November 22, 1963

Today is not a day to celebrate but to remember.  

I was very young and very idealistic.  But I have never been more in tune with or involved in government and what it was doing than those days of the Kennedy administration.  My generation believed that government could work back then; we believed in the Constitution, in equal rights, in the freedom of the press.  

We were warriors, we were involved; we were activists, we lived fervently, rebelled ostentatiously and loved freely; we fought back; we became consequential.  We did not "go along."   

We had a leader who inspired.

Kennedy's legacy through the years has been laced with a kind of blandness as though aside from his youth, his wit and charisma, his attractive young family, he really accomplished very little. This was blatantly wrong.

Now, however, appreciation of Kennedy's accomplishments grows with each passing year. And it should.  True, he allowed Khrushchev to get the upper hand (at first). Also true, that the Berlin Wall went up during his tenure. Indeed, he resided over the Bay of Pigs fiasco and we're all aware of his "indiscretions." But I believe today, that had that young president lived, he might have been one of our greatest leaders. Remember, he had only a thousand days in which to accomplish his agenda.

  

As for his accomplishments, take note: the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress, Civil Rights legislation, the Space Program and the introduction of the Green Berets. His major accomplishment, however, was a tight and tense little psychological drama between the USA and the USSR known as The Cuban Missile Crisis, which, without the successful maneuvering of the Kennedys, might have left the world in a state of nuclear disaster.

I guess his potential greatness will never be known which is what happens when someone takes you out before your time. But I think when all is said and done, his star will ultimately shine as one of the brightest.  

I remember and I am grateful to have learned my political abc's under your leadership, JFK. You never blamed others for your mistakes -- you took your lumps with calm and grace. You spoke decisively but with care for the feelings of your listeners, with admiration for those in the Press who covered you, with respect for those who opposed you and with dignity that matched the office you once held. 

You made us dream.

I miss you, JFK.

Chuck Hagel for Defense

I am very confused and more disappointed in our Congress than ever when I hear reasonably intelligent senators like Lindsay Graham say that Chuck Hagel would be “very antagonistic toward the state of Israel” if he becomes Secretary of Defense.  How does he come to this point of view? 

Well, it seems, that in a 2006 interview, Mr. Hagel made the comment that the "political reality" in Washington was that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," presumably a statement that reeks of anti-Semitism.  Jewish lobby is a politically incorrect statement to the conservative right, as no one wants to admit that the current bellicose Netanyahu government controls a lot of what does go on in Washington.  So perhaps Israeli lobby would have been a more appropriate term. But the Netanyahu goverment is loved neither by all Israelis, nor all Jews and is farther right in the conservative sense than most of the tea party in our own House of Representatives.  They worked furiously with the help of Sheldon Adelson’s billions and other wealthy Americans to elect Mitt Romney for president in November.  If this is not lobbying, what is? 

We have hundreds of lobbies and lobbyists in Washington; why is Jewish lobby such a controversial term anyway?  In a recent article by Richard Cohen in The Washington Post, he discusses Anita Shapira’s new book, “Israel:  a History” in which she freely uses the term, Jewish lobby. “Shapira is professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University,” writes Cohen. 

 I had believed Lindsay Graham to be less partisan than he’s shown himself to be.  But then, look what happened to McCain whose petulant attitude towards all things Obama, began to take shape after the election in 2008. As I think about it, perhaps that is why Graham is so virulent in his opposition to Hagel:  he (Graham) is and has always been a McCain supporter and Hagel (a Republican) supported Obama instead of McCain in 2008.  In my opinion this is even more evidence that his view of the world would be less partisan and more thoughtful. 

Aside from the issue of anti-semitism which some claim disqualifies Mr Hagel,  he is a fully qualified candidate, not only by virtue of his senate career, but by virtue of his combat experience as a grunt during the war in Vietnam during which he earned not one, but two Purple Hearts. He has the experience and understanding of the enlisted man and will  not only be unwilling to send them in to battle unnecessarily but support them when they return home.  

He will counsel diplomacy – another dirty word to some – and will attempt to bring sanity to the manic leader in the Middle East, who is twitching to drop a bomb on Iran and then wait for the U.S. military to clean up his mess.  Additionally, he urges talks with Hamas, the despised Palestinians, and others in that Middle Eastern caldron of hate.   

That Mr. Hagel will not be a puppet to Benjamin Netanyahu is evident in a statement he made in 2008: “I am not an Israeli senator; I am a United States senator.”  This is not a statement made by an anti-Semitic, dear readers, this is a statement made by a true patriot whose own country is his primary concern. And if Mr. Graham truly believes that former Senator Hagel as Secretary of Defense will be antagonistic towards the state of Israel because he believes there is an Israeli Lobby in Washington, he should wake up.  It exists -- now, during the campaign and will continue to exist after Netanyahu gains another term as Prime Minister (as is expected) on the 22nd of this month.  

Happy Independence Day

I'm proud to be an American.   

Even though I feek slightly embarassed that only 58% (or so) of us knows the year of our  independence.  And,

only 76% of us knows from what country we GAINED independence.

Does this distress me?  Yes, a little. What it says to me is that the under 30 demographic does not study history enough and does not take their citizenship seriously enough. (I say that because the most ignorant group -- yes a harsh word -- was among the under thirty crowd).  We need better education, better teachers, more emphasis on history, especially as it relates to our own birth as a nation and more responsibility as citizens to learn about our past. 

Enough said!   Or is it? Come to think of it, I am a little ashamed of us.  We can do better.  We've been soft and haven't demanded enough of our kids, a subject that I expound on in much more detail in my blog,  "Where's the Sacrifice," dated 05-16-11.