A Date that will Live in Infamy

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called December 7, 1941 "a date which will live in infamy". We, of the 21st century, have our own Pearl Harbor: September 11, 2001: it is a date which will live in infamy in the history of the 21st Century.

Today, instead of remembering the losses of this day, I choose to give thanks: I choose to give thanks for all of the young men and women who don uniforms for the armed services of the United States. I give thanks for the men and women who have stayed in uniform, and dedicated their careers to the military service. I give thanks for the educators who have chosen to become public school teachers to give our children education and tools to live a good life. I give thanks for the police and fire fighters who step in front of danger each and every day they leave for work. I give thanks for the judges, prosecutors and public defenders who toil in the courts of our country to ensure that each and every person accused of a crime will be prosecuted and defended to the fullest and fairest extent of the law, and shall not suffer prison unless convicted by a jury of their peers. I give thanks for the genius of the fine men who drafted the Constitution which is the backbone of our republic.

I give thanks - for the millions of people who walk this earth every day, whose personal toils and labors allow me to live a very good life. I give thanks for my blessings as I remember those who were lost on this day, this date that will live in infamy.

A Test for Obama ? Maybe Not So Much

On Friday, March 13, 2009 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted that there will be a vacancy on the Supreme Court soon. During a question and answer session with law students in Boston Ginsburg commented that the nine Supreme Court justices are only photographed together when a new member is apponted, saying

“We haven’t had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon.”

Although five of the nine justices are at age 70 or older, none has contemplated retirement in public. Given that Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee is battling pancreatic cancer, she is the odds on favorite as the next to be replaced, thus giving President Obama his first opportunity to re-shape the Supreme Court.

Of the nine justices seated on the court, 7 were appointed by Republican administrations. During the last Administration, President Bush appointed two justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, age 54 and Associate Justice Samuel Allito, age 58 His father, "Bush 41", appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the younger members of the court at age 60, and Justice David Souter, age 69. Justice John Paul Stevens, the Senior Associate Justice at 88, is the oldest member of the Court and was appointed by President Ford. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, ages 73 and 72 respectively, were both Regan appointments. Interestingly, two of the so-called "liberal" judges, Souter and Stevens, were appointed by republican presidents, thus skewing the presumption that judicial appointees will follow party platforms.

Assuming that President Obama will soon have his first opportunity to shape the future of the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that one appointment will result in any significant changes since there will still be a solid conservative bloc (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Allito). The critical "swing" justice is and will continue to be Justice Kennedy who has voted with the "liberals"on gun control, in supporting habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees, in favor of expanding Constitutional rights for sexual orientation, and against the death penalty applied to those who are mentall ill, under the age of 18 or for the rape of a child. Justice Kennedy likewise joined the plurality opionion which re-affirmed though narrowed Roe v. Wade in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

Therefore, unless President Obama has the opportunity to nominate and appoint three Justices, unlikely since the average age of the court is 69, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will undergo any drastic change of judicial philosophy during this Obama administration. Conversely, the appointment of just one additional conservative justice would solidify the conservative voting bloc and present the opportunity for the court to review and reject stare decisis. Of course, Presidents do not always have crystal balls, and justices have been known to surprise their presidents once they enter the court's womb.

Can We Afford Afghanistan?

I receive the news that President Obama has approved sending 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan with great trepidation. So does George McGovern, former Democratic Presidential nominee: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102489.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter For an excellent alternative view - see http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86105-p10/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan.html

According to the CIA, Afghanistan, a landlocked mountainous terrain, comprises an area about the size of Texas.

" . . .Afghanistan is extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, agriculture, and trade with neighboring countries. Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government's inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan's living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world. International pledges made by more than 60 countries and international financial institutions at the Berlin Donors Conference for Afghan reconstruction in March 2004 reached $8.9 billion for 2004-09. While the international community remains committed to Afghanistan's development, pledging over $57 billion at three donors' conferences since 2002, Kabul will need to overcome a number of challenges. Expanding poppy cultivation and a growing opium trade generate roughly $3 billion in illicit economic activity and looms as one of Kabul's most serious policy concerns. Other long-term challenges include: budget sustainability, job creation, corruption, government capacity, and rebuilding war torn infrastructure."*

With a population of approximately 33 million, opium is the most significant export in this country with 40 percent unemployment, and 53 percent of it's population living below poverty. Infectious diseases considered to be at high risk are food and waterborne - bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever, malaria and rabies. Over 70 percent of the population are considered to be illiterate, and over 77 percent are believed to reside in rural areas of Afghanistan.

Can 17,000 troops change the hearts and minds of millions?





Source: CIA World Factbook

I Spy With My Little Eye

It sounds like there will be plenty of scientists going back to work now that President Obama has lifted the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. Well now that is a very good thing in my opinion. Let's keep in mind that the research on the stem cell lines did not entirely stop though it was hampered by restrictions on the use of public funding for research. Now this does not mean that scientists will create embryo's to destroy them to create a new line of stem cells but rather will be permitted to use embroy's which would otherwise be destroyed or thrown away to extract stem cells and thus create new cell lines. To that I would ask: is it less objectionable to destroy the embryo without removing cells? In my mind the answer is no: to destroy it or to forever permit it to remain in a state of frozen limbo are far worse than using cells from it to research potential cures for severe and debilitating injury and disease. Of course, one could debate the morality of the creation of the embroy's in the first place and whether or not that alone is playing "God", but I'll leave that for another day. But till then, I take hope and comfort seeing that though we are in a debilitating economic crisis courtesy of the past 2 administrations, there is light on the horizon.

Just Chillin'

Greetings from the Blogosphere! For all of you wondering if I have taken a permanent vacation, the answer is "no" - I'm still out here but just "busy as all get out." I do love hearing from you though, so I've decided to let you email me if you wish: anyone wanting to get in contact with GinGin may email me at:

GinGinSan@verizon.net

Till soon -

Gin

Talk Me Down

I really like the Rachel Maddow show, I really do. But I think if I hear her "Talk Me Down" segment once more I'll throw the remote through the tv. She has single handedly turned that phrase into my least favorite hackneyed expression of the 21st century and I've had quite a few. Those of us who are literate in the English language are blessed to have a plethora of wonderful language for expression. Yet, inevitably, we cultivate fad expressions that "spread like wildfire": first they're cool and show how "in" one is but oh so quickly become quite banal. Here are a few of my all time favorites:

1. "Don't Go There" - this one seems to have originated as social worker speech to mean "don't discuss that" and not "don't go there down that one way street". Why is that better than saying "maybe we shouldn't discuss that".

2. "Sweeeeeet" - must be said with a deadpan intonation to indicate that something is very good, since we're oh too cool to say it's nice or good or useful and if we used another word, others might not recognize us as "masters of the universe"

3. "Rock out" - out of where? Out of the house? Out of on the street? Where did the rock go when it went out?

4. "Cheap as Dirt" - well the last time I had to buy some dirt for my yard it cost me "an arm and a leg".

5. "For what it's worth" - so what is it worth and why are we talking about worth? Is this a discussion about value?

6. "Family Values" - speaking of value, whose values, and whose family and where did they put their values?

7. "Put a fork in me, I'm Done." Okay, do you really want me to stick you with a fork?

8. "Cop a feel" - I really don't want to "go there" with that one.

9. "Tit for tat". You just know what I want to say about that . . .

10. "Play hard" Oh just stop it now and "play nice".

Whatever

Looks like a girl can't even put her feet up for a few days and check out without folks looking for a hidden meaning. Oh well - whatever. According to my stat counter some folks visit me whether I blog or not, so I expect that y'all are expecting something from me. Sorry, but if you've come looking for an answer to the latest postings elsewhere - the upshot is - I'm just not that into it. But it does look like some of you can't quite get enough of my blog. For example, one of my Ohio visitors popped in her 16 times over the last 3 days, and exited by way of Nay's profile 12 times. Another of my fans from Florida has lurked here 17 times in the last 3 days - better lay off the caffeine if you don't want to be lurking here at 2:00 a.m. again. I suspect that these are the footprints of the newest blogger to the scene - purporting to expose the dastardly deeds of the D/S. Again, I say - whatever. It is rather curious to me though, that one would proclaim another's words as terrible and then re-publish those thoughts as though the act of renewal did not constitute another assault or injury. Then again, whatever. The pot can be stirred or left to cool. It's up to each of us to choose our path. As for me . . . whatever. Back to putting my feet up.