Morning Coffee (153)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been too long, by far. I have not been inspired to Brew in a long time, and I hope that my Drinker-ship will forgive my insolence. But I've been working on some other projects here and there. Needless to say, a lot has happened, and there's no way to cover it in one Brew. Hopefully you've checked out Publius's "Observation Post," as he's back up and running as well.

Supreme Court Nomination:
Certainly, you've heard about this SCOTUS nomination business. And I'm sure you've heard that Obama has nominated 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Prior to this nomination, you'll remember that much was made of Obama's alleged desire for a judge with "empathy." But this Brew isn't about whether or not she has "empathy," whatever that might mean for Justice.

Here's an introduction to the news on Judge Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Judge Sotomayor, 2001.

Sotomayor's quote is troubling. For one, it presents false logic. This being the case, it doesn't speak too highly of her intellect, which Robert Gibbs defended the other day by saying that her detractors, who argue that she hasn't the first class intellect necessary to be a Justice, didn't graduate summa cum laude from Princeton. I shouldn't have to point to the absurdity of Gibbs' argument as well, but I will. Very few people in history have graduated second at Princeton. This doesn't mean that they don't get to question the intellect or ability of someone serving for life as a Supreme Court Justice. Let me say that again: For Life. Back to the issue, however, Sotomayor's comment about the "richness of her [a Latina's] experience" is an intellectually insufficient explanation for someone's ability to come to any given, or in this case a better, conclusion.

Secondly, and I know that it's very difficult to even get around the inability to present a logical argument, were such a statement made by a pre-Chief Justice John Roberts, or any white male judge, their political careers would be effectively over. This would easily be a racist comment if made by the aforementioned demographic. But in this case, we're told (i.e. scolded) by Gibbs and others that everyone had better tread carefully. Gibbs says, "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." Of course, the unspoken second clause to that sentence is, "unless you want to lose any gains you made in securing the Latin American vote, and appear to be a racist." This is a prime example of how you're a racist if you criticize, rightly or wrongly, a minority, but you're lauded if you criticize the "wisdom" of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Interesting double standard, if I do say so.

This is the entire point. Sotomayor may or may not be a so-called "activist judge," but one thing is certain: she was picked partially because to fight her confirmation would be politically inadvisable, or at the very least, must be done so in a very delicate manner. She's a perfect candidate, but maybe not in the usual sense; she's a perfect political candidate. She's a woman, Hispanic, relatively young (remember: lifetime appointment), and if you believe the news reports, has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years (or 100 depending on the source). There are probably a dozen or more candidates who are equally qualified, but very few with Sotomayor's "unique" qualifications such as ethnicity, sex, and Cinderella story. But it's the ethnicity that makes it so hard for Republicans to fight her confirmation, or to do so with any zeal. Too much criticism and they will be labeled racists, and will lose any Hispanic votes they have gained, and will be unable to gain any more. You're seeing this label already.

I don't have a say in whether or not Sotomayor is confirmed, so I have no impetus to research her and make a coherent argument against her, although were she to be proven to have a history of statements like the one above, I'd question her ability to be a Justice. Thankfully, I'm not a GOP Senator, but if I were, I'd be hesitant to dig too deeply, like I might with a white male nominee. No one wants to be labeled a racist. But I will say that to avoid a rigorous discussion, even a heated one, about the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice who will serve for life simply because our elected officials are afraid is absurd. It's another symptom of a broken, diseased system.

I've noticed a trend lately. A number of articles have stated that great discretion and deference is given to a President's choice for Judicial nominees. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative, has said as much, saying that Republicans should:

"Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences."

I agree that elections have consequences. And I respect Krauthammer's ability to write, and I respect some of his opinions (and frankly, he's a far better man to represent the GOP than is Rush Limbaugh). But the notion that the President should be given deference in his nominations is ludicrous. The Constitution says nothing about granting deference to a President in this regard. It doesn't even imply deference. This is what Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This clause does not say, "The President shall nominate and the Senate should sorta mull the situation and then confirm the President's first choice." It's the Senate's duty to rigorously investigate any Supreme Court nominee by any President. This means to take the above illogical statement made by Sotomayor in 2001, and consider that in the context of her entire career. Anything less and they've failed us, their employers. Anything less and they're not fit for their jobs as Senators.

This article by David Paul Kuhn describes some of the issues at play with this nomination, but also with what some call "positive discrimination", which is basically white males not getting jobs they're otherwise qualified for were it not for being white and having a penis. One could argue that this happened in the Ricci v.DeStefano, a case upon which Judge Sotomayor ruled.

Speaking of ethnicity and sex, see this article about a group at the University of Chicago called Men in Power. It's somewhat interesting.

Power to the Powerful:
Would you like another sign that our system is showing advanced signs of decay? Read this article.

In it, you'll get to read about how the President (any) travels to political functions, and we taxpayers, or those of us forever in debt bondage, pay for it. This week President Obama attended two fundraising events, one for Harry Reid in Las Vegas and another for a donor dinner in Los Angeles. For those counting, that's two different cities in two different states. But this is all classified as official travel, because in between those events he attended some public event where he spoke about energy. Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union (can they organize a strike?) estimated that the "non-public" portion of the trip from Vegas to LA and back cost at least $265,000. This is because the President's travel package consists of Air Force One, the back up AF1, and a C-17.

The rules governing travel are sort of convoluted. The Air Force pays for the cost of operating the aircraft, but the government reimburses for airfare, etc. Strange. Equally strange is the fact that the reimbursements never equal the actual costs. For example, campaign stops by Bush and Cheney incurred $6.5 million in expenses, of which their campaigns reimbursed to the government $198,000. We taxpayers paid the rest, or roughly $6.3 million. We're paying for their reelection, and not through regular political donations. In other words, I am paying the President's bill to go stump for Harry Reid. I'm paying for Reid's campaign, to some degree. Just the same, I was paying for Bush and Cheney's reelection (and other Republicans), despite not giving their campaigns one red cent.

As the article states, "watchdog groups don't suggest that the President shouldn't travel, or even that he shouldn't travel to political events." Well, they might not say it, but I will. Taxpayer dollars should be spent solely for the business of the government. Reelection funds, campaign speeches, dinners, etc, are not government business. How is this so hard for watchdog groups to understand? I don't want the White House to be more forthcoming with travel expenses, as does Pete Sepp's group. I want the President to be legally barred from attending any such events on the taxpayers' dime. If he wants to attend, he can do so out of his own campaign funds or by using his own money, and he can charter a plane to do so. Air Force One should not be used for such things, even if the Air Force is completely reimbursed. I will grudgingly concede that safety is an issue, so if Air Force One is necessary, then the President must reimburse in total. Harry Reid's challengers haven't the ability to have their supporters flown in on taxpayer funded aircraft.

All told, the stops, one of which cost couples $30,400 to attend and was followed by a cheaper event so that the plebeians could also give money to their leaders, pulled in $5-6 million for Reid and the Democratic Party. Not a bad haul; all the President needed to do was make some minor remarks on energy policy and it was all official business.

So Convoluted, Even the President Can't Understand it:
Our government bureaucracy is so mind-numbingly complex that even the Commander in Chief doesn't know about all the agencies which make it up. Yesterday, the President took a trip to a burger joint and had a brief exchange with Walter (LNU) during which Obama asked Walter what he did for a living. Here's the exchange:

Obama: What do you do Walter?
Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
Walter: About six years
Obama: Yea?
Walter: Yes.
Obama: You like it?
Walter: I do, keeps me...
Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh...
Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
Obama: Right
Walter: [unintelligible] ...support systems, so...
Obama: Sounds like good work.
Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
Obama: Appreciate it.

Intelligence professionals will know what NGA is and what the agency does. I'm conflicted about whether or not a President should know. He is, on one hand, the boss of this agency (and many, many others). Is it important if he doesn't know? Probably not. I just found it humorous, is all.

Personal Reflections:
For those of you who read regularly, you'll know that the Brewer only rarely delves into his personal life. I find that it's generally not important to the task at hand, that is Brewing Coffee. I am also of the opinion that you don't come here to read about me. This is fair, and this is how I'd prefer it to be.

But today I am going to make a brief exception. I would like to talk about my uncle, with whom I have been fairly close most of my life. He and my father were together my heroes growing up. Holidays were complete only after hearing them regale me with stories of youthful bravado; their stories were the stories of my clan; their legacy to me. I would be enthralled, enchanted by hearing them speak of their youth. The three of us spent a lot of time together, around the table talking drinking coffee, mine with milk and sugar. But also outside, hunting and fishing. Virtually everything I know about the outdoors is because of my father and my uncle.

My uncle is also among the funniest men I've ever known. His repository of jokes, many of which are dirty, must number in the millions. I am a poor teller of jokes, for I can almost never remember them. But my uncle can tell them all day long. He captures you in the story, and hits you with the punchline. Rarely has he told the same joke twice, but when he did, it was like the first time you'd ever heard it.

He also loves kids. Far more than I do. And kids love him. Growing up, there were always plenty of kids around, and my uncle always made them laugh. I'll never forget the smile on his face when I showed him a picture of my newest son.

I'm writing though, because my uncle has terminal cancer. He is 59. There really isn't much else to say at the moment. I am not a religious man, and will never pretend to be. But I ask that you might keep him in your thoughts. Pray for him if you like. Sacrifice a pig or a bull if that's what you choose. More importantly, appreciate the time you have with those who you are close to. Build up those fond memories like an unbreachable fortress, for when you must see them off, your fond memories are what remain.

Word of the Day: Iniquitous (adj): Characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

On This Day in History: Andrew Jackson kills Charles Dickinson in a duel (1806). The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated (1922). The remains of two unidentified American servicemembers are buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery (1958).

"Told me you loved me, that I'd never die alone. Hand over your heart, let's go home. Everyone knowed it, everyone has seen the signs. I've always been known to cross lines. I never ever cried when I was feeling down. I've always been scared of the sound. Jesus don't love me, no one ever carried my load. I'm too young to feel this old. Here's to you, here's to me, on to us, nobody knows. Nobody sees. Nobody but me." - "Cold Desert," Kings of Leon.

Morning Coffee (138)

Your Brewer is still in the Coffee business, I assure you. There's just so little time these days.

Semi-Change We Can Sort of Believe In:
Everyone, how is your change? No, I'm not asking for a status report on your pocket change. I'm asking about the change you were promised during the recent election and how it's working out for you. Personally, I'm impressed. President-elect Obama's choices for his Cabinet consist largely of unknowns. Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm. Arizona governess Janet Napolitano. Senator John Kerry. New Mexico governor and recent Presidential candidate Bill Richardson. I've heard Dick Gephardt's name thrown around too. Oh, wait. They're sort of well-known; infamous even. Good times. Well, when you're candidate's entire platform is as vague as "change" then I suppose you sort of get what you paid for. I mean, it is technically change, right?

Since we're talking about change, we might as well discuss the debacle of the Clinton nomination to the post of Secretary of State. Some say it's impossible, that Obama is suggesting her to placate some Democrats who feel jaded by Obama's failure to select her as his running mate. Some say that Obama will use Bill Clinton's many donors as a reason not to select her for the top diplomatic spot. Some say she won't accept it because after all, she's a Senator already. On one had, she should be wary, because as Colin Powell once noted, the Secretary of State serves at the President's leisure. He could fire her in two years. Then she'd be out of a government job altogether. But I say that she'll take the post, and will be confirmed with ease. This will be good in one sense, as New York will hopefully get a Senator who, you know, actually lived in New York.

"Let There be Jobs...and Other Stuff!":
By 2011, Barack Obama will "create 2.5 million jobs...to rebuild roads and bridges and modernize schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars." And on the Seventh Day, he will rest.

Final Political Thoughts of the Day:
Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.

Also, I would like to propose that all persons seeking higher office must relinquish their present position in order to run for that higher office. For example, if I'm a sitting senator, and I'm say, selected as a running mate to a Presidential candidate or if I decide to run for President myself, then I give up my seat in the Senate. If I fail in my VP/Presidential bid, then I'm out of a job. I'm welcome to run for office again in the future, of course.

Why would I have such a stupid idea? To avoid situations like in Delaware, where Joe Biden kept his seat in the Senate, but will not serve out his term as he's the next VP. I should also mention that he refused to debate his challenger, which meant that she was unable to do much campaigning. There are rules in Delaware that forbid certain campaigning unless both candidates are present. So now the governor of Delaware gets to pick the Senator, which doesn't sound terribly democratic in my humble view.

More pragmatically, I don't get to tell my boss that I'm going to leave work four days out of five in order to look for work elsewhere, but that I expect to be paid as if I were doing my job, and that if I fail to secure another job, I expect to be able to come back to work as if nothing had happened. Why should politicians be afforded something so utterly unfeasible most American workers?

Arrrr, these be pirate waters, matey:
Have you heard about this piracy situation? Well you would have five months ago had the Morning Coffee not been hijacked (pun intended) by the Presidential election. I had been planning on writing expressing my assessment that the problem would explode by 2009. Now I just look like a jumper of bandwagons.

Regardless, the problem has indeed exploded, most notably off the Horn of Africa (get a map), but also in the Gulf of Guinea. The Somali pirates have attacked more than 140 ships this year, and hijacked 36 of them, including the largest ship ever captured, the Saudi supertanker Sirius Star, which is carrying two million barrels of oil (~$100 million worth) and was destined for the United States. A few months ago, the pirates took the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying Soviet/Russian made weapons. The Kenyan government estimates that the Somali pirates have made $150 million so far. Nigerian pirates, both in and out of water, were blamed as part of the reason oil soared above $100 a barrel. Where is that money going? Some fear to Islamic extremists in Somalia. Check out THIS map to see the global activity of pirates.

Clearly, these pirates have become more brazen. I attribute this to companies' willingness to pay ransom demands for ships and crews captured. This is a cycle: pirates capture ships, demanding on average $2 million per, companies pay them, they buy new equipment intent on taking more ships and making more money. The problem grows. I think, though, that these pirates will become victims of their own success. The capture of the Sirius Star is likely the breaking point. Two million barrels of oil is a lot, and that does have an impact on the global markets. If these pirates get $35 million or more for the ship and its cargo, then they will be encouraged to do it again, and most nations don't like having their oil supply messed with.

The US Navy has been chomping at the bit for a mission, with the Army and Marine Corps getting all the glory in Iraq and Afghanistan. It now looks like they might have one. Problem is, the Navy has been shadowing the MV Faina since September, and hasn't really done anything. This is not due to a lack of capability, but a lack of guidance and direction from higher (i.e. the President/NATO/UN). The US Navy would make mincemeat out of most pirate vessels, and the Marine Corps and special ops units deploying from Navy ships have a capability called VBSS - visit, board, search, and seizure. I will say though, 2.5 million square miles of ocean is a lot of area to cover, so finding ships is sometimes problematic. But again, someone has to direct the Navy to act. This is all very touchy with the Law of the Sea and what not. Of course, the United States and its sailors and Marines do have some experience fighting piracy.

That is all for today. Perhaps more tomorrow?

Word of the Day: Nabob (NAY-bob) (noun): 1. A native ruler in India in the Mogul empire; by extension, a person from Indian who has made a fortune there. 2. A very wealthy and prominent person, a mogul.

On This Day in History: British pirate Edward Teach (Blackbeard) is killed off the coast of North Carolina by a boarding party led by Lieutenant Robery Maynard (1718). President John Kennedy is assassinated (1963). Mike Tyson defeats Trevor Berbick to become the youngest heavyweight champ in history (1986).

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." - Anonymous.

Edit: Corrected my apparently atrocious spelling.

Morning Coffee (137)

Good Morning Dear Coffee Drinkers.

You might not have realized, and it surely doesn't seem it, but six days ago marked the second anniversary of the Morning Coffee. I wanted to post something on the actual anniversary, but with weddings to attend and moves to make, I didn't get to it. Anyway, it does not seem like I've been doing this (on and off) for two years. One hundred and thirty seven issues and a few random posts (including my first guest writer) later, the "MC" has evolved from a simple email outlining a few early morning thoughts into something, well, sometimes fairly interesting and even insightful. It's been a lot of fun, even though our readership hasn't grown as much as I might like. Despite this, the MC has been read by someone on every continent save Antarctica. We've been read in China, Britain, Brazil, Germany, and Nepal. Imagine that. I hope it's been as fun for you to read as it has for me to write.

Some of you might wonder about the time stamps on each edition. You may have noticed that each MC is labeled as having been posted at 0621 (that's 6:21 AM for you civilians). This is simply to mark the time I first emailed the MC to a few select individuals. But that's not to say the format or content can never change. This is a consumer driven product, and if the consumers have something that they'd like to see implemented, the Brewer is always open to suggestions.

President Obama, or The Election 2008:
I am sure you are expecting a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the election. I am sure you expected some profound Morning Coffee on Election Day. I apologize that I can not and could not accommodate you. I've driven somewhere around 1,000 miles in three days last week, started a new job on Monday, and have attempted to establish a routine in my new home, so I wasn't in much of a position to read and research and write. What can I say? I missed the boat.

As I'm sure you are aware, the election is over. We have a new President. Believe it or not, nearly four years ago or so, after seeing Obama speak on television, I called a friend of mine and told him that I believed we were watching our next President. A lot has happened since then, but I rarely wavered on my assessment. Obviously, I was right. I probably wasn't right for the right reasons, but I was right. Believe me when I say that he's not my pick. He's not even in my top 20. But, he's our President. He's my Commander-in-Chief. People voted; they spoke their minds through the ballot box. Thus, the election was a success. And we have our first African-American President to boot, which is cause for celebration. (I say we should maybe evaluate his Presidency in four or eight years. Perhaps it won't be so celebratory then.)

Is he the right man for the job? I do not think so. But 60-plus million disagreed. Whether the wool was pulled over their eyes or not, I will not say. I suppose that we'll see, nay? In a democracy, the many are entitled to dictate to the few, and both groups get to suffer together for their mistakes.

I'm sure an Obama Presidency will provide plenty of topics for discussion in the Morning Coffee, as would have a McCain-Palin administration to be sure, so the political flavor of our Coffee will not fall to the wayside. I'm looking forward to it. I've been looking forward to a Democrat-run government for a while now. It should be real fun, folks. Americans spoke. With that, I offer congratulations/condolences to all of them.

McCain's Damage:
Examining McCain's mistakes in this election would take a while, to say the least. Certainly, he made his share of missteps. I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he decided to abandon his 2000 ethos of openness and became a sort of "faux-maverick." He turned grouchy and for all intents and purposes closed for business the "Straight Talk Express," all the while proclaiming he was still a maverick. His campaign also decided to resort to negative campaigning, and turned up the heat a lot. It was sad for me to see such a class act and honorable man turn to such a mockery of himself. I suppose, however, he saw first hand how effective such tactics could be in 2000 when some Bush surrogates used them and eviscerated his bid for the Republican nomination.

It is my opinion that McCain suffered from two fatal flaws, one that he had no control over and another he inflicted on himself. Running as a Republican after a hugely unpopular Bush Presidency is not something McCain could avoid, and that alone likely doomed his campaign to defeat. Personally, I think it's too soon to judge Bush's Presidency one way or the other, and this really isn't the place. Be that as it may, McCain faced a difficult challenge by merit of timing. His second flaw, which he brought upon himself, was the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I wrote in August that, despite my complete and total dislike of Palin as McCain's running mate, his pick of her might have been a brilliant strategy. But I still thought it foolish for a number of reasons. However, initially, her selection revitalized the Republican conservative base. When the conservative masses go crazy for a candidate, sometimes strange things happen, like them turning out in droves. But then people started to see all the negatives that I saw, and then some. Women and independents, two groups McCain needed and may have in fact targeted by this pick, were grossly turned off by Palin. Throw in a couple of amateurish interviews, and she lost much credibility in the eyes of independents, et al. Certainly, this pick cost him numbers in the popular vote, though it might not have changed the electoral college outcome. I didn't vote for McCain largely because I was concerned about Palin's ability to do much of anything beyond looking foolish. If looking foolish is your running mate's sole asset, you'll have a rough time trying to be the number one on the ticket if you're a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer.

Perhaps even worse for McCain than just turning off a portion of the electorate is the possibility that Palin "went rogue." That is, she pursued her own interests above those of John McCain. I find this believable and likely, though some pundits think it's sour grapes on behalf of McCain staffers. Regardless, Palin's a trig one (pun), and she probably saw the writing on the wall: Obama was going to win, so she needed to set herself up for a potential run in 2012. And here comes my real problem with McCain's pick of Sarah Palin. He introduced her to America.

Way back in July, no one outside of Alaska knew of Sarah Palin. Now, the GOP base not only knows of her, but is enamored with her, and they have just as much of a tendency to become infatuated with a politician as liberals do. Believe it or not, we might be hearing more from her in the near future, and sadly, she'll have four years to polish up that act of hers. A little more time to memorize talking points on all sorts of issues. Maybe then she'll be able to recall what papers she reads.

With this, the GOP faces an identity crisis. Nothing illustrates this more than the electoral college drubbing of its Presidential candidate and the loss of seats in both Houses of Congress. Is the GOP going to be a party in the Sarah Palin mold or in the Barry Goldwater mold (yeah, I know he lost)? Is it going to delve further into theology, or libertarianism? Is it going to become more radical, or more centrist? Is it going to become more white and old, or is it going to attempt to diversify? I think it will probably go back to what it thinks it knows: ultra-conservatism, with plenty of references to God and family values.

Obama: Fundraising Tycoon:
Besides the introduction of Sarah Palin to the American electorate, the 2008 Election did another thing that might damage America for decades (she's only 44 - we could be stuck with her for another 30 years). Barack Obama took in over a half a billion dollars in his fundraising. I've touched on this issue before. Certainly, money is a pathway to power. Don't tell me that Obama was intrinsically the better candidate. Money got him to where he is. For example, if he was the best candidate in the nation, but didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars, he wouldn't have stood a chance. Money, money, money, money. I'm not saying that every four or eight years, campaign fundraising will shatter records. But fundraising will never be the same, and while some might use Obama as an example that anyone really can become President, it's best if kindergarten teachers everywhere qualify that by saying, "Anyone who raises billions of dollars can have a chance at becoming President one day."

To wrap up this cup of Joe, I'll leave you with this video, in which Chris Matthews from Hardball tells his interviewers that it's his job to make sure the next administration succeeds. His JOB. I wasn't aware that ensuring the success of any administration was in the job description for journalists. This should be fun, eh? What a joke.

Word of the Day: Mot juste (moh-ZHOOST) (noun): A word or phrase that exactly fits the case.

On This Day in History: Constantius II promotes his cousin Julian to the rank of Caesar, giving him the government of the Prefecture of the Gauls (355 CE). Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca becomes the first known European to set foot in Texas after his ship wrecks (1528). King Gustavus Adolphus the Great of Sweden dies in the Battle of Lutzen (1632). Jefferson Davis is elected president of the Confederate States of America (1861). The CSS Shenandoah is the last Confederate combat unit to surrender after circumnavigating the globe, during which time it sank or captured 37 vessels (1865). Joseph Stalin addresses the Soviet Union for only the second time in his 30 year rule. During his address, he claimed that the Germans had lost 4.5 million soldiers (1941). Plutonium was first made, and subsequently used in the Fat Man (1944).

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama, 44th President (elect) of the United States, and master rhetorician.