We don't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore...

...But we do have George W. Bush - aka president chim-chim - to kick around for a few more days.

Though I, for one, am thrilled to see him go, I'm worried that he and his cronies are going to get off too easily. It isn't enough that most of the world view him as a failure; perhaps the worst president in our country's history. It isn't enough that he is an object of ridicule. I want some accountability. I want payback for the war in Iraq, his mismanagement of Katrina, our economic collapse, FISA, torture, the state's attorney scandal and every other crooked deal he had his hand in. But, unfortunately, it seems that Bush, Cheney, et al are just going to skate.

Some would argue that it damages the country to "be backward looking" - that with all the problems we have we need to focus on the here-and-now. But that doesn't cut it. Because if we don't hold our president accountable, then what is the point of having balances of power?

Let's hope that the new democratic majority won't roll over. Let's hope we don't bail out the bush administration like we're bailing out all the failed corporations.
If you don't look back and correct the mistakes...you are doomed to repeat them.

Paging Dr. Gupta!

If you have spent any time in a doctor's waiting room in the last 3 or 4 years, chances are you've seen Dr. Sanjay Gupta in an endless video loop. If not, you may have read him in Time magazine, or seen him on Anderson Cooper. With his CNN show, talking head appearances on NPR and ubiquitous media presence, he became somewhat of a running joke in my family.

Now it appears that Dr. Gupta may have to give up the small screen for Washington's big stage with his recent nomination as Surgeon General. Gupta is no dummy. He is a White House fellow and a neurosurgeon. But his nomination has drawn criticism from Democratic congressman John Conyers, among others. Like me, Conyers is probably having a rough time disassociating Gupta the Dr. from Gupta the media whore. Conyers has raised questions about his experience running a federal agency...and the potential credibility gap that could arise because Sanjay has never been a member of the National Health Service Corp.

But let's set Conyer's criticism aside, for a second, and look at what Gupta does bring to this job. He is very media savvy and could prove to be a very potent spokesperson for the nation's greatest health issues. He has served as medical counsel to Hillary Clinton on health care issues (maybe she is the one who recommended him?). And, cynically, he is another cog in Obama's ethnically diversified government machine (though Gupta is actually American, not Indian).

So...while I initially chuckled over this nomination...after 10 minutes reflection, I'm willing to give Obama the doubt. After all, Gupta wouldn't be the first celebrity SG...who can forget C Everett Koop?

Back from the dead

The election took a lot out of me. I needed a break to recover from both the stress leading up to the election, and the utter relief of its outcome. It’s not like there was any shortage of topics that raised both eyebrow and dander…so now it’s back to work.

The first thing I’m going to touch on is undoubtedly more controversial than the election: Israel’s latest efforts to bring an end to Hamas (and terrorist) influence in Gaza. I don’t profess to be an expert – and I am deeply divided on the issue. But it evokes a visceral response…and I am sad to say that the current military action was probably inevitable.

There is one primary assumption that underlies my thinking: I’m skeptical about the desire of either side to resolve this diplomatically, whether by long-term cease fire or a two-state agreement.

Before he died in an Israeli bomb strike last week, Hamas’ leader Nizzar Rayyan rejected any long term peace with Israel (a hudna or cease fire) saying:
“The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. There is no chance that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God... You [Jews] are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah.... Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.”

Peace is untenable as long as Hamas or any government threatens Israel’s sovereign (and god-given) right to exist. The mantra “never again” isn’t just a bumper sticker. Nevertheless, the cynic in me doesn’t totally disregard that there are also political motivations that go beyond Israel’s conventional justification for this current aggression (to stop Hamas’ ability to use Gaza as a missile-launching haven). I also don’t dispute that Israel’s diplomatic efforts have been feeble at times.

But the current landscape with missiles raining down daily from within Gaza creates fertile ground for Israel to evoke the Powell doctrine for military response. And the threat Iran poses (both Israel and the overall stability of the region) gives Israel justification to invoke the Bush policy of preemption. (Not that I am an advocate of Bush’s failed foreign policy.)

Israel is often criticized for not having measured responses – but what is the measured response for having dozens of rockets fired into your territory day-in, day-out? What is the response for having school buses, discothèques, pizzerias and public beaches bombed? What is the response when your neighbors pledge your utter annihilation? How do you prosecute an enemy that uses its own citizens as human shields by establishing military bases in hospitals, mosques and schools?

Many will criticize Israel for the recent incursion and the concomitant civilian deaths to follow. But if Israel cannot break Hamas’ grip (and by extension, Iran’s influence) in the region…then the cycle of violence will continue until some greater conflagration alters the landscape. Peace, obviously, is the preferred option. I just haven’t seen any indication that any of the parties are remotely interested in peace.