Happy New Year One And All!

The regulars here don't need the following message: Your magnanimity, and love for humanity shine through much of what you post. I subscribe to Today's Highlights from Answer.com. Each day, thanks to this site, I'm treated to information, facts, and knowledge--a good way to begin any day.

It's the "pledge" that I want to bring your attention to. It's making the news round, and garnering deserved attention. It should give us all hope: Even the super rich see a need to give back. Yet, we mustn't forget: Our small amounts multiplied a thousand fold, and given with the right spirit--the spirit of generosity, love, and caring--will reach as many people, if not more, as do billions of dollars.

Blinders Off posted this in the comment section of the previous blog entry:

"I talked with a mentor of mine last week. I was questioning why I do what I do and how there are times I do not understand it, but the feeling I get when I witness the results of helping others is extraordinary. The following day he said, 'It is time I give you this, you will know why after you finish reading it.' He handed me book titled 'The Greatest Miracle in the World' by OG Mandino. I did find the answer to my questions after reading that book."

I responded in part to her "questioning," and to the answer she received from her mentor. I'm not sure exactly the answer she received, but I'm certain that it resonated with her deepest feelings. Not to upstage her, but to share why I do what I do, I offer the following:

I choose to be the grandest version of the greatest vision ever I've held of who I am, and who I wish to be.

Here's the beauty of this: I get to revise the version at will, making it grander and grander each time, fully aware that I'm only limited by my "vision;" fully aware that I have an eternity with which to create myself anew, again and again.

Now before I forget why I began this blog entry, let me say this:

The Pledge:

What did you do this year to make the world a better place? You still have a few hours left to end the year on a positive note. There's time to do a good deed or make that one last tax-deductible contribution in 2010. It's okay if it's not as much as one of the members of the Giving Pledge campaign. That's the group of billionaires recruited by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to pledge at least half of their wealth to charity. One of the newest and youngest members of the group is Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. In September, he pledged $100 million to the Newark, New Jersey, school system, and more recently he pledged to give away most of his nearly $7 billion fortune. The 26-year-old computer whiz became even more famous this year as the subject of one of the year's hottest films, The Social Network. And, now Time magazine has named Zuckerberg its Person of the Year for 2010. No wonder he looks so happy.

Quote: "When you give everyone a voice and give people power, the system usually ends up in a really good place. So, what we view our role as, is giving people that power." — Mark Zuckerberg

"Good Hair"

Good Hair, the Chris Rock movie (documentary), makes many statements about black folk preoccupation with their hair. No, I don't think blacks are the only racial group with this fixation--the beauty industry, which hair is a large part of, crosses racial lines, pulling in billions of dollars from many ethnic groups, regardless of color.

No, I'm not going the discuss the right or wrong of this fixation: I don't care about that as an issue--I'm well aware that we're not our bodies (We're more than that!), and that we don't get to take them with us when we vacate this world, leaving behind pierced ears, noses, tattoos, as well as hair, whether it's our personal hair, or whether it once belonged to another.

"When Chris Rock's daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, 'Daddy, how come I don't have good hair?' the bewildered comic committed himself to search the ends of the earth and the depths of black culture to find out who had put that question into his little girl's head. Rock visits hair salons and styling battles, scientific laboratories, and Indian temples to explore the way black hairstyles impact the activities, pocketbooks, sexual relationships, and self-esteem of black people. Celebrities such as Ice-T, Kerry Washington, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Raven Symone, Maya Angelou, and Reverend Al Sharpton all candidly offer their stories and observations to Rock while he struggles with the task of figuring out how to respond to his daughter's question. What he discovers is that black hair is a big business that doesn't always benefit the black community and little Lola's question might well be bigger than his ability to convince her that the stuff on top of her head is nowhere near as important as what is inside."

I would urge you to watch this film, even if you have seen it once before (It's now on cable.), not because you'll learn more about weaves, extensions, the hair-dressing industry, the latest beauty-shop gossip, or any such thing, but for the statements it makes about us as a people--candid observations, visual, as well as spoken, about how well we serve our own economic self-interest.

E. Franklin Frazier, sociologist, author, and university professor, once posited this thesis, and I paraphrase: As integration (racial intermixing) becomes a greater reality in this country, black institutions will become less important--will, as a result, disappear. A safe thesis to be sure. Upon reading that, I countered: black institutions, for that reason (the on-going existence of segregation), won't disappear altogether, any time soon, because full "integration," for all its promises, will be slow in coming, and dearly bought.

And, for the most part, that has been the case--defacto segregation often rules the day within our nation, despite federal legislation and court rulings to the contrary.

Until such time that true and full integration is our lot, it behooves blacks to operate in their best economic interest--an interest that has been largely ignored over the years, notwithstanding the status of racial integration. Rather than focus on what is best for us as a people, we pretend, to our financial and economic detriment, that we're an integral part of the mainstream, when in fact we're a mostly isolated people, crowded into various enclaves throughout this vast nation.

From the documentary, you will learn that the black hair-styling industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and that others (non-blacks) outside of the black community are banking most of those billions that this industry produces.

You will learn that there are only four black hair-care product companies, out of a hundred or so, producing their own black hair-care product lines, and that blacks aren't fully represented in an industry of which they're the principal consumer--not at the production, nor the distribution end.

Unfortunately, what is true for the black-hair industry is also true for other industries--clothing, food, housing, banking, what have you. Until we own the production and distribution end of what we consume, we can't hope to improve measurably our economic condition in this country in a major way, but, rather, give to others our hard-earned income--money that will be reinvested, not within our black communities, but beyond our boundaries.

And, sadly, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

THIS, TOO, I'VE SEEN

Christmas is but a couple days away. I was composing another entry, but decided, at the last minute, that I should write something more in keeping with the season. More years than I care to recall, I wrote the following poem.

For all its failures, with a few lines, it offers an insight into my being that would require a tome to match. If you find the meaning of it, you will learn more about me in a few minutes of reading that years of observation, and study would never yield.

I'm humbled that you think enough of what I write here to come by from time to time to read it, and leave your comments. A blog author can't command a readership; he or she can only hope that a gem or two of worth may be found among the cloddish earth of prosaic words that variously pass as opinions, fact, insight--and, with a little luck, something approaching wisdom.

Christmas is not my favorite day. Every day is my favorite day. Yet, Christmas is special: It brings a message of hope, peace and goodwill. Each year Christmas reminds us of what life on earth could be were we to dedicate ourselves to bringing more of that hope, peace, and goodwill to our world--first as a new born (a new resolve), and extending that resolve throughout the year.

Merry Christmas to all!

Now my poem:

THIS, TOO, I'VE SEEN

I want to show you where I've been,
And tell you all the things I've done.
I've saddled up the westward wind,
And ridden high above the sun.
I've haunted dusty halls of times gone by,
And left my footprints there.
I've trampled fences of the future with a vagrant's glee;
This I've done without a care, without a moment's empathy.
I've seen the silver cord of life:
I've watched it leave a trail behind,
And follow as some burdened wife,
Along the passageways of time.
My ears have thrilled to music never heard before;
Heard voices sing sweet melodies that made sad hearts to soar!
I've heard eternal sages,
Recite their catechisms ageless.
These things I've seen and heard, and more!
These things are hidden in the Word,
And locked behind your door.

This, too, I've seen, and wish to tell and share:
Of all the things I've seen and heard,
Of all the places been and seen,
No sight has been more fair,
No wisdom's been more keen,
Than the sight of those who love,
And the sound of those who care!

E-Mail Wars: DADT

I wrote this blog entry some weeks ago. Upon completion, I decided not to publish it. Since that time, new developments have brought a change of mind: Don Ask, Don't Tell has come up for a vote twice in the Senate only to be blocked by Republicans.

The video below is at the heart of this blog entry. When first I heard it, I'll admit, my blood boiled a bit, not because the speaker, Alex Nicholson spoke untruths, but because he seemed to make a conscious decision to lay the repeal of DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) squarely at the feet of the president.

I'll concede, readily, that I, too, feel that President Obama hasn't done enough, and hasn't gone far enough, to effect a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't tell, but what I'm not prepared to do is zero in on him as the prime culprit in this melodrama.

Congressional Republicans, I believe, have stonewalled the repeal, and, at least on one occasion, filibustered it. Congressional repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have, by now, been a foregone conclusion had Republicans stepped up and voted for the repeal--the Congressional remedy, I believe, that Obama is seeking, rather going over Congress' head, or using his executive power for a quick, but not a lasting, fix, that could be easily overturned by a future hostile congress.

So it was balance that I saw missing when I listened to the exchange between Alex and Keith Olbermann. As a member of the Log Cabin Republicans group, Alex appeared downright obsessed with blaming Obama, rather than Republicans, more intent on drawing partisan lines in the discussion, rather than identifying all those who're really to blame.

Harry Reid, at the behest of Lady Gaga (who has on a number of occasions used her considerable celebrity power to advance a repeal of DADT), attached the appeal onto the Defense Authorization Bill—including the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Reid says that the repeal provision in the bill was already scheduled, and that Lady Gaga's request was not the reason why it was included.

The following information comes from Fox News' web page. It's a breakdown of how the bill fared in Congress:

massive defense spending bill that includes a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law banning gays from serving openly in the military stalled Tuesday after failing to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.

Senate Democrats were unable to corral the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican objections blocking the package from advancing to the floor. The bill failed in a 56-43 vote.

The vote makes it all the less likely that Congress will take any substantive action on "don't ask, don't tell" or the broader defense package before adjourning for the November midterm elections.

Had Republicans not objected, DADT would have been one step closer to being reversed, and a repeal of DADT one step closer to becoming law.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins was seen as a key 60th vote because she has voiced support for repealing "don't ask, don't tell." But she ended up opposing the bill out of concern that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid limited debate and did not give her colleagues opportunities to offer amendments.

Accusations flew after the vote. The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, accused Reid of refusing to compromise. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the Republican filibuster leaves gay members of the military "forced to lie about who they are."

According to Log Cabin Republicans, DADT went down to defeat for something Harry Reid did, not something the Republican Party did. Keep this in mind as you proceed here. This outcome was another reason why I responded as I did to the interview you're about to watch below between Keith Obermann and Alex Nicholson.

After watching the video, I promptly e-mailed the Log Cabin Republicans and expressed my outrage over the partisan way that Alex had acquitted himself. After watching the video, you can read the e-mail exchange that took place between myself and Alex. Initially, I sent the e-mail to Log Cabin, and not to Alex, hoping, at the very least, that someone would relay by displeasure to him at what I saw was a partisan attempt to score political points, rather than garner broad support for a repeal of DADT.

With the background in place for a better understanding of what's to follow, I must clarify one thing first before proceeding: I'm not looking for agreement here on the position I took. If you agree, that's okay, and if you don't, that's okay. Had I availed myself of a longer cooling-off time, I probably wouldn't have voiced my objection at all.

Congressman Barney Frank, who was interviewed after Alex, saw Alex's response as partisan, too, a position that I held before Frank spoke, which he confirmed, and which prompted Alex to characterize my position as "spoon-fed," and "regurgitated."

Here's my initial e-mail to the Log Cabin Republicans:

I'm pleased with the court's recent ruling to suspend DADT. But I just listened to the plaintiff in the case and a member of your organization who used his interview to MSNBC to make the issue partisan, and to slam the president and his administration. As someone who has taken a stand with e-mails to my representatives, including the president, I'm angry as hell.

I'm a liberal. How many Republicans have stood up to end DADT? It could have been history months ago if John McCain and other Republicans had supported a repeal.

Perhaps you can justify being a Republican in light of their resistance to ending DADT, but it would be better to place the blame where it's deserved--on your own party.

Disgusted, but not surprised at how you have used DADT,


Xxx Xxxxxxx

Here's Alex' response to my response (It's getting harder to keep up with the responses.)

As someone who has dedicated five years of his life to work on repealing DADT full-time and without pay, your comments are what an objective observer would find disgusting. Despite the talking point that Barney Frank spoon-fed you and which you regurgitated in your email about my appearance, there was nothing partisan about what I said. I run a non-partisan organization, Servicemembers United (the largest gay troops and vet organization) and I simply laid out the facts. If holding up a mirror in front of you makes you see partisanship, then that should tell you something about who's really being partisan. Everyone who has commented on that interview, except for you, agreed that it was Frank that brought the party politics into it. If you REwatch the segment, I talked plainly and clearly about ALL sides that held blame. I mentioned Republicans, the Senate leadership, and the President.

I am at the epicenter of the DADT repeal fight. I'm in all the meetings with the White House, the issue leaders on Capitol Hill, leaders in the Pentagon, AND I'm at the center of the court battle as well. I, more than anyone, see with a crystal clear view what's going on with DADT and who is (and is NOT) doing what they CLAIM they support. This issue is not about McCain. He's a lost cause and he's not movable. Smart activists concentrate their time and energy on those who are movable, and especially on those who SAY they support us but are not acting on that claim. That would be, first and foremost, the President. Anyone who thinks he has done all he can to get DADT repealed is just plain crazy.

And as to your closing remark ("Disgusted, by now surprised by how you have used DADT.")... I was DISCHARGED involuntarily under DADT. DADT came to me, I didn't seek it out. Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed of yourself for such a senseless and irresponsible remark. Do your homework!

Alex Nicholson

Now, here, again, is my response to Alex responding to my response (whew!).

As someone who has dedicated five years of his life to work on repealing DADT full-time and without pay, your comments are what an objective observer would find disgusting.

You, it seems, are the one who's not an "objective observer." You're too close to the problem for that kind of clarity. Further, your political propensities color the issue with a political bias--very disturbing when you say repeal of DADT is your aim.

Despite the talking point that Barney Frank spoon-fed you and which you regurgitated in your email about my appearance, there was nothing partisan about what I said.

Clearly your objectivity has been severely compromised, and severely crippled. Barney Frank spoke eloquently for your cause, more eloquently than you, laying out the path ahead. Would you not agree were it not for Republican filibustering on this issues it would have been resolved weeks ago? It's my firm belief that you have placed politics above your stated interests.

I run a non-partisan organization, Servicemembers United (the largest gay troops and vet organization) and I simply laid out the facts. If holding up a mirror in front of you makes you see partisanship, then that should tell you something about who's really being partisan. Everyone who has commented on that interview, except for you, agreed that it was Frank that brought the party politics into it. If you REwatch the segment, I talked plainly and clearly about ALL sides that held blame. I mentioned Republicans, the Senate leadership, and the President.

Your mirror has flaws. It's distorted by biases that you have projected on me. I'm not the problem. You are! Barney Frank, like me, saw what your unstated, but manifested, intentions were during the interview. Everyone who commented, obviously, are as politically biased as you are, and are from your political neck of the woods. No surprise there, that they would run to your defense. I have no dog in this fight (I'm not gay), and can approach this issue with far more detachment than you, and a helluva lot more objectivity than those who ran to your defense.

I am at the epicenter of the DADT repeal fight. I'm in all the meetings with the White House, the issue leaders on Capitol Hill, leaders in the Pentagon, AND I'm at the center of the court battle as well. I, more than anyone, see with a crystal clear view what's going on with DADT and who is (and is NOT) doing what they CLAIM they support. This issue is not about McCain. He's a lost cause and he's not movable. Smart activists concentrate their time and energy on those who are movable, and especially on those who SAY they support us but are not acting on that claim. That would be, first and foremost, the President. Anyone who thinks he has done all he can to get DADT repealed is just plain crazy.

Smart activists would, in addition, point out all those who stand in the way, not just those who're still active in the fight--unless, of course, other considerations preclude that--such as scoring cheap political points, for example. I have supported you, and have acted consistently on that claim, but that hasn't stopped you from berating me, after I offered you my perspective on your performance. Your response--which has been more focused on maintaining a defensive posture than in retaining an ally--is further proof of your political bias, and myopic view. You know that old statement, "The enemy of my enemy...," but you clearly see all those who might criticize you as an enemy, and fodder for your customary knee-jerk reaction which is to treat them with the same heavy hand, and dismissive attitude as those opposed to your stated goals.

And as to your closing remark ("Disgusted, by now surprised by how you have used DADT.")... I was DISCHARGED involuntarily under DADT. DADT came to me, I didn't seek it out. Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed of yourself for such a senseless and irresponsible remark. Do your homework!

How condescending! How presumptuous! You have, in ways impossible for me, made my case, and proved my point. I will continue to push for an end to DADT in spite of your response, and my belief that you shouldn't be the torchbearer for the cause. You have shown yourself to be more petulant than helpful in advancing your interests. If you're on the front line battling the forces that oppose you, God help your cause--you lack civility, and the reserve required to bring people together. Further, by making DADT a partisan issues (which you did, despite protestations to the contrary), by not calling out all those who are an impediment, regardless of politics, then you do the cause a disservice, a cause that would be better served if you stood down, and allowed others who know how to "win friends and influence people" to take the lead.

Still disgusted, and now mortified,

Xxx Xxxxxxx.

No, he hasn't responded to my response, and I don't think he will. I think he realizes that e-mailing me at all with his diatribe was ill-advised, and that his e-mail could be used in the manner in which I'm now using it--giving it a broader readership than he intended, but I don't think I owe him confidentiality, since he, too, can do with what I wrote to him in anyway he sees fit.

A postscript: Alex, during the interim, has appeared on MSNBC several times since this exchange. On those occasions, he was careful to point his anger, and his frustration, to the Right as well as the Left. Who could ask for anything more?

"What the fuck has Obama done so far?"

If the title of this piece seems a bit out of character for me, well, you'd be right: it is. It's the reason why I put it in quotations. I'll come back to the title in a bit, but first I have a few observations I'd like to share:

Was it only me? It appears that President Obama and the Democrats were shocked that they didn't do better in the mid-term elections. We all know by now that the House lost so many seats to Republican and Tea Party candidates that the news media had to go back several decades to recall a similar drubbing delivered to a political party. And it didn't stop there: Democrats lost several seats in the Senate.

By all estimates, here was a political party and a president who had accomplished much--an extension of unemployment insurance for millions, a successful cash for clunkers program to keep our automobile industry from going under, "tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage." But Democrats still lost heavily at the polls.

And what did they do in response?

Democrats did what the Republicans did when they lost miserably a few years back, right? Moved more in the direction of their ideological center, which for the Right is right, and the Left, left. I hate to break it to you: Democrats are doing no such thing--they're doubling down on their decision to hold fast to their failed tactic of appeasement, and compromise, with them as the only ones appeasing and compromising, as members of their base continue to flake away like so much old paint.

I won't belabor the point, and make you nauseous, by taking you back through the Left's misery brought on by watching Democrats cave again and again to Republicans to make their legislation as palatable to the Right's political taste buds as is humanly possible, hoping that Republicans will like the results enough to cast much-needed votes for passage, only to watch the Right spit out the mess they helped cook up, calling such legislation like health-care, and wall street reforms "vile," and "evil," promising to repeal the legislation, and replace it with their own confection, if anything at all.

Obama stated in essence that he and members of his party were so busy getting things done, that he and they didn't take time to properly inform the public of what it was that they had accomplished during the first two years of his administration.

Now, here is where the title of this blog entry comes in. That title is the name of an actual site. It's the site's URL. If you haven't seen it, here's a brief description: The site hopes to do what the president and the Democrat congress failed to do--beat the drum for the Democrats by enumerating their many accomplishments over the past two years.

On the site, I like the way the information is packaged. It's like being a visitor, a tourist, in a strange city out for a walk around town, not sure what you'll find, but excited about the possibility that just around a corner something interesting, something surprising, something unexpected, may leap out of the ordinary and the mundane, to give you something to remember and to talk about once you're back home, engaging the family, or a neighbor across a common fence or wall.

Here, take a walk through the town with the funny name, "What the fuck has Obama done so far?"

What's White About It?

The polarization of this country along racial lines, or how it's usually stated--along the color-line--not only points our the insanity of racism, but how this nation over its long history chose to compete with the rest of the world by virtue of tying one hand behind its back, the result of not fully utilizing the black talent within its midst.

Blacks and whites alike decry the supposed lack of black youth involvement in this society. Is what we're seeing a rebelling against a social norm--a norm that has a white vs. black element to it?

A recent study supports that conclusion. It states that violence among young people, blacks in particular, is a direct result of their feeling alienated from the larger society--seen as outcasts.

In our past, blacks have had to resort to extreme measures to become contributing members of this society, and to maximize their potential (some passing as white, if they could). Black Voices featured one such black, and detailed his travails. In fact, he was this nation's first black doctor.

His story is interesting on several levels: One, it points to the necessity of recording family history (Granny's passion), and not allowing family members to fall out of the family tree (regardless of color) lest they remain lost; and, two, it points to the need for any country to appreciate its talent (regardless of race or ethnicity), if it wishes to remain a strong, vibrant, and competitive force among the world communities.

Recently, the country's first black doctor was properly memorialized.

Relatives of the doctor were unaware that they were related to a man who had been the subjects of several books. Consequently, the doctor lay in an unmarked Brooklyn grave for 145 years.

White descendants of James McCune Smith gathered Sunday to unveil the new tombstone on his grave site. The scourge of racism is largely responsible for Smith going unnoticed for so long.

If you're white, and you find out that you're related to someone black, it's a damn sight better to discover that he's a doctor than a horse thief. But the story doesn't end there.

The AP writes:

The story of why Smith was nearly overlooked by history and buried in an unmarked grave is in part due to the centuries-old practice of light-skinned blacks passing as white to escape racial prejudice. Smith's mother had been a slave; his father was white. Three of his children lived to adulthood, and they all apparently passed as white, scholars say.

Greta Blau, Smith's great-great-great-granddaughter, made the connection after she took a course at Hunter College on the history of blacks in New York. She did some research and realized that James McCune Smith, the trailblazing black doctor, was the same James McCune Smith whose name was inscribed in a family Bible belonging to ... her grandmother.

Her first response was, "But he was black. I'm white."

This story can probably be retold thousands of times in this country. How many white families have a member of the black race somewhere among the branches in their family tree, either long forgotten, or long ignored?

Smith was denied entry to medical schools in the United States and earned his medical degree in Glasgow, Scotland.

He returned to New York to practice and also became an anti-slavery advocate through his writings:

"As early as 1859, Dr. McCune Smith said that race was not biological but was a social category," Dr. Vanessa Northington Gamble, a medical doctor and historian at George Washington University told the AP. "I feel that I am standing on the shoulders of Dr. James McCune Smith."

Blau theorizes that all of Smith's descendants began passing for white after his death -- and for good reason. More here.

My mother resides in an unmarked grave. It's on private property, but the marker, if there ever was one, has long disappeared, covered over by the ravages of time, and neglect. She was buried in a place--on a few acres of land--that whites owned and set aside for slaves. She wasn't a slave, herself, but this place was, during her time, the only place where blacks were allowed to bury their own. It wasn't a cemetery, as we often think of the word, but more of a final resting place, because blacks didn't have their own cemeteries at the time of her death in the place where she died.

At least Dr. James McCune Smith is, at long last, recognized, claimed, and properly honored by his long-lost family members. There are other blacks waiting, too, who haven't been lost all these many long years, to be welcomed into the family of this nation, and to be recognized, claimed, and properly honored.

Actually, the time is long overdue.

Who Has The Mandate?

Most of the Republicans who spoke on Wednesday about their recent victories in the House and the Senate, all insisted: The American people gave them a mandate. John Boehner was so moved by it, that he cried.

Pollsters, those who ask the questions and crunch the numbers, believed that the "whipping" would be greater. There's no denying the beating that Democrats took in the House--but, in the Senate, they survived. They weaker now, but they survived. There was a 10% likelihood that they wouldn't. Many pundits felt that the Senate, as well as the House, would fall to the Republicans. They were wrong. To be sure, Democrats received a spanking in the Senate but clearly not a whipping.

Their defeat is easily explained: Many Democrats who voted in the 2008 election sat out this time. This clearly made the difference. They were young, and they were mostly minority. You might reason then: It wasn't the Republicans or the Tea Party who defeated Obama and the Democrats, it was their base. It's hard to say that the low turn out for this group was all about the economy, and not about the inability of Democrats to pursue a progressive agenda, or change how the system works. In the days ahead, Republicans will characterize their victory as a referendum on Obama, on his agenda, and on Democrats generally.

Once again, I think pundits are misreading the tea leaves: They're insisting that Republicans will have to abandon their obstructionist tactics and actually do something. "Surely the Republicans will cooperate now. Surely they want a record on which to run in 2012." I admit: I didn't anticipate the American people falling for this tactic. But now, I'm beginning to take Republicans at their word, whether they're Tea Party Republicans are old-brand Republicans. Early on, these old-brands made clear their position: They said, unequivocally, that they wanted Obama to fail, and, to date, they're making good on their words. With their new congress, Republicans are now threatening the unthinkable, not to compromise, and to make Obama a one-term president.

If I wasn't a believer before, I am now. A true believer. Why should Republicans abandon what has been working for them? Rand Paul, Tea Party candidate, and now Senator-elect, has put Republicans on notice. In his victory speech, he said, essentially, the Tea Party will take no prisoners, and they won't surrender. One thing is clear: It's the Tea Party that feels it has a mandate from the people, and not the whole of the Republican Party. Rand Paul has thrown down the gauntlet. For the Republican establishment the message is unambiguous: The Tea Party is now in charge. It's Tea Time. You'll either do it our way, or we'll show you the highway.

What we have, then, is a prescription for gridlock. The Tea Party, to keep its promises, will have to do something to give the appearance of reducing the size of government. For one, they will attempt to repeal health-care reform, which will, of course, fail. For two, they will attempt to whittle away at the size of the Federal government. Some Tea Party folk have actually gone so far as to call for the abolishing of the Education Department and the EPA. Were this to pass, it would make the Koch brothers happy, as well as some other wanna-be polluters. Republicans may want this, too, but they're not under any pressure to deliver. Expect some infighting on these issues.

Here's my prediction: The Republican Party will soon be obsolete. It will be replaced by the Tea Party. The Tea Party will be the Republican Party on steroids--more intransigent, more conservative, more aggressive, and less likely to reach across the aisle, if at all. Already the Tea Party has made significant inroads--to be followed by one incursion after the other, until they've replaced the Republican establishment.

Before the curtains were drawn on the Democrats, Obama managed to pass two key pieces of legislation (health-care reform, and wall street reform). Mid-term elections, traditionally, present incumbent parties a real challenge to hold seats in either house, regardless of party. It explains one of the reasons for the much-criticized haste to pass legislation before the mid-term, and the reason Obama and the Democrats didn't tackle other major legislation, such as immigration reform (which wasn't popular anyway with the electorate), and is now, after the recent Republican victories, on indefinite hold.

I firmly believe that the reason that jobs weren't pursued with all the vigor that the president and the congress could muster was the perception that the financial sector needed rescuing first to avoid a depression. They may have believed, too, that the much-lauded stimulus bill (which economist agreed was too small) would accomplish that task--but job losses came faster than anticipated, and the stimulus managed only to keep the losses from becoming a tsunami, merely replacing jobs that were being lost, rather than creating new ones.

To make matters worse: Votes passed in the Democrat-majority House were in-boxed in the Senate--because, it was explained, the votes necessary for passage didn't exist. The Democrat caucus gave Democrats 60 votes to defeat filibusterers in the Senate, but "blue-dog democrats (Republicans in my book)," and moderates, may have kept many of these bills from going forward, especially with that nasty mid-term election on the horizon. As an aside: Blue Dogs were unseated in the recent race with a vengeance, twenty-four in all.

Here's a thought: Should progressives start their own movement within the Democrat Party to move it more to the Left? I say: Why not? The country can't be more polarized than it is now. This would be one way to exact change (to assure accountability, maintain transparency, and take the money out of politics) without armed conflict, that second-amendment remedy, once suggested by Tea Party candidate, now defeated, Sharron Angle.

Undeservedly, Obama and the Democrats were stand-ins on Tuesday for Bush and the Republicans. Democrats took the beating that should have gone to Republicans. You can say that the previous mid-term elections and Obama's rise to the presidency was payback for what the Republicans did during their tenure, but, in my view, it wasn't enough. I can recount several things, from the two wars in which we're stilled mired--not so much in Iraq as in Afghanistan--to the economic woes this country still faces, all having their genesis under Bush. So to see Republicans rewarded for their failings is the ultimate slap in the face to Democrats. It further crystallizes my belief that the electorate still doesn't get it.

Will Obama abandon his liberal agenda, move closer to the center, and lean Right? It's no secret that the country is more conservative than liberal, but this hasn't always translated into political capital for Republicans, who, this time around, garnered more of the independent votes than did Democrats.

Rush Limbaugh, the oracle of the Right, states it something like this: "Where is there room for any compromise with Marxism, or socialism, or liberalism? Where is there compromise with evil."

Bullying is in. Issuing threats is in. Hard-line resistance is in. Statesmanship is out. Compromise is out. Working together is out. The Democrats are in a brawl, a bar fight, and they still want to characterize it as a misunderstanding. They say: The Republicans down deep want to work with us. They just don't know it yet.

Unless Republicans are in power, they will hold this nation and its economy hostage. It's clear, at least to me, that what they're after is a one-party nation, where they control both houses of congress and the presidency in perpetuity. We have moved into an era of one-party politics, where the Republican opposition party is just that--in complete opposition to any efforts to reach across the aisle to advance legislation, unless it initiates the legislation, unless it shapes the legislation without interference or input from the opposing party.

If you doubt me, listen to their rhetoric: It's defiant, definite, and deliberate, the four "D's" of a destructive policy.