing McCain arguably his toughest re-election battle yet.

A week after half term governor and blogger Sarah Palin made a speech at the inaugural Tea Party convention in Nashville, the founder of www.teaparty.org lashed out publicly at Palin's suggestion that the Tea Party movement be absorbed into the GOP - "She represents a growing insider's attack to the heart of the Tea Party. Very much like a wolf in sheep's clothing entering in at the gate as an ally, but for all intents and purposes there to seize and capture, not only one or two stray sheep, but the whole flock". Wow! Perhaps these people are now seeing Palin for exactly what she is; an intellectual midget, a slick opportunist and a fraud with no vision and even less humility.

According to the Teas Party manifesto, here are their "non-negotiable" core beliefs:

• Illegal aliens are illegal
• Pro-domestic employment is indespensible
• Stronger military is essential
• Special interests eliminated
• Gun ownership is sacred
• Goverment must be downsized
• National budget must be balanced
• Deficit spending will end
• Bail out and stimulus plans are illegal
• Reduce personal income taxes a must
• Reduce business income taxes is mandatory
• Political offices available to average citizens
• Intrusive government stopped
• English only is required
• Traditional family values are encouraged
• Common sense constitutional conservative self-governance is our mode of operation

.....and yes, we are a Christian nation.

Christian nation? This is just another way of saying that they believe in white power. It's not very subtle. A journalist recently commented that the Tea Party is "just a rebranding of the John Birch Society, its KKK Light". I couldn't agree more. Stay tuned. These people are dangerous, they incite hatred and they are crazy. They mean to do damage and it isn't going to be pretty.

GUBU, Massachusetts and the end of an era

"All politics is local" - Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill (1912-1994), Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts (1953-1987) and former Speaker of the House of Representatives (1977-1987)

As I write I am very, very frustrated. The final results are just in from the special election being held today (January 19th) to fill the United States Senate seat left vacant after the death of Edward M. Kennedy last August. In a result nobody would have predicted in the immediate aftermath of Teddy's death, or even as recently as New Year's Day, a relatively unknown Republican state senator named Scott Brown has defeated the Massachusetts Attorney General, Democrat Martha Coakley for the open seat. To put this in some kind of historical context, the last Republican to be elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts was Edward W. Brooke in 1972, and he was a black man, in the fact the first black man to be elected to the Senate, nationwide, since Reconstruction in the 1860's. In fact, technically, he was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate for Massachusetts since 1966, because he holds the same record, 1966 and 1972, if you catch my meaning.

It is hard to find words words to adequately describe the enormity of this result and the potential political impact it may have. Mirroring a similarly far fetched political snafu from Ireland in the early 1980's, I am reminded of those timeless words, "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre, unprecedented", uttered by then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey (and later eased into the lexicon by journalist Conor Cruise O'Brien as "GUBU", as CJ tried to explain how it could happen that a double murderer was apprehended in the house of the former Attorney General, Patrick Connolly. These examples are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of criminality but in terms of shock factor and utter bizarreness, to my mind, not so much.

We will get to the reasons how and why Coakley managed to lose this seemingly unloseable seat a little later, but the most obvious immediate impact of this result is that Brown now becomes the 41st Republican in the United States Senate, which means Democracts no longer have a (required) 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the 100 seat chamber. Legitimate questions are being asked about what this means for the future of the health care reform bill, a piece of legislation that the Democrats, not to mention the President, have invested so much political capital in during the first year of Obama's first term.

All I know is that Ted Kennedy must be rolling over in his grave, and his brother Jack, and his other brother Bobby. Modern day Kennedy politicans Patrick J. Kennedy (Ted's son) and Joseph P. Kennedy II (Bobby's son), veterans of political campaigns themselves, must be wondering what went wrong, so quickly, that a seat that was quite probably the safest Democratic seat in the country could have been lost so badly. Counting their various careers, these men include 3 congressmen, 3 senators, a president and an attorney general. They understood that in an election cycle you campaign constantly, shake every possible hand, work all hours, pound the pavements and never, ever take votes for granted. These are the reasons Martha Coakley lost an election she never should have lost.

The cards were not only stacked in her favor, she started out the race last fall with the political equivalent of three kings, whereas her opponent had a lowly, insignificant pair of seven's. Coakley was running to replace the legendary Ted Kennedy in the Senate - the nostalgia associated with this fact alone should have given her a shoo-in. Secondly, she was a reasonably popular Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, in terms of both voter turnout and the make-up of the state and congressional delegations. Thirdly, she has already won statewide office when she became the Attorney General of Massachusetts in January 2007, so she was a known quantity. Yet she blew it. Two weeks before Christmas Coakley led Brown by 20 points in the polls. Then she decided to literally go on vacation to the Caribbean for a week, apparently of the mind that he election to the Senate was merely a formality. It will probably be the costliest political blunder of her career. Even if you are far ahead in the polls, you don't go on vacation, even if for nothing else but appearances sake.

While Martha was lounging, Scott Brown was campaigning like a maniac across the state, capitalizing on the public's anger and frustration with official Washington, to remarkably draw even in the polls a week before the election. The problem for Coakley was that the momentum was now in Brown's favor and before she realized it, it was too late. Even a last minute day of campaigning by the President on January 17th couldn't save her. Coakley eventually lost by 5 percentage points, 52% to 47%. In the aftermath of the result, one long time cable news commentator surmised that notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Massachusetts were angry about a whole series of issues, if Martha Coakley had ran even a mediocre campaign and stayed focused on her message and record, she would have handliy beaten Brown. I agree.

For the first time since 1946 a Kennedy will not represent the state of Massachusetts in the United States Congress. The Democrats (and that includes the President) badly need to sharpen up their act, and quickly. The midterm elections loom on the horizon in November and the President has a broad body of legislation he wants to move through Congress this year. It remains to be seen what the impact of the loss of this safe Senate seat will have on Obama's agenda in 2010.

"Y2K, 'W' and the Great Depression - Part Deux"

"Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right" - Oprah Winfrey, American media mogul, actress and producer - born 1954.

February 12th 2000 was the official date when I first arrived in San Francisco in what would turn out to be the first of two full relocations from Ireland to the United States in the decade that would follow. I was lucky enough to have been able to spend much of my middle to late '20's travelling the world with my career, but the move to the United States at the dawning of the new century was the first time I was actually planning on living in a new country, absorbing and adapting to a new culture, and attempting to accomplish what hundreds of thousands of my fellow Irish men and women had done in the centuries past. Much of the boom in the technology and software sector in the late 1990's, the industry in which I worked at the time, revolved around the confusion surrounding Y2K. Would information systems, computer programs, and the technhnological infrastructure supporting corporations and businesses of every size, shape and industry vertical, and perhaps even governments, continue functioning after 01/01/2000. Y2K turned out to be a red herring and by February of 2000 it was largely forgotten.

My first project in the United States involved a travel schedule that went something like this: Sunday - fly San Francisco to Memphis, take a connecting flight from Memphis to Nashville and then either hire a car or book a driver and travel across the border from Tennessee to Kentucky to a place called Bowling Green. Friday afternoon around lunch time I would retrace my steps back across 3,000 miles of open country to San Francisco. This was the schedule for nine months. Bowling Green has been, (and is likely only ever to be), famous for two things: a) it is the home of the Corvette car museum and b) at one time it has the largest number of restaurants per head of population in America. You can understand now when I tell you that the folks I was working with on the project looked at me kind of funny for the first couple of weeks whenever I opened my mouth. The natives of Bowling Green were somehow able to get five syllables into word that was only supposed to have three. To them, this fast talking Irishman was quite literally from another time and place.

One memorable trip in one of those car rides from Nashville, Tennessee to Bowling Green, Kentucky stands out. It was March or April of 2000 and the presidential primaries were being waged across the country. John McCain had just defeated George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary by 17 points and Bush was on the ropes. (This was just before Karl Rove stepped in and began circulating flyers in South Carolina (in advance of their primary) saying that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate child, that he was in favor of homosexuality and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of John McCain, but I had respect for him back in 2000, and any Republican that was running against Bush, any Bush, had my support. The conversation in the car between the can driver and I got around to Bill Clinton. Clinton was at the time trying to rehabilitate his name in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal of 1998, while simultaneously seeing out his second term as President. Once I mentioned Clinton's name to the driver in the middle of Kentucky redneck country, he became incensed, telling me that he would gladly shoot that son of a bitch Clinton with his shotgun if he had an opportunity. I tried to draw him out on what his issues were with Clinton and perhaps not surprisingly they ranged from abortion to gun control to so-called "morals" in the White House. This experience was my first introduction to someone who classified themselves as an evangelical Christian, the kind of voter that George W. Bush courted extensively in the 2000 election with Al Gore. The rest, as we know, is history.

As we close out this year of 2009 it is also worth considering that we are also turning the last page on the first decade of the 21st century. There is no doubt that in the decade of the '00's, one man has dominated the political and economic landscape of the world. George W. Bush, as we now know, was the archangel Gabriel in disguise. A man that ran on a plank of "compassionate conservatism" in 2000 turned out to be the worst American president in the history of that office, somehow achieving a level of incompetence worse than that of his predecessors Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and his own daddy, George H.W. Bush. 'W' was an unqualified to be President as his "Skull and Bones", Nazi apologist, Savings and Loans defrauder, CIA hit man, and friend of the Bin Laden family, father was. The man 'W' stole the election from in 2000, Al Gore, went on to completely rehabilitate his career and racked up a Grammy, an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize in quick succession. Today, Gore is the pre-eminent worldwide authority on global warming and climate change, while 'W' has been ostracized to the back waters of Texas and obscurity.

Time magazine recently issued a special publication entitled "The '00's: Goodbye (At Last) to the Decade from Hell". Who could blame them for such a title after a decade that included such catastrophic and world changing events as 9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Hurricane Katrina, Guantamano Bay, torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the dismantling of the United States constitution and the plunder of the US economy by a combination of investment banks, mortgage houses, finance companies and the insurance industry. The legacy of the Bush/Cheney years will, unfortunately, be with us for a generation or more.

On a positive note, the outstanding event for me in 2009 was the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The election of America's first black president marked a seminal moment in the history of democracy in the United States. Here is a brave and visionary leader who is committed to making ground breaking legislative changes for the betterment of Americans. There is no doubt that Obama's task is huge and he may well have underestimated the extent to which corporate America owns a large slice of the United States congress, however, I believe strongly that this president will preside over significant reform (and improvement) in areas such as climate change, regulatory control of the marketplace, foreign policy, immigration and civil rights and universal health care. Let us wish President Obama well as he undertakes these awesome endeavors.

"Conservatism, New York’s 23rd and the lessons for the Republican Party in 2010"

"Over the past two decades American electoral politics has been transformed by the rise of a newly energized conservative movement. The result has been not only a radical shift in the program and politics of the Republican Party, but a decisive change in the nature of public discourse. Demagoguery is increasingly supplanting responsible dialogue, self-righteousness is replacing conscientiousness, and the victim is democracy" - John W. Dean III, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon 1970-1973

In 2006, George W. Bush was mid way through his second term as President and already looking like a lame duck chief executive. In November of that year, Bush, as the undisputed leader of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, suffered his first major defeat in his six years in office. The American people, disgusted by a combination of political corruption, unprecedented secrecy in government, the dismantling of the United States Constitution and not to mention the war in Iraq, swept the Democrats back into the majority in the United States congress. Two years later the Republicans were decimated at the polls, Democrats significantly increased their majority, and America elected its first black president. Along the way, the tone of the political discourse in the United States would drop to a new low. Republican candidates, bitter after losing the congressional majority they had held for 12 long years and staring likely defeat in the face in the 2008 presoidential election, decided to join forces with a combination of rabid right wing talk radio fanatics, cable TV show hosts, conservative authors and editorial writers, retired (and sometimes discredited) military commanders and lobbyists, political hacks and racists of every shape and size to attempt to once again hijack the national mood for change in America through fear, intimidation, orchestrated confrontation and outright lies.

When John Dean wrote his book "Conservatives without Conscience" in 2006 he accurately captured the radical shift that had taken place in the Republican Party over the period of the previosu 25 years and repercussions of what this meant, and still means today, to the American body politic. There was a time when the conservative movement and the Republican Party was essentially one and the same thing. The universally acknowledged founders of the modern conservative movement, people like William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, were lifelong, and passionate Republicans. Buckley founded "The National Review", the bastion of conservative writing and thinking now for over forty years; Goldwater was a long time senator from Arizona and former Republican candidate for President (he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in 1964). While both men's brand of conservatism was defined by their belief in small government, strong military defense, states' rights, fiscal responsibility and the deregulation of the economic marketplace, they were also viewed as men with a conscience, open to rational debate and whose motives and actions were not driven merely by pure ideology or prejudice. The Republican Party, and therefore the conservative movement, has become hijacked to a new ideology in the last 25 years. It began with Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the 1980's and was laid bare in all its viciousness and hypocrisy during the co presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush ran on a plank of "compassionate conservatism" against Al Gore in 2000, but clearly his definition conservatism was radically different from that of Buckley, Goldwater or even Richard Nixon.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the Republican Party has been engaged in a civil war. The more ideologically driven half of the party (those that believe for example that John McCain wasn't conservative enough to be its nominee in 2008) is represented by a motley crew of racists and morally and ideologically bankrupt individuals that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter to name but a few. The influence that these individuals have within the broader Republican movement is steadily increasing, so much so that the existing party leadership and infrastructure may become irreparably damaged as it looks ahead to the midterm elections of 2010. The recent events surrounding a congressional election this month in upstate New York provides a fascinating window into the political infighting that is currently going on within the Republican Party. In a part of the country where the Democrats have long been politically dominant, New York's 23rd district has been one of the few safe Republican seats going back over a hundred years. Earlier this summer the Republican Party in New York (and backed by the Republican National Committee and party leaders in the House and Senate) endorsed Ms. Deded Scozzafava as its nominee for the open congressional seat this November. In a district where Republicans have held the seat since 1871, the result seemed a formality. The problem for some national Republican figures however was that Ms. Scozzafava was not conservative enough in her leanings.

Enter Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is a carpet bagger (meaning he is running for a seat in a district that he has never lived in) who entered the race in September, proudly boasting his supposed conservative credentials and running as a "conservative" and not as a "republican". His star rose quickly when he was endorsed by none other than Sarah Palin. What half term governor and now part time blogger Palin knows about the issues of New York's 23rd district is not clear to me, however she delivered an enormous snub to the Republican establishment in New York by rejecting the party's chosen nominee and instead endorsing an unknown candidate, Hoffman, on the grounds that she, Ms. Scozzafava, the party nominee, wasn't conservative enough. In the weeks following the endorsement, a clutch of prominent Republicans from the four corners of the country have followed suit and endorsed Hoffman. The pressure on Scozzafava was such that on October 31st, 3 days before the election, she withdrew her candidacy. This issue this debacle has created for the Republican Party is that the constituents that had planned to vote for Ms. Scozzafava (viewed as a moderate Republican) may well now vote for the Democratic candidate, rather than the conservative Hoffman. Such an eventuality could swing the seat to the Democrats for the first time in multiple generations, an outcome made even more potentially likely when Scozzfava turned around and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, on November 1st! By the time you read this, the results will be in and we will know for sure. Be sure to do a Google on it.

This brand of red meat political conservatism that was played out in New York's 23rd district is a microcosm of the broader dilemma the Republican Party faces as it seeks to improve its image with the national electorate coming into a new election year. A recent country wide poll showed that only 20% of voters identify themselves as traditional Republicans. If the party is to increase this percentage and make gains in the 2010 midterm elections it knows it must broaden it's appeal to moderate Republicans (Republicans that abandoned the party in 2008), independents and even border line and conservative Democrats (like those Democrats who voted for Reagan in the 1980's). Should the party of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan continue to give way to the influence of Cheney, Palin and Limbaugh, and should President Obama's legislative changes begin to improve the lives of everyday Americans in 2010, it is not inconceivable that the GOP will shrink to be an almost exclusively white, Southern and ideologically bankrupt party.

The "Af-Pak" Decision

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” – Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Around 330 BC, in his attempt to reach “the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea”, the Greek king, Alexander the Great, drove his armies across the vast plains of Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia and conquered the lands that today roughly correspond to Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Genghis Khan would experience fifteen hundred years later, Alexander’s armies found the rugged terrain and brutal climatic conditions of the Af-Pak region to be extremely inhospitable and morale shattering; so much so that as the great warrior drove his men relentlessly forward towards the borders of India, he was eventually forced to turn back by the near mutiny of his soldiers. Over the centuries, waves of conquerors have descended on these ancient lands, positioning the region at the crossroads of the historic trade routes between the great cities of Rome and Athens in the West and India and China in the east.

Eight years after the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, President Obama is at a crossroads in determining the way forward for U.S. foreign policy in what is no longer being referred to as the war in Afghanistan, but rather the broader Af-Pak strategy. After vanquishing the Taliban back in October 2001, the general consensus is that the United States took its eye completely off the ball by focusing its international war on terror almost exclusively in Iraq. While the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq, Osama bin Laden found refuge in the arms of his Taliban kin, the same mujahideen he fought alongside in the 1980’s against the Soviets, and who now control the mountain landscape that borders the countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the ineffective rule of Bush puppet, President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban in Afghanistan have reinvented themselves and are now back to pre 9/11 strength. Karzai’s inability, or unwillingness, to tame the resurgence of the Taliban and to stamp out the widespread corruption that exists within his administration has led to a perceptible cooling in relations with the United States. Accusations of extensive fraud in Afghanistan’s recent elections have contributed to President Obama’s insistence on revaluating the entire United States mission in that country.

The sovereign nation of Pakistan was formed in 1947 after the northwestern part of what was then British India was carved off from the rest of India to become an autonomous state in its own right, the home to millions of Indian Muslims. Many military and political strategists believe that Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is where the United States should be placing most of its military, economic and diplomatic efforts in any new regional strategy to be announced by the President. Even though Pakistan was a U.S. ally during the CIA funded war of the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980’s, relations soured quickly thereafter when Pakistan refused to abandon its nuclear program, an issue that has now come front and central for the Obama administration. Former Pakistani president during the post 9/11 era of George Bush’s war on terror, Pervez Musharraf proved to be an ineffective and prickly ally, who like his counterpart Karzai in Afghanistan, was unable or unwilling to tame the rise of the Taliban within his own country. The fear now for the Obama administration, in addition to the resurgence of the Taliban, who are natural allies of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, is that Pakistan’s nuclear capability could fall into the hands of an insurgent force like the Taliban, the potential impact of which could be catastrophic.

Right now, the usual motley crew of foreign policy hawks are talking up America’s need to recommit itself to bringing stability to the region, taking the war on terror to its enemies and spreading so called democracy. This is the same mantra we heard in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan (in the 1980’s and in 2001) and Iraq, a mention just a few. The military, industrial, intelligence and political nexus that controls the Pentagon, CIA, Department of Defense, Wall Street and the Republican Party have controlled the foreign policy of the United States for half a century.

It is unreasonable to expect President Obama to be able to reverse this trend less than one year in to his first term. The President can however demonstrate leadership, vision, respect and responsibility by carefully re-evaluating U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and begin recalibrating its mission there. The President was recently awarded the Nobel Peace prize not just for what he has already achieved; both symbolically and through his actions, but also for the change towards peace he can engineer in the matter of U.S. foreign policy and the application of America’s military might. Let us wish him well as he takes on this awesome task.

The Soul of the Senate...

“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the works goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die” – Senator Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009 – concession speech in the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president in 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter.

On Saturday, November 23rd 1963, at the request of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara made four separate trips to Arlington Cemetery to survey the burial grounds for a suitable resting place for the dead president. After finding what he believed to be the most beautiful location in the cemetery, McNamara called Mrs. Kennedy and asked her to come to Arlington to make a final decision. At the foot of a hill, atop which stands Arlington House, a memorial to Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and overlooking the Potomac River, Mrs. Kennedy would light the eternal flame for the first time at the gravesite of her dead husband, a flame that has burned ever since. Forty six years later, Edward Moore Kennedy, the last remaining son of Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, would travel the same road, passing the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial along the way, before being laid to rest within a hundred feet of his assassinated brothers.

Joe and Rose Kennedy raised their children around the biblical concept of “to whom much is given, much will be required”. Despite the fact that one brother served as president and another as attorney general, Senator Ted Kennedy lived this principal in a way that neither of his brothers ever did, or indeed ever had the opportunity to. Kennedy’s half century of dedication to public service was driven by three key themes; his genuine empathy and consideration for the underprivileged, minorities and the elderly, what he felt was his duty to carry forward the fallen standard and social and economic policies of his slain brothers, and yes, in the aftermath of personal irresponsibility and tragedy at Chappaquiddick, his long road towards redemption by becoming a lightning rod for every just social cause, authoring some 2,500 legislative bills in the United States Senate, covering everything from health care and immigration, civil rights and education reform to promoting gender equity, protecting voting rights and being a lifelong advocate for the working man and woman.

Ted Kennedy was a natural politician in a way that his more famous brothers never were. His brother Jack, the president, was renowned for being cold and detached, a man who cloaked his emotions and even though he spent 14 years in the congress before becoming president, was never at home in the Senate and was not a legislator in the way his contemporary Lyndon Johnson was, not even close. Robert Kennedy, while notoriously shy and often brutally stubborn and harsh in his years as attorney general, was a man of perpetual motion and action, who found the slow process and grind of legislating a terrible chore after he entered the U.S. Senate in January 1965. Teddy was a different story altogether. Politically speaking he was more of a Fitzgerald than a Kennedy.

His maternal grandfather, John F. “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald (after whom the future president would be named), was the rambunctious, back-slapping, wheeling and dealing former U.S. congressman and later two time mayor of Boston. The tradition of grass roots, ward politics that was symptomatic of the rise of first and second generation Irish immigrants within the Democratic Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was woven into the DNA of Ted Kennedy. Teddy not only loved the U.S. Senate, he loved legislating. He understood, more than anyone, that bipartisanship was a lot more than just a word. Although he was the voice of American liberalism for over forty years and the political nemesis of two generations of conservative Republicans, Kennedy was never afraid to reach across the aisle, wooing Republicans to his cause time after time, convincing them of the morality of the cause at hand, compromising when he needed to, promising his support for future opposition bills, always delivering the votes required to get the legislation passed.

Kennedy loved his Irish heritage and was a lifelong friend of Ireland. As early as 1971 he publicly compared Britain’s military presence in Ireland to that of the U.S. presence in Vietnam. In the 1970’s he helped persuade then President Jimmy Carter to provide U.S. financial support to Northern Ireland in the event of a peace settlement. In 1994, he was the leader among a number of prominent Irish American politicians who convinced President Clinton to grant a US entry visa to Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. When the IRA subsequently abandoned its ceasefire a couple of years later, Kennedy publicly snubbed Adams, calling on him to once and for all cut his ties to the IRA, and declined to meet him during several consecutive St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washington. Behind the scenes however, over the period of twenty five years, he worked with several Irish Taoisigh and British prime ministers to broker a peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

As is often the case, with the passing of time comes wisdom and a perspective that only a history of life experience can bring. As he was being laid to rest at Arlington cemetery, the presiding priest read a letter that Kennedy wrote earlier this year to Pope Benedict XVI. Reflecting on a life of public service and still haunted by the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, Kennedy, like us all, hoped his life’s good work would help redeem himself in the eyes of his Creator…” I have been blessed to be a part of a wonderful family, and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained, nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path”. Indeed, he did try.

For the exception of two years, a Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate since 1953. In excess of 140 million Americans, born since January 1963, have never known the Senate without Ted Kennedy in it. It remains to be seen if the torch will be passed to a new generation of Kennedy men or women to pick up where Teddy has left off. As an Irishman living in America, I am proud of the accomplishments of Ted Kennedy. We are all imperfect human beings and we all need GOD’s forgiveness. Let us hope that President Obama, a gutsy and transformative leader, can learn from the career of Ted Kennedy and guide the upcoming Health Care Reform bill through congress and its passage into legislation.

R.I.P., Teddy, the liberal lion and soul of the Senate. To whom much is given, much will be required.

The Most Trusted Man in America

“People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.” – A.J. Liebling, American Journalist and writer for “The New Yorker”: 1904 - 1963

Walter Cronkite (b. 1916), the gold standard for journalistic integrity for half a century, died this month in New York City aged 92. The inspiration for a generation of broadcast journalists that includes Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Brian Williams and Tim Russert, Cronkite was the epitome of professionalism and steadiness during a career that represented an “incredible window into 20th century America”.

After dropping out of college, Cronkite joined the then United Press (later UPI) in 1937 and went on to become one of America’s most respected journalists during WWII, covering key campaigns in Africa and Europe, and later the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals. After a stint in the USSR as UPI’s Moscow chief, Cronkite was recruited to join the fledgling television division of CBS News by another giant of the industry, Edward R. Murrow, himself a pioneer of broadcast journalism. At CBS, Cronkite spearheaded the network’s newly initiated television coverage of the 1952 Democratic and Republican party conventions. In fact, the term “anchor”, now part of the lexicon, was coined specifically to describe Cronkite’s role in covering political rallies and election analysis.

Cronkite’s iconic status in America and his influence on the ebb and flow of political discourse and his ability to capture the mood of the nation was cemented during his nineteen year tenure as the host of the CBS Evening News, a role he assumed in April 1962. As anchor, Cronkite covered a wide variety of historic stories that included breaking the news to the American people of the death of President Kennedy, the Apollo moon landing, the Watergate hearings and the Iran hostage crises of 1980. At the height of his influence, in 1968, Cronkite went to Vietnam to assess the war for himself. His reportage was devastating for the administration of Lyndon Johnson and brought the reality of the stalemate of the Vietnam War into every living room in the country. Cronkite’s editorial report of February 1968, in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, laid bare the reality…”To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the optimists that have been wrong in the past. To suggest that we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. It is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could”.

At the White House, responding privately to Cronkite’s reporting to close advisors, President Johnson said “…if I’ve lost Cronkite, I have lost Middle America”. A month later Johnson announced he would not seek re-election and began a secret back channel dialogue with the Vietnamese to negotiate a peace settlement (an initiative that was compromised by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger immediately before the 1968 election).

After retiring in 1981, Cronkite went on to become a much sought after special correspondent for a number of news organizations, covering a variety of international political and cultural events as well as becoming an instantly recognizable narrator of documentaries and period pieces. Asked once what his biggest regret was, Cronkite mused…”What do I regret? Well, I regret that in our attempt to establish some standards, we didn’t make them stick. We couldn’t find a way to pass them on to another generation”. This may be the most damning indictment of the current crop of broadcast journalists, many of whom (although not all, Seymour Hersh and Keith Olbermann being among the few exceptions) are willing pawns in propagandizing the agenda of government, the Pentagon and the other vested interests that drink from the gravy trough in Washington.

Lewis Lapham, long time editor of Harper’s Magazine once wrote, “Long ago in the days before journalists became celebrities, their enterprise was reviled and poorly paid, and it was understood by working newspapermen that the presence of more than two people at their funeral could be taken as a sign that they has disgraced the profession”. Well Cronkite didn’t disgrace his profession. The difference between Cronkite and many of today’s celebrity journalists is that he dared to go places, journalistically speaking, that most of these 21st century “journalists” won’t even consider.

Health Care Reform, Socialized Medicine, Bankruptcy & Michael Moore

“President Bush announced that he believes in democracy and that democracy can exist in Iraq. ‘They can have a strong economy, they can have a good health care plan, and they can have free and fair voting’. Iraq? We can’t even get this in Florida.” – Jay Leno, American TV Host and Comedian (b. 1950)

Four years ago, at age 72, my Dad had a triple heart bypass operation. After having had one heart attack back in 2001 from which he made a full and speedy recovery, his doctor advised him that another was likely and that he may not be so lucky the second time around. Sixty one years of smoking had taken their toll. The problem was we didn’t realize how much of a toll until Dad was admitted to hospital for the procedure. Back in the day when the VHI had a 100% monopoly on the Irish private healthcare market (as opposed to the 80%+ monopoly they have today) my Dad was lucky enough to have good coverage, so he was able to have his procedure carried out at the Mater Private hospital in Dublin. The doctors told us that the procedure itself would be pretty straightforward and factoring in a few days post-procedural recuperation in the Mater, he could expect to be home within 7-10 days. However, as I already mentioned, 61 years of smoking had taken their toll, so much so that after the operation, my Dad’s lung capacity was so low that his lungs could not support his heart without the application of oxygen from a machine. This continued to be the case for another four weeks and while we waited for Dad’s heart to grow stronger, he was simultaneously being eased off of the artificial oxygen.

After 6 weeks Dad came home and made a full recovery. Then the bills start to arrive; actually correction, let me refer to them as statements. All told, the entire cost (to include consultants fees, lab fees, surgery and stay at the Mater Hospital) came to somewhere in the region of €50,000 - €60,000 ($70,000 - $84,000 for my greenback loving American friends), and maybe even more. The reason I say statement as opposed to invoice – Dad’s portion to be paid? Zero. Everything was paid. At the time I believe his annual VHI premium was approximately €700. So, did having private healthcare insurance, even with a provider that had a 100% monopoly on the market, at a premium that was eminently affordable, pay dividends for our family? Absolutely.

The provision of universal health care for all Americans has been an issue that has been a central plank of the Democratic Party agenda in the United States for half a century. Ever since the introduction of Medicare (a social program that provides hospital insurance, medical insurance and a prescription drug plan for citizens aged over 65 and certain categories of disabled citizens) by the administration of Lyndon Johnson in 1965, successive Democratic presidents have tried, unsuccessfully, to pass legislation that would provide universal medical, dental and mental health care for all its citizens. It’s a widely known fact that the United States is the only country within the coalition of nations that would be categorized as “wealthy and industrialized” that has not implemented a universal health care plan. Former first lady Hillary Clinton and long time senator Ted Kennedy are just two of the most high profile public representatives that have dedicated much of their political lives to the advancement of the argument of universal health care for all Americans and its passage into law. Historically, even when the Democrats have held majorities in the House of Representatives and/or the Senate, the long arm of the drug, pharmaceutical and insurance companies and other stakeholders in the debate has been able to embed itself into the body politic of the country and wield tremendous influence and power among the nations’ politicians, both Republicans and Democrats alike.

That being said, Republicans have never wanted universal health care, period. It has never been a priority for them on any level and they have fought tooth and nail to impede debate on the matter and to consistently vote down proposals to advance the implementation of even the most basic universal health care plan. Their opposition is, at least to my mind, almost entirely along ideological grounds. You consistently hear the words “socialized medicine” being used by prominent Republican politicians, big business tycoons and far right commentators, as if the word “socialized” is designed to drive fear into the minds of Americans that the concept of universal health care is some kind of communist based, big government, liberal, left-wing conspiracy. In fact, most famously, back in 1961 then private citizen, B movie actor and prominent Republican supporter Ronald Reagan recorded an 11 minute LP record, sponsored by none other than the American Medical Association, setting out his opposition to “socialized medicine”.

The hard facts are that today there are almost 50 million Americans that have no form of private medical insurance at all. A large percentage of those that are insured are paying extraordinarily high premiums for what I would consider to be average cover. For example, my wife and I recently enrolled in my company sponsored health plan that provides medical, dental and optical cover. Luckily, my employer is a Dutch company, so from a cultural perspective they understand the benefits (not only a human level but also in terms of them being a good corporate citizen) of providing a high quality health care plan to its employees. When my wife and I were private contractors our joint annual medical premiums totaled almost $7,000. The huge cost of health care coverage in this country has sadly forced hundreds of thousands of people to declare involuntary bankruptcy. Michael Moore did a masterful job of highlighting the issues that Americans face every day in relation to health care costs in his movie “Sicko”.

The two most basic elements of the argument being made by those folks in favor of universal health care are that a) health care is a basic human right or entitlement and that b)ensuring the good health of all citizens ultimately benefits a country economically. The opposition proponents argue that health care is not a right and that as such it is not the responsibility of government provide health care to its citizens. Maybe it’s me but why does it always seem that the anti-health care people are the more well-off and affluent members of our society?

President Obama has vowed to pass landmark legislation in his first term that would finally bring America into the mainstream in providing a universal health care plan for all its citizens. It seems more and more likely that he will actually send up legislation this year to the Congress for passage into law. Let us wish him luck in this brave and momentous endeavor.

CIA... the secret government within a government

“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo” – Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), 33rd President of the United States 1945-1953

Controversial journalist and author Christopher Hitchens once wrote that in the “Nixon era, the United States was in essence a ‘rogue state’. It had a ruthless, paranoid and unstable leader who did not hesitate to break the laws of his own country”. I would contend that for close on a century, and certainly since 1947 when the power brokers within the financial, industrial, military and intelligence communities came together and were given official bureaucratic recognition in the form of the Central Intelligence Agency, that a secret government has existed in the United States, one that has corrupted and usurped the country’s political and democratic institutions, been responsible for the waging of covert wars in dozens of countries and deeply complicit in the murder of thousands of Americans; a list that includes dozens of political, cultural and social leaders and to its eternal shame, at least one president.

The concept of the existence of a secret government is not a new phenomenon. Writing in 1922, and referring to the challenges he faced as then New York City mayor, John F. Hylan provided this revealing insight, “The real menace to our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses, generally referred to as ‘international bankers’. This coterie of powerful international bankers virtually runs the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen and seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection”. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that over the next three generations, one Rockefeller would become governor of New York and Vice President of the United States and many notable members of these banking and oil companies, including W. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush (father to George H.W. Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush) would go on to become governors, senators and presidents.

I am the first to admit that I am a conspiracy theorist at heart. However, by the same token I am not naïve enough to believe that random, so called unrelated coincidences just happen. Born out of the old wartime intelligence organization that was known as the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA was created by an act of Congress in 1947 at a time when anti communist sentiment was beginning to reach fever pitch. Woven deep in to the DNA of the CIA were prominent members of America’s banking, oil and industrial corporations. For the next forty years the agency would use fear of the red menace, and the fulfillment of its own warped ideology, to justify the most despicable acts of treason and violence. Sadly, CIA had willing and enthusiastic support in every branch of federal, state and local government, law enforcement and the media. Perhaps most famously, future President George H.W. Bush was a secret, high level CIA operative for over 20 years before being named head of the agency by Gerald Ford in 1976. Bush has repeatedly denied being a CIA agent despite a huge volume of evidence to the contrary, evidence that includes his presence in Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and a documented telephone call that he made to the FBI on the day of Kennedy’s assassination from Tyler, Texas (less than an hour’s drive from Dallas).

In a 1977 article that he wrote for Rolling Stone magazine, Watergate investigative journalist Carl Bernstein wrote that there was “…more than 400 journalists, who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services -- from simple intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America's leading news organizations”.

We now know that some of the executives that Bernstein was referring to were William Paley, chief executive of CBS, Henry Luce, founder of Time Inc and Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, among others. It is perhaps not surprising that the national media would row in behind the government in endorsing the lone assassin theory in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination (and indeed has continued to do so to this day); in fact the person that purchased the famous Zapruder film footage of Kennedy’s murder, two days after the assassination, was none other than Henry Luce of Time magazine, who then proceeded to hide it from public view for 6 years until District Attorney Jim Garrison subpoenaed it as part of his investigation.

The reason for the background is this. The CIA is once again back in the news, again, for all the wrong reasons, and again a large segment of the media is complicit in the narrative being served up to the American people. In the wake of the ongoing investigation into advanced interrogation techniques and torture carried out by the CIA during the Bush administration, focus is being placed on what information was made known to members of Congress about the specifics of these interrogation techniques and whether the CIA withheld vital information from leading politicians. In the past couple of weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has gone public, saying she was lied to by the CIA about whether or not water-boarding and other forms of torture were being used in the name of Bush’s war on terror. The CIA of course has denied it lied. Many leading politicians and newspaper editors have since come to the defense of the CIA, saying that whatever about lying to overseas governments and law enforcement organizations (as if this was somehow acceptable), the CIA would never lie to a member of Congress.

Really? Firstly, do these political leaders really expect Americans to believe that the CIA is so holier than thou that it would never lie to the United States Congress, when it has done nothing but lie for over 60 years? Secondly, why would politicians and the public be even surprised that they would be lied to by the CIA? Every dog on the street knows that CIA has indulged in every form of skullduggery known to man; from illegal wiretapping to opening the mail of regular Americans, from political espionage and covert paramilitary operations to coup d’états and assassinations, from carrying out torture to creating real life Manchurian candidates. The history of the CIA has left a black mark on the fabric of American society and this country has been the worst for its existence.

The Cuban Revolution - A Half Century On...

“I am Fidel Castro and we have come to liberate Cuba” – Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (b. 1926), revolutionary and leader of Cuba 1959-2008

A full half century after a wild eyed and bearded 32 year old Cuban revolutionary swept to power to the chants of ‘Viva Fidel’, and a generation later than it probably should have happened, the United States this month took the first step in improving its long standing sour relations with Latin America. In allowing unlimited travel and money transfers between Cuban Americans and their families back in the homeland, the Obama administration has extended an olive branch to the Castro brothers and in the process signaled its short term goal of agreeing a rapprochement of sorts with the Cuban regime. Over time, the broader geo-political benefits to America may well include less volatility in the hemisphere and increased trade between the United States and her Latin American neighbors. You can be sure that as President Obama embarks on a new policy of détente with Fidel and Raul Castro, he has one eye firmly in the direction of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

As a European living in the United States it has long baffled me as to why, for the period of at least the last 30 years, and definitely the last 20 years (since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in 1989) the government of the United States, under presidents of both parties, would adopt such a rigid and clearly outdated policy of isolation with Cuba. The Cold War as we know it essentially ended when Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev turned his back on his own revolution (1917) and launched the policies of glasnost and perestroika in the mid 1980’s, paving the way for the fall of the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the breakup of the old USSR as we knew it.

Indeed it is today acknowledged by many historians, commentators and politicians of the time that the Soviet threat was consistently overstated, in a period spanning the terms of 8 presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, by over-zealous and right wing hawks within the military, industrial, intelligence and financial nexus that has controlled the defense budget, and ostensibly the foreign policy agenda of the United States, since the latter presidency of FDR.

The genesis of Cuba’s isolation is well documented of course. In the halcyon, care free days before the revolution, Cuba was an island sanctuary 90 miles off the coast of Florida. During the era of Cuban president Fulgencio Batista, which coincided with that of American president Dwight Eisenhower, Cuba famously became a haven for American organized crime leaders and a cash cow for some of America’s largest corporations. Even though President Eisenhower officially recognized the new Cuban government shortly after Castro rolled into the streets of Havana on New Year’s Day 1959, it quickly became clear that the Cuban revolution would involve draconian domestic reforms and the nationalization of US owned industries on the island. Relations between the governments deteriorated rapidly, resulting in the American withdrawal of diplomatic recognition of Cuba on January 3rd 1961, 17 days before President Kennedy was sworn into office.

In the meantime (in fact as early as April of 1960), President Eisenhower had given the CIA the green light to commence covert activities against the Cuban regime, with the intention of ousting Castro, by fair means or foul. When the democratically elected president of Iran had threatened to nationalize the Iranian oil industry in 1953, the CIA (with help from British intelligence) successfully ousted President Mosaddeq in a coup d’état. The plan was to do the same with Castro.

Castro was no angel, that’s for sure, but there is no doubt that the severing of diplomatic relations and the covert efforts to oust him from power only served to push Castro closer to the Soviet Union for support, both in terms of trade and ideology. The Bay of Pigs disaster in April 1961 convinced Castro that the United States was intent on a military invasion of Cuba, which had the result of only driving Cuba further into the arms of its Communist benefactor half a world away. The subsequent military buildup on the island led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The rest, as they say, is history. Economic, trade and diplomatic sanctions against Cuba were locked down for more than a generation thereafter. Ironically, Castro has gone on to outlive the terms of ten American presidents before handing over power to his brother Raul in February 2008.

The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba remains in place to this day. The question is why? Surely not because either Castro brother can be categorized as Communist; and even if they are, what threat does Cuba pose to the United States of America? The changes recently announced by President Obama are the first step in what I believe is a deliberate strategy to fully normalize relations with Cuba for the first time in fifty years.

Washington Behind Closed Doors

“Washington is a city of southern efficiency and northern charm” – John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963), 35th President of the United States 1961-1963

This month I fulfilled a long standing ambition of visiting Washington D.C. Being a history buff (or nerd, depending on how you look at it) and news junkie, a visit to the political, historical and cultural capital of the United States was something I was looking forward to for a very long time. The added attractions of visiting D.C. over the St. Patrick’s Day weekend, coupled with having a smart new President in the White House, made it an irresistible proposition.

Jean and I arrived in to Washington's Dulles airport (I still haven't figured out if it was named after former CIA Chief Allen Dulles or his brother, former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles) on Thursday evening, March 12th. Dulles is an ugly airport and about a 30 minute drive from downtown Washington. The other major Washington airport is Reagan National, which is much, much closer to town and the one into which, our cab driver reliably informed us, the politicians fly. He also told us that flying into Reagan typically costs a few hundred dollars more than flying into Dulles. Good to know if you ever plan on visiting Washington.On the trip from the airport to our hotel, our cab driver, an Indian man who previously lived in New Jersey, pointed out the landmarks and famous buildings that could be seen in the darkness...the Kennedy Center, the Watergate Hotel and finally the White House. Friday morning, March 13th, it was on to the sightseeing.

Across the street from our hotel is St. John's Church, often referred to as the "Church of the Presidents". By taking advantage of a recession time special offer and a complimentary upgrade through a friend of my wife's, Jean and I got a great deal at the famous Hay Adams Hotel on Lafayette Square, literally across the street from the White House. In fact, we were so close to Mr. Obama's house that if I was even a very average golfer a reasonable shot with a five iron would land my golf ball outside his front door. What makes staying at the Hay Adams even more exciting for us is that the President and his family stayed here for a couple of nights before officially moving into the White House. As you walk out the front door of the Hay Adams you are surrounded by history. If you look over your right shoulder, the magical and awe inspiring sight of the White House is fully visible in all its glory.

Regardless of the time of day or night there are always people to be seen congregating at the railings bordering the property; tourists snapping pictures (include us in that category), some lobby group or political action party protesting against something or regular Washingtonian's strolling past on their way home or to happy hour. Later in the morning, we walked around to the opposite side of the property and took some pictures of the south lawn of the White House and the place from where Marine One collects the President when he is being flown out to Andrews Air Force base to take a trip on Air Force One.

Immediately behind the south entrance to the White House, and within a few hundred yards of its railings, is the National Mall. Completely dominating the landscape is the Washington Monument. Built in honor of the country's first President, the sand colored obelisk was completed in 1884 and its stands 555 feet tall. Surrounded by a circle of 50 huge American flags, flying from flagpoles dozens of feet high, the monument is awe inspiring both in its construction and imagery. As I turned and looked over my right shoulder, images from a dozen different movies flashed across my mind. Off in the middle distance is the unmistakable and beautiful sight of the Lincoln Memorial, a beacon of democracy and symbol of all things good about America and her ideals. The famous reflecting pool that lies between the Lincoln Memorial and the World War II memorial was today a worksite where dozens of maintenance men are sweeping gravel, sand and dust across the broad expanse of the empty pool, no doubt getting it ready for the advent of spring. As you walk the length of the pool between the WWII memorial and the Lincoln Memorial you can't but think of Dr. King's famous march on Washington in August 1963 and the famous "I Have A Dream" speech that he gave from the steps of this wonderful monument. At the top of the steps you enter the body the Memorial itself and there in front of you sits President Lincoln is all his magestic glory, a face carved in humility, the father of black emancipation and savior of the Union at the time of its greatest danger.

The weather was perceptively warmer on Saturday. We spent half an hour taking some photographs at the railings at the front entrance of the White House. There was a time when traffic was allowed to pass directly in front of the White House, however, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, the Secret Service permanently closed off vehicular access in the name of presidential security. The air was crisp, the spirits were high and you got the distinct feeling that everyone was happy that we have an intelligent and cool President.

The distance between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S. Capitol is approximately 2 miles. We walked along the grass and dust covered thoroughfare that leads you to the home of the country's political establishment, the U.S. Capitol buildings. The dome of the Capitol building completely dominates the skyline and it looks in real life just as impressive as it does on T.V. Immediately in front of the entrance to the property is a statue of former President, and leader of the Union forces during the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant. As you cross the road to the entrance to the Capitol proper is a memorial to President James Garfield, who served the second shortest presidential term in history, having been shot and killed 6 months and 15 days into his first term.

The first thing to say about the Capitol building is that it is huge. Construction originally began in 1793 and it held its first congressional session in November 1800. Building was finally completed in 1811 only for it to be gutted by fire by the British during the War of 1812. After taking a bunch of photographs we walked around the back of the property, heading towards the U.S. Supreme Court and the Thomas Jefferson buildings. It is only when you do a full 360 degree walking tour of the property do you get some idea of the scale and size of the building.We hadn't thought to pre book tickets for a tour but after a chance meeting with one of the security personnel we were lucky enough to get two tickets (free of charge) for a 1:30pm tour. After the obligatory security check we were ushered into the bowels of the U.S. Capitol building, the part set aside for tours.

The main chamber is called "Emancipation Hall" and it is here that you will find a couple of information counters and entrances to the various tours. In rooms off the main hall you will find a fully serviced restaurant, restrooms and a couple of gift shops.After an introductory 15 minute film on the history of the U.S. Capitol we were escorted by a tour guide straight into the Capitol rotunda. Our tour guide, a native of Virginia and about 60 years ago, greeted me in Irish and proceeded to welcome a number of people in our group in German, Italian, Spanish and Taiwanese. It turns out that he can greet visitors in 59 different languages. His knowledge of the Capitol was nothing short of remarkable, recalling dates, names and events off the top of his head. One interesting fact that he mentioned was that if you removed the concrete base of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and brought Lady Liberty in to the Capitol rotunda, she would fit in a fully upright position with 18 feet to spare at the top! A fascinating tour of adjoining rooms and chambers followed.

Sunday was St. Patrick’s Day so we watched the parade as it weaved along Constitution Avenue and then hit a “few” Irish pubs for a few glasses of milk. All in all it was a thoroughly enjoyable visit and one that is highly recommended. If you want any tips on where to go email me at crotty_leonard@hotmail.com