Elizabeth Warren's Indian Heritage

I can empathize with Elizabeth Warren. I don't know all of the details of how she did or did not use her Cherokee and Delaware bloodlines during the course of her life but as the grandson of a Grandfather who was Algonquin and a Grandmother who was Oneida (Iroquois) I know that I proudly embrace my heritage.  My mother's family came on the Mayflower yet when asked about my heritage I am most proud of the one that ties me most closely to the land. I'm an all American mutt but if forced to choose one box into which I am willing to be placed it is Indian and by God or the Great Spirit I will continue to proudly fly the Iroquois Flag along with the American one.

By the way, for those who wonder, the correct reference is now once again American Indian, not Native American. I have not taken the time to understand why yet but once I do, I will share it with my friends here.

Benjamin Netanyahu: To Meet or Not to Meet?

As you might expect, President Obama certainly anticipated that he would take a drubbing from Fox News and the Romney Campaign for choosing not to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu this week. The easiest thing to do politically would have been to meet with him so why did he take the more difficult road? Most likely because - as has been his usual approach - when the choice is good policy or good politics the President chooses Good Policy and hopes that the American people will appreciate being treated as grownups and can see his reasoning when it is presented.

So why not meet with Netanyahu?

The middle east is a complex place with many competing interests. Layered on top of this cake of diversity are a myriad of problems some of them long-standing and some more temporal related to an issue that has either just arisen or in some way is constrained by time and the urgency of now. The Palestinian/ Israeli dispute over a homeland is one example of a long-standing problem; the concerns about Iran’s nuclear program as one of the most pressing temporal problems. Often the alignment of countries shifts with respect to the different problems based on the self interest of the individual countries or religious groups. So for example, on the Palestinian questions Israel finds itself isolated but when it comes to the questions of a nuclear Iran most of the nations in the middle east would find themselves aligned with Israel and the U.S.. Few countries are willing to tip the balance of power in the Middle East in the direction of Iran – a Persian nation and away from the largely Arab nations. Peace between the Israelis and Palestinians will only come when there is a party perceived to be an honest broker that can not only bring everyone to the table but be able to push both parties to make concessions that they know must be made but demand a level of selflessness inconsistent with the urge for a politician to position himself for the next election (or herself someday I hope).

Given the number of countries who are stakeholders in the struggle for a Palestinian homeland (or who consider themselves to be stakeholders) President Obama would either have to suspend his campaign to meet with all of the leaders or choose between nations, diminishing the credibility of the US role as broker for peace.

 The question of Iran is a much more immediate and dangerous one calling for cool heads and thoughtful negotiations.

The last six weeks of a US presidential campaign is hardly the time or place for that. President Obama knows this and so too do Netanyahu and Mitt Romney but their agenda are different. In the case of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama both are doing what they should do. Netanyahu wants to use the elections as an opportunity to leverage assurances from the US President that we will support any decision made by the Prime Minister – including direct military action at any time. He believes that with American’s distracted by the campaign for President that this may be the best possible time for an attack and that such an attack would force the two candidates to prove their bona fides with Israel by competing to show who was the most supportive of Israel in the wake of an attack. In doing this Netanyahu is in fact serving his own county’s best interests – but not ours. The climax of a fiercely contested presidential campaign is no time for taking action that requires cool heads.

 In choosing not to meet with Netanyahu, President Obama is doing just what he should do. Choosing wise diplomacy and policy over politics of the moment that risk not only the reputation of the US but risk inflaming the region and perhaps drawing the nations across the globe into a world wide cataclysm.

So if both Netanyahu and Presient Obama are doing just what they should be doing to represent the best interests of their own countries, how does one explain the actions of Mitt Romney? In theory at least, he should be supporting the President’s decision to keep Israel on a short leash until after the campaign is over. Yet he is not. He is advocating for the most dangerous approach – the one that may advantage him politically but puts the United States in a gravely dangerous position. This is not merely the result of inexperience on the part of Romney and his staff. It is much more serious than that.

 In taking the position he has taken Mitt Romney has shown that he would not hesitate to place the country in jeopardy if it meant that he could draw a partisan or personal advantage from it.

 It is often said that in politics the narrative that one campaign constructs about its opponent is only effective insofar as the opponents actions prove it to be true. The Narrative that Romney’s opponents have created that he is without a moral core and prone to choosing personal and partisan gain over the nation’s best interests on matters of critical importance gains credibility with each passing day and each such test of Mr. Romney’s judgment and loyalty.

 Each of these three world leaders is tested in this scenario. When faced with a choice between their own best interests and those of the nation they lead, or wish to lead, Netanyahu chooses Israel, President Obama chooses the United States and Mitt Romney chooses . . . Mitt Romney.

Remembering and Honoring Eisenhower and the 101st Airborne Division

Thinking about the great 101st Airborne Division and their place in history. They were instrumental in the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Eindhoven and Bastogne.
The Spirit of this great division of the Army can be summed up by a comment attributed to a member of the Screaming Eagles during the seige of Bastogne who said "They've got us surrounded -- the poor bastards!"

It was 55 years ago yesterday that the 101st made its mark on history by protecting 9 young black children as they sought register for school at Little Rock Elementary to carry out the mandate of "Brown vs the Board of Education" . Following the orders of President Eisenhower, the 101st proudly stepped in to assure that the law of the land was enforced.

The anniversary of this important date cannot be lost on us because it was a Republican president and war hero who issued the order sending the 101st to Little Rock. Using the power of the Federal Government to protect the rights of Americans too long denied their due.

This moment in history is instructive in many ways that pertain to today's current events.

First - for those who wish to blame President Obama for the unrest in the middle east right now - it demonstrates that the struggle for democracy is a process, and a messy one at that. Almost 200 years after the founding of our Republic, unrest was still characterizing the struggle to bring our institutions and the hearts of our citizens into alignment with our hopes expressed by the powerful words of the Declaration of Independence and the recipe of the Constitution. Eisenhowers brave actions, and the heroism of the 101st Airborne would not be the last of those struggles either and they certainly were not the first. The Civil War, was largely a result of the struggle to create a more perfect union and to live up to our credo, but there were dozens of rebellions and movements that characterized the process of nurturing the democratic ideal. Eisenhower and his actions were a part of a long-honored tradition of great American Presidents who used the power of the Presidency and the Federal Government to move the ball down the field toward that day when every American could say that we had truly lived up to our creedo.


The Arab Spring may represent a beginning but there will be many growing pains as the people of the region come to terms with the ideas and ideals of freedom and democratic governance.

If the memory of Eisnehower's actions and the bravery of the 101st can give us insight into the growing pains of democracy and freedom throughout the world, it can also give us insight into where the Republican Party has come since the days of Eisenhower. Could we count on Mitt Romney to stand up for freedom and democracy here at home if he was in a similar circumstance? The truth is that we probably could not. because Romney has become a captive of the ideology of the current Republican Party leadership. It is an ideology that sees government as the enemy and seeks to dismantle and discredit the moral authority and power of the Federal Government and leave each of us to the whims of state and local government without the ties that bind us together as Americans.

Living up to the lofty goals and words defining Freedom and democratic ideals - whether they are those that ring down through the years in America or those which reflect them uttered in the heat of the Arab Spring - is a long and sometimes painful process.
What we accept as the price of freedom - like obnoxious films with no redeeming value - will take some time to take root in the hearts and minds of the citizens of the middle east, we can only hope that it doesn't take them as long as it has taken us to get to this place. . . and that the pendulum of ideology in the Republican Party swings fast enough to bring them into the 21st century before it defines our relationship with these young democracies.

The Whisper of Wind

For almost six months I have watched the ridge across from my home as a wind farm has slowly but surely taken shape there. To some - the purists and the not-in-my-back-yarders - its presence is an annoyance, a scar on the land, but to me it is a thing of beauty to behold. A powerful symbol of our ability to harness the resources of nature in a way that will sustain my family, my son's family and many generations to come.

They speak of a respect for the land and for those from whom we have borrowed the future. No poisons lie hidden in their framework, no monolithic corporation has marred the land elsewhere to set their stage, no fire or explosion or meltdown hides within their arms reaching to the sky and soon to be spinning as they welcome the wind that is a nearly constant force moving eastward along the valley of what my forebearers called the Asquamchemaukee before Colonel Baker paddled his way into history and ravaged their peaceful village along the riverbank. What this wind farm portends is almost an act of penance for a thousand acts of violence perpetrated by both sides in the years that brought us to this time and place. No terrorist - modern or ancient will find purchase here again. The Whisper of the wind speaks freedom and peace in a thousand tongues. Wayne D. King

Romney's Indifference

"The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference." ~ Elie Weisel

Mitt Romney said what he meant and meant what he said. That 47% of Americans were looking for a handout: That includes veterans disabled by wars, retirees, your neighbor (or you) who lost his or her job when the plant closed down. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the 47% would gladly pay income taxes if they could work, walk, hold their children, or just plain get a break. 

 Look at the Republicans who came out in support of Romney's statement. People like John Sununu who is holding a big business deal hostage because he doesn't want Obama to get credit for the jobs. Sununu has lost any semblance of civility or judgement that he may have once had. Small wonder that he was practically ridden out of Washington on a rail back when he was Chief of staff to Papa Bush. If he had stayed any longer back then the Republicans themselves would have been preparing the tar and feathers. Other far right members of the Senate and the Congress also doubled down on Romney's remarks. 

Now look at the Republicans who came out and made statements critical of Romney's remarks and one thing will be crystal clear. They are the Republicans who we all know think for themselves and have the integrity to speak out. They know that the day will come when the knuckle draggers who are controlling the party right now will be discredited and forced to move aside to allow a new Republican party to emerge from the wreckage of today's party. It will be a party where the voices of moderation and civility once again hold sway. They will reach out to grow their base beyond wealthy white guys and they will provide a strong alternative to the Democratic party. I believe this because the alternative is that the party will be so marginalized that some other party will need to emerge to keep the Democrats honest. 

 Mitt Romney is not a bad man. He is a man who reflects the way in which he was raised. Where he was sheltered from all of the adversities of life that enable the rest of us empathize with those who face similar adversities. 

 I do not believe that Mitt Romney hates the people of whom he spoke, I believe that he just does not see them. He has led such a sheltered existence that they have never occupied his thoughts. 

The great writer and humanitarian Elie Weisel was probably not the first to say it, but he once said that "the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference." To hate someone, is to have considered their existence, and in doing so to at least have attempted to gain some understanding of their lives. Mitt Romney is indifferent. It is why so many believe that he is without a core and why he so effortlessly changes his positions on so many of the great issues of our time. His election as President would be a disaster not only for the country but for the Republican Party itself.