What am I, an Idiot? With Technology, Yes!

Mark Riley

It's a moment in life you never see coming, but when it does, you can't figure out why or how it happened. I'm talking about the moment you realize that when it comes to 21st century technology, you're stuck somewhere in the late 20th.

Maybe this has happened to you? Something either goes wrong with your computer, or there's a task you're trying to perform that you can't. In my case, my 11-year-old daughter saunters into the room and innocently asks, "What's wrong, Daddy?"

I proceed to explain my conundrum, only to have her hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and solve the problem! Then, with a look that says "You're so '90s", she goes back upstairs to use her own personal laptop. What she does with it (aside from homework) is a total mystery to me.

Digital manipulation of our dog, courtesy my daughter!

Mind you, when I was coming up, there was no piece of equipment in our home that I knew more about than my parents. The very notion of such a thing would have driven my folks up a wall.

It's not just the computer that makes me feel like a relic from a bygone era. Lately, I've begun to understand that there are people in this world who no longer see the telephone as their primary means of outside communication.

Where once I would pick up the phone and call somebody I wanted to reach, I find it's now faster to either e-mail or text them. Forget texting. I have no idea how it works, and have never sent one knowingly.

Yet it seems that when it comes to mobile and cellphones, actually calling a number is no longer its primary function. This was driven home to me by several recent incidents. One, my daughter (yep, her again) took a phone I used to own after she lost hers.

I only used it to make and receive calls (isn't that the point?). Imagine my amazement when I called her on it and heard a voice say "Please enjoy the music while your party is located". Huh?

I had no idea that my phone had that feature. I'd never bothered to read the manual (too complicated). It wasn't long before I realized she'd customized that phone using lots of features I didn't even know was there.

I soon realized my little one hadn't read it either. Which is kind of the point of this rant. Children process information very differently than we do as adults. Don't ask them to explain it because they either can't or won't. But you know what? It works for them.

The other thing I'm noticing a lot is e-mail that says "Sent from my Blackberry". Yet another technological wrinkle I've yet to master. And I've actually got a Blackberry!

President Obama's Sectera Edge



I'm beginning to think in the next year or so I'll be consigned to "The Land of Left Behind".

Is any of this happening to anyone besides me? Or am I just an idiot?

Ready to Spend Yet?

By Mark Riley

It may not be law yet, but the media has already begun analyzing how the House passed economic stimulus bill will affect Americans. The press has also made a big deal out of the fact that despite President Obama's best efforts, no Republicans voted for the plan in the House.

On the first issue, the answer is simple. The purpose of this plan is to convince the public that it's okay to spend again. Keep in mind that as this crisis has deepened, most folks have seriously cut back on buying, even during the Christmas season.

The alternative for many has been to pay down on debt, not necessarily a bad thing. The question now is whether the combination of tax cuts ($211 of the $819 billion dollar package) and new spending will loosen American purse-strings. Maybe, maybe not.

One good thing. The plan would spend serious money on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Let's hope major cities get some real money for mass transit improvements. Health care would also get a good chunk of money, some $88 billion to shore up Medicaid alone.

President Obama wants to get this thing passed and signed before President's Day. He's invested serious time and effort in trying to marshall bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. It didn't work in the House. Republicans wanted nothing but a tax cut plan, and bickered during debate about whether GW Bush's cuts in '01 created years of growth.

It makes one wonder if trying to talk sense to these people really makes any. Why is there a part of me that wants the president to crack with whip with both congressional Republicans and clueless bankers? The former don't seem to want to admit how bad things really are.

If they want to talk about the good old days of our former president, let them. Let Barack Obama drive the bus with these people standing on the sidelines, griping. If this plan puts people back to work and gets them to spend again, they'll be exposed for the fools they are.

President Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Shouldn't these partisan do nothings be called out for who they are?

You tell me. Leave a comment and start a discussion...

Will Wall Street Ever Learn?

By Mark Riley
As the pushing back and forth on President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan continues, questions abound about whether big executives on Wall St. are really tightening their belts. Juan Gonzalez writes a column in today's NY Daily News that indicates the answer is "absolutely not!"

Sometimes you have to pull together various strands of fabric to make a quilt. Consider the following financial strands, and ask yourself what kind of quilt it makes. Keep in mind that Monday alone, somewhere on the order of 70,000 Americans lost their jobs.

John Thain, former boss at Merrill Lynch, spent $1.2 million dollars on redecorating his office in lower Manhattan.



The redo included $35,000 for a "commode on legs", $25,000 for a "mahogany pedestal table" $87,000 for an area rug, and $1400 bucks for a trash can. That's right, a trash can.

It gets worse. Bank of America, the company that took over Merrill Lynch, announced it would cut 35,000 jobs over three years. That was on Dec. 11th. That same week, John Thain doled out $4 billion (with a B) dollars in bonuses to top execs at Merrill. According to Gonzalez' column, Thain knew Merrill Lynch would show a fourth quarter loss of $15 billion dollars.

So too did the bosses at Bank of America, which was busy asking for $20 billion dollars in government assistance on top of the $25 billion they've already received. The upshot is that Thain was forced out just last week, but the damage had already been done.

The quilt from just these strands of fabric? Taxpayers paid for Merrill Lynch bonuses! If this was the only example of a clueless Wall St. it would be bad enough. Combine it with Citigroup's $50 million dollar jet (it had to cancel the order after it was made public), and the sale of former Lehman Brothers boss Richard Fuld's sale of his $13 million dollar mansion to his wife for $100 bucks, and you get the picture.

These sorts of outrages demand quick action from our new president. Never mind lobbying on Capitol Hill.

He needs to get the titans of American finance in a room, and read them the riot act.

His first question ought to be how it is that 100,000 bank employees have lost their jobs in the past two years, but nearly 90% of the top executives at 200 banks that have gotten federal money are still on the job.

In his inaugural address, the president talked about responsibility. Were America's bankers listening? Apparently not. It's time for Obama to make them pay attention.

What do you think?

Needed Change or Quick Fix?

Politicians, even progressive ones, sometimes react to controversy with well meaning solutions. Too often, the solution is as bad or worse than the problem. So it is with calls to take away the power of state governors to fill vacant seats in the US Senate.

We all know the drama surrounding appointments in Illinois, New York, and Delaware (quick, can anyone tell me the fourth seat that became vacant?). To fix the problem, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold wants to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring a special election if a seat becomes vacant.

Sen. Feingold's logic is that what's good for the House is also good for the Senate. There, the constitution mandates vacancies to be filled by special elections. Further, Feingold argues that citizens, not governors, should be the ones who determine who goes to Washington is a Senate seat is vacant.

It all seems to make sense, and certainly there are numbers of people who will back the proposal after the three ring circus that filling seats in New York, Illinois, and Delaware became. And yet, all this doesn't make the special election route a good idea.

First, some clarity. It's not a bad idea because it takes power away from governors (see Rod Blagojevich). Rest assured they'll be the first ones screaming if Feingold's idea gets traction. No, the problem here is that the proposal doesn't seem to be well thought out.

The House and Senate are two different bodies. One represents an estimated 587,000 people, while senators represent entire states. Besides, there will in fact be special elections to fill all four vacant seats next year. Why rush the process?

Blagojevich's alleged vices aside, does the cost of a special election this year, estimated at $30-50 million dollars really solve a problem? Or is it just a reaction to what's gone on this time around? My gut tells me it's the latter, and my experience tells me these kind of fixes almost never work the way their champions intend.

You tell me. Should governors be stripped of their power to fill vacant Senate seats?

BTW: The fourth vacant seat was in Colorado. It became open when Ken Salazar was tapped to be Interior Secretary.

Mandela, King, Gandhi...Blagojevich?

By Mark Riley
Now that the drama over who would be New York's replacement for Hillary Clinton in the US Senate is done (and the governor is in major damage control mode), the scene shifts back to Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich, apparently on the advice of a PR firm, has gone on a media offensive.




His impeachment trial set to start today, Blago is either acting crazy, or crazy like a fox. After appearing on several Chicago area radio stations, he's now going national. Rather than present a defense to those who will judge him, he's going on, among others "The Today Show", "Good Morning America", "Larry King Live", and "The View".

We now know this is a guy not prone to understatement, and utterly without shame. On "The Today Show", Blagojevich actually said that when he was arrested he thought about Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mohandas Gandhi.







True, all of them did time, but none were ever accused of threatening to withhold children's healthcare funding unless they got campaign donations from a hospital executive. Allegedly, that is.

The particulars of the case have been examined, publicized, and exposed. One would think an honorable politician would step aside temporarily, even as he or she maintained their innocence. Not Blagojevich. He said again over the weekend he's going nowhere. Interestingly, there remain questions about whether prosecutors have enough to convict him on the main charge, trying to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat to the highest bidder.

That will be for a jury to decide. In the meantime, the current governor of Illinois has carved a fascinating niche for himself in the annals of American politics. He is, however, not unique. If you don't believe me, get ahold of Mark Grossman's "Political Corruption in America", an A to Z overview of the depths those we elect will go to amass power and money.

The Illinois State Senate will no doubt vote to remove impeach Rod Blagojevich, and remove him from office. The only question remaining is whether the process will remove the taint this man has brought to the highest office in his state.



Will Rod Blagojevich's removal from office clean up Illinois politics? You tell me.

Gillibrand's the One. Is She the Right One?

NB: Shout out to my good friend Wayne Barrett from the Village Voice for his reporting on this story. He was one of if not the first to report that Gov. Paterson's choice would be Kirsten Gillibrand.

So it looks like Upstate New York Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand will be Gov. Paterson's choice to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.



Already the choice has roiled the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, at least inside the state. Yet for a lot of reasons, the choice is smart politics.

The logic against Gillibrand's runs along several progressive fault lines. She's got a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association. She even opposes any limits on the sale of semi automatic weapons or so-called cop killer bullets. Her position on immigration isn't what anyone would call enlightened. She voted against both financial services bailout bills supported, ironically, by one of her current champions, Sen. Chuck Schumer. That won't endear her to New York City residents.

But wait, there's more! She supported the Bush tax cuts, backed continued funding for the Iraq war, and generally described her voting record as one of the most conservative in the state.



She opposes gay marriage (while supporting civil unions). Even though she was an ardent backer of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, it's pretty obvious they don't see eye to eye on any number of issues.

Even with all this, and the possibility of several primary challengers next year, the choice makes political sense. Gov. Paterson knew he needed to replace Hillary Clinton with a woman. Once Caroline Kennedy dropped out, an upstate woman made the most sense. While watching the NY-1 program, "Inside City Hall" last night, I was struck by the number of phone callers who knew quite a bit about Gillibrand's record, and thought she'd be a good choice.

Voting for her certainly won't be a problem for ethnic voters in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Some of them might even be induced to vote for Gov. Paterson's re-election as well. Keep in mind Gillibrand defeated a long standing incumbent Republican to win her seat in Congress in 2006. There's no way she could have won by taking policy positiions favored by downstate liberals.

Besides, if anyone in theory bears responsibility for the rise of Kirsten Gillibrand, it's Caroline Kennedy. If you believe she was the governor's first choice for the job, the mess created by her last minute departure demanded a quick and clear response.

Kirsten Gillibrand is certainly no perfect vessel. This is politics, and everyone knows there are no perfect vessels. Assuming David Paterson doesn't change his mind, he'll announce her as his choice later today.



If she wants to win a full term, she's going to have to rethink some of her more "Blue Dog" positions, especially on gun control.

Yet in the end, she will be measured by what she's able to bring to the state in the way of jobs and stimulus money. New York, like the rest of the nation, is hurting economically. If she's successful there, she'll win next year.

What do you think? Is Kirsten Gillibrand the right choice?

Too Bad About Caroline, Ya Know?

When it comes to political drama, it seems nothing can top the twin efforts to fill US Senate seats in New York and Illinois. Just when it seemed the controversy surrounding Rod Blagojevich's pick for the latter was dying down, New York's selection process has been thrown into chaos.

That's because Caroline Kennedy, the presumptive choice of Gov. David Paterson, has taken herself out of contention. Speculation abounds about why. Various media are reporting the move caught the governor's office completely by surprise. We may never know the real reason she dropped out.

Fact is, Caroline Kennedy was ill prepared for the blood sport that is New York politics.



Her public rollout was badly flawed, her credentials seriously questioned after a flurry of early positive press. All this she should have expected. Unlike her good friend President Barack Obama, she was incapable of responding effectively to the negative media coverage.

A good speech coach, for example, could have gotten her past the awkward "ums" and "you knows" that made her public interviews agonizing to watch. On top of that, does anyone remember a single policy position she articulated during the course of her shadow campaign for the office?

Why she dropped her bid is anybody's guess. The New York Times cites a person "close to her" as saying it was worry about the health of her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy. Others are speculating it was a graceful way out, since Gov. Paterson was not going to choose her despite the speculation he had little choice.

And the governor's office doesn't come away unscathed in all this either. As recently as 7:00PM last night, his people were saying reports that Ms. Kennedy was dropping out were "just the rumor of the day". A little more than an hour later, his press secretary asked that the previous statement not be published. Say what?

If there's one thing you never do, it's ask the media not to report something you told them. You issue a clarification, you say the governor didn't have all the information, whatever. This is New York! People should know better. All this has conspired to make Gov. Paterson, a thoughtful man, look indecisive and confused.



I don't think he is. In fact, I was never as certain as some of my colleagues that Caroline Kennedy had a lock on the senate seat. David Paterson has always managed to confound even his friends with the choices he makes. He is his own best counsel. Caroline Kennedy dropping out doesn't change that.

Gov. Paterson will make his choice for Hillary Clinton's senate seat known by the weekend. Who do you think he'll choose?

Can Barack pull it off?

Finally, we can stop calling him President-Elect Barack Obama. An historic day of ceremony took care of that. George W. Bush did fly off in a helicopter, finally a former president. Yet not before he heard some scathing words from his successor.



President Obama spent much of his inaugural speech laying out how he would undo what Bush has done over the past eight years.

In many ways, it was a stinging rebuke. "Our collective failure to make hard choices", and the willingness of suspend the nation's ideals "for expedience's sake" pulled no punches, especially with the guy you're talking about sitting only a few feet away. Fact is, though, it had to be said.

He also rejected the notion of the "false choice" between ideals and safety. Again, a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine. Even these words, however, fail to capture what the world saw during Barack Obama's swearing in Tuesday. From the first camera shot as he prepared to be introduced, the new president exuded confidence without swagger, an aura that said, "I can do this".

For just a moment, my mind went back to the early 1960s, to the dawn of my consciousness about who I was. That consciousness was shaped in part by a brash young man from Louisville, Kentucky, a boxer then named Cassius Clay. Until that time, black people rarely if ever held their heads up and proclaimed their greatness. Cassius Clay was different.



Certainly he was electric, confident to the point of arrogance in the eyes of some. Many people thought Sonny Liston would clean his clock when they fought twice for the heavyweight championship. We all know how that turned out.

Still, watching President Obama stride to the podium, take the oath of office, and speak to the world, I was reminded of the confidence we saw as kids in the man who later became Muhammad Ali. For some reason, I saw a straight line there. And it made me feel proud. And old.



That aura of confidence Barack Obama showed yesterday made me realize he really believes he can change the course of this nation. The outgoing president had to sit there in silence, no doubt a little shocked at how directly his watch was bring critiqued.

But all that was yesterday. The parade, the balls, the glitter, all that is done. Time to get to work.

Can he do it? Post your comment here.

Obama's Big Day, and Ours

It should surprise no one that Barack Obama's inauguration has captured the attention of not just the nation, but the world. Juxtaposed as it is with the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, it creates a unique symmetry.

All day Monday, King and Obama were joined, not just in news programs but on cable entertainment channels... and even sports shows. A radio station in Ireland christened itself "Obama FM" to mark the day.



And today, what many thought would never happen will. America has turned a page in its history, and not just because the first black president will be sworn in. The nation and in fact the world is looking for something different, something inspiring, something that indicates that yes, the government can tackle the economic crisis that's meant hard times for so many.

I don't expect Barack Obama to disappoint in his inaugural speech. Since the election, his public speeches have reminded supporters and foes alike that his oratory was a big factor in making him credible. His aides say it will largely be about responsibility, his and ours.

He dropped a big hint Monday, as he and his family engaged in volunteer work just as he challenged the nation to do. Yet now, after the speech, the parade, and innumerable inaugural balls and parties are done, it will be time to govern.

To be successful in that, Obama will need the help of the American people. As people were open to the idea of a black president, so too must they be open to change in the way we function as a nation. That need for change runs the gamut, from the financial sector to our consumption habits to the way we look at health care, education, and work. It won't be easy, nor will it be without pain.

Some of Obama's supporters will be disappointed at the speed and method of change he was elected to bring. That's not a bad thing. If our new president is as open to ideas as has been evidenced thus far, his critics may actually help shape his policies. That would be something new.

And so, celebrate! Even Karl Rove recognizes the history that's being made in Washington today.



Billions of people around the world will watch America write a new chapter in its history.




This new chapter is one you will help write. Post your thoughts of today's events here.

The Dream Fulfilled?

The fact that a new survey shows two thirds of black Americans now believe Dr. Martin Luther King's vision for race relations has been realized, can be attributed to two words: Barack Obama.



Only last March, a similar survey showed only 34% of the black community thought Dr. King's vision had been fulfilled.

What's even more astonishing is where black folks stood on the Obama candidacy as recently as the fall of 2007.

You may remember that's when so many people were questioning his blackness, where he came from, and whether his experience in America was really ours. How quickly we change!

Politically, that change came after the Iowa caucuses, but that's not really the point. On this, the day we celebrate Dr. King's life and legacy, it's important to note that race relations wasn't his only area of endeavor. Martin Luther King stood for peace, and just as importantly, a non racial society where all people, regardless of race or ethnicity, were treated the same.

On that score, we've still got work to do. It may not jump out at us like the overt racism of decades gone by, but people in America, black and white, still pigeonhole each other based on skin color. As the nation gets more diverse, we also tend to do generalize about others, like south and east Asians, and Latinos.

If you don't believe me, check out how some (not all) young black people act toward workers in a Chinese restaurant located in their community. Conversely, look closely at how some Asians stereotype both blacks and Latinos they come in contact with. This isn't the ugliness that greeted the dawn of the civil rights movement that Dr. King headed.



Yet were he alive today, one can't help but think he'd be pointing it out. Maybe I shouldn't put words or thoughts in his mouth. A lot of that has been done since he was assassinated, even by people who opposed his ideals while he lived. However, a cursory reading of his speeches beyond his famed "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963 shows a man profoundly aware of America's ills beyond racism.

Read Dr. King's speeches about the Vietnam War, and understand that race wasn't the only thing he believed needed change in America.

That's a big reason why I believe Barack Obama's efforts to end the war in Iraq will speak to Dr. King's legacy as much as anything else he'll do as president.



Putting Americans back to work at a living wage is also part of Dr. King's dream.

After all, he gave his life while trying to help striking sanitation workers in Memphis.

All of which is to say that Barack Obama's election as president isn't the end of fulfilling Dr. Martin Luther Kind's dream.

It's just the beginning. Isn't it?

Love a Parade?

I've always loved parades. Maybe that's because I've marched in so many of them. As a kid growing up in Connecticut, I joined a fife, drum, and bugle corps at the age of 8. It took two years, but I learned to play a snare drum well enough to participate in dozens of firemen's parades.

From there I joined a competing drum and bugle corps, and never looked back.

Even though we marched primarily in contests, there were always one or two parades to do each season. That's why, all these years later, the most interesting element of Barack Obama's inauguration for me is the huge parade through the streets of DC.

To be chosen to march in an inaugural parade is the highest honor for any marching musical organization. Even though it's January, and it may be cold enough to horn player's lips freeze to their mouthpieces, this parade is something special. I already knew about a couple of groups that were making the trip to participate.

World class drum and bugle corps like the Cadets from Allentown, Pa. and the Colts from Dubuque, Iowa will be there, as will the Grambling State Tiger Marching Band, the the Fightin Blue Hens from the University of Delaware.


Grambling State University Marching Band


Imagine my surprise, then, when I read an article in the New York Times about the drumline of the Bonnie Brae Residential Treatment Center in New Jersey. They'll be there too, and therein lies an interesting story, one that resonates with me on a personal level.

Bonnie Brae is a place for boys ages 8-18 who can't live in the community because of "psychiatric and behavioral challenges". Most have been abused or neglected, and have not adjusted to foster care.


Bonnie Brae Knights


The Bonnie Brae Knights, as they are called, began about four years ago. When their original instructor retired, they hired a couple of people from the Spirit of Newark Drum and Bugle Corps, a corps that competes on a natiional level.

Their director, Harold Wright, is an old friend of mine. In fact, we played bass drum together in a corps, the New York Skyliners, more than a quarter century ago. It was Harold Wright who took the Bonnie Brae Knights to the next level, teaching them the marching and drumming skills that enabled them to get that invitation to the inaugural parade.

Reading the Times piece, with Harold barking out orders to these 15 kids, made me feel, oddly enough, involved with their story. Harold Wright is now 72 years old. He grew up and came of age of the streets of Newark. He and I shared a bond as close as two human beings can during the time we marched together. I know the exact combination of toughness and caring Harold uses with those kids at Bonnie Brae, and the kids from the corps he leads.

There aren't many people left like Harold Wright. Believe me, he doesn't do what he does...for the money. Literally hundreds of young people have benefitted from his leadership. That's what will be on display as the Bonnie Brae Knights strut their stuff in Washington next week.

Which highlight of the inauguration will you be looking forward to? The music, the poets, the speeches, the pageantry, or, just simply saying bye-bye Bush?

Foreclosure Help? Not So Fast!

By Mark Riley

There's more bad news from the housing front just ahead of Barack Obama's inauguration. The number of American homeowners facing foreclosure in '08 was up 81% from '07. That translates to 2.3 million households. More than 860,000 properties were actually repossessed last year, more than double the year before.



Worse yet, predictions are the foreclosure rate will rise once again this year. Congressional Democrats and President-Elect Obama are planning to use $100 billion of the $350 billion bailout dollars left to help distressed homeowners. That is, if everyone can get on the same page about releasing the money.

While they're figuring out how to do that, there are those who will prey on people desperate to hold on to their homes. They call themselves "foreclosure rescue companies", and while some may be legit, there's no way to tell. Their common point is charging upfront fees to supposedly modify loans. In too many cases, however, they do nothing.

The business of foreclosure rescue is largely unregulated. That means they're free to charge upfront fees of anywhere from $1000 to $3000 dollars to help get lower mortgage rates for those who need them. In many situations, however they are little more than scam artists out to make a quick buck.

Some have Websites that suggest they have some connection to the federal government. Some say they're directly involved in implemented government rescue programs that haven't even been approved yet. These rip-offs will tell homeowners they've negotiated an agreement with their lender when they've done little or nothing, not even as much as making a phone call.

There are some things consumers should know. 21 states have laws prohibiting companies from collecting fees until services are completed. Find out if your state is one of them. Anyone thinking about using a rescue company should be wary of any company demanding an upfront payment, even if they tell you it can be paid in installments.

Check with the Better Business Bureau in your community to find out if there are any complaints against the company you may be thinking of using.



Also, check with the office of the Attorney General in your state. In some cases, you may find there are pending lawsuits based on previous alleged rip-offs.

Pay no attention to solicitations you get in the mail that look like they're coming from a government agency. Google the name of the company. You'd be surprised what you'll find. If in any doubt, don't give anyone promising to help you keep your home a dime. If they're legitimate, they won't be trying to give you a hard sell.

Preying on people's desperation is the lowest form of doing business. Don't let them prey on you. Have they tried already? Post your comment here if you know of a foreclosure story.

Bin Laden Message/Bush Coda?

There's a new message from Osama bin Laden, the latest of more than 60 from top Al-Qaeda operatives since September 11th, 2001.




This one, which the media is calling "purportedly" from bin Laden, calls for a holy war over Gaza. Right now it almost doesn't matter what his message is. That it comes less than a week before George W. Bush leaves office is a fitting period on Bush's eight year run-on sentence.

You remember that, in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, Bush went Old West in his rhetoric on bin Laden. "Dead or alive" was the adage at the time. Our president, ever the gunslinger, promised America and in fact the world that he'd be the one to bring this terrorist to justice.

Imagine people's surprise less than a year later when he said he neither knew nor cared where bin Laden was. "I am truly not that concerned about him" was what he said in early '02. Now, he leaves the hunt for bin Laden to Barack Obama, along with a shattered economy and two wars.

Bush never understood how important it was to capture bin Laden. He didn't realize the pain and frustration Americans feel each time one of these messages is released. Whether the messages resonate with jihadists around the world ought to be a concern for the man leaving the White House next week. It isn't.

In an interview with CNN's Larry King, Bush says he's "absolutely certain" bin Laden will be captured.



However, when asked if he's ever been close to being captured since the US invaded Afghanistan, Bush said, quoting here, "I don't know. I can't answer that". Absolute certainty stands right next to a complete lack of knowledge. And this is the guy who will be spinning his farewell to the American people Thursday.

Maybe Osama bin Laden will never be caught by the US or any of our allies. Maybe he'll die of old age in a cave somewhere near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If so, George W. Bush bears plenty of the responsibility. His lack of resolve in capturing bin Laden mirrors his lack utter inability to actually work at fixing the economy.

Given Bush's eight awful years in office, will you watch his televised address Thursday. Should anybody?

Should We Be Happy for Bishop Robinson?

By Mark Riley

So what if it looks like a bone to the gay community. President-Elect Obama's invitation to Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to deliver the invocation at a pre-inaugural event is a good thing.




It at least shows Obama's paying attention. Frankly, I still have problems with having Rick Warren being asked to play a central role in the inauguration itself.



Warren, the pastor of a California mega-church, has been asked to open the swearing in next Tuesday. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban that passed last November. No matter. Bishop Robinson says his inclusion isn't a reaction to the anger that swept the gay and lesbian community at the news of Warren's role. We should believe him, I guess.

I had the privilege of interviewing Bishop Robinson not long after he was consecrated by the Episcopal Church. That act in 2003 caused a growing rift in the Anglican Communion, parent body of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Robinson struck me then as a humble man with a fine tuned sense of humor, precisely the kind of person who would make a great bishop in the church I had rejoined after more than 30 years.

You'll note (I hope) that I haven't referred to Bishop Robinson as "The openly gay Bishop". That's because it seems everyone else in the media does, and I'm sick of it. Bishop Gene Robinson shouldn't be defined by his sexuality and more than Rick Warren is. Nobody refers to him as "The openly straight Pastor", nor should they.

Unlike a lot of other clergy, Gene Robinson has publicly admitted his human frailty, having been in a 12 step program for alcohol addiction. He says the language he'll likely use in his invocation Sunday will come from what he learned there. That all his colleagues in the Episcopal Church haven't embraced him is a travesty. In my brief time with him, however, I didn't detect any real anger at the people who have shunned him.

I have learned that lesson from other clergy in my own church, both gay and straight. They seem to have remarkable patience in the face of their enemies, far more than I think I could muster if I were in their shoes. In that context, the inclusion of Bishop Gene Robinson isn't just a good thing, but a triumph.

I just wish Barack Obama would switch the roles at the inauguration of Bishop Robinson and Pastor Warren.

What do you think?

Transparency, Anyone?

By Mark Riley

NB: From now on, this blog will be updated daily. I thought (silly me) I needed to concentrate on doing longer pieces fewer times a week. I now know better.

If there's been one single news item that should outrage hard working Americans, it's the one that says banks can't or won't tell anyone what they've done with the first chunk of the federal bailout money. We were told this was central to keeping the economy afloat. Yet nobody seems to know where the money went. As is the case with a lot that goes on inside the Beltway, there's plenty of blame to go around on this one.



Imagine for a moment you, a person working every day to make ends meet, complete the mountain of paperwork needed to actually get a loan from your financial institution. Then imagine what would happen if you couldn't (or refused) to tell the bank what you did with the money. It's called fraud if you do it, but US financial institutions seem to be getting away with just that.

You may remember last fall Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told us the sky would fall if our financial institutions didn't get help to the tune of $700 billion dollars.



He managed to scare the Congress into giving it to him to dole out without oversight. And that's just what we've got: No oversight whatsoever. I'm not saying this. A GAO report says Treasury doesn't even know.

The banks aren't the only ones to blame here. To them, this money must seem like a windfall. Congress itself must bear some of the responsibility for this mess. They, after all, said yes to the the bailout request. Now, after the fact, they seem to be concerned. Now they want answers.

They should have demanded them before releasing the first half of the money. Now the incoming Obama Administration wants to free up the other $350 billion dollars. Unlike Bush, Obama has sense enough to demand some sort of accountability this time around. Yet even that shouldn't suffice. What about the first outlay. Are we ready to watch hundreds of billions of dollars float away without demanding answers?

Millions of Americans lost their jobs last year. Not only are homeowners facing default, renters are looking at increases they have no means to pay. It's ordinary Americans who are catching hell! "I dunno" isn't good enough when it comes to taxpayer dollars. Obama should demand a full accounting of all monies spent since last fall by the financial institutions that got help. Any hesitancy on their part should be met with the threat of criminal prosecution.

It's time to stop playing with the Masters of the Universe. They got us into this mess. They shouldn't be able to escape their responsibility to at least be transparent. Should they?

Want to See Change You Can Believe In? Try New York!

President-Elect Barack Obama Thursday spoke to the nation's deep economic woes with a plan involving tax cuts and stimuli to the tune of $775 billion dollars. Already, some of his allies in the Senate are picking it apart, and some commentators say it's not enough. Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day!

Obama is trying to create the change he talked about so often in his campaign, that is, a change in the nation's sense of itself. Yet, as I found out quite by accident last night, there's change, and then there's the change you feel when you walk through a New York City neighborhood that used to be your stomping grounds.

I had a meeting with a friend at a spot on Manhattan's Upper West Side.



As I came out of the subway, I realized I was early, way too early to expect my friend to be at our meeting place. So I decided to walk around a little. I headed up Broadway, past buildings that were so familiar, but their ground floor storefronts had changed, and changed profoundly.

The diner that used to sit in the middle of one block was long gone. It became famous as the source of a recurring skit on Saturday Night Live. Also gone was the movie house that was one block up. The Shopwell supermarket, the Ideal restaurant, the hot dog joint on the corner of 110th St. all a part of my distant past. When I started walking, my steps had no real destination in mind.

Yet as I kept on, I knew where I'd end up up. It was the block, 109th St. between Broadway and Amsterdam Ave. Once upon a time, it was my second home.



Suddenly, names I hadn't thought about in years came flooding back. So too did the incredible diversity that neighborhood came to represent, and still does, despite the obvious changes. Gus, and his brother Victor lived in the building on the corner. Ricky, the only Venezuelan on the block, lived a couple of doors down. I passed a small playground, and remembered that my boys Clean Gene and Sailor 109 got busted there, for what I can't even remember.

And then, even though at first I couldn't remember the exact building, I saw number 215. That was where Juan and his mother Carmen lived, along with the Castro brothers. There was a time we considered it our building, even though we didn't live there. Carmen always opened her apartment to us, and it was there that I learned to love Latin music in all its forms. On Saturday nights we would set out from that apartment on the second floor, sometimes three or four of us, sometimes a dozen.

There was Johnny the Gambler, Shorty, Spongy, Monkey, Candy, Jamie,and of course, my closest friend Wilfred. We'd set out for parties uptown, in the Bronx or Washington Heights. And always, we'd end up at four or five o'clock in the morning back at 215. Now, in real time, I stood looking at my past.

I continued on to the end of the block, then headed back down Amsterdam Ave. Where once the street was dotted with bodegas and small Dominican businesses, change had come as well. Some of the same stores where I used to buy my favorite soda (Good-O Cola Champagne. 39 cents a quart) were still there, but now they co-exist with bistros featuring exposed brick and flat screen televisions, most tuned to either CNBC or ESPN (sports or bad economic news, take your choice). I'd resolved to head back toward my meeting, but again my mind turned my feet toward one more place.

I headed east, across 108th St., where the schoolyard behind the Booker T. Washington Jr. High School (or just plain Booker T) stretched almost half the block. Across the street from that yard was a small vest pocket playground we used to call "The Little Park". For some reason, I had to see it again. And there it was, now called "The Anibal Aviles Playground". A large Parks Dept. sign proclaimed "This Park Closes at Dusk".

The benches were still in the back, but it was wishful thinking to believe they were the same ones we used to sit on and solve
the problems of the world. The place was empty, as it should have been since it was well after dark, but still, I drifted back to nights we'd be there, even in the cold, talking, cracking on girls passing by, sharing various libations (don't ask), and trying to figure out what to do with our young lives.

It was getting close to the time of my meeting. I turned, crossed the street, and walked back toward Broadway. The neighborhood had changed, as does just about everything in New York.



The people I spent those times with many years ago are long gone, just like the Olympia Diner. But the mist of memory remains, time stamped in a corner of your brain.

As the nation seeks change, it's good to remember, even on a cold New York City night.

Leave a comment - what are your memories of the area you grew up and how it's changed?

Democrats Gone Dumb?

So here we are, in the first weeks of 2009. There are Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, and a Democrat is getting ready to be inaugurated. So how has the Democratic Party made such a mess of things already? Let's leave aside for now the ongoing drama around the Minnesota Senate seat. That one may not get resolved until Al Franken is up for re-election six years from now.

In New York, Gov. David Paterson seems under increasing pressure to name Caroline (Ya Know) Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton.



All manner of backroom maneuvering is alleged there, but don't sell Paterson short. He's surprised people (friend and enemy alike) before. Yet for almost comic idiocy and incompetence, nothing beats the charade now going on to replace President-Elect Barack Obama.

Let's be clear at the outset. There are enough bad actors in this scenario to make the late Ed Wood smile.



Inarguably the list begins with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Allegedly trying to sell a Senate seat is bad enough. Getting caught talking about it in vulgar wiretaps is (or should be) embarrassing. Refusing to step down while your case is adjudicated is chutzpah squared. But then, Blago actually appoints someone to the seat. Said appointment, Roland Burris,accepts the appointment, and actually tries to present credentials in Washington, only to have them rejected. Are you laughing yet?

And that's only the half of it. Democrats, in both Illinois and Washington, seem determined to give this seat to the opposition. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for reasons best known only to himself, contacts Blagojevich before the firestorm of his arrest erupts. He lobbies Blago for his preferred replacement, according to published reports, and proceeds to badmouth three other possible choices. Trouble is, all the choices are black. Seems Reid didn't think any of them could hold the seat in the next election. Someone please call me the next time someone tells Harry Reid who can win an election in his home state of Nevada, and he actually pays attention.

Then there are the Illinois Democrats themselves. They're about as scared of losing that Senate seat as Harry Reid is. However, their bumbling has given Rod Blagojevich the wiggle room needed to appoint Roland Burris. They were gun shy about calling a special election, and taking immediate steps to oust Blago. Now it's costing them in the court of public opinion. I can almost see the Republican ads when the seat does come up for an actual election. "Don't let Harry Reid and the Democrat Party tell you who your next Senator should be. Vote for (fill in the blank, most likely Paul Kirk)". After the majority leader's reported meddling, even some black folks in Chicago might pay attention to that one.

So now it supposedly comes to the rule of law, and whether the Senate can legally bar Roland Burris. Taking no chances, the former Illinois Attorney General played the God Card this past weekend. Speaking at a church, Burris invoked the Almighty, telling a God fearing congregation that the Lord had touched Rod Blagojevich, and that's how he, Burris, was chosen. Yep, it's come to that. A career politician says (with a straight face) that a foul mouthed benefactor was touched by God to make a political decision.

Yes, Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty. But what about the other players in the sad tale? Can the Democrats get past their own ham handed attempts to resolve this? And what of Barack Obama? Can he continue to remain above a fray in his own home state?

Is this a blip on the screen, or a harbinger of problems to come for the party now in power?

Update......Update......Update!!!!

The Lord must truly work in mysterious ways! If God touched Rod Blagojevich, as Roland Burris said the other day, what's to explain Harry Reid's change of heart? He's gone from "We won't seat him" to "He's a nice man", from the guy who threw Burris out into the rain to the guy who invited him in for a chat. Burris met with Reid and Dick Durbin today, and now there seems to be the possibility that he could be seated in the Senate after all. A few things need to happen, but what appears to have happened is somebody called Harry Reid a racist and he didn't like it much.

Ahhhh, politics!

Why Can't We?

President-Elect Barack Obama certainly chose a resonant slogan with "Yes We Can."

And, of course, he did, as did we...the American people. As we turn the page to 2009, and face frightening challenges on a number of fronts, it's time to transition from "Yes We Can" to "Why Can't We?"

There are fundamental changes that need to be made in how the nation functions, and politicians will make these adjustments faster with some prodding from the public.

And so, this humble blog presents:

"Why Can't We?" These are objectives that can be done, and ought to be done as priorities for a better America.

Why can't we ... produce cars and trucks that pollute less, are more road reliable, and are more fuel efficient?

This past fall, we saw Detroit's Big Three come to Washington hat-in-hand to ask our elected representatives for help. Yet even now, we have no firm pledge from them to do things differently. In fact, you can see the carmakers' commitment to business as usual in their commercials and the vehicles they market.

Do we really think a hybrid Cadillac Escalade that gets 21 miles to the gallon on the highway represents progress?



The most fuel efficient car now sold in America gets 48-51 miles to the gallon of fuel.

Why can't we have the option of buying a car that gets 75 MPG? Impossible? Not really.

In fact, one US carmaker sells a car that gets almost that much. Trouble is, you can't buy it here. Come to think of it, college kids regularly create vehicles that clock several hundred miles to the gallon. Public pressure is already being applied to the Big Three in the form of unsold SUV's clogging dealer showrooms. That is, dealers that remain open.

Are we prepared to let elected officials pledge our dollars to carmakers and in six months have no clue how it's been spent. or whether better products are coming to market? Why can't we indeed!

Why can't we ...have universal health care in this country? There are anywhere from 41-46 million Americans who spend a part of their day worrying about getting sick. That's because our health care system focuses its priorities anywhere but on people.




Insurance companies, hospitals, stockholders, drug companies and their lobbyists all seem to prosper, and any attempt to talk about making sure all Americans have access to quality care is met with the battle cry of "socialized medicine". We must start from the notion that good health is an American right, not a privilege.

As we are challenged with the responsibility of eating better, exercising more, not smoking , and the like, our elected officials must come up with health care reform that provides quality care and services for all. Whatever the cost, it's better than having families who pay more for health insurance than they pay for their homes. No matter what you may hear, it works in other countries, not perfectly, but it works.

Why can't we ...have better education for more of our young people? In a perfect world, educators would make as much if not more than star athletes.

Certainly no one would argue teachers have less responsibility. Assuming that won't happen anytime soon, we need to ask if the American education system works hard enough to replicate success. The short answer is no, it doesn't. We have some of the best schools in the world, and ...some of the worst.

Sadly, the best and worst coexist in some cases in the same city. In too many instances we have allowed academic rigor to disappear from our classrooms. We tell our kids they need to get educated primarily to land a good job. We neglect to tell them knowledge is important beyond employment.




We need to recognize where our education bar is, then raise it! If half our young people can't read at or above grade level, we need to commit to making that 75% during Barack Obama's first term. We also need to recognize that funding education is important, but it's not the sole determining factor in creating educational excellence. People are. That would be teachers, administrators, parents, students, and yes, concerned Americans.

The above are but a few areas where we should be asking "Why Can't We?" There are certainly others, but we've got to start somewhere . Are these few things able to be done, or at least worked on? You tell me.

Why can't we ...

Baby Boom Challenge

As we move into a new year, many of us are focused on the need to jump start our moribund economy. It certainly will be Job #1 for our new president. At the same time, however, America faces a different and more daunting challenge. It's one that will take a supreme effort on the part of those that recognize it.

It can't be met with rhetoric from myriad of divides that haunt our society: Black vs. white, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, gay, vs. straight. If left unmet, this challenge threatens to gut any economic recovery that takes place in the future.

Think for a moment about some of the more outlandish stories that dotted the American landscape in 2008. From Eliot Spitzer to Rod Blagojevich, from Plaxico Burress to Bernie Madoff, from Kwame Kilpatrick to Ted Stevens to John Edwards to AIG to the Big Three carmakers, a common thread emerges. It's one of greed, entitlement, stupidity, and cluelessness. And even these stories scratch the surface of what the nation must address, and fix. It can't be fixed simply by electing the nation's first black president and looking to him to wave a magic wand.

Fact is, America's soul is damaged, and too many of us either refuse to admit it or don't recognize what has happened.

This blog is certainly not the first place to speak to this malaise. My man Steven Ivory has written eloquently in eurweb.com about the need to mend our damaged fabric. The purpose here is to build on what others have recognized, and throw down a gauntlet to a specific group to take the lead in addressing the problem.

What needs fixing in this country is our moral compass, our sense of ourselves, and our resolve to leave a better world for our children than what we inherited. And what group needs to take the lead in remolding the American spirit? It is the responsibility of my generation, the so-called baby boomers.



As our eldest creep toward retirement, an honest assessment of our stewardship of the nation would leave quite a bit to be desired.

It is that generation of men and women born between 1946 and 1964 that benefitted from an enormous expansion of the US economy, and at the same time changes in the nation's moral fiber brought on in large measure by the civil rights movement.



It was also our generation that saw the need 40 years ago to change America's direction. We were young then, and the ethos of the counterculture was at the same time well intentioned and unfocused. It is now almost two generations later. Many of us have grown children and grandchildren. It's time for us to dig deep, and start asking questions that may be painful, but are certainly necessary.

We can start by asking ourselves whether what we say we want in the life of this country is actually what we end up paying for. Put simply, many of us decry the cultural excesses that we ourselves consume.

Whether it's the endless diet of "reality television" we watch, or the banal, self aggrandizing music we listen to, we need to ask ourselves whether this is the best we can do. This isn't about censorship but about discriminating consumption.

Most of us don't realize that as we encourage the production of shows like "The Real Housewives of Whatever" we know less and less about the rest of the world because our media has closed foreign news bureaus because they aren't profit centers.

Whether we want to admit it or not, our consumption speaks to our values, to what we hold dear, to what is important to us. If spending $100,000 on a sweet sixteen birthday party appears normal to our youth, will spending time with family and friends ever suffice? If over the top behavior is rewarded with media exposure, how do we reward what is normal, caring, and nurturing?

If a half-hearted effort gets you a passing grade in school, why bother striving for excellence? I believe if these fundamental issues aren't addressed, we can expect more, not less of the behavior we say we abhor.

And why, you may ask, does the baby boom generation have a special responsibility to join the struggle for the nation's future?



It's not simply that which we were given, although that would be reason enough. It is our numbers that mandate the work we must do. Those numbers represented the hope of our parents for the future we'd inherit.

That we've been imperfect vessels is inarguable. Yet if our time as young people taught us anything, it should have been the notion that yes, we can change the nation, and the world.

Baby boomers and children of baby boomers, your comments please?