Trust---such an over used word, still a sentiment frequent in our vernacular, and treasured as an honorable trait, but today almost considered naive, rather victorian perhaps, about as reliable as a weak handshake --- and most especially in our political/ politically correct world.
"Trust me "is often uttered as a joke now, a wink, and an invitation to doubt. Conversely,"Trust no one" may sound too cynical, but we're getting there fast. Donald Sterling, soon to be the X owner of the L.A. Clippers, could appropriately and shamefully have that engraved on his tombstone. "Poor" man had the naiveté to trust not only his girl friend, but his private phone, and can you believe it, his own recording device--- In so doing, he exposed his core character and utter lack of respect for others, even those from whom he financially profited. Good riddance? Perhaps, but the fact remains that we are quickly becoming a nation of speech, if not thought, police. Political correctness has changed from a polite way to express ourselves, into a closely guarded, well edited, and obligatory manner of communicating---under threat of reputation and career loss---not to mention the possibility of the IRS suddenly taking an interest in your affairs.That actually happened to some, particularly political donors, who were associated with or supported the Tea Party and other conservative organizations, which precipitated the now famous IRS scandal.
There are few secrets anymore---and maybe that's a good thing in terms of cleansing our public words of bias and outright prejudice, but the erosion of privacy and the freedom to speak our minds, support causes we believe in, may be a steep price to pay in the long run, as all of us increasingly speak only that which is in harmony with the current trends and party lines---and trust no one, not even our leaders, the supposed bulwarks against the loss of our liberties, to know our true thoughts.
It's hard to trust a president who promised the most transparent administration ever, but who time and again has evaded, passed the buck, and disappointed us with his failure to deliver clarity and answers (Benghazi), refused to enforce accountability, (IRS scandal), and has even misled and misrepresented---"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance----". As if only he speaks the truth, he counsels us to dismiss and disbelieve anyone or who oppose him---i.e., Republicans, especially the Tea Party, Fox news, even the Supreme court. Note that none of the Supreme justices have appeared at the State of the Union addresses since they were publicly reprimanded in front of the congress by Obama for their vote on Citizens United. Note also that Harry Reid has successfully shut down any possible resistance to future nominations by Obama, by enacting a law against filibustering. And while you're at it, know that as this blog is going to press, there is a special committee once again going after the truth of what happened with the Benghazi attack---why a special committee? And why now, again? Because the White House stonewalled and misled congress on this issue, and because a memo has now surfaced which proves the hiding of truth was deliberate. Not important? Only if you trust the government to do the right thing----
We could forgive an occasional betrayal of our trust, nobody's perfect, and there is such a thing as classified security secrets--- but it would seem that presidents of the United States are supposed to encourage trust in the honorability of our system, not strict loyalty to their own agendas. Further they are expected to be honest, above deceit, and divisiveness. Obama's polls show a public who no longer sees those qualities--- but rather that it's all about politics and power, with no regard for laws already on the books to prevent abuse. There is a constant pattern here, and it reeks of political pay offs, paybacks, manipulation, election engineering----and perhaps even complicity and coercion between our government and other power brokers who seek to work against the constitution and continued existence of this country as exceptional, strong, and leader of the free world. The disingenuousness is painfully clear, but the inference that somehow we're so easily duped is insulting and frightening. We're beginning to get that we're being played to the tune of total conformity ---and worse, not allowed to complain about it. To do so is to be called a racist, unpatriotic, obstructive, mean spirited, a denier, a hater, etc., etc.
The muffling of free speech does not conquer a free society with a gag order, but with a slow chipping away, a marginalization of those who dare to speak their minds, a media who is more biased than objective, and a public who doesn't see the muzzle coming until it's safely in place over their mouths and their lives. Some of this is happening now, as we see people who lose their jobs or never get hired because of their personal beliefs--- agree with them or not, they are victims of the current policing of acceptable speech. And no one is safe from the same fate, as the whims and opinions of public favor blow this way and that. Not important? Not unless you're sure you will always be on the
"right"side of the issue. Even President Obama wasn't, until recently, when he declared he had "evolved"regarding gay marriage---just in the nick of time for re-election.
A few examples of freedom of speech turned inside out----not too long ago, the Wall Street Journal printed an article written by Adam Weinstein, a global warming advocate, who had the outrageous temerity to suggest that "deniers" of global warming should be arrested! Not as stunning, but almost as aggressive, the U.S. government is on record for trying to remove right wing talk shows, under an old law called "The Fairness Act", supposedly created to make sure we hear a "proper balance" of opinions on the airwaves---wonder if they've thought of using the same standards on TV, the movies, and our newspapers. Interesting sidelight is that several left wing shows have attempted to attract radio audiences, but failed miserably--the market place at work, which is one measure of fairness, and could be part of the reason so many newspapers and TV shows are failing as well. And in a stark display of academic freedom gone rogue, several well known and highly respected American universities and colleges, previously known as bastions of independent thinking, have recently dis-invited speakers from their graduation ceremonies, because the speakers' views differed from those of the students (and those who have supposedly taught them to be independent and knowledge seeking thinkers?)
Society has always naturally influenced the way we air our opinions, but the ramifications are getting beyond the concept of a free and open society. The first amendment is under attack, and unless we recognize it for what it is, the first nail in the coffin of tyranny, we risk losing everything---even our right to be ignorant and wrong. Because with that right comes the freedom to speak out against those who would seek to quiet any and all who would differ,
or threaten their cause. Bias, prejudice, and hatred of those who are different, may be ugly and undesirable in an enlightened society, ---but so is the complete outcasting and intolerance of those whose hearts will not be changed by laws and punishment.
Who to trust in the government?? I asked that question recently at a small gathering of mixed political stripes and ideologies----the answer came back unanimously: Ourselves, our better, fair, more aware selves, we the people, the government of us. Where to find the truth? It is to be found by educating ourselves, by reading and listening to both sides of the issues, studying history, by seeking balance, and constitutional guidance, and by electing representatives who will stay true to our basic values and their promises. Shorter term limits might help them to do this---and a public who will no longer tolerate suppression of free speech and other rights, done in the name of political correctness. Calling your congressman/woman to let them know you are here and watching them, and not being afraid to speak your views in a civil, respectful and calm manner. It is our precious right, and our duty to help steer the dialogue, and to prevent only the loudest voices to prevail.
It never fails to amaze how intolerant some who passionately preach tolerance can be. Beware of those who tell you how or what to think, who negatively label others with opposing views, and who proclaim they want only what's best for everybody, at the expense of a few. Police states start with a kind of disguised intolerance, setting themselves up as caring protectors and arbitrators of right and wrong, and then slowly, emerge as administers of punishment---and finally, comes the hammer--- censorship, silence, and complete acquiescence to social trends, and far worse,--- the state. Then, we no longer have to trust---simply obey.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
THE UKRAINIAN PROBLEM AND US
Overshadowed by the Malaysian airline disaster, other world events were continuing to escalate and threaten a peaceful future--maybe even world war 3. While we were riveted to the search for that airplane, Mr. Putin was stealthily, but assuredly moving towards overtaking Crimea , the little
peninsula off the Ukraine. Despite threat of economic sanctions by Obama and others in the European community, he has now done exactly that, flexing his muscular might and sticking his finger in the face of those who claim he has broken international law. This is true. In 1994, Crimea and the Ukraine, were promised protection against losing their sovereign status, by the United States, Nato, and the U.N. if they discontinued their nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Putin apparently doesn't see it that way---that was then, this is now, and he plays by different rules-----or none at all. This man comes from a whole different ideology, a pre-Prestroika, cold war Russia. Rules? Whose rules? He learned his from the KGB; and proud overseer of the Olympic games, nice suit and smile aside, who says he's changed?
So how does all of this affect us way over here? Depends on how you look at the ever changing global picture puzzle. Here's one way: Russia has lots of oil, which runs through Ukraine and that they export to service much of Europe. They are also the largest country in the world, connected geographically with Europe, yet allied with Iran and other unfriendly nations, capable of nuclear war, and therefore one of our biggest geo-political threats. Sound familiar? Mitt Romney spoke similar words to President Obama, during one of the last presidential debates--and was roundly mocked by Obama for thinking in such" old fashioned, cold war" terms. Funny how mockery can become irony, and can catch up with those who speak so cavalierly from their own untested perspective.
But Obama holds to his belief that we ought not be operating with cold war thinking and seek first to negotiate, carry a soft stick, and then move only if we have the support of our allies. He even sent Hillary Clinton to Russia shortly after taking office with a cute little box and re-set button to show our new, more loving attitude. Putin smiled and accepted this quaint gift, but one can only imagine what he was thinking---push button diplomacy, or pushover president?
Obama, glacially slow to respond, has finally punished with economic penalties to a few key financial officials in Russia, and threatens more sanctions if Putin continued his march into the Ukraine, which he has, sending 40,000 troops. He has also suspended Russia from the G-8 summit of world leaders. It is doubtful that Putin will be very intimidated by these small measures, and even more doubtful that Obama will do much more. It is too little, too late, for negotiation, and Putin will do whatever he wishes, quite unbothered and probably emboldened by what we do---or rather don't do.
Having said all that, there is the other side of the argument that goes thus: Putin has the right to do whatever he wishes with Crimea and the Ukraine---all originally part of Russia, and who are we to boss him around? Bossiness is exactly not what Obama wants to project on the international stage. After all, Putin is the President of Russia, everybody breaks rules, and we don't want to make him too angry---best to keep your potential enemies close. Problem with that enlightened thinking is that Putin and his power grabs pose an economic and security threat not only to Europe, but us as well, intertwined as we all are in today's shrinking world.
It has been said by some and most defensively by Putin, that he is merely trying to strengthen the mother country, or "nationalize" everybody into a united mind set, and his recent speech to the EU in Brussels would reflect those feelings. Taking this concept further, it is well known that nationalism can lead to ethnic nationalism, also reflected in Putin's speech, referring affectionately to ethnic Russians as "Russkiis", setting them apart from the more generic, all inclusive term, " Russians". Stating the historical obvious, this can then lead to dangerous and twisted incentives for atrocities committed in the name of preserving a country's strength and superiority--and reminiscent of Germany and Hitler. Is that what Putin is thinking, or have we vilified him for our own purposes, misconstruing patriotism for power grabbing?
Enlightened thinking aside, and looking at the evidence, Putin is an outlier, a rogue among other major world leaders ---he does not play well with others, and we should not expect differently, or design our approach to him as though he will suddenly change and respond to our way of thinking. And some would ask, why should he? It is Obama's burden to respond to that question---and ours to ponder. Nobody is advising or wishing for military involvement but if it's true that all international power vacuums attract other hungry powers, then dare we dismiss this current move by Putin, as political posturing, and none of our business? Perhaps, unless we consider it our business to survive, thrive, and remain the most powerful nation among nations. Too greedy? Ask the residents of the Ukraine--too late for Crimea.
But what is President Obama to do now? It appears there is very little he can do to scare Putin---the train has left the station, and Crimea is a done deal. Putin has moved his troops along the border of Ukraine, as if to say, "We're here, and we're in charge now." But wait---what a difference a day makes! As this blog goes to print, it looks like Putin may have blinked---yesterday, in a phone call to Obama, he said he was pulling 1% of his troops out of Ukraine. That's not much, yet it's something---but hold on. If this situation were a chess game, you'd be wondering if we were winning or simply being set up for further aggression. As of now, there is no evidence that any troops are being removed from Ukraine.
Obama's strategy of "leading from behind" has not been viewed as successful or admirable. We have
watched on the sidelines as Egypt, Libya, and Syria have lost their bids to become
more free and democratic. Red lines have been drawn and crossed, penalties threatened and slowly meted out, but our actions seem reluctant, weak, and too late to be very effective. History may prove differently, but if the past is any guide, we are losing our grip and our respect as the world's leader. Peace through power may not appeal to everyone's sensibilities, but Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran wait in the wings to take our place--- they march to a different beat, and their idea of enlightened thinking is to take us down, forget the peace part.
Ukraine and us? Keep an eye on it---it's a vital piece of a puzzle called the new world order---or disorder. If we stand down on this one, Katie bar the door. It may not be the Russians who are coming, but anybody else who observes the splintering of our once sturdy resolve to keep our promises and the peace.
peninsula off the Ukraine. Despite threat of economic sanctions by Obama and others in the European community, he has now done exactly that, flexing his muscular might and sticking his finger in the face of those who claim he has broken international law. This is true. In 1994, Crimea and the Ukraine, were promised protection against losing their sovereign status, by the United States, Nato, and the U.N. if they discontinued their nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Putin apparently doesn't see it that way---that was then, this is now, and he plays by different rules-----or none at all. This man comes from a whole different ideology, a pre-Prestroika, cold war Russia. Rules? Whose rules? He learned his from the KGB; and proud overseer of the Olympic games, nice suit and smile aside, who says he's changed?
So how does all of this affect us way over here? Depends on how you look at the ever changing global picture puzzle. Here's one way: Russia has lots of oil, which runs through Ukraine and that they export to service much of Europe. They are also the largest country in the world, connected geographically with Europe, yet allied with Iran and other unfriendly nations, capable of nuclear war, and therefore one of our biggest geo-political threats. Sound familiar? Mitt Romney spoke similar words to President Obama, during one of the last presidential debates--and was roundly mocked by Obama for thinking in such" old fashioned, cold war" terms. Funny how mockery can become irony, and can catch up with those who speak so cavalierly from their own untested perspective.
But Obama holds to his belief that we ought not be operating with cold war thinking and seek first to negotiate, carry a soft stick, and then move only if we have the support of our allies. He even sent Hillary Clinton to Russia shortly after taking office with a cute little box and re-set button to show our new, more loving attitude. Putin smiled and accepted this quaint gift, but one can only imagine what he was thinking---push button diplomacy, or pushover president?
Obama, glacially slow to respond, has finally punished with economic penalties to a few key financial officials in Russia, and threatens more sanctions if Putin continued his march into the Ukraine, which he has, sending 40,000 troops. He has also suspended Russia from the G-8 summit of world leaders. It is doubtful that Putin will be very intimidated by these small measures, and even more doubtful that Obama will do much more. It is too little, too late, for negotiation, and Putin will do whatever he wishes, quite unbothered and probably emboldened by what we do---or rather don't do.
Having said all that, there is the other side of the argument that goes thus: Putin has the right to do whatever he wishes with Crimea and the Ukraine---all originally part of Russia, and who are we to boss him around? Bossiness is exactly not what Obama wants to project on the international stage. After all, Putin is the President of Russia, everybody breaks rules, and we don't want to make him too angry---best to keep your potential enemies close. Problem with that enlightened thinking is that Putin and his power grabs pose an economic and security threat not only to Europe, but us as well, intertwined as we all are in today's shrinking world.
It has been said by some and most defensively by Putin, that he is merely trying to strengthen the mother country, or "nationalize" everybody into a united mind set, and his recent speech to the EU in Brussels would reflect those feelings. Taking this concept further, it is well known that nationalism can lead to ethnic nationalism, also reflected in Putin's speech, referring affectionately to ethnic Russians as "Russkiis", setting them apart from the more generic, all inclusive term, " Russians". Stating the historical obvious, this can then lead to dangerous and twisted incentives for atrocities committed in the name of preserving a country's strength and superiority--and reminiscent of Germany and Hitler. Is that what Putin is thinking, or have we vilified him for our own purposes, misconstruing patriotism for power grabbing?
Enlightened thinking aside, and looking at the evidence, Putin is an outlier, a rogue among other major world leaders ---he does not play well with others, and we should not expect differently, or design our approach to him as though he will suddenly change and respond to our way of thinking. And some would ask, why should he? It is Obama's burden to respond to that question---and ours to ponder. Nobody is advising or wishing for military involvement but if it's true that all international power vacuums attract other hungry powers, then dare we dismiss this current move by Putin, as political posturing, and none of our business? Perhaps, unless we consider it our business to survive, thrive, and remain the most powerful nation among nations. Too greedy? Ask the residents of the Ukraine--too late for Crimea.
But what is President Obama to do now? It appears there is very little he can do to scare Putin---the train has left the station, and Crimea is a done deal. Putin has moved his troops along the border of Ukraine, as if to say, "We're here, and we're in charge now." But wait---what a difference a day makes! As this blog goes to print, it looks like Putin may have blinked---yesterday, in a phone call to Obama, he said he was pulling 1% of his troops out of Ukraine. That's not much, yet it's something---but hold on. If this situation were a chess game, you'd be wondering if we were winning or simply being set up for further aggression. As of now, there is no evidence that any troops are being removed from Ukraine.
Obama's strategy of "leading from behind" has not been viewed as successful or admirable. We have
watched on the sidelines as Egypt, Libya, and Syria have lost their bids to become
more free and democratic. Red lines have been drawn and crossed, penalties threatened and slowly meted out, but our actions seem reluctant, weak, and too late to be very effective. History may prove differently, but if the past is any guide, we are losing our grip and our respect as the world's leader. Peace through power may not appeal to everyone's sensibilities, but Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran wait in the wings to take our place--- they march to a different beat, and their idea of enlightened thinking is to take us down, forget the peace part.
Ukraine and us? Keep an eye on it---it's a vital piece of a puzzle called the new world order---or disorder. If we stand down on this one, Katie bar the door. It may not be the Russians who are coming, but anybody else who observes the splintering of our once sturdy resolve to keep our promises and the peace.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE "I" WORD
Can you say "Impeachment"? I have a friend who did recently, and it cleared the room. It's almost a taboo word, but Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann used it recently, and it's being uttered and printed more than you may realize. Please read the last several comments on the last post of this site for a short example of the latest, mostly whispered political buzz, and sure fire way to kill any polite conversation. In spite of its presently hushed tone, this may become the most behind the scenes word of the year---but is there substantial reason or more to the point, enough evidence to support such a charge against Obama? Of course, you won't read too much of this incendiary word in the newspapers or elsewhere---the general media obviously doesn't share all the news, in particular news that may be too--- well, incendiary. against their agenda, which is generally liberal.
But before you get too excited, one way or the other, please consider that Impeachment is only the first step in removing a president from office It is not a new concept, and has been brought up many times previously, but only formally used three times---i.e. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. It is not uncommon, but can be a hard charge to sell, and even harder to bring to the ultimate conclusion, especially under a Democratic Senate. Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached, but acquitted and not removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned before being being removed. The House of Representatives can Impeach, but only the Senate can remove a president. So, the issue of impeachment in this case, with a Democrat Senate, is certainly never going to result in the removal of Obama---it would serve only to curb, to give notice, ---- and that is the question. Is it necessary, and would it be worth it?
Truth to tell, Americans don't much care to impeach, much less, unseat a seated president. It is disturbing, disruptive to the nation, and in some ways an indictment against the judgment of the very people who put the president in office initially, the majority of the American people. Even Bill Clinton, who was accused of shockingly unsavory, unethical acts while in office, was Impeached, but managed to stay in office. The people deemed him, though perhaps not ethical or moral, still fit to run a country with good intent. We give our presidents the benefit of the doubt, because basically we want to believe that they mean well, have our best interests at heart, are human---and we don't like to admit we may have made a major mistake in electing them. But still, the option is there for a reason---to stop an out of control president before he damages the office or the country any further.
So, does Obama need stopping?? And do his actions rise to the level of impeachment? If you don't think so, you should at least know that there are others beside Ms. Bachmann who do, including some members of the Senate and the House. In fact, Obama's reign of president has been so fraught with outcries of wrong doing, including unconstitutionality, illegal acts, and even tyranny that one wonders why those making the charges haven't taken the next step. His over reach of executive power is stunning, to name just a few: Federal appointments without congressional approval based on his incorrect definition and abuse of congressional "recess"; his discriminate, illegal healthcare changes and exemptions to favor certain of his constituents, and his refusal to enforce immigration laws already on the books. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone", he said in a recent speech, as to how he would go about legislating in the future. Dictatorial, determined, and an in your face belligerent denial of his executive limits, Obama dazzles and boggles in an odd way that is paradoxical to his failure to do so on the international stage, where we could use a little bluster and bravado. There is no "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Instead, he seems overly ingratiating and reluctant to use his power abroad, bending over backwards to appease and apologize. But at home he is outrageously disdainful of procedural, balanced government , and even bullying at times. His divisive speeches as he rails against economic inequality run counter to his run up of our national debt by six trillion dollars, the slowest recession recovery since the depression, a staggering 35 percent of people unemployed, and more people on food stamps than ever before. His policies have not worked, but he relies heavily on his loyal base and a faith that his oratorical skills will lull the people into acceptance and resignation, no matter what his failings----but what of those in congress whose job is to recognize, curb, and halt such abuses?
Could it be that the price of Impeachment is not, in the opinion of those in power, worth the chaos and damage to the psyche of the country? Or is it that congress itself is too invested in their careers to upset the apple cart of behind- the- scenes political machinations? Are there too many secrets, webs, and lies that would have to be uncovered to get to the bottom of such things as the Ben Ghazi attack, the Syrian crisis, the Fast and Furious Mexican gun trading fiasco, not to mention the incredible IRS scandal. We have gone through the motions of investigations on all these issues, yet nothing seems to result---nobody is blamed, demoted, or fired. But where is the outrage of people like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell---and even we dare say, a few Democrats who must cringe as they are forced to salute and acquiesce to among other things, a health care law that was predicated on a lie and so far isn't working well, and finally, a president who keeps insisting he knew nothing about anything, refusing to take any responsibility, or enforce any accountability .
But ultimately, Impeachment is weighed in the court of public opinion, and that has everything to do with one's political persuasion. Is Obama an out of control president, abusing his executive power , inflicting untold damage to a country founded in desperate opposition to heavy handed government? Or is he simply acting out his duties and goals as he perceives them to be? A man who was elected by a majority of the electorate, who believes he knows best, and is working the only way he knows how against a House of Representatives hell bent to defeat him, and whose ends and goals justify the means? I believe Obama's intentions are good, in that he believes in his cause----but blatant disregard of our laws is troubling, and it begs examination. Are we up to it, or are we too afraid to speak up? And what will be the price of silence?
It is an interesting question, and one which can break up civil conversations faster than those of racial
or religious content. But it is one which should invite and allow for debate, even among polite, tolerant conversation, because both sides deserve to be heard, not shut up or made to feel inappropriate. Our future, and how we wish to proceed is at stake. Impeachment now is perhaps a matter of opinion, and perhaps an exercise in futility---but involvement, awareness, and discussion among ourselves may be the only thing standing between us and a government who can make and break laws as they see fit---including the right to free speech. Don't think that could happen? Can you say IRS scandal? Ask the supporters of the targeted Tea Party, who suddenly were afraid to donate for fear of recrimination. Rights don't disappear suddenly. They slowly fade away in rooms of people too afraid to discuss their thoughts, whether it be a congressional hearing or social gathering--- too politically correct and duty bound to superiors to be anything but polite and evasive, even as they see and sense something is terribly wrong.
Our founders meant for Impeachment to be used sparingly and very carefully---because they knew how politically dangerous the abuse of it could be. The Impeachable offenses have to be almost completely devoid of partisanship, rise above idealogical disagreement, and must meet the criteria of very serious harm to a nation. Do we have that going on now? That still may depend on your political bent, and how you perceive right from wrong ----for now we remain a country extremely forgiving and tolerant of even our worst leaders. Like a marriage, we promised to love, honor, and obey for better or for worse--- may our trust not be betrayed, and may the President uphold his end of the bargain.
One last personal, may surprise you, thought---similar to a marriage in trouble, one looks at what could have been different---Barack Obama, the first black man ever to be elected to the presidency of the United States, could have grasped the opportunity to be a great and magnificent president of all the people----he had the tools and capacity to bring us all together, to see both sides, and to champion changes in a manner that would have made us stronger, smarter, and a more enlightened country. His diverse background, mixed race, intelligence, ability to connect, and even his world view to a point, could have been used to mix and blend with our more parochial views in a less threatening, dominating way. He could have been the Ronald Reagan or Jack Kennedy of our time. Instead, he chose to be more a politician, and a kind of rogue president, rather than a true leader----it has not turned out well for him, or for us. How sad---and how very, very disappointing.
But before you get too excited, one way or the other, please consider that Impeachment is only the first step in removing a president from office It is not a new concept, and has been brought up many times previously, but only formally used three times---i.e. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. It is not uncommon, but can be a hard charge to sell, and even harder to bring to the ultimate conclusion, especially under a Democratic Senate. Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached, but acquitted and not removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned before being being removed. The House of Representatives can Impeach, but only the Senate can remove a president. So, the issue of impeachment in this case, with a Democrat Senate, is certainly never going to result in the removal of Obama---it would serve only to curb, to give notice, ---- and that is the question. Is it necessary, and would it be worth it?
Truth to tell, Americans don't much care to impeach, much less, unseat a seated president. It is disturbing, disruptive to the nation, and in some ways an indictment against the judgment of the very people who put the president in office initially, the majority of the American people. Even Bill Clinton, who was accused of shockingly unsavory, unethical acts while in office, was Impeached, but managed to stay in office. The people deemed him, though perhaps not ethical or moral, still fit to run a country with good intent. We give our presidents the benefit of the doubt, because basically we want to believe that they mean well, have our best interests at heart, are human---and we don't like to admit we may have made a major mistake in electing them. But still, the option is there for a reason---to stop an out of control president before he damages the office or the country any further.
So, does Obama need stopping?? And do his actions rise to the level of impeachment? If you don't think so, you should at least know that there are others beside Ms. Bachmann who do, including some members of the Senate and the House. In fact, Obama's reign of president has been so fraught with outcries of wrong doing, including unconstitutionality, illegal acts, and even tyranny that one wonders why those making the charges haven't taken the next step. His over reach of executive power is stunning, to name just a few: Federal appointments without congressional approval based on his incorrect definition and abuse of congressional "recess"; his discriminate, illegal healthcare changes and exemptions to favor certain of his constituents, and his refusal to enforce immigration laws already on the books. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone", he said in a recent speech, as to how he would go about legislating in the future. Dictatorial, determined, and an in your face belligerent denial of his executive limits, Obama dazzles and boggles in an odd way that is paradoxical to his failure to do so on the international stage, where we could use a little bluster and bravado. There is no "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Instead, he seems overly ingratiating and reluctant to use his power abroad, bending over backwards to appease and apologize. But at home he is outrageously disdainful of procedural, balanced government , and even bullying at times. His divisive speeches as he rails against economic inequality run counter to his run up of our national debt by six trillion dollars, the slowest recession recovery since the depression, a staggering 35 percent of people unemployed, and more people on food stamps than ever before. His policies have not worked, but he relies heavily on his loyal base and a faith that his oratorical skills will lull the people into acceptance and resignation, no matter what his failings----but what of those in congress whose job is to recognize, curb, and halt such abuses?
Could it be that the price of Impeachment is not, in the opinion of those in power, worth the chaos and damage to the psyche of the country? Or is it that congress itself is too invested in their careers to upset the apple cart of behind- the- scenes political machinations? Are there too many secrets, webs, and lies that would have to be uncovered to get to the bottom of such things as the Ben Ghazi attack, the Syrian crisis, the Fast and Furious Mexican gun trading fiasco, not to mention the incredible IRS scandal. We have gone through the motions of investigations on all these issues, yet nothing seems to result---nobody is blamed, demoted, or fired. But where is the outrage of people like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell---and even we dare say, a few Democrats who must cringe as they are forced to salute and acquiesce to among other things, a health care law that was predicated on a lie and so far isn't working well, and finally, a president who keeps insisting he knew nothing about anything, refusing to take any responsibility, or enforce any accountability .
But ultimately, Impeachment is weighed in the court of public opinion, and that has everything to do with one's political persuasion. Is Obama an out of control president, abusing his executive power , inflicting untold damage to a country founded in desperate opposition to heavy handed government? Or is he simply acting out his duties and goals as he perceives them to be? A man who was elected by a majority of the electorate, who believes he knows best, and is working the only way he knows how against a House of Representatives hell bent to defeat him, and whose ends and goals justify the means? I believe Obama's intentions are good, in that he believes in his cause----but blatant disregard of our laws is troubling, and it begs examination. Are we up to it, or are we too afraid to speak up? And what will be the price of silence?
It is an interesting question, and one which can break up civil conversations faster than those of racial
or religious content. But it is one which should invite and allow for debate, even among polite, tolerant conversation, because both sides deserve to be heard, not shut up or made to feel inappropriate. Our future, and how we wish to proceed is at stake. Impeachment now is perhaps a matter of opinion, and perhaps an exercise in futility---but involvement, awareness, and discussion among ourselves may be the only thing standing between us and a government who can make and break laws as they see fit---including the right to free speech. Don't think that could happen? Can you say IRS scandal? Ask the supporters of the targeted Tea Party, who suddenly were afraid to donate for fear of recrimination. Rights don't disappear suddenly. They slowly fade away in rooms of people too afraid to discuss their thoughts, whether it be a congressional hearing or social gathering--- too politically correct and duty bound to superiors to be anything but polite and evasive, even as they see and sense something is terribly wrong.
Our founders meant for Impeachment to be used sparingly and very carefully---because they knew how politically dangerous the abuse of it could be. The Impeachable offenses have to be almost completely devoid of partisanship, rise above idealogical disagreement, and must meet the criteria of very serious harm to a nation. Do we have that going on now? That still may depend on your political bent, and how you perceive right from wrong ----for now we remain a country extremely forgiving and tolerant of even our worst leaders. Like a marriage, we promised to love, honor, and obey for better or for worse--- may our trust not be betrayed, and may the President uphold his end of the bargain.
One last personal, may surprise you, thought---similar to a marriage in trouble, one looks at what could have been different---Barack Obama, the first black man ever to be elected to the presidency of the United States, could have grasped the opportunity to be a great and magnificent president of all the people----he had the tools and capacity to bring us all together, to see both sides, and to champion changes in a manner that would have made us stronger, smarter, and a more enlightened country. His diverse background, mixed race, intelligence, ability to connect, and even his world view to a point, could have been used to mix and blend with our more parochial views in a less threatening, dominating way. He could have been the Ronald Reagan or Jack Kennedy of our time. Instead, he chose to be more a politician, and a kind of rogue president, rather than a true leader----it has not turned out well for him, or for us. How sad---and how very, very disappointing.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
WHO'S SORRY NOW?
Sorry? Not the president---unless you count his most recent statement on his attempt to smooth over his earlier, uh, mis-statement. or less than precise words on whether we could keep our insurance if we liked it. Mr. Obama seems to have an aversion to meaningful apologizing---and can parse words like Clinton, only better. It was the president's second attempt to do damage control and give an apology without actually giving one. Instead, he said he was "sorry for those who found themselves" without insurance. We are too, Mr. President, we are too. Because you see, those folks didn't just find themselves in medical jeopardy, you put them there. Worse, back in 2010, when you were selling Obamacare to the public, you assured us that things would remain the same, if we chose to stay with our previously chosen insurance and in control of our own medical decisions. There was no qualifying or equivocating on whether one's insurance policy met your standards. No, that would have given us pause, but it would have said it like it was---which could have eventually caused a revolt. But that one sentence, which he so boldly and comfortingly uttered, over and over again, was the grand closer, the big kahuna, the final nail that put this life altering piece of legislation over the top without a whimper from most of the American people---we trusted his words. After all, he is the president. But it was, and let us not parse words here--- a con job, and a big fat lie. Because there are now thousands of people who have indeed lost their insurance due to the fact that it did not match up to the standards set by the new Affordable Care Act. There are meetings being held now to find a way to rectify this situation, but that isn't really the point---which is, we were suckered into a deal under false pretenses.
Not only was it a lie, it was deception, even fraud, at the highest level in terms of sneaking a law by the people which was radical, controversial, and counter intuitive enough to our gut instincts, that it was thought it best to not tell the whole truth---sugar coat it, leave out a few details, do whatever it takes, but get it done. If you doubt that, you are the ones Obama and team were and are counting on. It is a documented fact now, that Obama and his advisors knew very well that the "you can keep your insurance" statement was not totally true, i.e. the sin of omission, and that they discussed the matter thoroughly, knowing that it could come back to bite them. But it was decided to gamble on the magic allure of Obama, and go with it anyway---it was the means to an end, which they felt justifiable, even if was obtained by misleading the very people it would most affect. It was breathtaking arrogance, audacity, and a miscalculation of the American public's gullibility---or was it? Can we forgive and forget? Or will the sting of this betrayal lose the extraordinary luster of a once adored president?
The law is the law now, and we are left to deal not only with the debacle of signing up, which is a comedians' joke treasure trove, but the fact that the whole plan is not working out well at all. The so called electronic "glitches" are in the hundreds, and experts have been called in to work a registration fix by November 30th, but even if they succeed, the signs of systemic failure are looming larger every day. Young people, the ones who must buy insurance in huge numbers, in order to float the economic load of paying for all the heretofore, extra uninsured, are not showing up. Premiums and deductibles are rising. Employers are cutting people and hours. Insurance companies are balking, and doctors are declining in numbers. The theory of insurance for everyone, paid for by those who do not want or can afford it, the young and the middle class---appears to be an idea whose time may have come, but whose implementation lacked depth, experience, and pragmatism--- and perhaps most importantly, an idea too foreign and dichotomous to the American mind set to fully grasp, let alone fly. But the train has left the station--the fix is in, and we must deal with this gargantuan plan, one way or the other, or watch it fall apart in pieces---a train wreck of epic proportions. And the attempted repair or undoing of such a calamity may be worse than the actual cause.
What next? Look for more presidential speeches to shore up the president's falling popularity, Democrats joining Republicans scrambling to delay and redesign the plan, in order to protect their election chances. And next, though not least, prepare for higher taxes. It has to come. No such thing as free lunches or Utopia. We are there ---change has come, as it was promised. Hope? Not much, unless you were hoping for a more socialistic, European, welfare state, call it what you will---it's ever closer. The Affordable Care Act was one big giant step forward to that end---the bigger one yet to come, and it's called "one payer system. Say hello to Uncle Sam---he wants you. Not your military service, but you, your labor, your money, and your healthcare choices. Sam's current personification is Barack Obama, and change is his game. He believes devoutly in what he's doing, enough to sacrifice his own integrity, perhaps even his legacy. But no matter, he will continue to do whatever it takes. His ideology precedes even his honesty. Sorry? Not even close----the goal, is change, and hang the cost.
Have you heard the quiet lately? Is it the silence of surrender or the speechlessness of outrage? Are we sorry now, and are we watching a president and his signature law go down in flames, taking with it our healthcare and consequently an even more weakened economy? But what about those who are actually being helped by the new law? Well, yes, there are those, a precious few---just not enough of them to foot the bill, and that could be a medical and financial disaster for all of us. Who knows where it all goes next---but the rumors are flying---from an extended delay of the bill, to a complete repeal. It should not be forgotten that other alternative plans were offered by the opposing party, but never considered, much less studied. Will they now get a second chance? When pigs fly. That would be called co-operation, compromise, rising above differences for the public good. Much easier to refer to the Republicans as "the party of no". Sort of like the insurance mis-statement---not really true, but a means to an end.
Gossip has it that those rascally Republicans secretly wish for Obamacare to fail, and that's why it's happening---all those bad vibes are causing the glitches. Really? Excuse me while I laugh out loud , as if the Republicans had that much power. That's about as outrageous as the other theory making the rounds---that President Obama also wants his own law to fail, so that the insurance companies will disappear under the burden of enforced payouts, with not enough incoming new customers, resulting in the final solution. You got it-----a one payer system, with the United States government in total control of our healthcare needs. Incredulous? Excuse me while I shudder to think---
And this just in---Bill Clinton, lead spokesman and top parser of the Democrat party today said that Barack Obama should honor his promise of allowing people to keep their insurance if they like it. Wow---is that the sound of Dems breaking rank? Maybe pigs do fly. Because other heretofore lip zipped, loyal Democrats are expressing grave concerns over the signs of pending doom for the new healthcare law. It is looking more and more like an idea which was conceived with good intentions, but borne out of political expediency---and may very well die a premature death, due to delivery complications, and causing considerable grief and turmoil.
We're all truly sorry---most of us like the idea of better healthcare for more people. We don't even mind paying a little more for it---we just don't like being coerced into it, without balanced representation, and kept from reading the fine print. Good always catches up with bad. Here's to our health, and happier, more honest days ahead.
Not only was it a lie, it was deception, even fraud, at the highest level in terms of sneaking a law by the people which was radical, controversial, and counter intuitive enough to our gut instincts, that it was thought it best to not tell the whole truth---sugar coat it, leave out a few details, do whatever it takes, but get it done. If you doubt that, you are the ones Obama and team were and are counting on. It is a documented fact now, that Obama and his advisors knew very well that the "you can keep your insurance" statement was not totally true, i.e. the sin of omission, and that they discussed the matter thoroughly, knowing that it could come back to bite them. But it was decided to gamble on the magic allure of Obama, and go with it anyway---it was the means to an end, which they felt justifiable, even if was obtained by misleading the very people it would most affect. It was breathtaking arrogance, audacity, and a miscalculation of the American public's gullibility---or was it? Can we forgive and forget? Or will the sting of this betrayal lose the extraordinary luster of a once adored president?
The law is the law now, and we are left to deal not only with the debacle of signing up, which is a comedians' joke treasure trove, but the fact that the whole plan is not working out well at all. The so called electronic "glitches" are in the hundreds, and experts have been called in to work a registration fix by November 30th, but even if they succeed, the signs of systemic failure are looming larger every day. Young people, the ones who must buy insurance in huge numbers, in order to float the economic load of paying for all the heretofore, extra uninsured, are not showing up. Premiums and deductibles are rising. Employers are cutting people and hours. Insurance companies are balking, and doctors are declining in numbers. The theory of insurance for everyone, paid for by those who do not want or can afford it, the young and the middle class---appears to be an idea whose time may have come, but whose implementation lacked depth, experience, and pragmatism--- and perhaps most importantly, an idea too foreign and dichotomous to the American mind set to fully grasp, let alone fly. But the train has left the station--the fix is in, and we must deal with this gargantuan plan, one way or the other, or watch it fall apart in pieces---a train wreck of epic proportions. And the attempted repair or undoing of such a calamity may be worse than the actual cause.
What next? Look for more presidential speeches to shore up the president's falling popularity, Democrats joining Republicans scrambling to delay and redesign the plan, in order to protect their election chances. And next, though not least, prepare for higher taxes. It has to come. No such thing as free lunches or Utopia. We are there ---change has come, as it was promised. Hope? Not much, unless you were hoping for a more socialistic, European, welfare state, call it what you will---it's ever closer. The Affordable Care Act was one big giant step forward to that end---the bigger one yet to come, and it's called "one payer system. Say hello to Uncle Sam---he wants you. Not your military service, but you, your labor, your money, and your healthcare choices. Sam's current personification is Barack Obama, and change is his game. He believes devoutly in what he's doing, enough to sacrifice his own integrity, perhaps even his legacy. But no matter, he will continue to do whatever it takes. His ideology precedes even his honesty. Sorry? Not even close----the goal, is change, and hang the cost.
Have you heard the quiet lately? Is it the silence of surrender or the speechlessness of outrage? Are we sorry now, and are we watching a president and his signature law go down in flames, taking with it our healthcare and consequently an even more weakened economy? But what about those who are actually being helped by the new law? Well, yes, there are those, a precious few---just not enough of them to foot the bill, and that could be a medical and financial disaster for all of us. Who knows where it all goes next---but the rumors are flying---from an extended delay of the bill, to a complete repeal. It should not be forgotten that other alternative plans were offered by the opposing party, but never considered, much less studied. Will they now get a second chance? When pigs fly. That would be called co-operation, compromise, rising above differences for the public good. Much easier to refer to the Republicans as "the party of no". Sort of like the insurance mis-statement---not really true, but a means to an end.
Gossip has it that those rascally Republicans secretly wish for Obamacare to fail, and that's why it's happening---all those bad vibes are causing the glitches. Really? Excuse me while I laugh out loud , as if the Republicans had that much power. That's about as outrageous as the other theory making the rounds---that President Obama also wants his own law to fail, so that the insurance companies will disappear under the burden of enforced payouts, with not enough incoming new customers, resulting in the final solution. You got it-----a one payer system, with the United States government in total control of our healthcare needs. Incredulous? Excuse me while I shudder to think---
And this just in---Bill Clinton, lead spokesman and top parser of the Democrat party today said that Barack Obama should honor his promise of allowing people to keep their insurance if they like it. Wow---is that the sound of Dems breaking rank? Maybe pigs do fly. Because other heretofore lip zipped, loyal Democrats are expressing grave concerns over the signs of pending doom for the new healthcare law. It is looking more and more like an idea which was conceived with good intentions, but borne out of political expediency---and may very well die a premature death, due to delivery complications, and causing considerable grief and turmoil.
We're all truly sorry---most of us like the idea of better healthcare for more people. We don't even mind paying a little more for it---we just don't like being coerced into it, without balanced representation, and kept from reading the fine print. Good always catches up with bad. Here's to our health, and happier, more honest days ahead.
Friday, October 11, 2013
GO BIG OR GO HOME!
"This is no damn game!", shouted a frustrated, outraged John Boehner, Speaker of the House. this past weekend, as we continued with a shut down government. Boehner was reacting to President Obama's continued refusal to negotiate with the Republicans who have dared to draw their own red line in the sand regarding the funding of Obamacare. Reacting to Obama's refusal to even discuss spending cuts on our now 17 trillion dollar and growing budget, the Republicans played their last card---the defunding of Obama's signature bill, the Affordable Healthcare Act, unless and until the president agrees to talk, negotiate, hammer out ways to control the budget without continuously raising the debt ceiling. Seems reasonable, but Mr. Obama, doesn't see it that way--- as far as he is concerned, everything he is asking for is a "done deal", no further conversation required, period. Perhaps in his mind, but the constitution does, indeed, allow for such dissent, argument, debate, and even defunding, especially by the House of Representatives, in this case, a Republican majority, who hold the purse strings of the United States Treasury and its people. To do otherwise, is to be irresponsible, irrelevant, and possibly an invitation to a third party. They may as well go home---
How did this happen? And who's in charge here, to break the stalemate? Apparently no one. But shouldn't the prez be the deal broker, the peacemaker, the leader? But did you not hear him? He has no intention of bi-partisanship. Rather, he is annoyed and fed up with the very idea of a balanced government. He said he would not negotiate over the Affordable Care Act. Done deal, even though 60% of the people are not at all sold on it. He also has accused the Repubs of terrorism. gun holding hostage takers, among other despicable names, which give new meaning to the term "bully pulpit". Obama is holding his ground---Chicago, tough guy style. "I will not negotiate". Where was that toughness when we needed it in Libya, in Ben Ghazi, in Syria?? Oh, I forgot--that's different, that's called leading from behind. This is called, ' my way or the highway, 'cause I'm the boss here.' That is, until your approval ratings began to dramatically drop, then we heard, "I will negotiate anywhere, anytime, about anything----huh? But you just said----ah, but what he meant was, he would negotiate, if and when the Republicans offered a full and unconditional surrender. This man needs a course in Diplomacy 101. Lesson number one: You do not assume an air of kingly condescension, stubbornly refuse to negotiate, hurl all manner of nasty names at your opponents, then demand a surrender without any compromise or negotiation----that's a dictatorship, and not the way our system is designed to work.
National monuments, memorials, parks, and other public land closed? And death benefits denied to the families of our fallen soldiers? Cutting off cancer research? Really? The rumor that guards and officials at these sights are being told to make things inconvenient, and in general, to inflict as much pain as possible on the public is hard to believe, but getting easier all the time, as we observe a party and a president in full blown, childish anger, reacting petulantly and furiously against a ground swell of resistance to earlier contentious, forced policies, but ultimately, the enactment of a health care law that was never fully studied, analyzed, or approved by one single Republican, and could very well be the straw that breaks the bank, if not the country's heritage for freedom of the individual. It was voted in by a rather unsavory method of "Reconciliation", in other words, jammed down the throats of congress, and the American people. Does Obama care, or does he only concern himself with his party's wishes and those who monetarily and politically control his decisions? And who are they? Are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the actual "deciders"? Or are there others whose names we may never hear, but whose arc of power reaches deeper than we'll ever know? But Obama himself said "the buck stops with me", and so it does--cold comfort, when that buck is used only to stonewall.
One stands in stunned wonder, both at the divisive audacity of this president who seems out of control and out of his depth,--- and the image of a bullied, weak, and fractured Republican party who has finally decided to stand up for itself, but should have a long time ago.This red line may be too much, and too late---it is painful to watch, and frightening to think of the consequences, but there comes a time
when strong opposition must reveal itself, even too late, or suffer the loss of existence for those who would oppose--in this case, a party whose job is to restore balance to a budget gone broke. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not necessarily only the "Tea Party", (named after those in Colonial times who rebelled against exorbitant British taxes to the colonies) or "tea baggers", as the president scornfully likes to call them, who are driving this Republican rebellion, but it is enough people within the party and without, as polls are showing, that are saying, "Enough is Enough!" But is it? And who will blink first? The Republicans, probably---already they have offered several alternative plans and even to fund various important branches of the budget, without any defaults or budget cut negotiations, in order to ease the pain on those being affected by the shutdown, but Obama, true to his word, held firm---all or nothing, fellas. Obama has yet to learn that going big, sometimes means rising above the little, even oneself, and doing what's right for all. His scathing words of hostage, ransom, etc were hints that he views himself as the gatekeeper of all that is good, and everyone else, evil and mean----what a strange and sad commentary on a man who is supposed to be a wise mediator for all the people.
So where are we? The Affordable Health Care Act, will cost in the neighborhood of one trillion plus dollars,and is already in such a state of confusion and numerous glitches that one wonders how even the lock step Senate could have passed such an unknown, unquantifiable legislation in the first place. For the record, this blog is not against a new and improved healthcare piece of legislation that would actually be effective and not result in much higher taxes, especially for the middle class, and loss of free choice. What we have now is not that--it was hurriedly cobbled together, and is perhaps fatally flawed; but it is the law of the land, and it will stand until it either somehow succeeds, or collapses under its own weight.
The second issue of contention, a bloated budget that relies only on raising the limit of spending, will be a cross for our children to bear for generations to come. Either the Republicans agree to raise the debt limit with no strings attached, having lost their battle to fear and intimidation; or they resist the pressure, stay true to their cause, and refuse to play until an agreement is reached to cut, minimize spending, and stop the bleeding. Doesn't somebody have to, regardless of political fallout, and even a measure of pain for everybody? If not now, when?
As of this Friday writing, another meeting has taken place, where John Boehner and President Obama got together, ostensibly, for purposes of negotiation----wrong. This time, Obama said he would agree to talk after the Republicans agree to his terms, and cancel all of theirs. What? Ironically, this repeat performance was looked upon the media as progress---thank you so much for your time, Mr. President.
Tough to negotiate with a non-negotaitor---especially when he holds most of the high cards, i.e. the White House, the Senate, and for the most part, the main media. What to do? Hold 'em or fold 'em? John Boehner's job is not to be envied---unlike the obedient Democrat politicians, the Republican types are a different breed of cat, independent and not to be coralled so easily. There is discontent among their numbers, as they bicker among themselves as to whether to go along to get along, or to stand up and fight back against what many perceive as a nation taking a life altering, hard, sharp turn to the left.
One thing is certain---this is no "damn game"---this is about our way of life and our future. Bets are on for the Republicans to fold with some kind of compromise, make that a concession. No, let's call it what it is: A surrender to the mighty winds of politics, an elbow bending, head- bowing defeat to the prevailing powers, and a very different America----tea, anyone?? We're almost home.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
The Seriousness of Syria
Seriously?? Another war?? The situation over Syria and our possible intervention is very serious stuff. Chemical warfare is no laughing matter, but is it grounds for U.S. intervention? Secretary of State, John Kerry certainly thinks so and laid out his case to us last week, stating that we must strike back immediately for humane reasons, as well as for the security of our country, and in fact the world. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? Let's see--seems similar questions and reasons were being posed back in post 9/11/2001, only we called them chemicals, weapons of mass destruction, and the country in question was Iraq. Yes, I remember it well. President Bush was later not only criticized, but figuratively crucified for taking us to war under similar circumstances. John Kerry was singing a very different tune then. Never mind that we had just been attacked by terrorists , and that Iraq was suspected of being a terrorist haven. And Contrary to President Obama's usual m.o., moving ahead without congressional approval, President Bush actually did seek and receive congress' approval before making any final decisions, public pronouncements, or taking any action. Let us remember also that at the time there were more than adequate intelligence reports to support the premise that there were stockpiles of chemical agents hidden in Iraq for purposes of chemical warfare. Of course, the Democrat party later chose to completely re-write history, accuse President Bush of lying and deceiving the public, and going to war for purely personal reasons---it was a hatchet job, politically motivated, and simply too easy to assassinate Bush's character, and that of the Republican party in order to win the next election. Granted the chemicals were never found, probably because Saddam Hussein refused to allow anybody to look for them until they were either well hidden, or he had been bluffing all along---we may never know, but the reasons for going to war were just as compelling at the time, and an evil dictator was taken down as a result. At the very least, we had made a statement--
'don't mess with us.'
And now, we are faced with another despot, Bashar Al Assad, supposedly using chemical gasses to kill his own people, for purposes of keeping control and remaining in power against "rebels", who are not happy with the Assad's regime, and are begging for our assistance. But wait--- who are they, what do they stand for, and whose side are we on, anyway? Nobody seems to know for sure, but it is quite clear that neither could be said to be on our side. They are engaged in a civil war, each side fighting for power, but neither are known for their love of America. In fact, there are reportedly Al Queda members mixed in with the rebels and Christians are no longer safe, and are under attack since their uprising. Whether our best interests or democracy would be better served by our intervention is dubious and dangerous, not only to us, but Israel in particular. Polls say that 80% of Americans do not support military action---yes, we are war weary, and tired of being called upon to help nations who do not wish us well. We are also suspicious of politicians who so transparently base their words and actions upon their own political agendas, not the will of the people, or the long term repercussions.
It is hard to trust hypocrites. And it is harder, still, to trust a president who at best seems indecisive and uncertain, and at worst---in over his head. We are watching a man terribly torn, trying to have it both ways now----live up to his boastful "red line" threat that we would retaliate if weapons of mass destruction became part of Assad's war---and yet find a way to stall and succumb to his inability to make big decisions, particularly when it comes to matters of the Middle East. That is part of the enigma of Barack Obama---we really don't know where he stands on issues of foreign vs. the USA. His stated
theory of "leading from behind" indicates a reluctance to have America remain the leader
in world affairs---but is it practical for our long term survival, and is it working?
Kerry's speeches were the run-up to the attack. Hold on to your seats, we were going to war, albeit on a limited basis, nothing too serious, just a warning. Hm-m-m, a warning? There were rumblings among the people, polls showed we were not happy, and then the United Nations and Great Britain said they were not going to support us. Obama was virtually acting alone. Backed into a corner of his own making, he announced on Saturday that he was making a "second decision"---he would now seek approval from the Congress--but oops, Congress is on summer break. No problem, we'll wait a while till they return and then wait some more for them to debate this issue. Make no mistake, though, he assured us he was ready to move forward with a strike, just wanted to do it with the peoples' support via Congress. Interesting words for a president who is famous for making many dubious decisions without much compromising or seeking Congress approval---selective executive power, it would seem. But this one was different---it was not a war anybody really wants, including probably Obama, himself. You could cut the uncertainty, confusion, and ineptness with a knife, as he tried to explain his change of mind---his words were spoken with the usual flair and confidence, but the news still came across as surprising and a bit embarrassing, if not confirmation that we are in less than steady hands. It wasn't so much that he had made this "second decision" to seek congressional approval, as it was the order in which he made the decision---the whole process had been hesitant, jerky, and lacked conviction and resoluteness. John Kerry actually was beginning to look and sound more presidential, but even his reasons for going to war were not enough to convince us. Had he been hung out to dry, when Obama completely turned around and decided not to move immediately, as Kerry had hinted we were about to do?? Why wasn't congressional approval sought first?
The questions are many: Should we make this our war? Will the promise of "no boots on the ground" hold and a warning "limited strike" be effective, or just provoke a deeper involvement, including the risk of a global confrontation? But if we don't take a stand against chemical warfare, will we see it spread and even strike here someday? If we strike, will we be supporting the advance of anti-Americanism? Are unlawful, inhumane atrocities committed in a far away country sufficient for an act of war, and the potential loss of our son's and daughter's lives? It has been so in the past, but can we continue to afford it, as our military resources are not as strong as they were, and our own domestic financial problems are severe? And finally, can we afford not to?
Congress will surely debate all of the above, and for that there is a great measure of relief---war is serious business, and we need to be sure of what, and how this time. The fluid, escalating, revolutionary events taking place in the Middle East are frightening and even bewildering, for we do not really understand their ways, their religious passions, nor their cultural values. But their problems will touch us sooner or later, one way or the other. Whether we act and how we act will determine not only their future, but ours as well--- for we are all part of a whole, like it or not, as the world shrinks ever smaller, and our fates inevitably intertwine. It is time for true leadership, wise counsel, and certainly---prayer.
What goes around, comes around---the lessons learned from Iraq are perhaps still teaching, but if ever there was a time to bring both parties of our government together, this is it---one can only hope that they will put down their political agendas, and work co-operatively to guide us through this crisis--too bad it's taking a war to do so---and a president that is floundering.
'don't mess with us.'
And now, we are faced with another despot, Bashar Al Assad, supposedly using chemical gasses to kill his own people, for purposes of keeping control and remaining in power against "rebels", who are not happy with the Assad's regime, and are begging for our assistance. But wait--- who are they, what do they stand for, and whose side are we on, anyway? Nobody seems to know for sure, but it is quite clear that neither could be said to be on our side. They are engaged in a civil war, each side fighting for power, but neither are known for their love of America. In fact, there are reportedly Al Queda members mixed in with the rebels and Christians are no longer safe, and are under attack since their uprising. Whether our best interests or democracy would be better served by our intervention is dubious and dangerous, not only to us, but Israel in particular. Polls say that 80% of Americans do not support military action---yes, we are war weary, and tired of being called upon to help nations who do not wish us well. We are also suspicious of politicians who so transparently base their words and actions upon their own political agendas, not the will of the people, or the long term repercussions.
It is hard to trust hypocrites. And it is harder, still, to trust a president who at best seems indecisive and uncertain, and at worst---in over his head. We are watching a man terribly torn, trying to have it both ways now----live up to his boastful "red line" threat that we would retaliate if weapons of mass destruction became part of Assad's war---and yet find a way to stall and succumb to his inability to make big decisions, particularly when it comes to matters of the Middle East. That is part of the enigma of Barack Obama---we really don't know where he stands on issues of foreign vs. the USA. His stated
theory of "leading from behind" indicates a reluctance to have America remain the leader
in world affairs---but is it practical for our long term survival, and is it working?
Kerry's speeches were the run-up to the attack. Hold on to your seats, we were going to war, albeit on a limited basis, nothing too serious, just a warning. Hm-m-m, a warning? There were rumblings among the people, polls showed we were not happy, and then the United Nations and Great Britain said they were not going to support us. Obama was virtually acting alone. Backed into a corner of his own making, he announced on Saturday that he was making a "second decision"---he would now seek approval from the Congress--but oops, Congress is on summer break. No problem, we'll wait a while till they return and then wait some more for them to debate this issue. Make no mistake, though, he assured us he was ready to move forward with a strike, just wanted to do it with the peoples' support via Congress. Interesting words for a president who is famous for making many dubious decisions without much compromising or seeking Congress approval---selective executive power, it would seem. But this one was different---it was not a war anybody really wants, including probably Obama, himself. You could cut the uncertainty, confusion, and ineptness with a knife, as he tried to explain his change of mind---his words were spoken with the usual flair and confidence, but the news still came across as surprising and a bit embarrassing, if not confirmation that we are in less than steady hands. It wasn't so much that he had made this "second decision" to seek congressional approval, as it was the order in which he made the decision---the whole process had been hesitant, jerky, and lacked conviction and resoluteness. John Kerry actually was beginning to look and sound more presidential, but even his reasons for going to war were not enough to convince us. Had he been hung out to dry, when Obama completely turned around and decided not to move immediately, as Kerry had hinted we were about to do?? Why wasn't congressional approval sought first?
The questions are many: Should we make this our war? Will the promise of "no boots on the ground" hold and a warning "limited strike" be effective, or just provoke a deeper involvement, including the risk of a global confrontation? But if we don't take a stand against chemical warfare, will we see it spread and even strike here someday? If we strike, will we be supporting the advance of anti-Americanism? Are unlawful, inhumane atrocities committed in a far away country sufficient for an act of war, and the potential loss of our son's and daughter's lives? It has been so in the past, but can we continue to afford it, as our military resources are not as strong as they were, and our own domestic financial problems are severe? And finally, can we afford not to?
Congress will surely debate all of the above, and for that there is a great measure of relief---war is serious business, and we need to be sure of what, and how this time. The fluid, escalating, revolutionary events taking place in the Middle East are frightening and even bewildering, for we do not really understand their ways, their religious passions, nor their cultural values. But their problems will touch us sooner or later, one way or the other. Whether we act and how we act will determine not only their future, but ours as well--- for we are all part of a whole, like it or not, as the world shrinks ever smaller, and our fates inevitably intertwine. It is time for true leadership, wise counsel, and certainly---prayer.
What goes around, comes around---the lessons learned from Iraq are perhaps still teaching, but if ever there was a time to bring both parties of our government together, this is it---one can only hope that they will put down their political agendas, and work co-operatively to guide us through this crisis--too bad it's taking a war to do so---and a president that is floundering.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
LOST IN THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY
Like a camera zooming in on one object, the news rivets our eyes to what they want us to see, but let's expand our vision to the larger picture for a moment. Remember when we used to joke about someday having a "big brother", or some would say, big government, welfare style, who would know all our business? Not so funny anymore---with the news that it is now not only possible to learn all about us, but do-able, and in fact , has been done. Spying is in, secrets are out. Is that what Obama meant when he said his would be the most transparent administration ever---but it's our slip that's showing, and our business that isn't our own anymore. In fact, we don't even know our own business--- like what really happened in Benghazi, who was really behind the IRS scandal, what's really in the Affordable Health Care Bill, and how it's going to affect us, who or why we're going to drone/kill next, or whether our email or phone calls are being monitored. In short big brother, my dears, is here to take care of you. Trust him, he says, he only has your best interests at heart, along with his--- and will do what's best for the common good. Ask him to pull up a chair. help himself to our lives; then we can go our merry way, leaving politics to the politicians, the news to the internet headlines, and any political discussions to those who refuse to mind their manners and insist upon offering an actual, opinion as to the state of our national affairs. Opinions are out, taboo too---somebody might hold it against you, and worse,----somebody might be eaves dropping, and well, you never know what could happen next. Better to get along, and hope everything will work out. Won't it?
In China they still throw people in prison for saying the "wrong" thing. Couldn't happen here? Ask the man who aired the anti-Islam video, initially blamed for the Benghazi attack---and who is currently still in jail in New York, purportedly for a probation violation--- for nine months??
Some countries will penalize you for associating with the wrong folks---not here? Ask the reporters at the Associated Press.
And some people in power, will encourage a lynch mob mentality, even after a man has been declared innocent by a legal jury. Eric Holder, our very own Attorney General, has said the federal government will agree to a civil trial, in order to appease those who insist that George Zimmerman is a racist and acted accordingly, on the night that he confronted a young black man who appeared in his neighborhood and upon being followed, fought with Mr. Zimmerman. Jesse Jackson, the self appointed civil rights leader, has been doing his best to form and conduct marches in the streets of big cities to express outrage, as to what they perceive as an injustice. And even Barack Obama, who had the bad the judgement to show his personal feelings, by referring to Trayvon Martin, as a son he might have had, thereby injecting not only race, but presidential prejudice into a pre-trial case. Mr. Zimmerman will never walk free---he is a marked man, smeared by a biased media, and pursued by those who insist upon creating a racial mountain out of a tragic mano to mano confrontation that if it had been a black on black crime, would never have made front page news. What if the media's views are wrong---that instead, George Zimmerman acted inappropriately, stupidly, but was not an evil racist, and shot Trayvon Martin in self defense? That is what the jury concluded after
studying all the evidence, piece by painful piece. It was a teachable moment---the jury dared to go
against popular opinion, though have requested that they remain anonymous. It isn't that the death of
a young man wasn't a tragic loss, or even that the possibility of an injustice occurred---it's that the jury had spoken and in this country, that has to be enough--or risk mockery of our own laws.
We have much to learn in our hearts and in our minds, but is anybody listening to all the lessons?? Have we learned that you can't trust one man or even a whole congress of politicians from both sides to do what's best for you or the country? They are only as good as those who put them there, and require constant vigilance, or ultimately they begin to love their careers and power more than us.
Have we begun to see that the liberties and sense of freedom our carefully structured government is supposed to provide, is slipping away, step by subtle step, as we placidly accept and go along to get along? Harry Reid is successfully trying to do away with the filibuster in order to shut up the opposing minority Republicans in his majority Senate. Way to go Harry, but not in the best interests of a fair and balanced government.
That others are making profound life altering decisions without our or even our congress' advise and consent--i.e. drones, new unvoted for green energy laws and taxes, and presidential tweaking of the health care laws in order to favor whomever is deemed politically important?
That racial issues in this country, while much improved, are still simmering below the surface and need only the slightest provocation to ignite? Are the rioters really rioting for justice, or simply reacting to a ginned up crowd mentality? Are we still guilty of the deeds of the past, and must continue paying retribution into eternity,--- thereby enabling, excusing, and perpetuating dependency of those, who in the short term may benefit from their victimization, but self destruct in the long haul. Bill Cosby has tried to advance this theme, by pleading with his people to realize it's their responsibility to change their status and their future, by changing their behavior, not by remaining angry, resentful victims of the past. He has been scorned and criticized, but is he not to be admired for speaking a truth to a people who must claim their own destiny by refusing to cling to the misdeeds of the past, to realize that much has already changed for the better, and will continue to, but that they themselves must be part of the change? As important as laws we can make to effect change, trials we can lean toward emotion, not fact, sympathies we can feel, self help is the ultimate way out of the ghettos, the crime, the drugs, the one parent families, the life of a perpetual victim----to finally say, enough. We are done being slaves to our past. President Obama, the greatest evidence of racial change in America, is proof that we have come a long ways, and that by choosing not to live a life of victimization, he rose to the top of his abilities.
In a weekend speech, the president spoke out once again regarding the Martin/Zimmerman trial. The country was waiting. What would he say this time? Would he use his bully pulpit to "Shut it down", as Pat Robertson, the religious talk show host had advised a few days ago, when things were heating up and there was fear of rioting in the streets? Or would he go personal again and speak as a black man, not a president of all the people? He actually did both, and it was from this blogs's perspective, one of the best, if not the best speeches of his presidency. He attempted to have us see things through the eyes of those who have suffered the remnants of an unspeakable history. He went personal,
not in a political way, but a very believable, sincere and helpful way---he did not condone violence or the re-do of a trial, but he did try to lay out some of things our society and laws could do to help the remaining inequalities in our system.
Bravo to you, President Obama---you finally led, and it was a shining moment---perhaps the most defining, purposeful moment in your career. Yes, it probably helped you win even more minority votes, but it rang true, and one had the feeling that for once, you had painfully examined every point of view, considered the whole picture, and rose above the politics of it all. You gave us a glimpse of what you could have been---a president for all the people. Not just an agenda seeking, politician, hell bent on having his own way. Now----about that Benghazi thing
Zooming our camera back out, the shrieking chaos continues, and the drumbeats of perhaps too many tribes threaten to wreck havoc upon this land. Where is the peace, the balance, the voice that will bring calm and healing to our country? Perhaps we have lost our way indefinitely.
There is an email making the rounds that is entitled, "We Are Not Coming Back". It's gist is that we've gone too far off course, to ever return to a more stable, happier America. But, if that's true, then, it's based on a false premise that all things were acceptable to all, and we know that's not true.
Ask those who still carry the wounds of the past. We needed to change, make things better, see the world and ourselves differently----we needed to mature, to grow up. Perhaps that's what we're doing now. We are like a huge, noisy, brawling family, but who underneath, all want the same thing-- a little prosperity, peace, happiness, and the freedom to pursue those things--- but we are pulling in too many different directions. Is Big Bro the answer? Don't think so---big brothers, like big governments, only work if they have little, lost, needy people to boss around. That's not us, is it???
.
In China they still throw people in prison for saying the "wrong" thing. Couldn't happen here? Ask the man who aired the anti-Islam video, initially blamed for the Benghazi attack---and who is currently still in jail in New York, purportedly for a probation violation--- for nine months??
Some countries will penalize you for associating with the wrong folks---not here? Ask the reporters at the Associated Press.
And some people in power, will encourage a lynch mob mentality, even after a man has been declared innocent by a legal jury. Eric Holder, our very own Attorney General, has said the federal government will agree to a civil trial, in order to appease those who insist that George Zimmerman is a racist and acted accordingly, on the night that he confronted a young black man who appeared in his neighborhood and upon being followed, fought with Mr. Zimmerman. Jesse Jackson, the self appointed civil rights leader, has been doing his best to form and conduct marches in the streets of big cities to express outrage, as to what they perceive as an injustice. And even Barack Obama, who had the bad the judgement to show his personal feelings, by referring to Trayvon Martin, as a son he might have had, thereby injecting not only race, but presidential prejudice into a pre-trial case. Mr. Zimmerman will never walk free---he is a marked man, smeared by a biased media, and pursued by those who insist upon creating a racial mountain out of a tragic mano to mano confrontation that if it had been a black on black crime, would never have made front page news. What if the media's views are wrong---that instead, George Zimmerman acted inappropriately, stupidly, but was not an evil racist, and shot Trayvon Martin in self defense? That is what the jury concluded after
studying all the evidence, piece by painful piece. It was a teachable moment---the jury dared to go
against popular opinion, though have requested that they remain anonymous. It isn't that the death of
a young man wasn't a tragic loss, or even that the possibility of an injustice occurred---it's that the jury had spoken and in this country, that has to be enough--or risk mockery of our own laws.
We have much to learn in our hearts and in our minds, but is anybody listening to all the lessons?? Have we learned that you can't trust one man or even a whole congress of politicians from both sides to do what's best for you or the country? They are only as good as those who put them there, and require constant vigilance, or ultimately they begin to love their careers and power more than us.
Have we begun to see that the liberties and sense of freedom our carefully structured government is supposed to provide, is slipping away, step by subtle step, as we placidly accept and go along to get along? Harry Reid is successfully trying to do away with the filibuster in order to shut up the opposing minority Republicans in his majority Senate. Way to go Harry, but not in the best interests of a fair and balanced government.
That others are making profound life altering decisions without our or even our congress' advise and consent--i.e. drones, new unvoted for green energy laws and taxes, and presidential tweaking of the health care laws in order to favor whomever is deemed politically important?
That racial issues in this country, while much improved, are still simmering below the surface and need only the slightest provocation to ignite? Are the rioters really rioting for justice, or simply reacting to a ginned up crowd mentality? Are we still guilty of the deeds of the past, and must continue paying retribution into eternity,--- thereby enabling, excusing, and perpetuating dependency of those, who in the short term may benefit from their victimization, but self destruct in the long haul. Bill Cosby has tried to advance this theme, by pleading with his people to realize it's their responsibility to change their status and their future, by changing their behavior, not by remaining angry, resentful victims of the past. He has been scorned and criticized, but is he not to be admired for speaking a truth to a people who must claim their own destiny by refusing to cling to the misdeeds of the past, to realize that much has already changed for the better, and will continue to, but that they themselves must be part of the change? As important as laws we can make to effect change, trials we can lean toward emotion, not fact, sympathies we can feel, self help is the ultimate way out of the ghettos, the crime, the drugs, the one parent families, the life of a perpetual victim----to finally say, enough. We are done being slaves to our past. President Obama, the greatest evidence of racial change in America, is proof that we have come a long ways, and that by choosing not to live a life of victimization, he rose to the top of his abilities.
In a weekend speech, the president spoke out once again regarding the Martin/Zimmerman trial. The country was waiting. What would he say this time? Would he use his bully pulpit to "Shut it down", as Pat Robertson, the religious talk show host had advised a few days ago, when things were heating up and there was fear of rioting in the streets? Or would he go personal again and speak as a black man, not a president of all the people? He actually did both, and it was from this blogs's perspective, one of the best, if not the best speeches of his presidency. He attempted to have us see things through the eyes of those who have suffered the remnants of an unspeakable history. He went personal,
not in a political way, but a very believable, sincere and helpful way---he did not condone violence or the re-do of a trial, but he did try to lay out some of things our society and laws could do to help the remaining inequalities in our system.
Bravo to you, President Obama---you finally led, and it was a shining moment---perhaps the most defining, purposeful moment in your career. Yes, it probably helped you win even more minority votes, but it rang true, and one had the feeling that for once, you had painfully examined every point of view, considered the whole picture, and rose above the politics of it all. You gave us a glimpse of what you could have been---a president for all the people. Not just an agenda seeking, politician, hell bent on having his own way. Now----about that Benghazi thing
Zooming our camera back out, the shrieking chaos continues, and the drumbeats of perhaps too many tribes threaten to wreck havoc upon this land. Where is the peace, the balance, the voice that will bring calm and healing to our country? Perhaps we have lost our way indefinitely.
There is an email making the rounds that is entitled, "We Are Not Coming Back". It's gist is that we've gone too far off course, to ever return to a more stable, happier America. But, if that's true, then, it's based on a false premise that all things were acceptable to all, and we know that's not true.
Ask those who still carry the wounds of the past. We needed to change, make things better, see the world and ourselves differently----we needed to mature, to grow up. Perhaps that's what we're doing now. We are like a huge, noisy, brawling family, but who underneath, all want the same thing-- a little prosperity, peace, happiness, and the freedom to pursue those things--- but we are pulling in too many different directions. Is Big Bro the answer? Don't think so---big brothers, like big governments, only work if they have little, lost, needy people to boss around. That's not us, is it???
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)