Why Do Some Deaths Mean More than Others (in Syria)?

Keeping track of who controls what in Syria 

is an ongoing enterprise.

You would think after 25-plus years in the newspaper business I could answer the question posed in
that headline myself.

(Heck, I've even basically recycled this headline from an April 28 post....)

After all, some deaths stay on the obituary page and some make it all the way to the front page.

But one would hope that the factors which go into deciding whose death rates the front page carry somewhat less weight that those that determine who gets attacked by American rockets and bombs.

Confused? I don't blame you, I am too -- about Syria; or, more specifically, our sudden interest in getting involved there militarily.

I do not normally comment here (much) about national matters.

This is because although I follow the news, I don't really consider myself enough of an expert to offer a perspective worth your time.

But sometimes, as regular readers may have noticed, I feel the need to sound off, or at least express my confusion out loud.

One aspect of the developing situation with U.S. involvement in Syria has caught my attention.

Do you really think HOW this boy died is more important to this
grieving father than the fact of his death? Do families of gunshot 

victims grieve less than the families of those killed with chemical weapons?

Why is it that the deaths of innocent civilians killed with chemical weapons require a different response than those killed with guns, or bombs, or missiles, or knives, or even neglect?

The forces of Hafez al-Assad have been killing civilians for more than two years now, albeit, until now, using the more traditional and familiar methods..

But, as my father points out repeatedly, people in the Middle East, like human beings everywhere, have been killing each other for centuries.

The issues over which most Middle East disputes revolve have little to do with the artificial political lines that were drawn there by the European powers after World War I; which is what we in the west so often focus on nonetheless.

So after roughly 100,000 civilian casualties; a conflict that threatens to broaden and envelop Israel and more posturing than a body-building contest, what's new that suddenly makes us so interested in committing force to the equation?

Really, as far as I can see, it all seems to have to do with President Barack Obama's ill-advised declaration last August that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a "clear red line."

In August, 2012, Obama declared the use of chemical

weapons in Syria to be a 'red line.'

(One must presume that, given Syria's desert location, that the red line being "in the sand" is implied...... )

Anyway, it seems that now that there's evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, Obama knows he will be called out by the right for not following up on his ultimatum.

Apparently one of the worst things that can happen in a Washington news cycle is to be called "weak."

Just look at the language used by the talking heads: "vigorous action" is required; "bullies only respect strength."

I mean we might as well come right out and say that the president does not want to seem "flaccid" in his determination to see his policies carried out.

Understand, I think the right would be right to call him out, but not for not following through on his 'line in the sand," but because it was a stupid thing to say in the first place.

And not because of any requirement that America appear strong. America being strong is what's important. How it "apprears" will always be open to interpretation and usually not the interpretation of the one doing the projecting.

(Why can't we ever get excited about America appearing "smart," or "diplomatic," or "deliberative," or even, dare I say it, "mature?")

It was a stupid thing to say because now Obama is boxed in and has limited his options -- not due to the volatile and fluid conditions on the ground in Syria, but because of our-inane-domestic-Big-Man-on-Campus politics.

And frankly, that's a stupid reason to get involved in a war in the Middle East, especially a civil war in the Middle East.

(It is significant to note that, at the same time that statement is driving his decisions, Obama is trying to get out from under it, claiming it wasn't him who set the "red line," but the world.....)

Why do these deaths matter more?

So, to circle back to the point, as a result of our domestic politics, to make it look good, we have to get whipped up about 1,400 innocent civilians people being killed differently than the 100,000 killed over the past 53 months.

A confessed devotee of the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert comedy hour, I sometimes wonder if I should apply for a writer's job because no sooner did I begin to ponder this very question of the manner of death being the trigger point for another steaming helping of Middle East folly, than both satirists leaped on it in their broadcasts.

Stewart pointed out that we have some pretty nasty weapons of our own; and that when Saddam was using chemical weapons on Iran during that war, we not only didn't object, but we supported him.

But although I am loyal to Stewart, I have to give the best line in this line of questioning to Colbert.

"Dictator Bashar al-Assad is killing his own people with chemical weapons. Before he was just killing them with bullets," Colbert said on Tuesday night's show. "If America cared about shooting people, we'd be invading Chicago."

The Vote

So if we're all lucky, you're reading this after having voted and seen some of the results come in -- the "will of the people."

As I write this Tuesday afternoon, the local results are unknown.

But what's important in a big picture kind of way, is that there will be results -- not something you can say in lots of places in the world, or at least not results you can believe.

Most Americans view voting as a commonplace thing; something you do twice a year if you remember.

African-Americans had to fight for fair voting rules.

But it is one of the few places that the corporate oligarchs who control so much of what happens in this country -- where you live, what you're paid, what you know -- do not yet fully control.

At least for now.

One way to control voting is to control who votes.

Just ask blacks in the Jim Crow south; and women before 1920 when the 19th Amendment was ratified.

Since its inception, much of the democratic history of our great Republic has been a history of limiting voting to those likely to continue the policies and viewpoint those who benefit from being in power.

So did women.

And a parallel, often lesser-known history, has unfolded in the fight by those disenfranchised by such efforts to win the right to vote.

I'll spare you the usual, well-worn axioms that if you don't vote, you can't complain; or that (some) veterans died to preserve the right to vote.

(Many, such as those who fought in undeclared wars in the Philippines, Vietnam and Iraq, mostly fought to advance the "American interests" of the oligarchs of their day. This does not make their sacrifice any less noble, only more tragic.)

The fact that such well-worn arguments about voting are so often trotted out at election time doesn't make them any less true.

Sadly, if voter participation rates are any indication, too few Americans find them inspirational enough to motivate them to actually vote.

But if the recent debate over background checks for gun purchasers is any indication, nothing motivates a person who takes their unused rights for granted more than a perceived effort to take them away.

So perhaps there is a re-surgence in the offing.

Like it or not, there are efforts out there to undermine your right to vote -- unless you're a rich white guy that is.

Like it or not, the "typical" American voter is no longer

a white male. Get used to it.

As the inexorable crush of demographics changes the face of the "average American," like a tsunami of molasses that you see coming slowly but can do nothing to avoid, Hispanics will soon be the majority of this country.

And they vote.

The Obama campaign recognized this and capitalized on it as the national GOP continued to convince itself it would win with a 12-foot fence along the Mexican border.

(Don't worry Republicans, if the Democrats are true to form, they will soon begin to take the loyalty of most Hispanic voters for granted and fritter away their present demographic advantage.)

There is a segment of the Republican party that recognizes this wave, and believes the party needs to do more to appeal to this demographic -- mostly they are realists who govern southern states that already have large Hispanic populations that must be wooed to win.

There is another segment that hopes to win by finding ways to keep that wave away from the polls, which brings us back to the subject at hand.

If you do not think such efforts are underway, then you probably don't vote

either.

If you did vote yesterday, you may have been asked for photo ID, and you would have been legally permitted to refuse and vote anyway.

But that may not be true much longer.

When the Pennsylvania courts suspended Pennsylvania's Voter ID law for the presidential election, and yesterday's primary that followed, it was only delaying the inevitable.

PREMATURE BRAGGART?: Mike Turzai's bragging came 

a little too soon

And if you think this is about preventing fraud, you would work needlessly to find a single example of in-person voter fraud, which is the only thing Voter ID stops.

As famously loud-mouthed Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Turzai made prematurely evident, the entire scheme, cloaked in a shroud if "integrity" was largely about keeping some people from the polls -- people the least likely to have a photo ID as a matter of course.

That means blacks, Hispanics and, of course, the poor.

If you want a taste of the impact of the law's potential consider that "poll workers

wrongly demanding to see photo ID from Pennsylvania voters – especially voters of color – were the most common problem reported during last November’s federal election."

That was the information presented in January to the Democratic Policy Committee Hearing on Voter ID Law & Early Voting.

Pennsylvania voters placed 9,171 complaint calls to the Election Protection hotline on Election Day, second only to California. The number one issue: poll workers wrongly demanding voters show a photo ID.

How PA voted in 2012

Having lost Pennsylvania's electoral votes for Mitt Romney, the Republicans tried a new tac -- change the "winner-take-all" aspect of Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes.

"Split them proportionally," they said, arguing its more "representative" of how the state votes.

In February, The York Dispatch's editorial board put it better than I could:

It's a ploy being considered by Republicans in several other swing states, and one endorsed by GOP National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus after President Barack Obama's re-election.

"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," he said last month.

And the consistently red states? They presumably would continue allocating all of their electoral votes to the winner, meaning the only effect of changes like Pileggi is suggesting would be to siphon electoral votes from Democratic candidates.

It's a shameless attempt to rig the system, but better than the one Pileggi floated last year. That one would have allocated electoral votes based on our congressional districts -- our heavily gerrymandered congressional districts.

Me? I say it doesn't go far enough.

If the Republicans want a truly representative Democracy, let's do away with the Electoral College all together.

Seven of the 10 most populous states voted blue in 2012.

Do Republicans really want to start a conversation about

distributing votes proportionally? OK.

Do they really want to live in a country where the "representative" weight of the ten most populous states -- California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, which together represent   53.3 percent of the total U.S. population -- decide every presidential election?

Of those states, only Texas, Georgia and North Carolina have voted reliably Republican since 1992, with North Carolina going for Obama in 2008 and George going for Clinton in 1992.

They realize, one hopes, that under such a "popular vote" scenario Al Gore would have been the president who responded to the 9/11 attack.

Yeah, I would imagine their taste for "representation" would dwindle quickly.

The true idiocy of it all is that each state sets its own rules for voting. 

To my knowledge, no other Democracy on Earth does this.

We are one nation. We fought a bloody war over "states rights," and the states rights people lost.

We need one voting system for the nation, so Ohio can't use the power of an incumbent Republican attorney general to narrow the voting window in Democratic areas and leave it broad in Republican ones.

If you wanted to be picayune, I suppose you could have state voting rules for state and local races, but in truth that would just be even more confusing.

In March, President Obama created a commission to look into just that possibility -- away to standardize voting access and registration across the country.

According to the Associated Press: 

The top lawyer for Obama's re-election campaign, Bob Bauer, will co-chair the commission with the top lawyer for Republican Mitt Romney's campaign, Ben Ginsburg.

The goal is to address issues including long lines at the polls, voter registration and voter access.

Invariably, we come together as one nation during a crisis. 

Shouldn't we all vote under the same rules and regulations when we collectively perform the one tasks which literally defines us a nation?

Obama Landslide at Lincoln Elementary!

Blogger's Note: School information mogul John Armato has sent us the following information about election results at Lincoln Elementary School, where President Barack Obama was the preferred candidate.

The students at Lincoln Elementary School learned valuable lessons about democracy in our country by studying the electoral process and participating in a school-wide mock election for the presidency of the United States.

Second grade students, under the direction of teachers Leslie Swartz, Heather Kurtz, and Jill Bolonski, organized the school-wide election.

Second graders were particularly excited in the days leading up to the election. Lessons in class gave students an understanding of the political parties, conventions, debates, campaigns, and electoral votes.

Each class signed up for a time to vote. Students were issued voter registration cards and as the classes approached the voting booth they were greeted by second graders who served as poll workers.

Students were given ballot sheets to cast their vote and expressed a great deal of excitement to vote for their favorite candidates.

“This experience involved learning across the curriculum for Lincoln second graders, providing a look at ‘election vocabulary,’ writing experiences, problem solving, and an overview of our American government," said Lincoln Principal Treena Ferguson. "It gave them a meaningful and relevant connection to an important event in our country and left a lasting impression on becoming a responsible citizen.”

The results of the election saw Barack Obama the winner, by a landslide, earning all 50 of the school’s electoral votes and a popular vote margin of 263-47.

(Blogger's Joke: I will leave to you gentle reader to ponder the irony of Gov. Romney's "47" votes.)

Second grade teacher Leslie Swartz evaluated the activity as a tremendous success.

 “The entire school benefited from the activity because it was relevant to what was happening in our nation, it provided an opportunity for teachers to discuss the political process, and students were able to see how a group of citizens come together in a peaceful way to exercise their right to vote; something they will do one day as an adult.”

It's the Numbers Stupid (an election post-mortem one day too late).

(Blogger's note: I learned after I wrote this post Wednesday that Quigley has not yet conceded and wants to wait until all the absentee votes are counted. If it changes the outcome of the race, we'll have to see how relevant the analysis below really is.)

Tom Quigley's loss Tuesday night in the 146th district statehouse race was a surprise to nearly everyone -- except maybe Tom Quigley.

(DISCLAIMER: Understand Mark Painter fans, this is not a knock on your candidate, who is an earnest and viable candidate. I'm sure he will do fine. This is just a post-election look at the numbers).

Were I a younger man, I would have written this Tuesday night for you all to read Wednesday morning, which is when such analysis is traditionally published.

Tom Quigley

But I'm getting older and Tuesday night was difficult enough as it was and, frankly, I just didn't have the energy.

Anyway, back to my engaging lead sentence.

Obviously, I've known Quigley for many years, ever since he won the seat and took over for the previous Republican holding the seat, Mary Anne Dailey, who took over from the previous  Republican who held if before her ... and so on and so on.

You get the idea.

Anyway, several years ago, Quigley calmly explained to me how well he understood his district.

Given Pottstown's tendency to vote for Democrats, the 146th has always been a balancing act.

He told me, and I'm paraphrasing here: "I know if I break even in Pottstown or fall just short, I'll be OK because I can make it up elsewhere in the district."

And given that the Republican Party in the 146th has the most effective vote counting apparatus around, I've watched those numbers get counted there many times over the years.

As retired dISTRICT Judge Tom Palladino and I were reminiscing Tuesday night, on many election nights I've sat at the right hand of the numbers compiler (or at least looked over their shoulders) since it was Janet Garner in the Elks Club on High Street, using a adding machine and a pencil and, for all intents and purposes, wearing a green eye shade.

Now we use spreadsheets.

And for the numerically challenged among us (Yes, I'm head of the class), spreadsheets really paint a plain picture.

Along the right hand side of where the vote totals for each votingprecinct were being entered, was a number showing by how much Quigley was either ahead or behind in each township, or the borough.

As a result, Quigley knew how close it was going to be early on and each precinct that came in was crucial.

How ironic, I thought, that the clearest evidence that "every vote counts" comes in a year when an unprecedented number of people voted. (More on that later).

All numbers are, of course, unofficial, and include no provisional ballots. But the picture they paint is clear nonetheless.

In Limerick, Quigley was ahead by 657 votes; in Lower Pottsgrove by 487 votes.

In Upper Pottsvgrove he was ahead by 299 votes and in the southern portion of New Hanover that is part of the 146th, he was ahead by 290 votes.

So where was the loss?

Well, in West Pottsgrove he was down by only 51 votes and in Royersford, of all places, by 94. Although surprising, that sure wasn't enough.

Mark Painter

It was in Pottstown, where there was no shortage of straight-ticket voting, that Painter won his victory. There, Painter was ahead by 1,914 votes.

With just one precinct to go, Quigley was down by 326 votes, and he needed the results from Limerick's second voting district, headquartered at the township building on Ridge Pike and home to more than 2,000 registered voters, to make up the difference.

In previous elections, Quigley had won that precinct handily, but this was no regular election and although he won it, he did't win it by enough.

Throughout the 146th, and the county as a whole, voters had turned out in droves and not in the usual patterns.

There was huge voter turn-out Tuesday.

According to unofficial results posted on the Montgomery County web site, no Pottstown polling place had fewer than 400 voters. This in places that are lucky to break 100 in an off-year election.

Those same results show nearly 75 percent of Montgomery County's eligible voters showed up at the polls.

Maybe that's why lines of voters in places like Upper Pottsgrove and New Hanover were out the door and, in Upper Pottsgrove's case, even snaked down Farmington Avenue.

In places like Pottstown's first ward, Obama won more than 80 percent of the vote.

"I think for some of these voters, they weren't even cognizant of the races lower down on the ticket," said Quigley. "Many of them probably did't even know who Tom Quigley is."

As you moved away from the borough's core, the Obama percentages dropped, but were still significant -- 60 percent at Pottstown Middle School.

And it was the numbers, not just the percentages, that really created the wave that blew Quigley out of the water.

The middle school hosted more than 1,200 voters. It is sometimes lucky to break 200, said Judge of Elections Mark Lawler.

In the fourth ward, it was the same -- more than 1,200 voters, 56 percent of whom voted for Obama. In wards five and six, the same: More than 1,000 voters and Obama won both, clocking in at 62 and 63.5 percent respectively.

More interesting was Pottstown's gloriously divided seventh ward.

Voting at the Ricketts Center, just under 1,000, gave 82 percent of its vote to Obama. Further down the ticket, painter won 646 votes to Quigley's 161.

In the Seventh Ward's Rosedale section, Romney won 54.5 percent of the vote and Quigley got 400 votes to Painter's 240.

But while Pottstown's Obama tsunami gave Painter a crucial and immediate advantage, there was a more subtle shift evident as well.

Many more were voting Democratic even outside Pottstown.

Consider some of the totals from the presidential race, totals that actually had me muttering "unbelievable" under my breath.

In Lower Pottsgrove's second district, all results for Obama Vs. Romney were literally within 20 votes of each other, with Obama winning all of them.

Obama won in West Pottsgrove as well and even in Upper Pottsgrove, where Romney won, it was only by a mere 41 votes.

In his analysis Tuesday night, Quigley mentioned not only the Pottstown tsunami, but the changing demographics in places like Limerick, which had previously served as his back-stop.

Limerick hasn't changed that much, with Romney winning all but the fourth precinct.

But Quigley could have made his demographic observation about the entire district, or even the entire county.

Obama squeaked out a victory in some unexpected places, like precincts of affluent Upper Providence and he won two out of three precincts in Collegeville, and one out of three in Perkiomen Township, although Obama was a lost cause in neighboring Trappe.

The same was true in Douglass (Mont.), where Romney held a comfortable lead, as he did in all three New Hanover voting precincts.

But even in places like Schwenksville, Pennsburg, East Greenville and Green Lane, Obama won, barely, and in Red Hill, it was a an effective draw.

And Obama won in two out of three precincts in Skippack, those wins by sizeable margins too.

And in Royersford, Quigley's home town where he was once a popular mayor, turnout in the borough's second voter precinct, where Obama won by 204 votes, Quigley lost by 72 votes.

It seems, therefore, when looking at the numbers, that Quigley lost the election probably not because of anything he did, or Mark Painter did, but because in the 146th, Barack Obama either won most contests or at least fought Romney to a draw.

The election machine tickets told the story.

I didn't have time to check them all, and not all precincts arrived at the old Lakeside Inn that way. (Remember, we still had a newspaper to get out for Wednesday.)

Also, the results posted on the county web site do not list the percentage of straight party voters, but on those tickets I did get to examine, it was an obvious factor.

So what does all this number-crunching mean?

The answer is surprisingly simple.

Every vote counts.

And even in the face of efforts to suppress votes through voter ID, or draw district lines so heavily Democratic or Republican voting blocks can be balanced out by other areas -- a big turn-out can turn all those careful calculations on their head.

And although I find it inspiring, it also stirs the cynic in me to safely predict it won't happen again for another four years, and even then only if we're lucky and the presidential race is as hotly contested as this one was.

In the meantime, for local elections that have a disproportionately larger effect on our lives, the numbers will, in all likelihood, tell a different story.

Back in the Swing of Things

PA may be a swing state again, just in time for the election.

True to its fickle nature, Pennsylvania has prove once again that you can't afford to ignore it.

Why do I say this, because the ever-changing state of the presidential race now has us back in the swing state category -- at least according to the Washington Post.

Thursday, the paper reported that former Massachusetts governor and Republican nominee Mitt Romney now sees light between the voters and the state's electoral votes.

In addition to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota are also viewed by the Romney camp as being within reach.

How do we know this? Why money of course. That's all that matters in politics any more.

Following on the heels of buys by the Super-PACS that are supporting (but not coordinating) with his campaign, Romney's campaign is now spending its own money as well for ad buys in both Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

"In response, Obama’s campaign has thrown ads on television in all three states but advisers said the decision was made out of prudence, not concern," according to the Post.

"Unlike in past presidential campaigns, both sides are flush with cash and have extra funds to play with down the stretch," the paper reported.

So what does that mean for you and I?

Campaign ads. Endless, nauseating, negative campaign ads.

It was just two months ago that I bemoaned our loss of status as a swing state. I guess you should be careful what you wish for.

But hey, that's the price we pay for being in a place where our opinions cannot be taken for granted.

So there you have it folks. We may well be among the crucial American voters who decide this election.

Please don't make your decision based on the ads.

Go the candidate's web sites:
-- Barack Obama
-- Mitt Romney

Find out what you can. Check out factcheck.org for some actual information on the whoopers being told by both sides.

We Don't Mean a Thing if We Ain't Got that Swing (State)

Is Pennsylvania a "swing state" no more?

Well, folks, it appears that both presidential campaigns have decided to leave us Pennsylvanians alone for a while.

Mary Wilson, over at WHYY's Newsworks web page, reports that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama seem to agree on one thing after all -- Pennsylvania may not be a swing state in the November election.


"Shortly after the Republican National Convention, two Romney-allied super PACs announced they would pull their television ads out of Pennsylvania, saying the state isn't competitive for Romney at the moment," Wilson reported.


"A superPAC supporting President Barack Obama followed suit, citing polls showing the commonwealth is leaning toward Obama. Then, the president's own re-election campaign halted ads."


"That's pretty telling when you consider the fact that four years ago, when you look at the entire presidential campaign in its totality, more money was spent on Pennsylvania television than any other state in the union," Franklin and Marshall pollster G. Terry Madonna told Wilson.


Although Pennsylvania has gone for the Democrat in the last five presidential elections, the margin has been pretty close, despite the Democrats having a registration edge.


Back in 2008, there were just six swing states in play at the end of the election, while the 2004 campaign featured 11 swing states, according to the May 9 edition of The Constitution Daily, the daily publication of Philadelphia's own National Constitution Center.


They reported as follows:

The New York Times list for 2012 includes Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The USA Today swing state map in May.

The USA Today/Gallup list has the same nine states as the New York Times, with the addition of New Mexico, North Carolina, and Michigan.

The Politico list excludes Michigan and calls New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin “soft” swing states.

The Real Clear Politics projected electoral map adds Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Montana to the list of potential swing states.

 A "soft" swing state? What the heck is that?

"The key to watch," the site wrote in May, "which states get the most campaign spending in proportion to their electoral counts."

So if spending goes down, especially compared to our fat 20 electoral collage votes, perhaps that does mean we are soft.

More recently, last month to be exact, Philly.com ran the analysis by The Constitution Daily which indicated that the election may, as usual, be decided in Ohio and in Florida, at least if campaign spending is the lead indicator.

This is how The Guardian newspaper saw the numbers Aug. 24.

"Among the eight states, Ohio leads Florida as a recipient of campaign financing, with $56 million, compared with $51 million for the Sunshine State," they reported.

The nine states that mattered, according to that analysis, were Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

"All nine states were won by Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate in 2008. It looks like eight of the states are in play, while both campaigns are ignoring Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes, apparently assuming those votes will go to the president," wrote Scott Bomboy, The Constitution Daily's Editor-in-chief.

"In fact, more TV advertising money has been spent in New Hampshire, with its four electoral votes, than in Pennsylvania," he wrote.

Two Pennsylvania governors, the current and the former, both think its a mistake for the campaigns to count Pennsylvania out.

Gov. Tom Corbett told Newsworks that he thinks Pennsylvania is winnable for Romney.

His predecessor, Ed Rendell, said he believes the Romney campaign's pull-out of resources is a feint and that money will roll back in closer to the election in an attempt to swing the state Romney's way at the last minute.

Brian Williams singled out Montgomery County as
a place where the election would be decided.

Only time will tell.

In the meantime, at least we'll be spared the bulk of the campaign commercials.

I must confess I found the idea that the election might be decided among just a few states, Pennsylvania being one of them, kind of exciting.

In fact NBC anchor Brian Williams told Daily Show host Jon Stewart that the election would be decided "in places like Montgomery County right outside Philadelphia."

I got chills.

But I also felt burdened with the potential responsibility of the outcome.

"Really? You want us to decide? Have you met us"

As Uncle Ben told Peter Parker, with great power comes great responsibility.

Post Hope

President Barack Obama speaks at the Democratic National Convention

I undertook a much too infrequent exercise Thursday night, and went back and read what I wrote in 2008 in preparing myself to listen to what the president would be saying in 2012.


The column was written the day after Obama won the 2008 election.

I was a bit surprised at how many things I feared would happen came to pass.

I also decided that I would post the column here and see what other people think about the 2008 Obama vs. the 2012 model. Please feel free to share your thoughts:

I am not much given to hope.

As a journalist, an American and a human being, not necessarily in that order, I've seen more than my share of lies. It makes hope hard.

"Show me," I say, "and I'll believe."

But of course this misses the point.

Require evidence and the opportunity for faith and, to a lesser degree, hope, is diminished.

"You have to believe," my wise wife Karen said serenely over and over as our Phillie phanatic of a 10-year-old chewed through his nails watching the World Series.

Me? New to fan-hood, I crouched doubtful on the couch, quietly cursing them for making us want it, for making us believe they (we) we could get it, and then making us sweat while we steeled ourselves for another disappointment.

But Karen, she never lost faith, and in the end, she was proven right. Having been shown, I started to consider that there may be something to this hope thing after all.

Like so many Democrats used to disappointment, it was my wife who was chewing through her nails watching this campaign.

"I feel like I got back the life I was supposed to live," she said after America held its collective breath and took a long over-due step forward this Election Day.

Relentless voters, in 2004, we had voted, with vehemence, against George W. Bush.

But in 2008, we voted for someone.

Barack Obama was a candidate who, in the simple title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," captured the enormity of what he was challenging us to do:

• Hope and believe that we can move forward together as a nation instead of picking each other apart.

• Hope and believe again that when challenged, this miracle of a country can rise up once again to prove it can still be greater than the sum of its parts.

• Hope and believe that even in this cynical age of divide and conquer politics, we can continue to demonstrate to the world and, more importantly, to ourselves, that the promise on which we are founded will continue to be pursued in the belief that it can be realized.

No longer can anyone deny what we were all told as school children and came to doubt as adults, that in America, anyone, anyone can become president.

That is the America I want my son to inhabit.

Mission accomplished.

And in a way, it was accomplished before it happened. Because, while he is pleased with the results, I think he looks at it more like a sports victory, that "our team" won.

The fact that he does not recognize that this result is a landmark on our slow but inexorable march toward true freedom, the fact that he literally sees no reason at all why a black man should not become president, does not diminish the sacrifice of those who made it possible.

But it does mean that sacrifice was not in vain. His generation does not see the difference. And he will now grow up in a country whose full potential has been further unlocked by those sacrifices.

Our course, while this achievement is important, and is worth taking a moment to step back and savor, there's no time for dawdling.

Understanding the value of hope, understanding the value of inspiration and how it can reveal to us what Lincoln so beautifully crystallized as "the angels of our better nature," Obama nevertheless also seems to understand that it takes more than inspiration to govern a country -- especially one in crisis.

We have handed to who was once the most unlikeliest of candidates, the most unenviable of circumstances in which to take office.

He shouldn't be surprised.

To be the first black president, Obama has always seemed to know that to win, he would need to be twice as smart, twice as organized, raise twice as much money and be twice as far ahead in the polls.

His ability to astound us by actually accomplishing this what makes us believe he can tackle our multiple crises.

All of which brings him, and us with him, to that post-victory realization -- now there is an even longer, steeper and rockier race to run.

And so, having been shown that hope can work, I feel compelled to hope again.

I hope that the Democrats in the Congressional majority will learn from this election (and their shameful larding of the pork barrel in the wake of a 2006 campaign waged against corruption), that this time, the change has to be real and the country truly has to be put above their self-interest.

The promise to the people who put set them at the wheel must be fulfilled and the hyper-partisanship of the past be set aside. As the victors, it is incumbent upon the majority to make the first genuine gesture.

The voters have put their faith in the Democrats and they must in turn have faith in turn; that if they make the hard, unpopular decisions, the voters will not punish them at the ballot box.

For if Congress returns to the venal bickering for which they have become reviled, they most certainly will be recalled.

As Lincoln said a year after taking office:"What I deal with is too vast for malicious dealing."

And I hope that patriotism will be re-defined to mean not who wears a flag pin on their lapel, but who answers the call of a president smart enough to know he cannot do this alone.

I hope that patriotism will come to mean devotion to the service of our country -- in all forms, from military service to yes, I'll say it, community organizing -- for no other reason than because the need exists.

And most of all, I hope in all ways but the last that our new president will continue to embody the legacy of Lincoln - who taught us so much about what it means to lead, to sacrifice for your country, and the need to forgive and acknowledge the legitimacy those with whom you have so bitterly disagreed.

I hope that he will approach his task as Lincoln described in 1864: "Now that the election is over, may not all, having a common interest, reunite in a common effort, to save our common country?"

Suddenly, it doesn't seem like too much to hope for.

Memorial Day and Election Day, Both Are Days for Patriots

Photo by Tom Kelly III

This year's Memorial Day services at the Revolutionary
War cemetery at Ellis Woods in East Coventry.

Blogger's Note: So apparently my father and I are of like mind on a number of things, including our tendency to attend Memorial Day parades. 

I was contemplating a blog post on the subject after attending Pottstown's (we have a saxophonist who marched), and then I read what follows. 

"Well, can't improve on that" I thought. 

Anthony S. Brandt

So, in the ultimate act of parental plagiarism, I share it with you here knowing that people don't always follow links, and in the hopes that you'll appreciate it as much as I do. If you would like to read more of his blog posts, his blog, called "Completely Out of My Mind," can be found by clicking here. It's always a good read.

My dad's town is located on the north shore of the
South Fork of the east end of Long Island.

MEMORIAL DAY

May 28, 2012: I've just come from Sag Harbor's annual Memorial Day parade, with its veterans, a few still remaining from World War II, its firemen, the high school band, an honor guard firing blanks (don't bring your dog, folks), and even its celebrity observer, Matt Lauer, who has a weekend home nearby. It's nice to see him there, but it's also nice that Sag Harbor is in New York, and in New York people leave celebrities alone. I generally tear up when taps is played, but I didn't this year. At the end the parade gathers at Marine Park and people give speeches. I don't stay for the speeches, either, or the playing of patriotic songs.

But I am a patriot, and I was thinking about patriotism as I walked home. Saturday night Lorraine and I went to a dinner party where a friend of ours told us that his 26-year-old daughter just couldn't work up any enthusiasm about the election this year. She had been among the millions of young people whose enthusiasm for Barack Obama in 2008 put him in office, but now--well, she wasn't going to volunteer, she might not even vote. The man was such a disappointment. What happened to all the promise, the hope, the return to democratic principles and Democratic policies? Why were the rich still getting off tax free; why didn't the wars come to an end right away, how could he allow off-shore oil drilling, and now, drilling in the Arctic Ocean?! Where was the Obama of the speeches, of his two books? 2008 had been so exciting, such heady stuff. But his actual Presidency was more than a bit of a bust. So why get involved?

The founders knew republics depend on
an active (and informed) citizenry.

It is times like these that one despairs of one's country. When one remembers all the republics that have gone the way of the ancient Roman Republic: Florence, Venice, the Weimar Republic, the Republic of Czechoslovakia, numerous South American republics. The list is long and tragic.

There's nothing about a republic that is immortal. The Founders knew that very well indeed; they understood how fragile they were, that the very idea of a republic required the active participation of educated citizens who understood the issues, because issues are immortal, who debated, campaigned, and who voted. In a republic active participation is not only a right, it is a duty. You have an obligation to get involved. It's not something you do only when a candidate gets you excited and enthusiastic. Citizenship is not a feeling, a high you get out of participating in a great event like the election of the first African-American President. It's the work you do, that you absolutely have to do, if you take your patriotism seriously, if you actually do care about the United States of America and what it stands for. What it stands for in fact is precisely the most basic of the immortal issues that underlie American politics, a fact that is peculiarly germane to American history because it was the first self-made country, the inspiration for so much of the revolution in rights that subsequently transformed the world. For the first time a country announced, at its very formation, that its whole reason for being was to guarantee these rights. Human rights. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and more. If you don't actually fight for your idea of what it stands for you have only yourself--ONLY YOURSELF--to blame if other peoples' views prevail and it turns out to stand for something else entirely.

The bridge over Otter Pond inlet is very historic.

Many years ago, just a few years after we settled into Sag Harbor, the man who owned the house we were renting was trying to decide whether to run for Mayor, and he came to us to ask our advice, and would we help. The issue on that occasion was a bridge over the culvert that connects Otter Pond, at the entrance to the village, to the open bays beyond. The man who was mayor then wanted to rebuild it, and he wanted NYState money to do it with, which meant that it would have to be rebuilt to state standards, and thereby be widened and straightened. It would have made the entrance to the village look like an Interstate ramp. The village was upset over this idea. Sag Harbor is quite beautiful. The entrance to the village sets the tone for the whole place. The election turned out to hinge on the issue of that culvert. Lorraine and I went to strategy meetings, helped form a slate, wrote publicity, started letter-writing campaigns. I did all the radio announcements. And our man won; he took two-thirds of the vote. The culvert was rebuilt in a much more modest way, the road wasn't straightened, the entrance to the village wasn't changed. It's still beautiful.

This is the downtown municipal building, my
dad and step-mother, Lorraine Dusky, helped
to save.

Subsequently we formed a Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review, I was its first Chairman, and I served for four years. Lorraine went on the Zoning Board and ultimately became its Chairwoman. I went up against the Mayor when he wanted to sell the Municipal Building, and build a new one on the outskirts of the village next to the new firehouse. We formed a second committe, an ad hoc committee to look into the feasibility of this. We met for six months, every other week. We called in some of the best historic preservation people in the country. I had a lot of help from architects who had homes in the village. They were also good citizens. Turns out the old Municipal Building, built in the 1840s, was a really interesting example of period construction and was basically fine, but it did need some work so we floated a bond issue to get the work done. I wrote copy for that, too, and we won again.

I'm not bragging. You don't brag about doing your duty. But I am proud of that work. It was citizenship; it was a moral obligation. It was also thankless. People questioned our motives, attacked us in print. These were not paid positions. But that's politics. There's always opposition; it's always messy and often dirty. It's even more so on the national level. A president gets elected on the strength of his rhetorical skills and then his enthusiasts, who have drunk the Kool-Aid, are disappointed when the realities of American politics and the viciousness of the fight over what the country stands for sinks in, and he turns out not to be what they thought he was, but a centrist who, bless his level of intelligence, understands that the country is far more complicated than the Left wants to believe and has far more constituencies and interest groups than one can easily imagine. He has not had an easy time. It is not an easy job, and he may not be the perfect man for it.

But he's infinitely preferable to the alternative.

Be a patriot. Get involved in your republic. And vote.

So use your brains, children (because children you are). Twelve years ago a similar attitude--oh who cares? both parties are corrupt, both have sold out to big business--put, what was it, thirty, forty thousand votes, in Florida in the Ralph Nader camp and gave the nation George W. Bush, two wars, one of them built completely of lies, both unfunded, a tripling of the national debt, and 6,000 more soldiers to mourn on Memorial Day. Not to mention the national embarrassment of having an idiot in the White House.

Or don't use your brains, don't get involved, don't campaign, don't care, don't even vote. And what happens next will be YOUR FAULT, and the historians of the future will place the blame on YOU, the shallow generation, for abandoning YOUR republic to its ignoble fate.

Posted by Anthony Brandt, 5/28/12 at 11:01 AM

News From the Front ... The Riverfront

Blogger's Note: The following is cribbed shamelessly from the spring newsletter for the Schuylkill River Heritage Area in Pottstown's own Riverfront Park. Enjoy.

Work has begun on the Interpretive Center

Contractors have begun construction on the exciting new Schuylkill River Heritage Area
River of Revolutions Interpretive Center.

The family-friendly center is set to open in May at the headquarters in Pottstown, and will serve as a visitors' center for the entire Heritage Area.

It will feature interactive displays that tell the history of the region through the American, Industrial and Environmental Revolutions.

It will also provide information on historic, environmental, recreational and tourism resources.

Highlights will include a water wall, interactive monitors and a 3-D table with a relief map of the river corridor.

The center is intended to provide a fun and educational experience for residents and visitors to the region who want to learn more about the river's fascinating history and the many recreational and tourism opportunities that exist today.

The Revolutionary River

* * *

Speaking of that history, a special screening of the PBS documentary "The Revolutionary River" will be held on May 17 at the Bryn Mawr Film Institute.

Heritage Area Executive Director Kurt Zwikl will introduce the film, then, following the presentation of the 47-minute documentary, he will participate in a panel discussion on trail-related projects.

Proceeds from the event benefit the Cynwyd Station Revitalization and the Schuylkill River Greenway Association. Click here to learn more or purchase tickets.

* * *

Also in film news, the Schuylkill River Heritage Area has been selected to be the subject of a short-form documentary series that will air on public television and some commercial stations. 

Footage for the documentary, will be shot in June during the Schuylkill River Sojourn. 

It will focus on the history of the region and the recreational opportunities available. 

From that footage, "American Milestones," which is hosted by Joan Lunden, will produce three segments: a 3-5 minute educational piece that will air in between regular programming on public television stations nationwide; a one-minute segment that will be shown on  commercial stations such as Fox News, Discovery and MSNBC; and finally, a 5-6 minute corporate documentary that will be available on our website and will be emailed to up to 1 million people.  

Click here to learn more about American Milestones. Funding for this project was provided by the William Penn Foundation.

 * * *

Kurt Zwikl, executive director of the Schuylkill River National Heritage Area, based in Pottstown, had a rare opportunity to participate in an invitation only White House Conference on March 2.

The conference, Conservation: Growing America's Outdoor Heritage and Economy, was highlighted by an appearance by President Obama, who closed the session with a speech on conservation initiatives (which is embedded below for your viewing pleasure).  




Zwikl was among conservation leaders from 50 states who attended, including local government leaders, recreation industry representatives, park officials, and others.

They heard panel discussions and participated in workshops on conservation issues.

The purpose of the conference was to allow President Obama and members of his Cabinet to "strengthen partnerships and identify next steps in advancing community-driven conservation and outdoor recreation initiatives," according to information issued by the White House.

It is part of the America's Great Outdoor's initiative, established by Obama two years ago, that seeks to create a 21st century agenda for conservation and recreation.

This year's Schuylkill River Sojourn is June 2-8

* * *

For recreation, you can't beat canoeing (or kayaking) on the Schuylkill.

The Heritage Area staff is busy planning for the 14th Annual Schuylkill River Sojourn.

On June 2 through June 8, the week-long, 112-mile guided canoe/kayak tour will once again take a fleet of paddlers from Schuylkill Haven to Philadelphia, camping at parks along the way.

This year's theme will be Recreation With the River, and will feature presentations on a wide range of recreation topics, such as hiking, biking, yoga, and, of course, paddling.

Look for registration brochures, which will be emailed out in early April. Remember to register early! The first few days of the sojourn fill up very quickly. Check out this website to learn more about the sojourn.

The Rights Stuff

Two-hundred and twenty four years, and three days ago, Pennsylvania ratified the U.S. Constitution, only the second state to do so.



Four years and three days after Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution, the first 10 amendments were officially added, having themselves been ratified by enough states to make them the first additions to a living document that continues to guide and confound us to this day.

That makes today Bill of Rights Day.

So it seems appropriate to continue our history theme for another day. (Back to Pottstown matters tomorrow, I promise.)

The back-story on the Bill of Rights is sort of interesting (for those of us who find these things interesting).

The Pennsylvania Statehouse hosted the convention in 1787

Our local metropolis, Philadelphia, was again the setting for a Constitutional Convention, another momentous step forward for this Republic, which was in danger of grinding to a standstill under the inadequate framework of the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, two years before peace with Britain was declared.

Even then, Americans were wary of a strong, central government, never having seen one that had their interests at heart, and the Articles of Confederation reflected that.

But it soon became evident, as states refused to pay their share of national expenses and sought individual treaties with the sovereign nations of Europe, that what they had was not enough.

And so in 1787, delegates from throughout the fledgling country had to make another trip to Philadelphia.

They came with different ideas.

Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong federal government, with a strong central bank, wanted a president named for life; whereas others believed all that was needed was some tinkering with the current articles.

The end result, as James Madison's detailed notes make clear, was an amalgam of several proposals, hammered out through negotiation and compromise by men who knew that their failure likely meant the failure of the American democratic experiment.

But it wasn't perfect.

As with the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers who established a nation in the name of freedom, were unable to find a way through the tangled political thicket to end slavery and, perhaps worse, in fact enshrined it in the new Constitution by including the now infamous "three-fifths clause."

This allowed the states with legalized slavery to count those who were otherwise considered to be "property," to, in this once instance, be counted as at least partially people for the U.S. Census purposes of representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

In his book "Negro President," historian Garry Wills makes the compelling case that Jefferson and the  parade of Virginians who followed him into the presidency and House Speakership, benefited from this clause, which gave them representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College disproportionate to their white populations.

(He also argues, with some apparent justification, that from that point forward, Jefferson's earlier and impassioned advocacy for eliminating slavery in the new republic  evaporated into mere rhetoric, as the full benefit of the political windfall the three-fifths clause provided made itself increasingly self-evident.)

But throughout the debate over the Constitution, one other central issue plagued the debates -- a Bill of Rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union sums it up pretty succinctly: "The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one."

The federalists argued that the Constitution clearly outlined the powers of the federal government and that all other powers fell, by default, to the states. They argued articulating a set of rights might make those not articulated unprotected.

But for those who feared centralized control, an assumption was not enough and it was equally important to outline what a central government could not do.

And so the Constitution was ratified at its convention with the promise that immediately after its adoption by ratifying conventions in all 13 states, that an equal effort would be made to draw up and adopt a Bill of Rights.

Drafted by Madison and based largely on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, these civil liberties have formed the foundation of some of our most treasured freedoms, as well as the foundation of some of our most vociferous arguments.

Those who argue in favor of gun rights, and those who argue to protect the right to burn the flag both revere the same document.

Only in America.

So take a moment today to consider what life might be like without those rights. It doesn't take much imagination.

Adams looks worried. He was, about his legacy.

And you don't have to look at despotic regimes in third-world countries to do it.

It has happened right here on our shores, most often in times of war, or near war, and often by those considered our greatest presidents.



Just seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, they were challenged by the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to speak ill of the administration of President John Adams for fear of fomenting a desire to go to war with France.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of "habeus corpus," which allows a court to determine if a prisoner has been imprisoned lawfully.

During World War I, Congress passed and Woodrow Wilson signed The Sedition Act of 1918, which outlawed speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.

During World War II, this nation imprisoned thousands and thousands of Americans in west coast camps simply because they were of Japanese heritage.



And, as Jon Stewart archly noted (does he ever note anything any other way?), last week Barack Obama made clear he is considering vetoing the $662 billion defense authorization bill passed this afternoon, "not because he objects to the executive branch having near infinite power to detain whoever it wants, but because he objects to the executive branch not having totally infinite power to detain whoever it wants" without charging them.

It was not too long ago, 2007 in fact, when the same Barack Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of supporters "we're not a nation that locks people up without charging them."

All of which brings to mind of a quote from James Madison that I have taped to the very computer screen on which I am writing these words, and which I look at every day:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Happy Birthday Bill of Rights.

It would seem we need you more and more each day.