HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » H2O Man » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

H2O Man

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 65,355

Journal Archives

Boxing!

Feb. 28

At Hammond, Ind. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes): "Boxcino" middleweight tournament quarterfinals (all bouts 6 rounds), Donatas Bondorovas vs. Willie Monroe Jr.; Cerresso Fort vs. Vitalii Kopylenko; Brandon Adams vs. Daniel Edouard; Raymond Gatica vs. Sena Agbeko; Simeon Hardy vs. TBA, 8 rounds, junior middleweights; Donovan Dennis vs. Samuel Coming, 8 rounds, heavyweights; Fidel Navarrete vs. Segio Montes de Oca, 4 rounds, featherweights; Mike Jimenez vs. Jimmy Campbell, 6 rounds, super middleweights; Dimar Ortuz vs. John Moxey, 4 rounds, cruiserweights; Russell Fiore vs. Tim Carrizales, 4 rounds, lightweights

At Verona, N.Y. (Showtime): J'Leon Love vs. Vladine Biosse, 10 rounds, super middleweights; Badou Jack vs. Derek Edwards, 10 rounds, super middleweights; Chris Pearson vs. Lanardo Tyner, 8 rounds, middleweights; Luis Arias vs. Dashon Johnson, 8 rounds, super middleweights; Ronald Gavril vs. Cameron Allen, 8 rounds, junior featherweights; Omontunde Tabiti vs. Dorian Hatcher, 4 rounds, cruiserweights; Ladarius Miller vs. Douglas Rosales, 4 rounds, welterweights; John Franklin vs. Jesus Bayron, 8 rounds, junior featherweights

Good luck to Willie Monroe, Jr., tonight. Willie is a first class gentleman, outside the ring.

I will be at ringside at Verona, with my son Darren. The greatest fighter of this era -- Floyd Mayweather, Jr. -- will be there. It doesn't get any better than that, for this old pug.

Hurricane

Yesterday, my Very Good Friend -- known on this forum as "malaise" from Jamaica -- posted an article about Dr. Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. The article told how Carter, the former middleweight boxer who was incarcerated for 20 years for a crime he did not commit, is in the final days of his life. Though battling cancer, Rubin's primary focus remains his attempt to get justice for David McCallum.

In the near future, I will post more about David's case. I hope that some from the DU community will take an interest -- an active interest, at that -- in this case of injustice. Until then, people can either "google," or, better yet, get a copy of Rubin's 2011 book, "Eye of the Hurricane: My Path from Darkness to Freedom." It contains a great deal of information on David's case, as well as a foreword by Nelson Mandela.

When I was a little boy, my two older brothers introduced me to the sport of boxing. The first bout I watched on television was the Hurricane knocking welterweight champion Emile Griffith -- who had just been named "Fighter of the Year" -- out in one round.

My family was dirt poor; we knew poverty in ways that few people in this country actually do. About the only "recreation" we could afford was arguing and fighting. And, as we lived on a small farm, the work we did each and every day prepared us for fighting! Now, being the youngest of five kids (two brothers and two sisters), the hand-me-down hand-me-downs I wore to school made me the target of other children's often cruel jokes. Plus, as a result of being poor, I had lost a lot of teeth to an infection, and couldn't talk right, those few times I did try to speak.

Now, you take a strong kid, wearing worn-out, way out of style clothes, who can't talk, but can fight, and who doesn't like being picked on .....and, you guessed it: in my childhood, I got into lots of fights outside of just boxing.

By the time I was 13, I was good enough that Lee Kerr, a British writer for Boxing Illustrated, did a feature article on me, predicting that I was a sure bet to win a world's title when I was in my twenties. Now, I was still a poor kid, and unable to wash that distinct smell of "farm" from my clothing. And although I got very good grades in school, my anti-social circle of friends were what could best be described as inhabiting the margins. But no one picked on me, at least not to my face.

about Rubin Carter's case always interested me. It just didn't make sense that he would have committed the crimes he had been convicted of. This was, of course, long before the internet -- in fact, it was before he published his first book, "The Sixteenth Round," which would gain the interest and support of Bob Dylan, Muhammad Ali, and many other celebrities. Thus, there wasn't a lot of information available on Carter.

So what is a poor farm boy to do? What else: I wrote to Carter, and told him that I thought he was innocent. I figured that I could get him released, and, in return, he could manage my professional boxing career. This made perfect sense to me at the time.

He wrote back. And soon, we were writing to each other frequently. I have all of the letters, cassette tapes, photographs, and documents that he sent me. In time, Rubin convinced to to quit boxing, and go to college. I was a volunteer worker with his defense committee. And since his eventual release, we have remained good friends. I'm proud to say that all four of my children know Rubin.

I've known about the cancer for a long time now. It had been his choice to keep it private. Rubin doesn't want anyone feeling sorry for him -- he's not that way. On one hand, I had hoped that somehow, this most powerful of men would pull through. On the other hand, I know that in order to advance in our knowledge of life, we must learn to die.

Over the 40-plus years I've known Rubin, we've had some amazing experiences. Maybe I'll write some more about them sometime soon. But for now, I'm looking through some of the letters and court documents that I've collected over the years.

Peace,
H2O Man

We Can Work It Out

"Life is very short
And there's no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend
"I have always thought
That it's a crime
So I will ask you once again
"Try to see it my way
Only time will tell
If I am right or I am wrong"
The Beatles; We Can Work It Out

One area where much of the most intense acrimony between men and women is found is in the family court system. Hence, I have been a bit surprised that this specific topic hasn't been brought up much, if at all, in the DU:GD threads on sexism et al. Indeed, the hostility between men and women ripens within the legal system.

I reside in New York State. For many years, there was nothing approaching a level playing field in cases involving custody and support here. The laws began to change under the leadership of Nelson Rockefeller in the early 1970s. The governorr actually began advocating for such changes, when his top body guard was separating from his wife. I'm familiar with that, because the body guard was my uncle.

In the late 1980s, my first wife sought a divorce. We had two wee-little boys, ages six and three. At first, we had equal, shared custody. She got the house, and the two more expensive of our three vehicles. More, I had to pay her support -- even though I had the boys as much as her, and she had a larger income.

Over a several year period, she brought me to court twelve times. I never filed any case against her. In time, both boys came to live with me full-time. Their mother, on her own and without my asking, had my support ended, and began to pay me what she believed was a fair amount. I think that this went a long way in reducing the hostility between us.

As I write this, I remember something that struck me as odd: the boys' mother called me from her family's farm on the morning her mother died. I had a good relationship with my former mother-in-law; she would at times drop in my home to visit her grandsons and I. Even though my "ex" had re-married, I was the first person she called that morning.( I wouldn't go so far as to call us close friends these days, but we had Thanksgiving together at our sons' house in 2013.)

In my first few years as a single parent, a couple of friends and I organized an informal "support group" for men experiencing separation and divorce. Our focus was two-fold: fathers' rights, and fathers' responsibilities. I kept and handful of journals then, and have been flipping through some of them recently. We had about thirty guys who participated. Most were in their late 20s to early 50s. All of them were working class.

There was a wide spectrum for such a small group, in the context of the opinions on rights and responsibilities. There were guys who really believed that their lives were over, that they simply could not live without their ex-girlfriend or wife. And there were guys who were seething with hatred, intent upon causing as much pain and suffering as they possibly could. There were men who would do anything and everything to enrich their children's lives. And there were males who seemed emotionally unattached to their own children
.
One fellow, who I had worked with many years before, simply walked out of his children's lives. Even though he lived rather close to them, he simply stopped seeing them at all. Not surprisingly, he frequently "fell behind" on paying support. As it turned out, his father had walked out on his family when he was a youngster. But I have seen other males do that same thing, even though they were raised in intact, seemingly normal, middle-class families.

Likewise, I know a lot of women who have been divorced, who make up an equally wide spectrum as parents. Some are really good, and some are inadequate in character.

It seems to me, both as a human being and as a father of two sons and two daughters, that our society's views and behaviors -- in terms of the opposite sex -- are largely rooted in our experiences in families. Our family of origin, of course, plays a primary role here. Did that family assign rigid roles based upon sex? Was violence used to "settle" disagreements? Were men and women respected?

Considering that a significant percentage of marriages will end in divorce, family court will remain an arena for warfare between the sexes. I suspect that this general arena could provide us with an area where we could -- as the DU Community -- engage in meaningful discussions on topics including parents' rights and responsibilities. I expect that, if such a discussion caught on, there would be a few people that might express bitterness more than insight. But that is okay .....in fact, it can be a good thing, so long as people approach this with open minds.

What do you think? Is it a valid topic for rationale discussion? Thank you for your consideration.

Peace,
H2O Man

Cassius X & The Beatles

There are times when events in the worlds of music and/or sports have great cultural influence. Last night, for example, I went to a public library to watch a documentary film about The Beatles invading America. The friend who invited me works as a librarian there; I told her that I was curious to see if the film would include The Beatles visit to the Miami training camp of a young man people knew as Cassius Clay. It did not.

Today marks 50 years since Cassius scored one of the biggest upsets in sports' history. I've been reading through an old scrapbook of newspaper and magazine articles leading up to the bout, as well as a mint-condition copy of The Ring magazine published three weeks earlier. Very few members of the boxing community gave Cassius any chance of winning. In fact, the majority of "experts" were sure that Liston would flatten the young challenger in one round.

I still have my copy of an album released by Cassius Clay, titled, "I am the Greatest!" It features 15 "rounds" of Cassius's poetry, which was a big part of his getting the public's attention. I would speculate that this album was likely what caught The Beatles' attention. There are numerous photographs that document the initial meeting between these five young men who would, quite literally, change the world.

My favorite part of this curious encounter came when Cassius was exchanging verbal jabs with The Beatles. Older DUers will remember that, a half-century ago, athletes and musicians were expected to be humble when talking to the press. Especially black athletes. The only exception to this unwritten rule was the man who held the heavyweight title 50 years earlier, the great Jack Johnson.

Cassius had as fast a tongue as he did a jab. Reporters found him fun to interview, because one never knew what this kid might say. After Paul and George traded some good-natured insults with Cassius, he sai, "You ain't as dumb as you look!" John deadpanned: "No, but you are."

The fight was almost called off, when the press began reporting that Malcolm X was hanging out with Clay's camp. What these reporters didn't know was that Cassius was already a member of the Nation of Islam. In fact, he had already taken the name "Cassius X" weeks before the fight. The promoter had struck a deal with Angelo Dundee, Cassius's trainer, to have Malcolm stay fully out of sight.
Malcolm was, of course, suspended from the NOI at that time. This was officially due to Malcolm's comments to reporters after President Kennedy was murdered. Looking back, today we know that there was much more to Malcolm's suspension.
Elijah Mohammad, the leader of the NOI, found Cassius an interesting character, but did not want to be associated with him before the Liston bout. Elijah believed that Sonny would humiliate Cassius in the ring.

Among the very few people who favored Cassius were Malcolm, former heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott, and a young reporter named Howard Cosell. They knew that Sonny had actually reached his peak a couple of years before he won the title. In recent years, Liston had devastated his opponents quickly. While that was impressive enough to have most boxing writers compare him with the great Joe Louis, it meant that he could have difficulties in any bout that went beyond two or three rounds.

Liston was a physically imposing man. He was the biggest heavyweight champion in many years (only Jess Willard and Primo Carnera had been bigger, but neither of them were considered to be great fighters), What people didn't realize was that Cassius was actually larger than Sonny.

At the weigh-in on the morning of the fight, Cassius worked himself into a frenzy. The doctor said Clay's blood pressure was far too high, and wanted to call off the bout. An hour later, the doctor was surprised to find Cassius's bllod pressure had returned to normal. He told Malcolm that he knew the only thing Sonny might be afraid of was a crazy man; hence, he acted crazy.

During the day, away from reporters, Liston was on the phone with 15-year old Timothy Smith. The boy was dying of muscular dystrophy. Although the press rarely reported on this side of "the Bear," Liston loved children, and frequently visited children's hospitals. He had spent a significant amount of money since winning the title, to make sure sick and poor children had good Christmases and birthdays.

Malcolm would sit in seat #7 in the 7th row for the fight. He believed this confirmed that Cassius would win the fight in seven rounds. He would visit the challenger in his dressing room a half-hour before the bout, and tell him that this bout was far bigger than boxing: it was the Cross versus the Crescent, being telecast around the globe.

The fight itself remains one of boxing's greatest. Cassius won by TKO when Sonny failed to come out for round seven. But it so surprised the "experts," that few journalists understood the true significance of what they had just witnessed.

The following morning, the new champion told reporters that he was a member of the NOI. He said his name was now "Cassius X." Within the next 48 hours, Elijah Mohammad would give him the name Muhammad Ali. What is in a name? In this case, it signaled that Ali had decided to stay with the NOI, rather than join Malcolm in the new organization he was planning. Had Ali stuck with Malcolm, his life would have taken a very different course.

Note: the next time that Lennon and Ali would be seen together would be at President Jimmy Carter's inauguration party.

Ali and The Beatles would play significant roles in the decade of the sixties. All five of these men would make the world a better place to live, and their influence on culture went far beyond the ring, the stage, or the recording studio.

Peace,
H2O Man

Gabrielle

My younger son and I just visited my oldest brother. Years ago, he was highly respected in his community. He ran a volunteer program that appealed to "at risk" youth and teens; his program was more successful at preventing these kids having "trouble" at home, in school, and in the community, than any other I've seen as a social worker. He was also a professional boxer, who took too many punches, and caught the Irish Flu after retiring.

Now in his 60s, he is a shut-in, spending most of each day in a wheel chair. There are times when his brain doesn't function very well, and others -- like tonight -- where things click.

My son is a student at SUNY-Binghamton, and works part-time in human services. He is currently taking fascinating courses in sociology, anthropology, and political science. So much of our discussion centered on these topics. Interestingly, at least for me, a large part of our conversation covered some of the topics that divide parts of the DU community on GD.

One of the points he made was that, in his life-time, the only really good politicians have been democrats. And the most corrupt, repulsive politicians have been republicans. In this way he differs from our other brother, who lives on the west coast, and believes there needs to be more third-party, pro-environment candidates.

We also discussed some of the female politicians of the past half-century. He and I are old enough to remember the power of Shirley Chisholm. My brother said that these days, he considers Gabby Giffords to be the most outstanding role model. He noted that in terms of "tough," there is no stronger person in the country. And he made a few jokes that compared this lady's intelligence to that of the leading republicans. His contempt for the "republican elite" remains strong and pure.

It's definitely fun to discuss and debate various issues on DU. I believe that, at times, these internet conversations are important. I'm also convinced that it is equally fun and potentially important to discuss these same issues with othr people in our lives. The chances of us all agreeing on everything are remote; yet it is among people of good will that we are most likely to reach the answers that our society desperately needs.

Peace,
H2O Man

Onah

"We must seek out spiritual people because only that is going to help us survive. We have a great force -- a great brotherhood. This brotherhood involves all living things.And that, of course, includes us all. We are talking about the natural world, the natural force, all the trees, everything that grows, the water. That is part of our force.

"But when you gather spiritual force in one place, you also gather the negative force. We begin to perceive the enemy now, the power and presence of the negative force.

"There is a great battle coming."
-- Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons

As I read DU:GD lately, I am reminded of this quote from Oren. It's from the 1980s. But I think that it holds equally true today.
There are good people who participate on this forum that might find the quote to be offensive. For example, many intelligent people are not religious, and may not consider themselves to be spiritual. Yet they almost certainly share many of the same values as Oren, which he defines as spiritual. Values such as respect for the environment, treating people with respect, and having compassion for those who are suffering.

Still others may take offense to the use of the word "brotherhood." I have a couple "live" recordings of John Lennon performing his song "Imagine," where he added "sisterhood" to the line about "a brotherhood of man."

It would be easy for me to dismiss some of the nonsense in the on-going "battle of the sexists" on DU:GD as simply being the product of bitterness. Certainly, the hostility we witness here all too frequently is the power and presence of the negative force. Yet, if I simply dismiss the concerns of that segment of the DU community, or make mean-spirited replies, then I, too, am adding to that force.

There are about a half-dozen people here who, for many years, I had at least a casual internet friendship with. I opt to avoid speaking with them these days, because I think they have betrayed what little sense of trust I consider necessary for such internet friendships. Without doubt, they feel the same about me.

Still, I do not question either the sincerity of their agenda, nor do I think they should be limited in their ability to promote their beliefs. It is what it is.

At risk of sounding a bit preachy here, I would suggest that others consider how they respond to others here, whom they may strongly disagree with. It may be that doing so could reduce some of the meaningless quarrels that have been taking up quite a lot of space here lately.

Peace,
H2O Man

White Nights

Last night, I went for a long walk with one of my dogs, Kelly. It was pleasant: there was almost complete silence as we ventured through the woods, and across a large field. At one point, we could hear some people riding snowmobiles in the distance. (I don't mind if people walk on my property, but have asked the local club not to ride their snowmobiles on my property. Most of them respect that.)

Kelly is a great friend. He's mostly boxer, but looks very different from his parents and siblings. His body looks like a Lab; his head is square; and he is white, with light blue spots. His tail wags faster than the speed of light.

Kelly is medium-sized (extra-medium, perhaps), and so the snow in the field came up over his shoulders. When he ran into the many snow drifts, his head would disappear from sight, then pop out on the other side.

We came across several spots where deer have nested under the apple trees in our old orchard. I think it's been a harsh winter for the deer: most mornings, I see where they have come close to my house, to eat any left-over cat or dog food. They also have been trimming my rose bushes for me.

The blowing snow has covered most of the other animal tracks that we usually see in the field this time of year. Kelly still dug his head into the snow a hundred times, probably sniffing where a mouse had been hours earlier.

My pond, fire pit, and sweat lodge were all covered by deep snow. If I didn't know they were there, I wouldn't have even noticed anything different from the rest of the field/edge of the woods. Kelly did, though -- he plunged down where one of the springs runs into the pond.

Every so often, Kelly would stop whatever he was doing, and come over in front of me, and put his front paws on my legs. I'd kneel down, and pet him, until he was ready for us to be on our way.

Like everyone around these parts, I've had my fill of winter. Can't wait for spring. But, since that is still a way's off, I try to enjoy what is real, now.

Peace,
H2O Man

Spill the Wine (Snowsuit Rendition)

"I was once out strolling one very hot summer's day
When I thought I'd lay myself down to rest in a bit field of tall grass.
I lay there in the sun and felt it caressing my face.
As I fell asleep and dreamed ......."

One can hardly be surprised that Rand Paul is attacking the Democratic Party -- and Hillary Clinton -- by ranting about something Bill Clinton did decades ago. What is more annoying, however, is the corporate media's reporting this, over and over, as if it is somehow "news."

At very best, Rand's rants are evidence that the 2016 presidential primary season is officially open. It speaks loudly to the fact that without Chris Christie, the republican field is an open sewer.( In fact, it already was with the New Jersey governor.)

More, the conversations about President Clinton's behavior in the 1990s appears to be setting the tone, too often, in the current political climate. Our focus should be primarily on the 2014 elections. We should not allow discussions, debates, or arguments about the possibility of Hillary Clinton running in 2016 distract us. We need to take care of the current issues now, confident in knowing that by doing so, we will be in a better position to take care of business in '16.

It is perhaps natural, considering the length of presidential primary campaigns in this era, that people will begin to consider who they want to run in 2016. In general, this is a good thing. There is only one exception, which is when members of the Democratic Party and Democratic Left begin to argue to the point of divides. For sake of discussion, let's consider the example of a possible Clinton run.
DUers and other good and sincere people may very well support the idea of Hillary running; they may have mixed feelings; they may not favor her running; and/or, they may support someone else -- if they are even thinking that far ahead.

The idea of electing a woman as US President has power. And it isn't the idea of "any woman" -- it isn't like we considered Sarah Palin as an option in 2008. Hillary Clinton has a long and serious career: she was part of the Watergate investigation; she served as US Senator from New York; and served as Secretary of State.

The closest thing the republicans have is Condi Rice. And mark my words: by early 2016, you will hear the old, establishment party men talking about Condi .....maybe for VP.

Now, some will not support Hillary, because of her corporate ties, her vote on Iraq, or because they are uncomfortable with political dynasties. At a time when the reality of the 1% versus humanity is being grasped by more and more voters, the idea of a couple of families controlling the executive office could be an issue.

However, those are issues that: {1} we don't need to decide today; and {2} we need to discuss in a rational, calm manner. Be fully aware that even now, there are rabid republicans who are hoping that they can divide us by way of fights between male vs female; young vs old; black vs white; and on and on.

Divided, we are like individual fingers, which our common enemy can easily break. United, we become a powerful fist, fully capable of advocating for -- and protecting -- all of us.

These are the options that we have today, on "President's Day." We can put our minor differences aside, and concentrate on that very real power we access when we put our minds together.

Let's start that now.


"I thought to myself what could that mean?
Am I going crazy or is this just a dream?
Now, wait a minute,
I know I'm lying in a field of grass somewhere,
So it's all in my head ....."
--The Animals

Michael Dunn/ Swimsuit Edition


"There's no right way to do wrong, and no wrong way to do right."
-- Smokin' Joe Frazier, Heavyweight Champion of the World

Like many others, I have followed the Michael Dunn murder trial. As some older DUers will remember, I have had a nephew viciously attacked -- and left for dead -- by a racist hate gang in 1998. My nephew survived; the local justice system was flawed; and some of the gang went on to commit more assaults and gun violence. While I don't have any great insights on the workings of the jury in the Dunn case, I'd like to say a few things about the case in general.

First, and most important, it appears that Mr. Dunn was an angry, paranoid citizen right up until the day he murdered Jordan Davis. He had gone to the wedding of a son, with whom he had a failed father-son relationship. slammed down a handful of drinks, and left early. Stopped so that his lady could pick up more alcohol and chips; got pissed off by some teenagers "disrespecting" him; and got out his gun.

The murderer had fled the scene, but some good citizens -- including the three teens in the vehicle who were not killed -- provided police with information that led to Dunn's capture and arrest. The police investigation seems solid to me. They knew he was lying to them from the moment their first interview with him began.

Jordan Davis was murdered; the jury returned an uneven verdict; and Jordan's parents et al are left with mixed feelings. While not the gross injustice of the Zimmerman verdict, the unresolved "mistrial" on the most serious charge brings to mind King's saying that justice delayed is justice denied.

What may make this all the more frustrating for many people is that only Dunn stands out as toxic. The judge seemed a decent man; the two prosecutors handling the case came across as sincere, as did the defense attorney. The trial appeared flawed, so far as providing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth .....and it may well be that, as frustrating as that surely is, it is exactly why the jury could not deliver justice on the most important charge.

It is not only what evidence can, or can not, be introduced in trial that counts. It is also how those laws have been interpreted in that state's courts over the decades, that can increase the likelihood of something being grounds for a reversal on appeal. In some circumstances, even a "good" law can lead to an unjust end; it is difficult, however, to imagine "bad" laws as serving as the foundation for anything good.

Some journalists have asked if Michael Dunn told his lies so often that he now believes them? I do not think so. I'm convinced, from watching him testify, that he knows he is lying. Part of the problem is that Dunn does believe he was 100% justified in murdering young Davis. Not because he felt afraid, but because he felt entitled. And he honestly believed that, even if the police knew he was lying, they "couldn't prove it."

From a legal standpoint, the convictions stand as victories, and the big charge can be re-tried. But from a human context, this whole episode falls into a long and bitter history that continues to de-value the life of young black males in American society.

In my opinion, it is essential that all people og Good Will understand -- and act upon -- the potential good that "the public" can do, in regards to the legal system. And one thing is for sure: you and I can not only be registered voters, but we can work to make sure that other like-minded people are registered and vote. More, starting from the local level, we can work to elect decent public representatives -- in every branch of our government, and at all levels.

Things can change. In fact, they absolutely will! The only question is if they will get better, or get worse. For they cannot stay the same.
I encourage DUers to become increasingly active in the 2014 election cycle. Starting now, if you already haven't. (If we take care on now/2014, we can be confident that we can deal with 2016 when we get there.) The Democratic Party should be finding common ground with the Democratic Left, and finding the very best candidates possible.

I'll be investing my time and energy in this. How far are you going to go?

Peace,
H2O Man

Re: Governor Chrispie

MSNBC has featured some high quality reporting on the "troubles" of New Jersey Governor Chrispie recently. The Chrispie scandals are similar in some manners to previous political scandals, both on the federal and various state crimes. Some of the DUers my age likely sense shades of the Watergate cover-up; others will think in terms of the Plame scandal; or perhaps, the cheaper corruption of Rod Blagojevich.

The New Jersey state republican party is using MSNBC's reporting as an excuse to raise funds. This is less to support Chrispie, and more about banking for the future. Those who claim that there is really nothing about the investigations of the governor, or that nothing has been proven, are either ignorant or damned liars. However, this is a tiny minority of republicans nationwide. Both the republican party's rabid wing (tea party) and corporate gentlemen will both exploit Chrispie's suffering for their own benefit.

And suffering there will be. Both the state and federal investigations are taking a similar approach. Generally, it is the same approach as used in the investigation of organized crime. One studies the possible crime or crimes in an orderly way. First, one considers the power structure being investigated. Materials are collected. Then, even when a high-profile person is suspect, you begin at the outside, or lowest levels, of the group.

You send them notice that you need a certain group of documents. If they cooperate, you interview them. If they refuse to cooperate, you inform them that you need specific documents. You do this based upon what you've already learned, with focus on the area that individual is most at risk. And you let them know you are going to need to talk to them.

There are, of course, more people at the lower levels than as you move up. They tend to be less invested in protecting the boss, or bosses. Once one begins to turn, more will. One must be patient, and investigate all those at lower levels; this provides a more solid base of evidence to be used at the second level.

Governor Chrispie will come to have little loyalty from the highest levels around him. When he did his press conference in January, he did more than throw a couple of them under the bus: he insulted them in a manner that precludes his being able to protect them. Even Nixon was publicly loyal to the aides he sacrificed to try to save himself. Hence, they tended to be loyal to him (except John Dean). It was VP Cheney who demonstrated that his loyalty to Scooter Libby paid off, for very few politicians deserve incarceration more than Cheney.

The national republican party will reject Chrispie by summer. Although he has reportedly raised funds in his current travels for other governors, it keeps him in far too high a profile. In the period between mid-summer and the fall elections, the republican party does not want his scandals being reported by the media. In time, like in previous scandals, people Chrispie has to listen to will quietly tell him that he needs to fade away.

Then, it will really be interesting.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »