No Pursuit of Justice

Reading this article about the Obama administration’s decision not to pursue the Bush administration’s government lawyers who wrote the CIA “torture memos” or those officials who participated in carrying out those acts is, in my mind, a terrible failure for the new president. While I can appreciate that the man has his hands more than a little full – a massive global recession, climbing rates of unemployment, the near-collapse of our financial system, America’s auto industry teetering on the brink, a health care system that is corrupt and broken, and a very angry Mother Nature…well, that’s a lot for a new politician to address before he’s even up to his first 100 days in office. However, I don’t believe that the egregious measures taken in these “CIA prisons” like Bagram in Afghanistan are any less worthy of outrage, revulsion, or proper justice than those acts committed by military personnel at Abu Ghraib.

The example given in the article, Lynndie England, was dishonorably discharged after her part in the humiliation practices at Abu Ghraib was confirmed and served a year and a half in a military prison and the same amount of time on probation; of course, she was not the only individual in those involved to serve time, others did as well. It is not that I don’t believe that they should have their dishonorable discharges reversed, or that I think it is unfair they had to serve time in prison, what I believe is not only unfair and unjust is to only punish those who were lowest on the military food chain. Sure, these acts were not explicitly ordered nor was she ‘forced’ to commit them; however, the implied notion was that these practices were not just allowed or condoned, but encouraged. To punish the “underlings” but not to insist that the actions of those higher up, or those who were instructing, ordering, or actively encouraging these actions be held responsible for their grossly reprehensible behavior. No one should be above the law, national or international law – if certain persons can get off with not even a slap on the wrist just because of their privileged positions, then what point is there in making laws to abide?

It saddens and angers me that we have not reached a point where we are willing to prosecute and sentence those who commit horrible crimes just because they are in an elite and privileged position of power.

Gotta Have a Blog on 420!

I donno, maybe I just want to talk about weezy.

So I guess the movement to legalize pot is alive and kicking and this year a bunch of them think that they are getting closer and closer to achieving their goals.  You can check out this article, it talks about what is happening but honestly, I don’t see anything revolutionary in it.

Pot is a weird thing in America… So like, it is illegal, right?  Yet, it is not really frowned upon to smoke it, and it is legal for medical use, and with the exception of some folks, it seems like everyone agrees that weezy is a hell-of-a-lot better than alcohol in terms of adverse effects on society, and there is a national holiday for people to rejoice in the fact that they use the plant.  And, and, and…

There is nothing new to report here, I just figured we gotta have a blog on 420.  And…

  I love these goofy-looking guys.

Can’t…keep…track…

Lately, there is so much going on, politically, in Juneau that I have found myself mentally “checking out.” As in, I am no longer properly absorbing what is going on with any great interest- it’s just too weird. And continuous. And weird.

Without having a large body of experience behind me, I am unsure of whether this is business as usual, whether this is just the nature of the game and whether we will always be overstimulated by the politicking, manuevering, blog bombardment, and press releases. Or maybe this is truly a crazier moment in time than most? The jaded observer probably sees it as the same stuff, different day. I think that when I “check back in” I will probably agree.

A partial recap (in no particular order…):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Feature article in April edition of Conde Nast’s Portfolio Magazine blames Palin for standing in the way of the pipeline being built. Palin’s office responds via press release.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Palin is a no show for a scheduled meeting with legislators to discuss the stimulus. Press release warring between Governor/Legislators ensues.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Levi Johnston goes on Tyra and The Early Show. Among other things, he claims to have lived/stayed in Governor Palin’s house with Bristol. “Over my dead body,” replied the Governor. Someone is lying.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wayne Anthony Ross’ Red Hummer (license plate: WAR)

Governor Palin’s Attorney General appointment (of Wayne Anthony Ross) is full of twists and results in an historic rejection of the Governor’s appointment (first time in our history). The broken relationship between the executive and the legislative branches in Alaska is apparent.

Points of contention during Ross’ confirmation hearings:
-GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered) community comments
–Women
–Alaska Natives
-Recent legal opinion addressing the Governor’s Senate appointment
-Assorted other “incidents”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Juneau’s Senate appointment follows an uncharted course (taking as looong as possible) with two rejections by the Senate Dems and a strange “list” sent as the Governor’s third attempt at a suitable (DEMOCRAT) candidate. The list was found to be against the law. There is little budging on either side and Juneau is without representation still.

Tim Grussendorf (pictured below), first appointee. Until recently was a registered Republican.

Joe Nelson (pictured below), second appointee. Made a statement that he would consider running against Kerttula as a Republican in the next Senate election.

Alan Wilson (pictured below), third on the “list” submitted most recently (with Grussendorf, Nelson, Wilson being the Governor’s order of preference) by the Governor. Irrelevant but interesting sidenote: Wilson is married to the owner of Shoefly (where Palin’s infamous Naughty Monkey’s came from).

A Lack of Will

If you’ve been listening to NPR over the past week, you may have heard this interview with former New York Attorney General and governor, the disgraced Eliot Spitzer. No, they weren’t interviewing him to hound him about his time in the doghouse after the scandal of his patronage of a high-end prostitution ring (I believe you refer to it as a “house of ill repute”, when the girls cost you a grand or more per hour…) – they sought his opinion on the current global financial crisis and, at least here in the U.S., it’s roots in the subprime lending crisis. In case you didn’t know, before Eliot Spitzer was the governor of New York (but probably not before he was an adulterer) he was the state’s Attorney General. Early last year before his popular demise, Spitzer contributed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html>this article. Telling though it was, especially as the subprime lending crisis grew, the article was largely ignored by many media outlets – even those not in the mainstream. Though I would estimate we’d still be in rough waters had anyone bothered to take Spitzer’s article to heart, I think many would agree that a lesser version of the current crisis would be better.

While it seems obvious that the global financial crisis is not solely the product of predatory lending practices and “a lack of will, not power” by federal regulators to investigate and prosecute the illegal dealings in the financial sector, Spitzer does make a valid case for these two variables being of particular significance. Whether or not you think Spitzer is a smutbucket or just another philandering politician, he does have the experience as a former Attorney General who, along with his colleagues in other states, tried to fight back against the irresponsible and downright illegal lending practices of banks but was cut off by the Bush administration. Spitzer concludes his article with the prediction that “the Bush administration will not be judged favorably” once the history of this crisis is investigated, revealed, and written. One can only hope, it seems, that though it is unlikely (nigh, impossible) that anyone directly responsible in that administration will be held accountable, that future generations can be far more wary.

Sustainability

In this article from Scientific American, Michael D. Lemonick discusses the Top 10 Myths About Sustainability. No, this isn’t an affront to environmentalism – it’s an article that seeks to define just what sustainability is, how it can (and can’t) operate, and how it can help. The concept of sustainability, the article points out, is widely and legitimately applicable to our modern global society but can be difficult for people to understand. I found two points in this article to be especially succinct in describing the concept of sustainability in very simple and very real terms.

“The economy,” says Anthony Cortese, founder and president of the sustainability education organization Second Nature, “is a wholly owned subsidiary of the biosphere. The biosphere provides everything that makes life possible, assimilates our waste or converts it back into something we can use.”

This is immediately followed by,

If too many of us use resources inefficiently or generate waste too quickly for the environment to absorb and process, future generations obviously won’t be able to meet their needs.

As humans on this planet, everything that we rely upon to provide us an environment in which we can not only live, but flourish, is a product of the earth in at least its most basic form. Therefore, if we are wasteful and abusive towards the planet, it is likely that we will no longer be able to flourish – perhaps not even live. Sustainability may require us to use less (whether that be fossil fuels, water, etc.), and to use what we do take from the earth with greater efficiency, but it is not about returning to cave dwellings and loincloths. Sustainability requires each individual to be both responsible for themselves and conscientious of others in the way that we live our lives, manipulate and use resources, and to consider how our actions of the present will continue to resonate in the future. Regardless of personal politics, I fail to sympathize with any individual’s inability to recognize not only the merit, but the absolute necessity, of sustainable living. The future of humanity does not look to be an easy or pleasant one and will require a massive overhaul, but that is no reason to feel hopeless. At the individual level, even small changes and adjustments to your habits and lifestyle are better than no changes at all!

Denali or Mt. McKinley?

Picture of Denali

I was invited on Facebook to join a group who wants to properly rename different land marks in our nation. Mt. McKinley or Denali is one of the places they want renamed. I never knew the history before; I only knew Denali was the native name. Mt. McKinley was named by a gold miner who was showing support for the 1896 presidential election of William McKinley, who never visited Alaska, and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley favored gold while his opponent liked silver.

The State of Alaska officially recognizes Mt McKinley as Denali, and the US government acknowledged the name when Denali National Park was created in 1980. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK, retired) introduced multiple bills to officially rename the mountain as Denali, but was constantly opposed by Representative Ralph Regula (R-OH, retired), who represented an area of Ohio that contains Canton, William McKinley’s hometown. Though Regula has retired, two other Ohio congresspeople, Betty Sutton and Tim Ryan have pledged to continue obstructing attempts to rename Denali.

Alaska State House Representative Scott Kawasaki (D-Fairbanks) recently introduced a resolution (HJR-15) to urge the US congress to finally change the name to Denali. Denali (or Dinale) translates to “The Great One” in Athabascan dialects common to native peoples north of the mountain, and is known as Doleika to the Dena’ina people in the south. By recognizing the prominent feature by a traditional name, Denali, the US government would take a step toward reversing years of cultural genocide of Alaska Native peoples.

I have always wondered what was with the two names, but having two names myself, never got interested enough to find out the reason. I am now considering how many other national monuments or land marks are binomial. Is it right for a place that is known as one name to its native people to be changed for political reasons?

What Comes Next?

Once again, with this year’s G-20 Summit coming up (and the abundance of material for protesting banners) political activists, environmental groups, but also regular people, are all meeting in London to “greet” international leaders.

Protesters gathering on Saturday were calling for jobs, fair distribution of wealth, and a low-carbon future. They carried banners and posters reading “Climate Emergency,” “Gaza: End the Blockade,” “Planet Before Profit,” “We Won’t Pay for Their Crisis,” and “Jobs not Bombs.”

In a preliminary meeting of G-20 officials in Chile on Saturday, Joe Biden asked for patience, and promised to have a concrete plan of recovery out of the economic mess. Needless to say, tensions in Britain and all-over Europe are not going to get mellowed-down by this type of promises. Instead, British protesters follow the general feeling of rage among the taxpayer, from Washington to Brussels.

It is expected that the marches will continue throughout the meeting in London and the rest of Europe next week. The masses, ranging from 400 protesters in Paris, to 20,000 people demonstrating in Frankfurt, are only continuing to grow, and some are expecting the largest amount of enraged people since the huge rallies against the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It is hard to say exactly what the effect of the protesters will be upon the decisions made within the G-20, but one thing is certain: this allows people to have someone to hold responsible for the crisis. Furthermore, it allows them to collectively show their anger against their governments, and get their voices heard. The only thing that keeps people from rallying the streets in America is Barack Obama, who is still extremely popular among the people, even though not all of them support him in his giant stimulus package.

The Global impacts of Gov Bailouts

China is getting worried about the courses of action that the US government is taking about the US economy.  China is losing faith in the dollar, and appearently has been for several years.  They view the dollar as an unstable asset, and would like to see a seperate international monetary unit replace the dollar as reserve currency.  The fulll article is printed through BBC.

Capital Move Controversy

Capital move supporters argue that the capital is not accessible to the majority of the citizens in the state. Keeping it in the present location will “impose on future generations a capital at the extreme southeastern corner.” Capital move opponents argue that the state institutions are already fairly dispersed to promote economic growth for all the state’s regions. Taking away capital status from its current location will cripple the economy and the southeast region will suffer. Not to mention that the cost of relocating would be astronomical. So plays the debate that is all too familiar for Alaskans. Except that this particular debate occurred in 1904—in Wyoming.

So, if Alaska is not particularly unique as far as capital moves go – aside from our uniquely inaccessible capital – why have we had easily over two dozen pieces of legislation dealing with the issue since statehood and several ballot initiatives to boot?

Likely, the economic issues at play are far more important than the ideas of “access” or “representation” that are touted by capital move proponents. Predictions as to the actual outcome seem to run the gamut from “capital creep” eventually succeeding in moving all but the official title (and maybe that too) to the eventual making peace with the historical (from statehood on anyways) capital of Juneau.

So, with that non-definitive discussion on the move, I’m curious who on here is for or against the move and why? Anybody that doesn’t care?

Veni, Vidi, Vici

Apparently, the Republican Party of the United States has ended up in such a vacuum of leadership that the “undeclared” (but apparently very much acknowledged) chief of the GOP has become the quasi-comedic radical radio-host Rush Limbaugh. In one of his speeches on national radio, Limbaugh declared the following jaw-dropping statement:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

Economic woes

The area o fsocial science that I have focus the majority of my studies on have been anthropology, histroy and psychology.  I know enough about sociology to get in trouble.  But political science and economics are both alien to me in how they are different from other social sciences, especially economics; when I think about economics I wonder how it is a social science, all I think about are accountents with adding machines.  Anyhow, I say this because I can not really discuss economics as a social science, I will only fall back on the other scocial sciences that I know, so let that be a warning to everyone reading this.

There is an article that I would like to point out to everybodies attention, concerning the concepts of a debt heavy capitalistic society.  The current stimulus stategy is focused on bolstering the banks, which will create a trickle down effect boosting the economy of the country and of people.  However according to Jim Rogers this will not work and the banks should be allowed to go bankrupt.  The entire idea that we can recover from a credit debt like the one we are in, by creating debt in other places, is an idea that will not work.  We are trying to have a fast safe fix, and that will not work.

Genuine Talent or Political Correctness?

The 2009 Academy Awards event this Sunday was in many ways impregnated by a sense of self-controlling polite modesty (with the contenders half-expecting Slumdog Millionaire to win all of the awards), with winches of indisputable grief (the whole audience was left in mourning tears when the late Heath Ledger was awarded the Oscar for his marvelous performance as Joker in The Dark Knight), but also the omnipresent political connotations of the show.

The instance that stands out most was, perhaps, the Oscar given to Sean Penn for his performance in Milk. The movie portrays the story of Harvey Milk, who was the first (openly) homosexual to be elected to a public office in the United States back in the 1970s. This theme comes very contextually close to the political mindset that is sweeping California (and especially Hollywood) on the topic of gay marriages. Proposition 8, a measure ballot that was voted on in November of last year, restricted the concept of marriage to heterodox couples in California, thus placing a question mark on the validity of marriages between same-sex couples previously allowed in that state. The proposition was attacked by many demonstrations, and a hearing on its constitutionality will be held this year in the California Supreme Court, which has the power to overrule it.

Sean Penn’s victory in the most prestigious movie contest in the world shows the tremendous support against Proposition 8 in Hollywood. Milk also received a second Oscar for the most original script, whose author (Dustin Lance Black) is a homosexual. He praised Penn’s performance, stating that

Sean physically inhabited the body and soul of Harvey Milk.

Apart from the moral debate over gay marriages, this nomination once again shows how much the Academy cherishes its self-created image of political activism. The integrity of the institution, and of the actors in general is put in the uncomfortable situation where people would begin to ask whether Sean Penn’s Oscar was awarded based on artistic performance, or rather on political grounds… This certainly would take away from the image of Sean Penn’s work (an undeniably fantastic actor overall), for one could not precisely understand what was the real reason behind Penn’s victory; as some would argue that Mickey Rourke would have genuinely deserved the award instead.

Is this racist?

 

At first glance of the  HuffingtonPost.com  blurb entitled “New York Post’s Cartoon Apology” I figured it was just another cartoonist (and editor) inciting rage but I was uncertain exactly how (other than the cartoon’s obvious disagreement on the success or skill involved in crafting the stimulus bill). It took a more in-depth look for me to figure out that people were drawing (no pun) connections between the chimp pictured and our President. I am blissfully aware of the level of naivete I have discovered in myself – any implied connection between that chimp and any black human being was over my head. Completely.

 Of course, upon investigation I realize that intent, insensitivity (and context), and public impression are all factors contributing to making this incident an “incident”.

But I am curious how many people looked at that cartoon and also failed to make a racist connection?

What does it mean to not make that connection? Is it insensitive of me? Uninformed? Naive?

What does it mean to bring up the allegedly imlied connection and stoke the fire?

Or did the illustrator stoke the fire by drawing it?

I guess more than anything these types of media fodder bring up important public discussion of the burdens still being carried on all sides of this argument.

One-Child Policy in China

So what are everyone’s thoughts on this action?  If you are ethnic Han living in urban China you are only allowed one child.  If you have more than one you will be fined an amount determined by the government.  It also seems that in some cases abortion is pressured and sterilization is forced.

The rule has been estimated to have reduced population growth in the country of 1.3 billion by as much as 300 million people over its first twenty years.

Check out the links and see the pros and cons of this policy.  I think this is an effective way of managing the population.  I don’t know if it is “right” to implement such a policy; however, is it “right” to allow everybody to have as many kids as they want, regardless of the consequences to the family involved and the environment.  But now I am playing with morals. 

It sure as hell isn’t right to force abortions; however, in order to make this policy effective abortions must be forced.  Really all I want to do is propmt a discussion on the population situation on Earth.  Is this something we need to address??  Are we able, physically or morally to address it??  Are humans really going to destroy the planet??

Alaska’s Evita

Since the end of the campaign, Gov. Sarah Palin has been working on re-creating her political persona. Along with her new appearance (in an attempt to keep her “freshness” on the national arena), Gov. Palin is attempting to fix some of the things that didn’t come out quite as “down-to-earth” (both literally, and figuratively) as the McCain campaign may have wished. In that direction, she is “calling for an ambitious statewide goal of producing half of Alaska’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025,” reported the Juneau Empire back in January. Even though such proposals have been in the Alaska Legislature for a while, the governor managed to “steal” her fifteen minutes of fame from the lawmakers, some would argue non-surprisingly.

In another unexpected affection towards environmental concerns, Sarah Palin showed more practicality. Last Sunday, the Empire’s front page story talked about a court decision to halt the controversial road project out of Juneau (the town still has no road access). Very much supported by developmentalists, and unilaterally by Republicans, the construction was to be funded by the federal government (as almost anything related to Alaskan development), but was put on hold due to a lawsuit from an environmental group. The judge ruled against the road, stating that there should have been more attention attributed to the ferry system in the plan, and other alternatives to a road – maybe more environmentally friendly. But that same article notes the following:

The ruling appears to justify the decision by Gov. Sarah Palin to stop the Department of Transportation from issuing a contract to build the $350 million road until there was a favorable court ruling.

I am not sure I understand this correctly. So, in her infinite strive towards development, independence, fishing and hunting, and what being an “Alaskan” is all about, the governor suddenly became more concerned about this road that would connect the capitol to the rest of Alaska, and its environmental impacts? Rather (again, it seems), in her struggle between being a devoted moose-huntin’, fish-eatin’, g-droppin’ Republican and a devout proponent of the capitol move (to… Wasilla?), the latter prevailed. She would rather be an anti-developer than show for a split second that she favored Southeast Alaska.

In yet another recent article in the Washington Post, Sarah is piously compared with Eva Perón, Argentina’s sweetheart in a restless time. “She doesn’t care about the political establishment, but the people in the streets love her,” a legislative aid noted. No doubt, the populist tendencies constructing Sarah Palin’s public image are strongly correlated with that of Evita’s, but in different contexts. One was venerated by the public as the “protector” of the simple (or “shirtless”) ones, ignorant or indifferent towards the political interests behind it. The other is popular for her ‘reformist’ policies, but even those might not hold if her divisive attitudes towards her electorate continue for long.

Is This Really A Recession?

The newly appointed Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made her first visit overseas as chief diplomat, to one of the most valuable US partner in financial matters, Japan. This happened on the same day that the $787 billion stimulus package has been signed by Obama. In his remarks, the president noted the importance of cooperation as far as the economy goes, and one could read between the diplomatic presidential lines, that he was pleased with the result:

What I am signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It is a plan that’s been put together without earmarks or the usual pork-barrel spending. And it is a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability.

Obama’s hopeful tone is still present in his discourse, and even though it went through many gaffs and blows from both sides of the political spectrum, the stimulus bill entails a compromise that was hard to come down to.

A crucial factor, perhaps even more important than the purely economic forces that would be required for this stimulus to do its job, is the necessary change in the psychic of the American investor (and consumer, for that matter). Since, it could be argued (admittedly more from the conservative stance) that the problem with the economy is actually the problem with the attitude of the consumer. The media played a big part in creating this atmosphere of panic, as they started talking about a recession back in the fall of 2007, when technically, a recession is defined, by mainstream economists, as negative economic growth (in terms of GDP) during two or more consecutive quarters. To my recollection, this hasn’t happened yet. Of course, unemployment has reached early 90s levels, but still, technically, this is not yet a recession.

It is however important that the bill gains international momentum. Hillary is doing internationally what the president is trying to do domestically. Reconstruct the trust in the American economy (the dollar would be a good start), and the psychic of the American and international consumer.

Roe v. Wade

I ran across a fellow WordPress blogger’s post discussing “How to Stump Anti-Abortionists With One Question” and figured the timing is especially appropriate for some reflection on the topic (not the topic of how to stump Anti-Abortionists, silly, the topic of abortion) on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, while the annual Pro-Life Rally is being held on the capital steps downtown.

As a matter of strategy when discussing this issue and trying to maintain neutrality, it feels nearly impossible. Everything from the titles I use to identify the various groups of thought can be analysed (using positive words like “pro” in identifying one side vs.  the negatively associated “anti” in identifying another side) to the examples I choose to represent different sides’ ideology (using beloved comedian George Carlin’s stand-up on one side of the issue vs. using Governor Palin’s Katie Couric interview on the other side of the issue). Despite how this post appears to make me lean one way over another, I remain hesitant to be boldly on one side or the other and have found that my opinions change with age (we didn’t know everything in highschool??? Damn.) There are logical arguments on all sides of the issue and the most pressing concern to me is not what THE answer is…I don’t think there can be one…but what are WE, as a nation, going to do about the disagreement?

The span of fields this topic covers is truly anthropological, economical, historical, political, psychological, and socialogical. Everybody appears to have an opinion of some sort, so in commemoration of the continually controversial court decision here is an opinion on the two basic sides. Admittedly, there are tons more “sides” to be on but here’s an extreme on both of the primary sides (Pro Choice aka Pro Abortion, Anti Life & Pro Life aka Anti Abortion, Anti Choice).

Pro Choice (Disclaimer – GEORGE CARLIN):

Pro Life:

The Last Brick

The anticipated event of swearing in of a new president of the United States finally happened. An interesting article attracted my attention, and I thought it was worth giving it some thought.

USA Today writes that the bible used in Barack Obama’s inaugural ceremony is the same bible used by Abraham Lincoln in 1861. “Lincoln took the oath in the shadow of an unfinished Capitol dome with his right hand on the Bible. He then kissed the book, following a tradition started by George Washington” – the article reports.

The rich symbolism that Obama is using throughout the organizational details preceding the inauguration cannot be ignored. More and more, the new president is comparing – and allying – himself with the iconic figure of the American state. In doing so, Obama wants to show his electorate that has a set example in front of him, and that he promises to rise up to that expectation.

As the first black president, Obama is showing the enormous steps taken in the direction of non-bigotry in North America, and giving appreciation to Lincoln seems as appropriate as ever. The symbolism of the unfinished Capitol in 1861 comes to mind as well, and Obama is saying that the dome is close to being finished, as racism and intolerance in America are overcome.