Luckily, the cataclysm was narrowly averted. At Friday’s White House press briefing, Robert Gibbs confidently announced that the State of the Union address would not, in fact, run up against the season premiere of “Lost”.

In his exact words, Mr. Gibbs said, “ I don’t foresee a scenario in which millions of people that hope to finally get some conclusion in ‘Lost’ are pre-empted by the president.”

Le Monde must be having a field day with this one. Now we have the President of the United States tailoring his yearly address to the nation with ABC’s Tuesday night line-up in mind.

How was this news received by Lost’s production staff? Damon Lindelof, showrunner and writer for the series, announced joyously on his Twitter feed, “OBAMA BACKED DOWN!!!! Groundhog Day is OURS!!!!!!” The Losties (as followers of the show call themselves), who went into full hissy fit mode where there was even a hint of the president pushing back the long-awaited explanation of last year’s season finale, erupted into a veritable orgy of self-congratulations. Apparently their grass-roots efforts in Facebook turned the tide.

Being no fan of the current (or really, to be fair, any federal) administration, I find this whole flap intensely amusing. President Obama and his staff of media experts really brought this terrible mess upon themselves. They devalued the president’s airtime through constant, and often entirely pointless, televised speeches and post-election stumping. Since he was elected not on his good merits, rather his good looks, suave TV smile and Internet savvy appearance, why wouldn’t he preempted by the next shiny bauble to come down the wire?

And, indeed, he was – by Charlie Salinger from Party of Five.

Fear not, though. There is hope. The current administration has repeatedly shown it has tremendous pull with the major networks. Maybe President Obama could get a guest appearance on the show as Jacob’s mystery twin. Heck, bring Nancy Pelosi on as Kate’s half-sister and Harry Reid can be Sawyer’s real dad! One could make the case that the DNC is already “Lost”, so the roles shouldn’t be a stretch.

Funny thing is Obama didn’t descend on the White House alone, though. With him came a small mountain of Chicago Machine politicians and bureaucrats. Some media outlets have referred to the White House as the 51st ward, illustrating how Obama’s meteoric rise also meant the promotion of Chicago’s (and Daley’s) agenda to the national stage. Among the many objectives of the 51st ward was the acquisition of the 2016 Olympic Games.

All of Obama’s most powerful Chicago allies wanted these Games, including the mighty Oprah. To support Barack Obama in his bid for the White House Oprah backstabbed the Clintons, going great lengths to churn as much media support as she could to protect and promote Obama. This obviously meant Obama was in hock to Oprah (along with countless other Democrats in Chicago) and the guaranteed success of the 2016 Olympic bid would be the first of many markers to be called in.

Now that his man was in the White House, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, the de facto power broker in Chicago Machine politics, appeared overly confident about the prospect of getting the games, gallivanting around the world for the last two years with billionaire Pat Ryan. I won’t even mention all the sucking up to Oprah Winfrey, including the recent closing down of Michigan Avenue so she could do her show last month. This tight knit group of Chicagoans schemed to promote their ultimate vision of a Chicago Olympics (and the mountains of revenue and power it would supply them), while most of us sat blithely by as they did so. While the little guy would be regulated into oblivion in the name of the Olympics, these Monsters of the Midway would cash in big time on construction revenue, tax increases and increased international clout. The fix was in, success all but guaranteed.

So it came as a terrible shock to all the adherents of Obamaism when the combined power of Obama and Oprah, the dynamic ‘Two Os’ of power and influence peddling in Chicago, could not work their magic on the International Olympic Committee.

God bless America, because America needs as many blessings as it can get, particularly now that it is painfully obvious that Obama is not the ‘God’ we believed he was. I believe Daley was thinking the rest of the world would be as naive as the majority of America’s voters were on Election Day last year. “Yes We Can” was the slogan that made voters in last year’s presidential race delirious. As the credibility of this matra wanes it is now a pitch for the manufacturer of Chia pets. Obama’s resounding failure only digs the hole a little deeper.

Apparently we Americans needed the unbiased opinion of the IOC to deal the eye-opening reality check that no one in America, especially the media and talk show hosts, has been willing to deal. A Chicago insurance salesman, mayor, talk show host and former community organizer might wield a great deal of power in Chicago, but the IOC has made it abundantly clear the rest of the world is not swayed by the influence of Chicago (thank God!). The Windy City, best known for the Al Capones and John Difronzos of the world, is a town rife with terrible violence and horrendous corruption, and that’s why it was voted unfit by the international community. No amount of slick talk and backroom politicking could smooth this one over.

The Olympic dream has gone on for two years and Mayor Daley and Pat Ryan have enjoyed it more than anyone has, I am sure. After the reality check the IOC boldly dealt us, there’s no excuse for Daley to not deal with the deficits, taxes, parking meters, corruption and the entire slew of other deficiencies this fine city suffers from. I cannot wait to see how long Chicago’s Police Superintendent Jody Weiss keeps his job, now that his resume is no longer a necessity for showboating. Despite his outsider and reformer status (shades of Daley Sr.’s appointment of Orlando Wilson), Weiss was never able to change the way the CPD operated, and arguably will be leaving Chicago in an even more miserable state than he found it. Sadly it matters not in the end, because he was little more than window dressing anyway.

As a post script, it will be interesting to see if any of the co-hosts on The View will accuse the IOC of a possible racial motive against Obama. They will need something new to talk about, because I doubt they will bother remembering how they commented on August 2009 being the deadliest month for U.S. Military in Afghanistan (since 9-11) while Obama was preparing for his trip to Copenhagen in order to appease the allegedly corrupt Cook County/Chicago Democratic Machine bosses.

In my opinion it seems that we have an alleged criminal (disorderly conduct is a crime), Henry Gates, who pulled the race card and walked away from criminal charges. This is no different than any of the criminals from Obama’s home base, Chicago, scores of who have avoided criminal prosecutions on countless occasions by bribing Cook County judges (see Operation Greylord).

Allow me to make better sense of what I am saying. Whether a defendant influences the judicial process by falsely manipulating a ‘race’ argument (with the aid of a stupid United States President), or pays a bribe to a member of the judicial system to have their criminal case dismissed, both scenarios are inconsistent with the factual legal grounds necessary for dismissal. Therefore, both of my examples are just as inappropriate, not to mention classical, Chicago/scofflaw behavior. What only compounds this travesty of justice is the fact that our President put his nose in this situation in the first place.

On an equally despicable note, President Obama hosted a beer-drinking get-together, further exploiting this ridiculous situation in the public spotlight, with no significant outcome. When the dust settles, all we have left is an alleged criminal that avoided prosecution. For those who would argue that ‘disorderly conduct’ is a petty offense, who cares? Why bother to have laws if they are not going to be enforced? Hell, why have laws at all?

This ‘beer summit’ just boils down to a PR scheme to resuscitate Obama’s flagging popularity, and most likely on our dime. I want to know, who paid the travel expenses for Gates and Crowley to visit D.C.? My guess is that taxpayers did. I wonder what the tab ended up being? Surely four beers could only have cost a few thousand dollars, right? Bottom’s up, America!

Only One Reason:

The Republican Party!

President Barack Obama’s administration has had lapses of administration failures and frustration during his early days as President, just as all new Presidents have experienced. Time is the greatest teacher for Presidents and their administrative staffs, the same as in all past administrations. This President, however, has taken America and our policies on a sharp left-hand turn in policy. During a once in a lifetime economic slowdown, this President is attempting to re-write much of the American success story. The American media in general is not reporting this hard policy shift, instead dealing with major issues like the first family’s new dog or the latest fashion trend offered by our new First Lady. Errors in judgment are quickly reported and then dropped from all future discussions. The hard right-wing conservative media sources are screaming to their listeners about this overt shift in policy to the far-left with expected results.

The President’s popularity numbers have of course dropped from the inauguration initial numbers, since the President had roughly two full months of nothing but positive news reporting from the election until inauguration day. This policy shift has taken his popularity down but not to the devastating levels that would have happened if any other President of recent history had tried such a sudden shift in governing principles. Yes, the President’s popularity numbers are down, but they are still in a very strong positive all things considered. Why is this? That is the question you must ask yourself.

Why is President Obama still so popular? Several reasons for this popularity are obvious.

1. The majority of the TV and Print media are still only reporting positive news and limiting negative news. This segment of the media and their constant praise and instant ridicule of any negative assertions is worth at least 7 to 10 points nationally.

2. The Conservative talk-TV and talk-radio leaders are only preaching to the choir. Obama never had their votes in his column as it related to popularity.

3. Any President that attempts any short-term military action will receive the overwhelming support of the American public. Americans love short-military incursions and they do not even have to be successful. They like the idea that our President tried to do something to right a situation using the military.
a. Gerald Ford authorized a disastrous rescue of a captured American ship (the personnel had in fact been already released at the time of the attack and we lost an entire helicopter and our troops inside – yet Ford went up in the polls).
b. Jimmy Carter authorized a rescue of our captured embassy staff in Iraq and there was a crash in the desert during the staging, losing many lives. Carter went up in the polls because the American people thought he at least tried.
c. Ronald Reagan, after the deaths of over 200 Marines in Lebanon, attacked a small Caribbean Island of Granada and went up in the polls.
d. Bill Clinton attacked some scattered tents in the desert doing next to no damage as a way of retaliating for the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York and he went up in the polls.
e. Barack Obama goes after pirates in the Middle East and he goes up in the polls. This President and his staff know history. The old saying always was, “foreign wars distract the American People from internal troubles.”

Nevertheless, this President, in slightly more than 100 days in office, had attacked the very core of America’s traditional economy, a principle that had separated American from the rest of the world for over two centuries. Talks about nationalizing American banks, taking over a large share of the auto industry, limiting the pay of executives in private companies, entitlements still being used, bailouts to businesses that are wasting our money and his bowing to a member of the Arab Royalty have led to his small drop in popularity, even with an unbelievable support of the main stream media.

However, there is still one main and unspoken reason that will save this President in popularity polls for the considerable future and that reason is the Republican Party. America and more important, the American Middle Class remembers that it was the Republicans that totally misused their control of the Congress for over ten years and for six years of that time period, they even controlled the White House. Nevertheless, the American Middle Class saw a political party that seemed to care more about enriching themselves, piety arguments, and blind obedience to a non-responsive White House than in ruling the country.

The American Middle Class didn’t vote against John McCain in the last general election – the American Middle Class voted against the Republican Party.

The reason Obama can act as if he is immune from the contempt of the American people is that the American Middle Class may not like what he is doing – but at least it is better than what the Republicans did to this country for the previous eight years. Obama is safe as long as he makes the Middle Class remembers their anger at the Republicans. It may sound strange in political talk but the Republicans are Barack Obama’s best friends. They put him in office and they are the ones keeping his poll numbers high. The American Middle Class may not like what President Obama is doing but if they consider the Republicans as the only other option, then the Middle Class will give the President more time and a second chance. They know what the Republicans would do and that is why the Middle Class is still supporting the President.

The answer to that difficult question is actually very simple. Yes, the attacks are coming unless they are stopped at the source. The only way this can happen is if the terrorists are not stopped by us but instead stopped by the governing Middle Eastern countries themselves. But why would they step in to stop the terrorist? They have shown no desire to make such a bold move at any time in the past fifty years. The answer to that question is just one simple word. This word has not been used in decades. This word was at the core of our defensive posture for over forty years during the Cold War. This word probably prevented a nuclear attack in Europe or the United States during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and the 1980s. The word that saved us from a nuclear attack is brinkmanship.

In the 1950s the Cold War raged across Europe and the United States. The two allies of World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States, were, less than ten years later, now locked in another titanic battle. This battle for control the world held a serious threat that nuclear weapons might actually be used. The Soviet’s “Iron Curtian” had swallowed almost half of Europe. The European free countries were still terribly weak from the effects of the last world war. The Soviet Union was looking to expand their sphere of influence and only one country had the ability, the wherewithal and the determination to stand up to the Soviet threat. That country was the United States.

The United States in the 1950s elected one of the last war’s leaders, General Dwight David Eisenhower, to the Presidency. Eisenhower was a true man of his time. He had been about the 150th ranking General in the United States Army when General Marshall and President Roosevelt selected him to be the Supreme Commander of the European theater in World War II. The thinking was they did not want to be naming the next President of the United States, so they picked a rather bland and non-outgoing man who they believed only wanted to be a General, not a President.

Nevertheless, in 1953 General Eisenhower became President Eisenhower. Eisenhower took his delegate command style to the White House. His Secretary of State became extremely powerful because total authority was given to him. His name was John Foster Dulles (Washington Dulles Airport was named after this powerful man). Realizing the inherent menace of an aggressive Soviet Union and the real threat that one of the Soviet satellite countries (East Germany, Poland, Hungry, etc.) might launch a nuclear missile to achieve immediate success, John Foster Dulles created the policy called brinkmanship.

With brinkmanship, the United States’ foreign policy became:

“If a missile fired from any of the Soviet Union satellite countries strikes any NATO European country or the United States, the United States would consider the missile as being fired by the Soviet Union and thereby the United States would immediately attack the Soviet Union.”

Later Dulles expanded his policy to state that any invasion of any country by a Soviet Block Country would also be considered an attack upon the United States by the Soviet Union and that attack would be met with massive nuclear retaliation. This policy of escalation assured the Soviet Union that even the smallest move on a NATO power meant all out war.

With this single diplomacy policy, the Soviet Union was forced to take personal control of all weapons and to insist that none of their satellite countries do anything that might cause a major war. We forced our principle adversary to accept the responsibility of the rouge countries and their radical leaders to behave and to not attack us. Again, the Soviet Union stopped their people from attacking us.

Now take that thinking to today. It will not be another country that will attack the United States. It will be some small splinter group of terrorists that will attack America. The next time the attack might actually be nuclear. The question is how do we stop them and, if the terrible event does happen, what sort of retaliation will there be? If we let down our guard, the terrorists will soon strike us again. That is not a fear. That is a fact and a reality.

If they do strike us, how do we strike back? One small suitcase-sized nuclear bomb is estimated to have the power to kill at least 25,000 Americans. How would we react? What would America do? I think many of our current political leaders from both sides of the aisle, if faced with a nuclear terrorist strike in the U.S., would deal with the catastrophic event by calling for a national prayer day, or perhaps engage in an emergency session of the United Nations to discuss the issue, or maybe grab a pen and file a strong protest with many Middle Eastern countries. I, on the other hand, don’t want this attack to happen and I strongly believe that an updated brinkmanship policy would stop these types of attack.

My belief is that the only sure way to prevent an attack on the United States is brinkmanship. We would notify the countries of the Middle East that any attack upon the United States by any group that trained in or was supported by their country would be considered an action perpetrated by that county. Retribution for any attack would fall on both the terrorist organization and the sponsoring county.

When the countries in the Middle East realize we will destroy their country if they allow terrorists to train unchecked within their borders, the rulership of those countries will stop the terrorists themselves, just like the Soviet Union stopped their satellites all those years ago.

This policy is difficult to administrate unless someone has the backbone to stand up and announce that this is our policy. If we are attacked, any country that gave these terrorists financial support or a safe haven will face the retribution of a nation that only wanted to live in peace. This policy worked a few decades ago and it will work again. This policy kept America and the world safe. It is our best chance for safety of our people.

Make the Middle Eastern countries themselves stop the terrorists in order to save their own countries, their own positions of leadership and their own lives.

With the true threat of brinkmanship hanging over their heads they will have no choice.

Cardinal George is right about President Obama and Notre Dame. I am not shocked or disappointed that Cardinal George is doing what he was appointed to do, which is stand up for the teachings of the Church.

If you want to be a Catholic you cannot support someone that approves of abortion, period. It does not matter who this person is, whether it be a politician or even your own parents. Mayor Daley and his bald brother are wrong to denounce a Roman Catholic Archbishop on defending the tenets of his faith.

If you are a Catholic that cannot understand abortion is something that Catholics are forbidden to approve of, you should find another religion. Rarely is an issue as clear as the Church’s stance on abortion. Barack Obama has never hidden his pro-choice stance and it is a travesty that so many Catholics, despite this obvious shortcoming, voted for him. While the President may have many other positive qualities, protesting this Notre Dame event is a prime way to show him that Catholics do not agree with his stance on abortion.

Cardinal George is not mixing religion and state. He is simply being a responsible religious leader, addressing relevant issues with other Catholics. The Daley Boys have sold out their religious faith for reasons of personal greed and political gain. Mayor Daley chums up to the Cardinal before mayoral elections, but has no problem slamming him when it suits his political goals.

Mayor Daley, aren’t there other issues more pressing to Chicago than attacking a priest for stating the disturbingly obvious? Would you please start worrying about the parking meter mess and the financial disaster surrounding the Olympics. Maybe after problems like these are adequately addressed you can spend some time berating the Roman Catholic Church and its constituents.

For a man who spent his whole life replete with the luxuries of the rich and powerful, Conrad Black has adjusted to his current, and hopefully temporary, imprisonment (and his certainly Spartan surroundings) with a characteristic grace. Many thought that, once behind bars, Mr. Black would be whining like a spoiled brat. We have all had the chance to read his writing during this time and can see this is not the case. I have no doubt Conrad Black is the most productive resident of the Federal System and a real asset to so many ‘in need’ during his difficult time.

The most tragic facet of incarceration is parting with loved ones. As a man of romantic temperament I deeply sympathize with Conrad Black’s heartrending separation from the greatest love of his life, the beautiful Barbara Black. I know he would give anything to be with her right now. All of us that know Conrad well are deeply aware of how much he loves his wife. Barbara has given Conrad more emotional support and unadulterated love than he could ever have prayed for.

It sickens me that so many people that do not know Conrad, having no true measure of the man’s character, actually buy the nonsense that he stole money and that this purported theft was done out of greed. First, it is well beneath Conrad to commit a crime. Second, it would be as much a necessity for Conrad to steal 6 million dollars as it would for me to take candy from a baby. The whole idea is ludicrous. It would be downright absurd to entertain the notion at all, except that Patrick Fitzgerald somehow managed to convince a jury that this farce is fact.

Conrad and I discussed the sad story about former President George W. Bush not helping Gov. George Ryan and the others who worked extremely hard for him and/or his father over the years with the steadfast goal of bettering America. This is exactly what Conrad had to say: “I do not understand the mentality of someone who clearly enjoyed executing people in Texas and even mocked pleas for mercy from residents of death row, and on leaving the White House after eight years with the lowest approval rating in history, does absolutely nothing for people who really put out for him. And I am not speaking of myself. He is a process freak when it suits him and a lawless fascist when it suits him to torture people and champion warrantless searches, wire-taps, and forgets about habeas corpus. Good riddance to him; he makes your fellow Chicagoan look even better.”

I will end by saying that until George Bush’s final day I respected him for his good qualities as a president, such as keeping America safe since 9/11. The events of his final days in office now render that image tarnished in my eyes. George Bush could have shown his appreciation for some truly wonderful people that were loyal to his family and to America. Because of his hard-headedness many miscarriages of justice may stand.

It is an inescapable fact that I am from Chicago and have observed politics at their highest. I remember the stories, the jokes and the old wise tales about Chicago Politics. I remember a major network news anchor telling everyone (nationally) not to jump to any conclusions, “We haven’t heard from all the cemeteries in Chicago yet.”

I had the great honor of attending a fine Catholic University, though not in Chicago. It was an education in itself to learn the political stories about my town were not only local. I found out I was wrong. I was constantly reminded that “four legs in a voting booth” is a common sight in The Windy City, and that Chicago is the only city in the world that officially recognizes the resurrection of the dead, as the deceased often turn out to vote.

The nation knew that Chicago stole the election of 1960 for John Kennedy and ‘just smiled’ at the creativity of the late Mayor Daley and the Chicago Machine. That was how the nation looked at Chicago politics for decades. Everyone knew it was corrupt but people also knew it was only in Chicago so it did not make any difference to them. Our style of politics did not matter to the rest of the country.

Since Illinois has turned solidly Democratic over the past decade, the ‘tricks’ of the Democratic Party have not been needed (or, to be more exact, have not been as visible). They are just more subtle about it now. For years one of the top five political leaders in this country used my office for his national fund-raising matters. For this, my firm had the ability to ask for favors in return. Our requests were granted. That was the Chicago way.

Perhaps this melancholy view of history is natural and expected, as one grows slightly older and, as one hopes, slightly wiser. However, this nation has now elected a new President and the media has already declared this shooting star of Chicago Politics to be the coming of our political savior. I am not making any comments about our new President. Instead, I would like to comment on the people standing closely around our new political savior (and their way of doing business – The Chicago Way).

Our Governor has a great deal of troubles these days, mostly for allegedly trying to ‘sell’ Barack Obama’s senate seat. Hello America, this little episode is just the beginning. Wake Up America – Welcome to Chicago!

One of Barack Obama’s biggest political enemies during his recent political campaign was Senator Hillary Clinton (yes, a Chicagoland woman herself, but she was a Chicago Democrat so that really does not count). She had the ‘inside Washington Democratic base’ and she had at least three-quarters of the media doing her political hatchet work for her. She was in the perfect position because this was ‘her turn’ and she was setup to win. The Republicans would put up a fight, but this was a Democratic year and the Democratic nominee would be our next President. Now comes the Chicago guy who knows how to speak and knows how to remain ‘cool’ under fire. That is what America saw.

But what America did not see?

The Chicago Democratic Party, standing just off-camera, pulling all the stings.

This brings us to today and today’s political news. With all the focus on our Governor and his troubles maybe the rest of us, including the media and the American People, can’t smell a Chicago political deal that appears to have been made right under everyone’s nose.
Chicago Politics 101: There should be a class taught in every university in America on this subject. Think about what I am about to print and before you totally dismiss the concept remember, Chicago Politics have now gone national.

Obama and Hillary Clinton were virtually tied during the primaries. The media was split in their love-fest for both candidates. The election for the nomination could go either way. This was going to be very close.

Out of nowhere, Caroline Kennedy announces she is now backing Obama. WHAT!? The Clintons hijacked the Kennedy legacy in their climb to the top (Caroline Kennedy gave money to the Clintons in the recent past). Caroline Kennedy, the social darling of the family, came out for Obama. The media went nuts. The 75% of the media that favored Hillary Clinton suddenly (overnight) swung overwhelmingly to Obama. This was Camelot revisited. This was a media event perfect for a generation of non-reporting reporters. Hillary Clinton lost her most trusted and needed ally, and with it the positive media coverage that was critical to her campaign. More important, the media now refused to examine any of Barack Obama’s political baggage from Chicago. Yes, there was some talk of Father Pfleger, Rev. Wright, William Ayers, ACORN and Tony Rezko. However, there were no in-depth reports of the Chicago Machine that was hoisting this candidate up on their shoulders, not allowing anyone to look at his record or body of work. Looking back on the primary election season of 2008, the announcement by Caroline Kennedy significantly helped seal the nomination for Barack Obama.

But why would she do it? What was in it for Caroline? She was a women not deeply involved in politics. It has been shown that she did not even vote in most elections. If she wanted to build a political power base on her own, she would have to go through a long primary race, a rough general election, while having to disclose all of her financial dealings just to get to an elected position that was high enough for her political heritage.
Or, she could make a deal – Chicago Style. In my opinion, I do not think this idea of her becoming a United States Senator ever entered her mind until the Obama people approached her with the offer. Support Obama and you will be named the next Senator from the State of New York. That appears to have been an offer too good to refuse.

Some might say, “Chuck, you are nuts!” Maybe, but think about this as a Chicago Politico would. Obama had to win the nomination. In order to win the nomination, Obama needed Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement to give him the appearance of acceptance of the ‘old-school’ Democratic leadership. Once Obama had the nomination, he then had to follow up on his deal with Kennedy, which meant dealing with Hillary Clinton in order to move her out of the Senate. If he put Clinton on the ticket with him as VP and the New York seat opened, his deal with Kennedy would then be complete. The problem here was simple. Putting Hillary into the VP’s chair could be very dangerous for a new President, especially understanding Clinton’s own desire to be President. Therefore he witheld the VP nomination, offering instead a position everyone knew she would accept – Secretary of State. In that position Obama already knows she will not be a team player, most likely running around the world for almost two years, grabbing every headline she can in preparation for running against Obama in four years.

So why would he name her Secretary of State? He had a Chicago deal to pay off. I feel that Obama named Hillary as Secretary of State in order to give Caroline a Senate Seat. He can deal with Hillary later, but for now, he would be the President. All of this was possible because of his political upbringing steeped in Chicago backroom kingmaking.

It has been stated that Caroline Kennedy is acting as if the nomination was meant to be. I think that Kennedy expects the deal to be honored. However, Chicago Politics has raised its head in a horrifying way as it relates to Caroline Kennedy. Caroline expected Obama’s people to come out firing on her behalf, which I assume was part of the deal. What she could not have been ready for was our own Governor of Illinois getting caught trying to sell Obama’s Senate Seat. Now with the Federal investigators circling around the Obama team, they will not come out and pressure people to support Kennedy (or anyone for that matter). They have left Caroline Kennedy (a political rookie with a tremendous heritage, but still a rookie) to go through this experience alone with limited support of the President-Elect, the person critical to her having this nomination almost handed to her. The first crack in the Chicago Political National Machine (the Illinois Governor being caught doing what every other Governor for years has done – marketing a Senator nomination) has put Caroline Kennedy in the public’s cross hairs. If the nomination fails, you can expect her to be named shortly to the Ambassadorship to the country of her choice (minus Africa – Oprah has the say on that one).

This is only the beginning. Wake Up America – Welcome to Chicago Politics… They have now gone national.

Whatever one’s opinion of the man’s business decisions, it is impossible to deny that Conrad Black is an impressively talented and accomplished writer. I now make a point to read his articles whenever he publishes. I would recommend that anyone who is confused about the current financial crisis gripping the United States read Ignorance and Upheaval. It is one of the most succinct descriptions I have read of how we ended up in this current economic quagmire.

In the course of following Mr. Black’s writing I came across one of his most recent essays, A ‘rather successful’ president with some serious achievements under his belt. In the piece Mr. Black does an excellent job of laying out the merits of our current president’s time in the White House. He points out that a “cataract of sniggering and brickbats may safely be expected as serious analysis of the presidency of George W. Bush begins, but it will not last: The historical standing of departing presidents tends to rise as emotionalism subsides.”

I find this particularly true, and there is a reason for it that might not be so obvious to all of us.

George Walker Bush is the first Internet Age president.

I can hear the protests already.

I know President Clinton is widely regarded as the first Commander and Chief in the Internet Age. This argument does have some merit, if you manage to forget the state of people’s interaction with the Internet throughout most of Clinton’s time in office. While the structure was there, no one was really using the Internet, at least not the way it is used now. In short, like all other presidents before him, William Jefferson Clinton never had to deal with YouTube.

The best illustration I can think of brings me back to college. I was a freshman in the fall of 1996 and distinctly remember how having an Ethernet card in my computer (even just having a computer) made me a unique commodity in dorm life. In fact, most of the first friends I made in college were the precious few students taking advantage of this fantastic and ever-connected gateway to the Internet.

Now, I would like you to think back to the ‘90s. How many of you had an e-mail address in 1996? How many of you had a computer? Then, there is the matter of connectivity. Before 2000 I could count on one hand the number of people I knew with a dedicated Internet connection. I myself used dial-up until 2001. As 2008 wraps up, I’ll bet I could walk down the block and be hard-pressed to find a family without a DSL line or Broadband modem.

Heck, forget computers, those clunky, wire-ridden desktop paperweights from 2004. Did you have a WiFi laptop? How did we drink coffee at Starbucks without the Internet to keep us company?

Did you even have a cell phone, let alone the wireless multimedia monsters many of us carry in our pockets nowadays? I have a HTC G1, and the little thing is at least as much a functioning laptop as the first portable computer I used to lug around.

So yes, we all are loaded down with Internet-driven gizmos now – where is this going? The Internet, with its global reach and growing audience, coupled with widespread access to increasingly inexpensive and impressively reliable computer technology birthed a nigh on infinite observation and criticism engine. This vast information network, once the plaything of the military and scientific community, is available to the masses. The printing press, a machine that revolutionized communication and learning the world over, is a child’s toy compared to the Internet.

Ten years ago, could you have read the Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, Jordan Times and Asahi Shimbun (without going to the newsstand, praying all the papers were there and paying for each one) and then signed into your blog and posted your thoughts about world events? With a click of the send button your observations are available to people in Chicago, New York, Paris, Amman and Tokyo. Congratulations, you have a potential news-reading audience that William Randolph Hurst would have envied. The best part is Google (along with many others) does it all for free.

Now you do not need an education, or an editor, to become a publisher. Please do not take this in a negative or degrading way. I am, after all, a part of this phenomenon. I do not need a newspaper or book publisher to get my ideas out to the public now. This revolutionary tool places voluminous libraries of information at my beck and call, and gifts me with an infinite amount of print space through which I may express myself. The Internet is a marvelous contribution to humanity’s quest to understand and relate to one another.

The sheer power of this newborn entity also begs a question, though. When this juggernaut of opinion is aimed at someone, what sort of effect will it have? Will it turn a good person into a saint? Not likely, since no news sells like bad news.

The masses thrive on gossip and innuendo, the peccadilloes of the famous and powerful. So, it seems to me, the Internet, being an expression of the multitudes, would blossom with megabyte after megabyte of negative attention directed towards the most visible in our world’s society.

I am not writing this because I am jaded with humanity. Put a jeweler’s loupe to a diamond and imperfections will magically appear. It stands to reason that staring at someone all the time, incessantly recording his or her movements, will, sooner or later, yield faults. If you start out looking for something to dislike, well, the process gets a whole lot easier. This whole procedure is greatly accelerated if the observers do not personally know their subject. It becomes strangely painless to say and write terrible things about other human beings.

President Bush has been a focus of attention of the Internet in a serious way since 9/11. I am not saying I agree with all the decisions President Bush has made during his tenure, but almost regardless of what he did, there was going to be a crushing wave of criticism, and not necessarily from the television and newspaper pundits. It is worthwhile to note that this criticism does not have nationality, either. It is as easy for a Brazilian to watch and comment on the president of the United States as it is for me.

I am sure that Conrad Black can attest to this, as his articles for the National Post are published on the Internet. Anyone with a keyboard can easily attack him, using his popularity to make their comments (often snide and without factual evidence, as blind comments are often wont to be) available to a much wider audience than they could garner themselves.

As it became easy to follow, in disturbing minutia, the exploits of the office of the President, obsession with the man grew exponentially. Once Bush is out of office and back on his ranch in the little town of Crawford, Texas, public opinion will become less harsh, if only because he is no longer in the limelight. Perhaps then a serious examination of his time in office might begin.

I wonder how President-elect Obama will fare in this dog-eat-dog world of 24/7 Internet-based obsession? He and his team used the power of the Internet to dazzling success during his campaign, easily routing John McCain on the virtual field of competition. Will this mean that President Obama will be able to harness the terrific power of the Internet to further his goals, or will it fall back on him like a collapsing ocean wave, bringing America’s next president’s poll numbers down, much like his predecessor?

I have always been a firm believer that in order to be a good American, one must respect the person elected to serve as our President. I congratulate Barack Obama on his enormous achievement. I sympathize with John McCain, who fell short of his goal. He deserves much more. I wish to address our current President, George Bush, who has worked hard to keep our fine nation safe. Thank you President Bush.

Please take the time to read Conrad Black’s article:

Ignorance and Upheaval

The U.S. presidential election campaign that is now finally ending (the 2012 campaign will begin on Thursday, and will probably cost $2-billion) has been so entangled with economic, racial and ethical questions, that it has obscured the most stark ideological differences between candidates since Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Senator Barack Obama, who has the most liberal voting record of any current U.S. senator, is well to the left, according to all polls, of most Americans. He is surging toward the feat recently achieved by Stephen Harper in Canada: Being elected although most of his countrymen are ideologically closer to his chief opponent.

The voters have been heavily distracted by the financial crisis. Mr. Obama has displayed an almost sphinx-like discretion on the subject — while John McCain has produced a daily kaleidoscope of hip-shooting responses and King Lear-like promises of vengeance on the greedy financiers and sloppy regulators.

Yet, during it all, there has not, as far as I have observed, been a single plausible explanation of what has happened to the financial system. Congress required that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac direct 52% of their backing to the homes of low-income, higher-risk, mortgagees. It did the same, though not to the same extent, with the commercial banking system. Alan Greenspan co-operated with Congress by holding the prime rate at 1% for almost a year, facilitating the issuance of trillions of dollars of low-yield, high-risk mortgages.

The financial industry bundled these together in consolidated debt obligations (CDOs), whereby investors could buy in at different rates and risk levels. The CDOs were in turn backed by default swaps, insurance policies that gave the securities a (false as it turned out) semblance of reliability. Meanwhile, investment banks were permitted to borrow up to 30 times their asset bases, three times the leverage permitted to lending banks. It was a house of cards on an open terrace on a summer day.

Early signs of a slight business downturn shook loose some of the most vulnerable mortgages, and the effects rolled through to the insurance companies. Banks marked down their asset values, and to avoid being afoul of Federal Reserve-imposed ratios (which are based on market prices), had to seek more capital at declining issue prices, diluting existing shareholders. Market shapers and astute analysts short-sold the CDOs and bank shares, (i.e., sold them without first buying them, forcing down the market price, and then covering their sales by buying at a lower price).

The process broadened and accelerated, as this kind of crash always does. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, scrambled around like one-armed paper-hangers, saving some companies (Bear Stearns) and not others (Lehman).

Very late, they improvised an impractical plan for buying up to $700-billion of the defaulted real estate-related debt, but the CDOs are not easily divided and the federal government had no capability for negotiating such transactions. And so it was agreed that the government would, as it did in the 1930’s, buy preferred shares in the encumbered institutions at discounted prices, and let the banks work it out with their clients and debtors.

The foregoing analysis makes no pretense to economic sophistication, but I saw no evidence that either candidate is capable of giving even this minimalist description of what has panicked the country, discomfited the whole financial world and caused foreigners to resume the habit that began with the U.S. rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, and blame everything bad on America. The collapse of the United States was jubilantly announced by the international left, probably at least two centuries prematurely. As McCain flailed wildly, Obama sagely allowed the crisis to reflect badly on Republicans generally, though the Clinton administration was certainly not blameless.

Obama is essentially offering the white population of the United States, in exchange for his residency in the White House, an end to the racial guilt complex that’s formed over 145 years of quasi-segregation of African- Americans, following what Lincoln called “the bondman’s 250 years of unrequited toil.” And as a bonus, this will also be the end of the hackneyed and checkered spokesmanship for the black community of scoundrels such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel and the Obama family’s recently discharged pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Over the last 60 years in the United States, the governing party has usually changed after two terms. The stylistic shortcomings of the second Bush administration, McCain’s blunderbuss campaign and the financial crisis have all reinforced that likelihood. Under the Mephistophelean influence of the most biased media coverage of a U.S. election since Barry Goldwater in 1964, Obama’s peculiar associations have been downplayed and McCain has been portrayed as serving up a smear-job for raising them at all.

Twenty years of listening, each Sunday, to the demented ravings of Father Jeremiah; the relationship with unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers, as they squandered $100-million of the late Walter Annenberg’s money teaching Marxism but not raising test scores in Chicago; Obama’s relations with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), now being investigated for extensive voter-registration fraud in 14 states; and Obama’s provenance from the roughest, crudest, political machine in the country, the Democratic Party that has ruled Chicago and its suburbs for 80 years; all have been ignored or glossed over, and have received less investigative attention than Joe the Plumber’s tax returns or Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

In policy terms, McCain would lower taxes and spending and retain individual choice in medical care. Obama would “cut the taxes of 95% of Americans,” by which he means that the 40% of Americans who do not pay income taxes would receive “refundable tax credits” from the 60% who do, most of whom would receive tax increases. He has tried to sugar the pill of simply taking money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who haven’t by clothing it in the jolly and progressive phrase: “spreading the wealth around.” A tax increase at the start of a recession is playing Russian roulette with all chambers loaded.
Obama will also promote unionization of the work force, thus advancing that retrograde and declining cause of the departure of much of U.S. manufacturing to cheap-labour countries in the first place. If Obama takes his economic advice from Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker, catastrophe will be avoided. If he actually carries out his program, he will be the worst president since Warren Harding, and the most (inadvertently) destructive since James Buchanan brought on the Civil War.

It has been such a complicated election: A centre-right country is running some risk of a quirky and ill-starred lurch to the left under its first non-white president. Whatever else it may have become, the United States is a land of surprises.