Allison Bricker

During the remaining weeks of 2008 amidst the front page news about the worsening economic situation and the ever growing line of companies looking to stick their faux-Capitalist hands into the T.A.R.P. money, what seemed to be a sudden rash of violent crimes perpetrated against the queer community, commonly abbreviated as LGBT, began to make headlines.

• In San Francisco on December 12th, a woman was brutally gang raped by four men and left naked in the street. News reports stated, that the two adults and two teens began approaching her shouting anti-gay epithets after spotting the rainbow flag sticker on her car.¹




• In Memphis on December 23rd, a transsexual prostitute was shot at point bank range in the face and critically wounded as she attempted to exit the vehicle of her john. She is currently in critical condition.²




• In Indianapolis on December 26th, a transwoman and her partner were shot to death in their home while they slept. Police reports indicate that after several internet chats with the suspect in custody, he was invited over to the couple’s home for an as of yet undisclosed reason.³




• In New Orleans on December 29th, two men and a transgendered individual all originally from Mississippi were gunned down in their 7th Ward home by several suspects which police have thus far been unable to apprehend.⁴

The aforementioned crimes are each horrific for the utter disregard for human life and liberty. Moreover, these perpetrators all need to be held accountable for their crimes, and thus brought to justice by law enforcement. However, adding insult to injury of these horrific crimes, are those charlatans, hacks, and shills who claim to be LGBT activists and allies solely seeking to push their political agenda and their own self-aggrandizing interest by calling for additional “Hate” crime legislation.

It has been ten years since Matthew Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die in rural Wyoming. Since then thirty-two states have added penalties for crimes motivated by sexual orientation and eleven of the thirty-two have also added criminal penalties for crimes motivated by a person’s gender-identity. Yet in California alone which has had a statute regarding crimes motivated by a sexual-orientation since 1989, crimes against homosexuals have increased 680% over the last ten years.⁵

It is obvious, that these legislatively granted protections do little to nothing in keeping us safer from those biased against us anymore so than the death penalty has prevented murder in general. Furthermore, as a lesbian, can someone please tell me how the gang rape of of a straight woman would be somehow less traumatic to her simply due to her sexuality not being a factor? It is a brutal crime regardless of motivation as are all crimes committed against another person.

Additionally, words on paper offer absolutely no protection to the victim during the actual commission of the crime. While concurrently, our over worked and underpaid law enforcement officers more often show up after the fact to begin the investigation, take statements, and pursue the suspect or suspects.

This violence is indeed a hateful act, but it is a hateful act regardless of motivation. Victims of crimes are individuals, they have a name, a family, a life. The crime is committed against them, not the loose collective of which they share some character trait. Furthermore, and most importantly, Americans already have the best defense against becoming a victim of a violent crime. This ability is not granted by law, it is ours from the moment we are born; our inherent right to self-defense. There is an immutable truth to the statement, “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed”. Moreover, armed individuals don’t get bashed.

Yet socialists and the media have done their best to make us fear guns and to label self-defense as an untenable option, again solely for their political agenda. A study conducted by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy subsequently published in the New York Times⁶, showed that higher gun ownership in European countries equated to far lower rates of violent crimes. Secondly, ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard of someone attempting to shoot up a gun show. Fact is random mass shootings are always perpetrated against populations known to be completely disarmed such as in a school.

It baffles my mind, why those of us who do indeed find kinship within the LGBT community would turn to the state for our protection? The state; the same entity with such a long history of egregious crimes against us that after years of beatings, imprisonment, harassment, and draconian confinement in mental institutions led to the community rising up in the Stonewall⁷ and Compton Cafeteria Riots⁸. Yet now we turn to this same entity and beg like chattle for protection from their snake-oil pens and empty promises?

Source(s): ¹Daily News “Arrests made in gang rape of San Francisco lesbian” • ² ABC News 27 - Memphis “Transgendered Woman Shot in the Face” • ³ Bilerico “Transwoman and Her Boyfriend Murdered in Indianapolis” • ⁴ Out In New Orleans “Three Black Gay Men Murdered in New Orleans, Police Hunt for Suspects” • ⁵ Hate Crimes in California - 2007 • ⁶ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Police/New York Times “Murder and Guns” • ⁷ Stonewall and Byond: Lesbian and Gay Culture • ⁸ Screaming Queens - The Riot at Compton’s Cafeteria

Allison Bricker

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) discussing the auto bailout given to the Big 3 by President Bush.

Joseph Marohl

I’m hard pressed to find much to distinguish what director Gus Van Sant accomplishes in his biopic Milk that was not already accomplished in the Academy Award-winning 1984 documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, directed by Rob Epstein.

Both are excellent films. Both use archival footage to chronicle the life and times of America’s first openly gay public official. Both use Milk’s taped last will—recorded in the event of his assassination—as the thread upon which to construct the plot. Both regard their central figure as both a devious politician and a true American idealist.

What most obviously distinguishes the more recent film is the bravura performance (another one) by Sean Penn as Milk. Penn breaks my heart in this. Not just because of his character’s fate, which, like the Epstein documentary, opens the film, so that the imminence of death is felt at every step, but mostly because Penn captures Milk’s magnetism and mannerisms, along with, more profoundly, merely human moments—like the thrill of falling in love or fighting for a great, just cause.

Van Sant’s film covers Milk’s life from 1970 to his death in 1978 and appropriately reduces the events subsequent to Dan White’s assassination of Milk and Mayor George Moscone to a brief captioned epilogue.

Instead, it provides deeper insight to Milk’s loving relationships with Scott Smith (James Franco) and Jack Lira (Diego Luna). Van Sant is able to use these relationships to portray a more complex picture of gay life—not pleading for tolerance and equality, as did the documentary—but showing how the personal and the political can converge and clash and presenting us the audience with a fuller panoply of gay characters than we usually get to see at the movies.

Josh Brolin’s nuanced performance as Dan White is also remarkable. Whereas Epstein’s film mainly presents White as the iceberg that would eventually sink Milk’s Titanic, Van Sant’s film shows the pressures of maintaining and upholding hetero-normativity as a political issue and the toll of staking too much of one’s self-identity on one’s being “normal.”

What makes the new film in many ways a more (or differently) elegant film than its predecessor is its attempt to show how, over and over, Milk and White attempt and fail to reach out to each other—especially in a realistic scene of White’s drunkenly pathetic exchange with Milk at the latter’s birthday party—and this is the tragic heart of the film.

Joseph Marohl

Perhaps it would be easy to overestimate the importance of Barack Obama’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the 2009 Inauguration. Warren is the bestselling author of The Purpose Driven® Life, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and outspoken critic of gay rights and same-sex marriage,.

It’s not as if Warren’s been asked to join the President’s Cabinet, after all. And, besides, the Lesbian and Gay Band Association is invited to march in the Presidential Inaugural Parade, having played only on the sidelines for the two Clinton Inaugurations.

Warren compares homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and adultery. He makes false claims, such as that marriage between one man and one woman has been the model of all religions for five thousand years (polygamy, for instance, has routinely reoccurred as an element of religious observance, and revered patriarchs such as Jacob, Moses, and Solomon practiced it, and even today a number of religious groups and Christian denominations accept same-sex marriage).

Still, Rick Warren is not Fred Phelps—Warren, like former governor and current Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee, presents a friendlier, even-tempered, and apple-cheeked face to bigotry.

It’s fairly clear to me what Obama is trying to do—reach out to social conservatives and evangelical Christians who have, as Warren supposedly has, expressed an interest in dialogue with those who do not share their views.

But Warren has not been open to such dialogue, particularly with gays. What Warren wants, like many evangelicals and conservatives, is a platform for criticizing other people’s lifestyles, while claiming to be persecuted if his own life choices and opinions are criticized or even questioned.

What Obama fails to recognize is that sitting down to dialogue is one thing, but it’s something else entirely to give a platform to a man who calls for the continued political disenfranchisement of a small but significant part of Obama’s base. Obama did the same thing back in October 2007, when he led a “gospel tour” on the South Carolina leg of his Presidential campaign, fronted by Donnie McClurkin, who wrapped up every show with a 15-minute “prayer” thanking God for delivering him from the debasement of homosexuality. When GLBT activists objected, Obama’s people used the “dialogue” defense and then told the GLBTs to pipe down and stop being “divisive.” Some dialogue.

Undoubtedly one reason gay people don’t get much respect from political candidates or representatives in government is that we’re a minority—representing perhaps less than the proverbial 10 percent of the total population. On top of that, we are one of the merely two or three minorities (off the top of my head, I can’t think of another one, though) one can safely ridicule and denounce in sweeping blanket generalizations—not to mention find defenders for physically assaulting, even killing. In fact, when gay people simply complain that they are mistreated, they are accused of being politically divisive and small minded, endangering children, and persecuting Christians.

Part of the problem, too, has been sloppy strategizing by gay rights activists. The whole issue of whether gays are born gay or choose to be gay is irrelevant to whether gays deserve the same rights as any other citizen or human being. Did biological determinism do anything really to speed up women’s and blacks’ struggles for justice and equality? If one could choose to be black, would such a choice justify discriminatory practices against that person? Even if God can and does “cure” the habit of gossip or the desire to eat shellfish (both condemned in the Bible), would such miracles justify passing laws and amendments that forbid basic legal privileges to shrimp-loving blabbermouths?

It’s also a bit insensitive for Obama to ask a vocal supporter of California’s Proposition 8 to speak, since, for many lesbians and gays, it rehashes and confirms the conflicted feelings of elation and insult that the November victories of Obama and 8 evoked. If Obama sympathizes with gay people’s struggle for equal treatment under the law, as he claims, why is he insensitive and/or indifferent to their concerns and interests?

Sometimes I have to wonder whether Democrats choose to be hypocrites or whether they’re just born that way.

Allison Bricker

The impetus behind our founders warning government to keep its hands off the press comes not from a love of newspapers per se, but rather the necessity of free and uncensored mass communication. Newspapers just happened to be the only form of mass communication at the time.

Prior to the American Revolution, journalists who dissented against the royal governments, its decrees or public office holders often found themselves imprisoned and their equipment destroyed. One of the most famous trials of a journalist falsely charged is that of John Peter Zenger.

Mr. Zenger published criticisms of New York’s “Royal” Governor, William Crosby. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Zenger found himself imprisoned and charged with libel. His attorney, Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton successfully argued that one could not commit libel merely by publishing opinion or fact.¹

It is my opinion that the The first Amendment to our Federal Constitution is too narrowly interpreted. Thus, had the internet, television, or radio, been present during the drafting of our Constitution, it is clear that the Founding Fathers would have extended government prohibitions on censorship to these mediums as well. However, the FEC has already attempted to sidestep the 1st Amendment and censor blogs under the auspices of McCain-Feingold.² Now the FCC is set to rule on the creation of a free nationwide filtered internet under the guise of “protecting the children”.³

It is also obvious by a candid reading of the uncensored historical record, that the plutocrats made massive inroads in their attempt to centralize Federal power from the beginning of the 20th Century. After the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, we then see a massive encroachment upon our unalienable rights with the passage of the “Espionage Act of 1917″⁴ and “The Sedition Act of 1918″⁵. The Espionage Act was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson who felt that dissent during war could jeopardize our potential for victory. His flawed logic still exists today and is echoed by hacks like Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT). This belief is a stark contrast to the Founding Fathers who were all too familiar with the oppressive hand of government censorship.

The best known victim of prosecution under the “Espionage Act of 1917″ is Eugene Debs. Mr. Debs had previously run for President as the Socialist Party’s candidate and publicly denounced the U.S. involvement in World War I. He was charged with “obstructing military recruiting” after a speech in 1918. Mr. Debs was found guilty of sedition and sentenced to 10 years in prison. After serving three years, he was pardoned by President Harding and released.⁶ It is immaterial to me that I would vehemently debate and ultimately disagree with Mr. Deb’s socialist philosophy. His imprisonment merely demonstrates the lengths politicians will go to in order to silence opposition.

We the People, have failed to be vigilant as the guardians of our own liberties and we must bear some of the burden. In addition to the Espionage and Sedition Acts, by allowing the FCC to declare the airwaves publicly owned and therefore subject to regulation we do ourselves a massive disservice in pursuit of the truth. The consequences of this massive failure, was to allow the creation of broadcast licensing. By allowing the dissemination of information to be controlled by an ever decreasing amount of individual corporations via licensing we lose our ability to make proper judgments on matters of national importance, such as the invasion of Iraq or the disgusting pursuit of legalized torture by the Executive Branch.

Tyrants and their sycophant sympathizers love to claim that the FCC grants licenses to those who “serve the public interest”. However, the historical record contradicts this altruistic pursuit and in the end it merely grants licenses to those who serve to swell the bank accounts of both the bureaucrats and politicians.⁷

Fellow readers, the internet has allowed for the greatest expanse of news, opinions, and knowledge humanity has ever known. Abuse by some in the form of unsourced or libelous news reports does not justify statements by the traitor to the Constitution known as Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who in a letter to Google regarding YouTube videos wrote:

“In other words, Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training - activities that are all essential to terrorist activity. According to testimony received by our Committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack.”⁸

There is indeed great danger in the notion that a hack Senator and two-time loser such as Joe Lieberman should be telling a private corporation what should be censored for the sake of national security. The biggest dangers to national security are the power-hungry ambitions of terrorist politicians like Joe Lieberman and his insurgent bureaucratic operatives who seek to wage their personal jihad on the 1st Amendment and our inherent liberties.

Further, President-Elect Obama has selected Eric Holder as Attorney General. The Plutocratic fundamentalist, Eric Holder has also spoken publicly about his desire to censor the internet and further erode the 1st Amendment via his interpretation of “reasonable regulation”.

The time is now upon us, to beat back the ever encroaching hand of government and amend the Constitution to expand the scope of the 1st Amendment, thus ensuring all forms of communication both current and those not yet fathomed are protected from those who seek to stifle the free exchange of ideas and expression.

In closing, my only regret is that I have but one life to blog for my Republic.
Don’t Tread on Me!

Source(s): ¹University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law • ² FEC Agenda Document Number 05-16 • ³ CNET - “FCC Cancels Meeting for Free Interent Vote” • ⁴ Espionage Act of 1917 • ⁵ Sedition Act of 1918 • ⁶ DEBS v UNITED STATES of AMERICA No. 714 • ⁷ McCain Denies Pushing FCC on Paxson Behalf • ⁸ Dialogue with Senator Lieberman on Terrorism Videos

Joseph Marohl

I like Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK and big sis to John John—two other people I have a soft spot in my heart for, may they rest in peace. On the few times I’ve heard Kennedy speak, I’ve been reasonably impressed, though it’s hard for me (for a lot of Americans) to really hear her and not her family legacy in US politics.

She’s had a remarkable life—surviving every member of her immediate family, escaping death from an IRA bomb, and inspiring a Neil Diamond hit.

Now she’s interested in taking over the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton and soon to be Secretary of State. But she’s in competition with Andrew Cuomo, son of former NY governor Mario Cuomo and ex to Terry Kennedy, Caroline’s cousin. Ultimately the decision will be made by the current NY governor David Paterson, son of a former NY state senator.

One of the reasons (I had several) I voted for Barack Obama instead of Clinton earlier this year was that, deep down, I feel that the United States of America should not operate like a family business. I could have lived with a Clinton nomination, but I really favored Obama for this reason (and several others, as well). I wanted the Bush-Clinton-Bush chain to end with George W.

I would never vote against a candidate merely because she or he has family ties to politics. But this sort of thing does figure into my thinking at election times. It is a matter of some importance to my concept of a working free democracy.

Now that the royal lines of Europe and Asia have either petered out or lost the powers of governance, is there really any need for America, where everybody is “created equal,” so we hear, to perpetuate dynastic politics past its expiration date?

Of course, the UK still has its Queen—but the governmental chief is the Prime Minister, of whom, recently, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, and Margaret Thatcher have had only remote family ties to politics—mostly descending from farmers, grocers, entertainers, educators, and clergy—and came into high office through lives of public service and/or law careers.

Aren’t there enough brainy, capable people in the United States—like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton—to fill top government positions without resorting to nepotism?

Do we really believe that bloodlines confer the know-how to lead a democratic nation? I would not want to impugn Caroline Kennedy’s, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s, or Andrew Cuomo’s political savvy or statesmanship by crediting it to genealogy or genetics. I also don’t mean to demean their individual accomplishments by assuming that everything they have achieved is due to nepotism. And yet what, apart from their names, distinguishes them from other qualified persons with political ambition?

Have Kennedy, Clinton, and Bush become brand names like Pepsi or McDonald’s? Certainly, name recognition is a selling point for politicians campaigning for elected office—but what advantage does it offer for political appointments?

Last month the citizens voted Barack Hussein Obama into the nation’s highest office in spite of his name (which, let’s face it, was no selling point, as the Republicans so often liked to emphasize). Like Bill Clinton, he was the son of a single mother—the paternal namesake being absent for most of his life. In many respects, unlike either Bush 1 or Bush 2, he represents the American dream—of assimilation, of pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps, of rising without the help of family or family connections.

So now that “change” seems so necessary and, for the first time in decades, so possible, why must we turn to brand names and/or dynasties for leadership?

Good luck to you, Caroline, and if you make it to the Senate next year, I hope it’s because you’re the best person for the job—and not just because of your tragically romantic name.

Allison Bricker

During a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Malaki in Baghdad, an Iraqi journalist throws his shoes at the President.

Allison Bricker

A Declassified March 1962 memo, titled “OPERATION NORTHWOODS”, indicates that the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlined multiple possible scenarios to justify military invasion of Cuba. The 15 page memo approved by the entire Chiefs of Staff including Chairman Lemnitzer, received a TOP SECRET - SPECIAL HANDLING - NO FORWARDING designation. Not only does the memo contain highly immoral and despicable acts to be perpetrated by the United States Military in order to incite a war, the war-mongering scoundrels inside the Pentagon sought to keep this from as many of their colleagues as possible.

The memo specifically states that no U.S. officers involved in NATO nor the staff or chairman of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations should be in receipt or view this memo. The Joint Chiefs knew that they would need world opinion on their side in order to secure resolutions authorizing a unilateral invasion of Cuba. Thus, these traitors to the Republic needed to keep their treasonous acts under tight wrap, stating:

World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.

The memo then goes on to list numerous scenarios for false flag terror attacks to be perpetrated by C.I.A. and U.S. Military within the United States and its military installation in order to rally the American people to a war footing thereby justifying an invasion. Specifically the memo suggests:

For those unfamiliar with the phrase “Remember the Maine”, it is a reference to the explosion and subsequent sinking of the U.S.S. Maine which propelled America into “Spanish-American War of 1898″. However unlike the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine which remains suspect to both historians and academics, due to a lack of substantiated evidence, here the Joint Chiefs of Staff specifically put on paper a desire to sink one of our own ships in order to further their lust for Cuban blood.

Further, the memo was not confined solely to military target as the memo goes on to suggest sinking a raft full of Cubans attempting to land in Florida. However the most eerie suggestion for a phony incident is as follows:

The fact that this memo even exists should give Americans full pause as the war-mongers such as Defense Secretary Gates who has been retained in his post by President-Elect Obama continue their macho saber rattling against Iran. While Iran is a disgusting theocracy, it is not a threat to America nor have they provoked us by attack. Let us remember this when the drumbeats begin again.

Our own C.I.A. postulates that their interference in toppling foreign governments coupled with the Plutocratic Oligarchs perverse blood-thirsty version of an interventionist foreign policy is prime causation for the September 11th attacks.

Fortunately when this memo was sent to then Secretary of Defense, Robert MacNamara he never acted upon it. Shortly their after President Kennedy removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lemnitzer. Nevertheless, if we the people who are tasked with both keeping a watchful eye on government and as the guardians of our liberties, must be aware of the sickening depths of propaganda our government will go to in order to pull this nation into another costly, bloody war.

Source(s): Joint Chiefs of Staff - MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY of DEFENSE

Sherri Davis

Are we at all surprised that Illinois Governor Rod Blagoevich was arrested this morning at his home on the northside of Chicago? It happened to take place near my neighborhood. I wish I was one of the neighbors, so I could have seen it for myself.

According to today’s edition of the Chicago Tribune, Blago was arrested in, “Political Corruption Crime Spree”. It goes back to the blog I recently wrote on, “The Definition of a Politician” and how the very definition wreaks of corruption.

It has been on every news channel today. The Chicago Tribune states, “U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald says secret tape recordings show the governor was attempting “to sell the U.S. Senate seat” that President-elect Obama recently vacated. “

Are you kidding me, Rod? Do you really think that our lives are just a game…a ticket to be sold to the highest bidder? This is so disappointing and I hope it opens the eyes of the other corrupt politicians that they will, in time, “get busted out”.

Joseph Marohl

Lately a number of standup comedians have lamented that President-elect Barack Obama does not appear to promise much fodder for ridicule—no funny mannerisms, no scandals, no serious known breaches in integrity. Plus, he’s our first black President—and that fact in itself poses problems of decorum in a nation still sensitive about race and racism.

By comparison, President George W. Bush has provided a goldmine for satirists and impressionists—only recently upstaged by Sarah Palin.

Today, though, Bush is being credited with preserving “the honor and the dignity of his office” as U.S. President … by the Bush White House.

“Titled ‘Speech Topper on the Bush Record,’ the talking points [in a two-page memo sent to Bush Cabinet members] state that Bush ‘kept the American people safe’ after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained ‘the honor and the dignity of his office.’” (1)

I wonder whether the Orwellian war-is-peace newspeak will stop here or whether Bush will copyright the words “honor and dignity” the way Fox News once claimed “fair and balanced” as its own (and then tried to sue Al Franken for using the phrase in the subtitle of a book in 2003—subsequently it dropped the suit).

After all, Bush is all about “ownership”—though that’s a tune he’s been playing seldom in these past 60 days of foreclosures, buyouts, and bailouts. Ditto “bring it on”—in fact, Bush preserves a great amount of the Presidency’s dignity by simply asserting obviously fallacious recollections as true history and trusting in the American people’s short memory.

Don’t you love the bit about lifting the economy? Clever people must realize that “lift” means “revoke” and “pilfer,” among other things. I, for one, have totally forgotten that Bush entered office with a surplus—which he spent in part on $300 and $600 handouts to the American people, purportedly because the money was theirs, but more likely because he wanted to shut down talk about the dubious facts of his 2000 election.

One might further suppose curbing AIDS means, in part, letting lots of people in Africa die … of famine, genocide, and AIDS … thus, in fact, setting definite limits to the numbers of Africans suffering with AIDS. But, in truth, Bush may have done some good here. The White House reports that $148 billion has gone to AIDS relief worldwide since Bush assumed office in 2001, and, to be fair, his plan for providing emergency AIDS relief to sub-Saharan Africa, while greatly benefiting Big Pharma, has also expanded care to the sick apparently by 40 times over the past five years. (2)

As for keeping Americans safe, it’s easy to say that there were some 3,000 Americans not kept safe on September 11, 2001, under his watch. Of course, it’s unacceptable to lay the blame entirely on Bush for those horrific events, but I’m not sure he’s to be credited for the fact that a highly unusual and unprecedented event has not yet repeated itself. Perhaps he can take credit for no new attacks on Pearl Harbor as well. Or perhaps we can thank Bush and Cheney that a major earthquake has not leveled San Francisco lately.

In my lifetime, the honor and the dignity of the Presidency have suffered horribly—the most honorable and dignified being Eisenhower, under whose aegis I was born (though I would say that the prize goes to Carter for establishing the honor and dignity of the post-Presidency).

In my memory, no President has been worse or as bad as Bush. Whether writing his own valedictory blurbs will affect the public’s memory of his two terms in office remains to be seen. I suspect that Americans will (as Americans tend to) forget, if not forgive. Perhaps he will write his memoirs (though I’ve heard that publishers aren’t really interested in them at the moment). A bestseller followed by a film adaptation could substantially erase memory of the last eight years. Perhaps he will reinvent himself as a spokesman for a cause. Or retire to a secluded compound as Nixon did, back when disgrace was not yet synonymous with honor and dignity.

Or perhaps he’ll do standup.

***

(1) Nicholas, Peter. “For Bush’s staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure.” Los Angeles Times 9 Dec. 2008 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story

(2) United States. White House. Office of National AIDS Policy. President’s HIV/AIDS Initiatives. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids/