As you may have noticed from previous posts, I've been very frustrated politically over the last year. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the media is letting us down. Not that it doesn't give ample air time to various viewpoints, as it surely does. But it seems to me that with only a few exceptions, much of the time pundits and political figures spend in the media spotlight is merely to spout thinly veiled propaganda. I don't include formal speeches and news conferences, as those are clearly the showplaces of the most naked of propaganda. I'm speaking of talk shows and interviews.
I've watched a good deal of TV news and opinion shows, or snippets thereof and it infuriates me to watch a guest spout off a long string of what they claim are indisputable facts and yet the interviewer will simply nod or offer up an opportunity for the guest to elaborate without ever challenging any of their claims. I've watched Senators confidently assert 'facts' that are demonstrably false. I don't mean that I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I mean straight up, no gray area, easily refuted lies. And this happens all the time. This isn't journalism, it's Public Relations. For example, I've watched Republican Senators and Representatives smile confidently and dismiss the various health reform bills as an unacceptable 'Government takeover of healthcare" and I keep waiting for the host to lean in and politely interrupt. I want to hear them ask exactly what part of the bill constitutes a takeover of healthcare? But they never do! This is where the media can make a difference. It's where they can help cut through the misinformation and the far too numerous lies. But far too often the moderators are little more than game show hosts. So guests are allowed to come on and make blatantly misleading statements or lies with the tacit approval of the host. What's the point of this? It's just a media provided lectern from which guests can proclaim the sky is red to millions of people without contradiction. I don't expect the hosts to fact check everything on the fly, but when these whoppers come rolling out I'd like to see something!
Also, we've entered into an era where many media outlets have turned to an echo chamber style of journalism. You'll have a host who will interview almost exclusively politicians and pundits of the same political bent as they are. While you will occasionally get some decent analysis out of these, you rarely get anything particularly insightful. The guests are generally there just to provide backing for the host's views. What would make these much more interesting would be to see more liberals on Fox and more conservatives on MSNBC, for example. Of course, I have no idea if the main reason for much of this is due to guests refusing to come on a show that might actually press them on issues. This is certainly a likely reason, as I've heard Rachel Maddow note on several occasions that they have tried to get this person or that to come on the show but they've never accepted. In other words, they refused so they wouldn't have to answer a bunch of inconvenient questions.
Now you can say that some of this comes from the guest's demands for a friendly platform, therefore what can be done? Well, if the majority of news and opinion shows stopped providing unhindered propaganda time for guests, that would be a start. If these people stopped having this plethora of outlets vying to give out free air time, they would have to deal with a more adversarial format if they wanted to get their views broadcast. I bet if this was the norm rather than the exception, there would be a bit more truth mixed in with the self serving blather. This could only be a good thing.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Call It What You Want, But Kill It
Old school Senators might call it Rule 22. More recently it's been referred to as the the need for a 'Supermajority'. However it's more common name is the Filibuster. Put simply, the Filibuster is a Senate procedural rule whereby the minority can use various procedures to draw out, delay and obstruct a piece of legislation, ideally to the point of stopping it. There is a good article on it on Wikipedia, it's a bit dry, but interesting.
Initially this rule required the opposition to basically takeover the floor of the Senate with speeches and whatnot in a constant stream of noise, thus preventing any other legislation from being discussed, functionally shutting down the Senate until either they ran out of steam or the other side caved. Then in the 1960s a Two Track system was devised that, with unanimous consent or agreement between the Majority and Minority leaders, a Filibustered bill could be set aside to deal with other pressing matters, so the Senate would not be completely stopped, though that particular bill would be in stasis. This didn't prevent the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being Filibustered for 75 hours, including a 14 hr 13 min address by Senator Robert Byrd. At least this type of process requires everyone to stay on the job and it became an endurance test to see if the minority could hold the floor 24/7. But it's been simplified recently to allow the minority leader to simply tell the majority leader that they intend to Filibuster and all discussion stops until or unless the majority can find 60 votes to override it. A questionable change, to be sure.
Now I can see how this option is a useful tool for the minority when they feel a specific piece of legislation is a really bad idea and therefore they have to take extraordinary steps in an attempt to stop it or at least delay as long as possible to try and change a few key votes. By and large this is how the Filibuster was used for much of its history. Until recently anyway. Use of the Filibuster began to rise throughout the 20th century, but it wasn't till the 1990's that it began to edge into the sphere of abuse. Yet it didn't reach the current level of pathetic stupidity till the Republicans began losing control of Congress in 2006. The current session of Congress has already more than doubled the use of this Senate rule . . . and this session is not over yet!
What it all boils down to is that the Republican party was scared silly after the 2008 elections. They were terrified that Obama and the Democrats, who were voted into power by a comfortable margin, might actually accomplish something and continue to gain popularity. So they took a rule designed for special use and began applying it in virtually every single debate. Even going to the extreme of using it to stop legislation from simply coming to the floor for discussion! It's hard for me to imagine many instances for legitimately obstructing the mere discussion of a proposal. Yet this is where we find ourselves today. A forty one vote minority in the Senate , forty until last month, has decided that it is politically vital that no Obama supported proposals pass. Period. Call me a radical, but that is not a good enough reason to bring the Senate, and by extension Congress as a whole, to a complete halt. It is not an exaggeration to say that this has never happened in the history of the Senate. Individual bills here and there, yes. Throwing roadblocks up for just about every major bill for over a year and still counting? Never.
If you were reading carefully you will have noted the use of the word 'Rule'. That's because the Filibuster is not a Constitutional Senatorial structure, but rather a rule created by the Senate itself. Therefore it can be changed by the Senate and indeed has been modified a number of times throughout its history. Now is another one of those times. The Filibuster was never meant to allow the minority to bring Congress to a halt each time a bill was introduced. It was a special use option, not a standard procedure. The only thing that makes it even possible now is the absolute, lock-step voting block that is the GOP. The Senate Republicans have managed to lock up every single GOP vote, for almost every single piece of legislation. And they vote 'No' with that block on anything that President Obama supports. It is unheard of for a single party to hold together like this on vote after vote and issue after issue. It is stupid and it is illogical. Are we to believe that every single piece of legislation that Obama supports is bad? Really? Even under Bush, some Dems voted for Republican bills and vice versa. It is not believable that ALL Republican Senators agree on every single issue. It is obviously political gamesmanship of the most dishonorable sort. This has become more obvious as Senator after Senator is being caught vocally shouting down ideas that they, themselves supported only a short time before. One of my favorites is the so called 'PayGo' legislation. It declares that Congress cannot enact legislation without also including a way to pay for it. It's an idea that will shock many. Not because of the bill itself, but from the realization that this isn't standard procedure! Guess that would explain the ballooning deficit since this practice was stopped during G.W. Bush's tenure. In fact, this was a major part of what gave us budget surpluses during the tail end of the Clinton administration. PayGo is the kind of idea that should send a sensual thrill through anyone who calls themselves a Fiscal Conservative. In fact, many Republicans have spoken out in support the idea in the recent past. Or they did before Obama lent it his support. Shortly thereafter, GOP support vanished like a lobbyist at a press conference.
It can only be assumed that the GOP feels the success of their party in the 2010 mid-term elections is far more important than minor things like uninsured Americans or debt reduction. Oh, they talk about these things, incessantly, But they just don't do anything about them. If they did, they would have to engage the Dems and the Administration in actual . . . (gulp) dialog. Then they would be open to attack from the ignorantly conservatives out there who have convinced themselves that if Obama likes it, then it must be (gasp!) Socialism!!! The GOP made this particular bed with meticulously crafted hospital corners and now they can't get out of bed at all. If they do their jobs and work with the Administration, they anger their base, hence the perpetual Senate Fillibuster. So we are left with a significant, though still minority portion, of our legislature that has taken to misusing the tools at its disposal for transparently political reasons. Much like a child using a jackhammer to hang a picture. And like that child, it's past time to take that tool away from them before they cause any more damage. They've abused it beyond any rational point, so it's time to revoke it and move on. Someone has to govern in a time of war and economic hardship and if the GOP is unwilling to do so, then Obama and the Democrats will have to do it without them. To do that, the Filibuster MUST DIE.
Write your Senators and let them know how you feel. Tell the Republicans that it's time to do the job they were hired for and tell the Democrats to stop wasting time and remove the one tool Republicans have continually used to jam the machinery of government.
Initially this rule required the opposition to basically takeover the floor of the Senate with speeches and whatnot in a constant stream of noise, thus preventing any other legislation from being discussed, functionally shutting down the Senate until either they ran out of steam or the other side caved. Then in the 1960s a Two Track system was devised that, with unanimous consent or agreement between the Majority and Minority leaders, a Filibustered bill could be set aside to deal with other pressing matters, so the Senate would not be completely stopped, though that particular bill would be in stasis. This didn't prevent the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being Filibustered for 75 hours, including a 14 hr 13 min address by Senator Robert Byrd. At least this type of process requires everyone to stay on the job and it became an endurance test to see if the minority could hold the floor 24/7. But it's been simplified recently to allow the minority leader to simply tell the majority leader that they intend to Filibuster and all discussion stops until or unless the majority can find 60 votes to override it. A questionable change, to be sure.
Now I can see how this option is a useful tool for the minority when they feel a specific piece of legislation is a really bad idea and therefore they have to take extraordinary steps in an attempt to stop it or at least delay as long as possible to try and change a few key votes. By and large this is how the Filibuster was used for much of its history. Until recently anyway. Use of the Filibuster began to rise throughout the 20th century, but it wasn't till the 1990's that it began to edge into the sphere of abuse. Yet it didn't reach the current level of pathetic stupidity till the Republicans began losing control of Congress in 2006. The current session of Congress has already more than doubled the use of this Senate rule . . . and this session is not over yet!
What it all boils down to is that the Republican party was scared silly after the 2008 elections. They were terrified that Obama and the Democrats, who were voted into power by a comfortable margin, might actually accomplish something and continue to gain popularity. So they took a rule designed for special use and began applying it in virtually every single debate. Even going to the extreme of using it to stop legislation from simply coming to the floor for discussion! It's hard for me to imagine many instances for legitimately obstructing the mere discussion of a proposal. Yet this is where we find ourselves today. A forty one vote minority in the Senate , forty until last month, has decided that it is politically vital that no Obama supported proposals pass. Period. Call me a radical, but that is not a good enough reason to bring the Senate, and by extension Congress as a whole, to a complete halt. It is not an exaggeration to say that this has never happened in the history of the Senate. Individual bills here and there, yes. Throwing roadblocks up for just about every major bill for over a year and still counting? Never.
If you were reading carefully you will have noted the use of the word 'Rule'. That's because the Filibuster is not a Constitutional Senatorial structure, but rather a rule created by the Senate itself. Therefore it can be changed by the Senate and indeed has been modified a number of times throughout its history. Now is another one of those times. The Filibuster was never meant to allow the minority to bring Congress to a halt each time a bill was introduced. It was a special use option, not a standard procedure. The only thing that makes it even possible now is the absolute, lock-step voting block that is the GOP. The Senate Republicans have managed to lock up every single GOP vote, for almost every single piece of legislation. And they vote 'No' with that block on anything that President Obama supports. It is unheard of for a single party to hold together like this on vote after vote and issue after issue. It is stupid and it is illogical. Are we to believe that every single piece of legislation that Obama supports is bad? Really? Even under Bush, some Dems voted for Republican bills and vice versa. It is not believable that ALL Republican Senators agree on every single issue. It is obviously political gamesmanship of the most dishonorable sort. This has become more obvious as Senator after Senator is being caught vocally shouting down ideas that they, themselves supported only a short time before. One of my favorites is the so called 'PayGo' legislation. It declares that Congress cannot enact legislation without also including a way to pay for it. It's an idea that will shock many. Not because of the bill itself, but from the realization that this isn't standard procedure! Guess that would explain the ballooning deficit since this practice was stopped during G.W. Bush's tenure. In fact, this was a major part of what gave us budget surpluses during the tail end of the Clinton administration. PayGo is the kind of idea that should send a sensual thrill through anyone who calls themselves a Fiscal Conservative. In fact, many Republicans have spoken out in support the idea in the recent past. Or they did before Obama lent it his support. Shortly thereafter, GOP support vanished like a lobbyist at a press conference.
It can only be assumed that the GOP feels the success of their party in the 2010 mid-term elections is far more important than minor things like uninsured Americans or debt reduction. Oh, they talk about these things, incessantly, But they just don't do anything about them. If they did, they would have to engage the Dems and the Administration in actual . . . (gulp) dialog. Then they would be open to attack from the ignorantly conservatives out there who have convinced themselves that if Obama likes it, then it must be (gasp!) Socialism!!! The GOP made this particular bed with meticulously crafted hospital corners and now they can't get out of bed at all. If they do their jobs and work with the Administration, they anger their base, hence the perpetual Senate Fillibuster. So we are left with a significant, though still minority portion, of our legislature that has taken to misusing the tools at its disposal for transparently political reasons. Much like a child using a jackhammer to hang a picture. And like that child, it's past time to take that tool away from them before they cause any more damage. They've abused it beyond any rational point, so it's time to revoke it and move on. Someone has to govern in a time of war and economic hardship and if the GOP is unwilling to do so, then Obama and the Democrats will have to do it without them. To do that, the Filibuster MUST DIE.
Write your Senators and let them know how you feel. Tell the Republicans that it's time to do the job they were hired for and tell the Democrats to stop wasting time and remove the one tool Republicans have continually used to jam the machinery of government.
Friday, February 5, 2010
American Soldier (Gay)
I am absolutely dismayed that in 2010 we are still arguing about whether or not homosexuals deserve to have the rights of American citizens. And that's really what it comes down to. The dreaded 'Homosexual Agenda' to which the Conservatives like to refer is simply that; to be treated like everyone else. They are not asking to be given special rights or free passes to the Super Bowl. Just to be accorded the rights of every other American. Pretty radical, eh?
Earlier this week a Congressional committee met to discuss the idea of ending the Clinton era 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' (DADT) policy about homosexuals in the military. The policy states that the military won't go looking for homosexuals or ask members if they are gay, but if they find out that a member is, in fact gay, they will discharge them. This was the best the Clinton Administration could do in the early 90's climate with the military leadership solidly against allowing openly gay members to serve. But things are a bit different now. Not only do we have the President behind ending the DADT policy, but also the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have come on board to end the policy.
But, as you would expect, politics quickly reared its hypocritical head. One of the more prominent Senators at the meeting was John McCain (R). At least twice previously McCain commented that he would defer to the views of the military leadership on ending DADT. So you would naturally assume that when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the highest ranking military officer in uniform, and his boss the Secretary of Defense testify that the time has come to end the policy . . . well it must have been a done deal, right? Though you can't actually hear the squealing of McCain's tires as he makes his political U-turn, his words make things clear enough.
"Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign."
So McCain thinks the policy is working, eh? How exactly is it "working"? We've kicked out thousands of military members, many with vital skills such as translators and interrogators. Thousands more cannot even tell their comrades who they went out with last weekend. If they have any relationship at all it must be illicit, as if they harbored some horrible secret rather than the simple fact that they fell in love with someone. How does this show the "policy is working?" These are our fellow Americans. They are just like you and me. The only thing that distinguishes them from the rest of us is who they love. These men and women volunteered to join the military and put their lives on the line every day for a nation that then demands they hide an important part of themselves away. To hide it so WE will feel comfortable. So WE won't be inconvenienced. Imagine yourself among a group of single coworkers, all talking about their recent dates. Then imagine you can't tell anyone about yours. If you do, you will be fired. Fired, even though you are a model employee. The only people for whom this policy is "working" are those who are made uncomfortable by proximity to a known homosexual. And to McCain and others who fall into this category I say, "Grow up"!
Now there are those who will make the case that a straight soldier, we'll call him George, doesn't need the distraction of knowing the guy next to him in the foxhole, we'll call him John, is gay. This is talking cross-eyed-badger-spit. If the two of them are in a foxhole they probably have more pressing issues than who's gay and who isn't. This line of reasoning is also highly insulting to both of our hypothetical soldiers. First you are implying that, just because John is gay that he's naturally a sexual predator and will jump George as soon as his back is turned. Homosexuals are no more predatory than anyone else. Just look at the thousands of sexual assaults carried out by straight soldiers every year. Predators are predators and the person's sexual orientation is hardly a factor. Secondly, you insult George by saying that he's such a bad soldier that he's more worried about his buddy's sexual habits than doing his job. Third, the increasing ratio of women in all branches of the military invalidates sexual tension as a uniquely homosexual issue.
Let me come clean on myself. I am NOT gay. I served over 8 years in the US Air Force as a 'Boom Operator' on KC-135 tankers performing inflight refueling. I was assigned to two squadrons during my tenure and deployed for the first Gulf War and numerous operations around the world during the first half of the 1990's. At no time did I worry that someone on my aircrew was gay. When bunking down in the compound outside King Khalid International airport during the first Gulf War, the thought that there might be gay service members among the thousand or so other soldiers and airmen stationed there never crossed the transom of my mind. Why? Because it wasn't important.
Here's one more thing to think about if you're still not convinced. There have been homosexuals in America's military since before there was a US of A and they have served honorably alongside their straight comrades in every battle America has ever fought. They undoubtedly crossed the Delaware with Washington to attack Trenton. They died in the snow of Valley Forge and on the fields of Yorktown. They fought and died on both sides at Bull Run, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Atlanta and Cold Harbor. They followed Teddy up San Juan Hill with his 'Rough Riders'. They fought through the slaughter of Belleau Wood on the Western Front. They were entombed forever when the Arizona rolled over. They were shot down over the Solomons. They died on the beaches of Normandy and in the air over the oil fields of Ploesti. They shivered through the Korean winter with their comrades at the Chosin Reservoir and sweated with them through the siege of Ka San. I for one think these men and women have more than earned the right to be treated like any other American citizen!
Earlier this week a Congressional committee met to discuss the idea of ending the Clinton era 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' (DADT) policy about homosexuals in the military. The policy states that the military won't go looking for homosexuals or ask members if they are gay, but if they find out that a member is, in fact gay, they will discharge them. This was the best the Clinton Administration could do in the early 90's climate with the military leadership solidly against allowing openly gay members to serve. But things are a bit different now. Not only do we have the President behind ending the DADT policy, but also the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have come on board to end the policy.
But, as you would expect, politics quickly reared its hypocritical head. One of the more prominent Senators at the meeting was John McCain (R). At least twice previously McCain commented that he would defer to the views of the military leadership on ending DADT. So you would naturally assume that when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the highest ranking military officer in uniform, and his boss the Secretary of Defense testify that the time has come to end the policy . . . well it must have been a done deal, right? Though you can't actually hear the squealing of McCain's tires as he makes his political U-turn, his words make things clear enough.
"Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign."
So McCain thinks the policy is working, eh? How exactly is it "working"? We've kicked out thousands of military members, many with vital skills such as translators and interrogators. Thousands more cannot even tell their comrades who they went out with last weekend. If they have any relationship at all it must be illicit, as if they harbored some horrible secret rather than the simple fact that they fell in love with someone. How does this show the "policy is working?" These are our fellow Americans. They are just like you and me. The only thing that distinguishes them from the rest of us is who they love. These men and women volunteered to join the military and put their lives on the line every day for a nation that then demands they hide an important part of themselves away. To hide it so WE will feel comfortable. So WE won't be inconvenienced. Imagine yourself among a group of single coworkers, all talking about their recent dates. Then imagine you can't tell anyone about yours. If you do, you will be fired. Fired, even though you are a model employee. The only people for whom this policy is "working" are those who are made uncomfortable by proximity to a known homosexual. And to McCain and others who fall into this category I say, "Grow up"!
Now there are those who will make the case that a straight soldier, we'll call him George, doesn't need the distraction of knowing the guy next to him in the foxhole, we'll call him John, is gay. This is talking cross-eyed-badger-spit. If the two of them are in a foxhole they probably have more pressing issues than who's gay and who isn't. This line of reasoning is also highly insulting to both of our hypothetical soldiers. First you are implying that, just because John is gay that he's naturally a sexual predator and will jump George as soon as his back is turned. Homosexuals are no more predatory than anyone else. Just look at the thousands of sexual assaults carried out by straight soldiers every year. Predators are predators and the person's sexual orientation is hardly a factor. Secondly, you insult George by saying that he's such a bad soldier that he's more worried about his buddy's sexual habits than doing his job. Third, the increasing ratio of women in all branches of the military invalidates sexual tension as a uniquely homosexual issue.
Let me come clean on myself. I am NOT gay. I served over 8 years in the US Air Force as a 'Boom Operator' on KC-135 tankers performing inflight refueling. I was assigned to two squadrons during my tenure and deployed for the first Gulf War and numerous operations around the world during the first half of the 1990's. At no time did I worry that someone on my aircrew was gay. When bunking down in the compound outside King Khalid International airport during the first Gulf War, the thought that there might be gay service members among the thousand or so other soldiers and airmen stationed there never crossed the transom of my mind. Why? Because it wasn't important.
Here's one more thing to think about if you're still not convinced. There have been homosexuals in America's military since before there was a US of A and they have served honorably alongside their straight comrades in every battle America has ever fought. They undoubtedly crossed the Delaware with Washington to attack Trenton. They died in the snow of Valley Forge and on the fields of Yorktown. They fought and died on both sides at Bull Run, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Atlanta and Cold Harbor. They followed Teddy up San Juan Hill with his 'Rough Riders'. They fought through the slaughter of Belleau Wood on the Western Front. They were entombed forever when the Arizona rolled over. They were shot down over the Solomons. They died on the beaches of Normandy and in the air over the oil fields of Ploesti. They shivered through the Korean winter with their comrades at the Chosin Reservoir and sweated with them through the siege of Ka San. I for one think these men and women have more than earned the right to be treated like any other American citizen!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Year of Us & Them
It's been a long year politically, no matter what side of the aisle you prefer. It seems like every single issue became a sharply divided fight. That in itself may not have been exceptional in our nation's history, but it was more than just partisan wrangling. I have to wonder how long it's been since Congress has exhibited gridlock of this level. I've certainly seen times when there were nasty political fights, but I don't recall another time where things had devolved to this level of stupid.
I know it seems that I am looking at things through Democrat glasses. I'll admit there is a bias that I am fully aware of, but this is not simply a case of a liberal viewpoint. What makes this last year different is the way the Republicans have chosen to approach the Obama Presidency. Not by pushing their own bills, but simply to sit in the stands and vote 'No' on pretty much every vote. No engagement or discussion. They just vote 'No' on any legislation proposed by Democrats and especially anything supported by the President. Then they run outside and make speeches for the cameras and blogs, decrying the partisanship of the process and how Democrats are ignoring the will of the people. It would be a losing strategy if not for how easily the American public can be baited and tricked into impatience and outrage. As the old saying goes, you get the government you deserve in a democracy. This is how the Bush Administration managed two terms. They masterfully wielded the 'fear' card to diffuse any public backlash that might arise from the careful trimming of civil liberties and massive military expenditures.
I have to give the Republicans credit for their ability to hold together in a solid phalanx on any issue. It's this ability that has always scared the hell out of me about the party. The Democrats have always been more fractious and prone to inner discord. I'd say it's more 'free thinking'. But the Republicans have this 'Children of the Corn' ability to band together as if they are all of a single political mind. I often wonder how they manage to force their more moderate members to follow along. Perhaps simply by threatening their re-election campaigns? Maybe they're threatening their children? I don't know, but whatever it is, it's certainly effective. The synchronized voting wouldn't be so worrying if confined to the occasional issue, as in the past. But when used across the entire Congressional term, that's when things have gone over the edge. What that tells me is that the choreographed voting has nothing to do with individual beliefs or considerations and everything to do with what they are told to do. This should be unacceptable from either party. It invalidates the whole idea of campaigning for office. Since all Republicans are functionally identical, why should anyone care what their name is or what they supposedly stand for? All we would need to know is if they can read, write and follow instructions. No active intellect required. Certainly simplifies voting.
Government is more than the competition between a couple of static political platforms! I remember issues in the past that tended to polarize Congress, yet even then you would see the odd Dem or Republican cross the aisle to vote their conscience. But this last Congress has become nothing more than a schoolyard at recess. One side is so defensive about being the smaller group and so worried that the other side might do something that is popular that they're sulking in the corner and refusing to let anyone play. I have never been so disgusted with my government as I am now. And it's not because the Republicans won't rubber-stamp Obama's policies the way they did for Bush. It's because they won't even engage in the discussion. They spend more energy talking to the camera, Tweeting and posting inane comments on Facebook than they do in any kind of conversation with Democrats. They have taken the filibuster to heights undreamed of in the previous history of our nation. After holding fairly steady for decades, the number of attempts to block even the introduction of legislation has DOUBLED in the current session of Congress, and this session is far from over yet. In other words, the minority party has fought every single action by the majority party from day one. This is far beyond policy disagreements. This can only be a concerted effort to stop anything the President proposes. Not because it's questionable policy, but as overall political gamesmanship to make Obama and the Dems look ineffectual. Admittedly the Democrats are scarily good at this on their own. Put simply, Republicans have shown quite clearly that the needs of the Nation take a back seat to the needs of the party. The Republicans are too busy trying to discredit the majority party to notice that the building is on fire. This cannot continue.
The icing on this cyanide laced cake is that so many Americans don't seem to see or even care. We have historically looked to the government, right or wrong, for leadership in tough times. When things are at their worst we tend to follow anyone who speaks with authority. So without thinking things through, Americans have essentially ceded control to the loudest cry. Currently that is the Republican party. Even though it's a whiny, self serving screed. Yet the American public follows along the way they are told; they get angry at what they are told they should be angry about. Over and over they are manipulated with sound bites and corporate sponsored misinformation campaigns. Verifiable lies are allowed to not just sit unchallenged but are made the centerpiece of supposed legitimate arguments. Death Panels? Lie. Government takeover of healthcare? Lie. No terrorist attacks under Bush? Lie. None under Bush after 9/11? Lie. Obama as a Socialist fanatic? Lie. The Democrats ignoring Republicans? Lie! The list is seemingly endless. We Americans are currently getting the government we deserve. Oh yes, indeedy. A dysfunctional mess that accomplishes little other than filling the airwaves with noise. We voted in Obama by a solid majority, because we knew things had to change, only to then become furious that the new Administration is actually changing things! Oddly enough, you can't have change without change. And even if a bad decision is made, it's not the end of the country, as the 'Tea Bag' fringe dwellers like to claim. America is not a Faberge egg. We won't shatter if jostled. We elected President Obama and the Democratic majority to alter the course of the previous 8 years and deal with an economic crisis. We MUST let them try to do that. Not without some counterbalance, certainly. But we can't expect them to accomplish anything with half the government sitting in the dark, fingers in their ears yelling, "Lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!"
If you really care what happens to America and our world policies, pay attention. Don't assume everything your favorite pundit says is the absolute, unadulterated truth. Think about it yourself and see if it makes sense. I like Keith Olbermann, but I am well aware that he does occasionally drift across the line, though I think it's from frustration rather than malice. What scares me is that listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck don't seem to have the same realization. Beck practically lives in the fringe and Limbaugh has become so enamored of his own voice and the adulation of his fans that he doesn't appear to filter himself anymore. He actually says everything that crosses the transom of his mind without ever thinking it through. His comments after the Haitian earthquake are an excellent example of this. If an issue is of interest read different views, and really think about what they are saying and if it actually makes sense or is just self serving noise. It is probably best to try and avoid the noisemakers on the fringe though. They exist primarily as self promotion machines and are rarely more substantive than a WWF Wrestling event.
Most importantly, write your Senators and Congressional representatives. Email, Postal and phone calls. Democrats AND Republicans. Every one who represents you. Tell them what you think. Tell them what you want. Tell them what you don't like. Be reasoned and direct in what you think, but avoid emotional rants that might get you dropped into the wing-nut category. I know it's easy to just sit back and not get involved, but that is what many in Congress want. As long as you say nothing, they can presume to decide on your behalf in any way they see fit. Demand that they do their jobs and work with all the other children in DC to do what America needs and not what is politically advantageous for them or their sponsors. Because they will keep doing what's in their best interests until they feel it's in their best interests to change!
Below are links to find your Senators and Representatives. Everyone has two Senators and a Representative who directly represents them. Write to ALL of them. Write often on any issue you care about. They are supposed to be representing you, not their own interests or those of their largest donors. Make your voice heard!!
Contact the Congress
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Contact Congress Page
I know it seems that I am looking at things through Democrat glasses. I'll admit there is a bias that I am fully aware of, but this is not simply a case of a liberal viewpoint. What makes this last year different is the way the Republicans have chosen to approach the Obama Presidency. Not by pushing their own bills, but simply to sit in the stands and vote 'No' on pretty much every vote. No engagement or discussion. They just vote 'No' on any legislation proposed by Democrats and especially anything supported by the President. Then they run outside and make speeches for the cameras and blogs, decrying the partisanship of the process and how Democrats are ignoring the will of the people. It would be a losing strategy if not for how easily the American public can be baited and tricked into impatience and outrage. As the old saying goes, you get the government you deserve in a democracy. This is how the Bush Administration managed two terms. They masterfully wielded the 'fear' card to diffuse any public backlash that might arise from the careful trimming of civil liberties and massive military expenditures.
I have to give the Republicans credit for their ability to hold together in a solid phalanx on any issue. It's this ability that has always scared the hell out of me about the party. The Democrats have always been more fractious and prone to inner discord. I'd say it's more 'free thinking'. But the Republicans have this 'Children of the Corn' ability to band together as if they are all of a single political mind. I often wonder how they manage to force their more moderate members to follow along. Perhaps simply by threatening their re-election campaigns? Maybe they're threatening their children? I don't know, but whatever it is, it's certainly effective. The synchronized voting wouldn't be so worrying if confined to the occasional issue, as in the past. But when used across the entire Congressional term, that's when things have gone over the edge. What that tells me is that the choreographed voting has nothing to do with individual beliefs or considerations and everything to do with what they are told to do. This should be unacceptable from either party. It invalidates the whole idea of campaigning for office. Since all Republicans are functionally identical, why should anyone care what their name is or what they supposedly stand for? All we would need to know is if they can read, write and follow instructions. No active intellect required. Certainly simplifies voting.
Government is more than the competition between a couple of static political platforms! I remember issues in the past that tended to polarize Congress, yet even then you would see the odd Dem or Republican cross the aisle to vote their conscience. But this last Congress has become nothing more than a schoolyard at recess. One side is so defensive about being the smaller group and so worried that the other side might do something that is popular that they're sulking in the corner and refusing to let anyone play. I have never been so disgusted with my government as I am now. And it's not because the Republicans won't rubber-stamp Obama's policies the way they did for Bush. It's because they won't even engage in the discussion. They spend more energy talking to the camera, Tweeting and posting inane comments on Facebook than they do in any kind of conversation with Democrats. They have taken the filibuster to heights undreamed of in the previous history of our nation. After holding fairly steady for decades, the number of attempts to block even the introduction of legislation has DOUBLED in the current session of Congress, and this session is far from over yet. In other words, the minority party has fought every single action by the majority party from day one. This is far beyond policy disagreements. This can only be a concerted effort to stop anything the President proposes. Not because it's questionable policy, but as overall political gamesmanship to make Obama and the Dems look ineffectual. Admittedly the Democrats are scarily good at this on their own. Put simply, Republicans have shown quite clearly that the needs of the Nation take a back seat to the needs of the party. The Republicans are too busy trying to discredit the majority party to notice that the building is on fire. This cannot continue.
The icing on this cyanide laced cake is that so many Americans don't seem to see or even care. We have historically looked to the government, right or wrong, for leadership in tough times. When things are at their worst we tend to follow anyone who speaks with authority. So without thinking things through, Americans have essentially ceded control to the loudest cry. Currently that is the Republican party. Even though it's a whiny, self serving screed. Yet the American public follows along the way they are told; they get angry at what they are told they should be angry about. Over and over they are manipulated with sound bites and corporate sponsored misinformation campaigns. Verifiable lies are allowed to not just sit unchallenged but are made the centerpiece of supposed legitimate arguments. Death Panels? Lie. Government takeover of healthcare? Lie. No terrorist attacks under Bush? Lie. None under Bush after 9/11? Lie. Obama as a Socialist fanatic? Lie. The Democrats ignoring Republicans? Lie! The list is seemingly endless. We Americans are currently getting the government we deserve. Oh yes, indeedy. A dysfunctional mess that accomplishes little other than filling the airwaves with noise. We voted in Obama by a solid majority, because we knew things had to change, only to then become furious that the new Administration is actually changing things! Oddly enough, you can't have change without change. And even if a bad decision is made, it's not the end of the country, as the 'Tea Bag' fringe dwellers like to claim. America is not a Faberge egg. We won't shatter if jostled. We elected President Obama and the Democratic majority to alter the course of the previous 8 years and deal with an economic crisis. We MUST let them try to do that. Not without some counterbalance, certainly. But we can't expect them to accomplish anything with half the government sitting in the dark, fingers in their ears yelling, "Lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!"
If you really care what happens to America and our world policies, pay attention. Don't assume everything your favorite pundit says is the absolute, unadulterated truth. Think about it yourself and see if it makes sense. I like Keith Olbermann, but I am well aware that he does occasionally drift across the line, though I think it's from frustration rather than malice. What scares me is that listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck don't seem to have the same realization. Beck practically lives in the fringe and Limbaugh has become so enamored of his own voice and the adulation of his fans that he doesn't appear to filter himself anymore. He actually says everything that crosses the transom of his mind without ever thinking it through. His comments after the Haitian earthquake are an excellent example of this. If an issue is of interest read different views, and really think about what they are saying and if it actually makes sense or is just self serving noise. It is probably best to try and avoid the noisemakers on the fringe though. They exist primarily as self promotion machines and are rarely more substantive than a WWF Wrestling event.
Most importantly, write your Senators and Congressional representatives. Email, Postal and phone calls. Democrats AND Republicans. Every one who represents you. Tell them what you think. Tell them what you want. Tell them what you don't like. Be reasoned and direct in what you think, but avoid emotional rants that might get you dropped into the wing-nut category. I know it's easy to just sit back and not get involved, but that is what many in Congress want. As long as you say nothing, they can presume to decide on your behalf in any way they see fit. Demand that they do their jobs and work with all the other children in DC to do what America needs and not what is politically advantageous for them or their sponsors. Because they will keep doing what's in their best interests until they feel it's in their best interests to change!
Below are links to find your Senators and Representatives. Everyone has two Senators and a Representative who directly represents them. Write to ALL of them. Write often on any issue you care about. They are supposed to be representing you, not their own interests or those of their largest donors. Make your voice heard!!
Contact the Congress
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Contact Congress Page
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Mother Nature Knows No Borders
As all have no doubt heard, Haiti was rocked last week with a strong earthquake centered not far from the capital, Port-au-Prince. This has reduced the city to a rubble. There are many ways to help by donating to the relief effort. The simplest, if you have text messaging on your cell phone, is to text the word Haiti to 90999. This will donate $10 to the Red Cross and will be charged to your phone bill. You can find a long list of other organizations and ways to help HERE and at the White House web site.
Unfortunately, there are those who will inevitably try to profit from this tragedy so beware of bogus pleas via post, email, Facebook, Twitter and the like, that ask for donations. I recommend sticking to the major organizations such as ones referenced in the above links or other trusted sources.
But do help if you can. Contrary to the pathetic whining of a few conspiracy theorists, this is not a political or racial or nationalistic issue. Natural disasters can happen most anywhere, whether earthquakes, wild fires, hurricanes, tornados, mud slides or floods, so you never know when you might be the one left with nothing and in need of help. We are at our best when we help others, no matter who or where in the world.
Unfortunately, there are those who will inevitably try to profit from this tragedy so beware of bogus pleas via post, email, Facebook, Twitter and the like, that ask for donations. I recommend sticking to the major organizations such as ones referenced in the above links or other trusted sources.
But do help if you can. Contrary to the pathetic whining of a few conspiracy theorists, this is not a political or racial or nationalistic issue. Natural disasters can happen most anywhere, whether earthquakes, wild fires, hurricanes, tornados, mud slides or floods, so you never know when you might be the one left with nothing and in need of help. We are at our best when we help others, no matter who or where in the world.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Lost Art of Honesty
Since the attempted bombing of the airliner over Detroit, MI on Christmas day, a number of Republicans have risked muscle pulls running to every talk show and/or the nearest keyboard to comment to every blog and news page. What have they been saying? That's where it gets psychedelic. Most have seemed to parrot the same lines over and over, as if (insert sarcasm here) they were using the same boilerplate strategy. These luminaries, and I use the term lightheartedly in most cases, include former VP Cheney, Senator DeMint (SC), Congressman Hoekstra (MI), Congressman Peter King (NY) and Republican National Committee Chairman Steele among others.
I'll avoid another in depth examination of the hypocrisy and the truly unprofessional way Cheney has repeatedly attacked President Obama from the beginning of his term. But Cheney and the rest of these oh so vocal Republicans have found a new low. Considering the history of some of these guys, that's an accomplishment. The manner and substance of their comments are something even their most avid supporters should be up in arms about. They have regurgitated a collection of lies and hair-pin opinion reversals of staggering proportions. We're talking about verifiable lies and verifiable reversals of opinion on a nearly identical incident that occurred eight years ago.
First, according to every one of these guys, President Obama doesn't talk about terrorism enough. They seem to feel that merely speaking the word 'terrorism' acts as a sacred chant to ward off evil. They claim Obama doesn't even seem to want to use the word 'terrorism'. Uh-huh. I see. Ok, let's take a couple minutes of quick research to confirm, shall we? I'll even be fair and ignore the post Christmas day remarks.
- December 10th speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. Terrorism, was mentioned directly twice. And this was for the Peace prize.
- December 7th remarks with Turkish Prime Minister in Oval Office. The word 'Terror' or 'Terrorist' used twelve times.
- December 1st remarks at West Point on the Afghanistan strategy. Six times.
- November 24th remarks with Indian Prime Minister in the East Room. Seven times.
Basically, anytime the President has spoken about foreign policy he has mentioned terrorism. Keep in mind that I spent less than five minutes researching this and all I did was got to the White House web site and do word searches through the President's posted speeches! It hardly takes Woodward and Bernstein to dig up this info. And I didn't even check all of the posted transcripts for the preceding month. So this accusation is an outright lie. Obama has not stopped talking about terrorism. What he has done is stop talking in abstract terms like 'War on Terror'. This phrase, like the 'War on Drugs,' is a great slogan, but is a lousy basis for foreign policy. It's much more accurate to focus on Al-Qaida and other specific organizations. The 'War on Terror' is, like the one on drugs, unwinnable. It's a practical impossibility to catch or kill all terrorists or even all those who just want to attack America. Obama is quite correct in concentrating on the most important and achievable goal of fighting and destroying Al-Qaida and other groups like it rather than some vague, ill defined concept.
Then Obama was chided by several of these individuals for waiting so long to respond to the Christmas day attempted bombing when he didn't make a formal statement for three days following the incident. Also he was ripped for intending to prosecute Abdulmutalib in Federal Court. This is obviously a case of amnesia brought on by acute 'InTheMinoritus'. Let me refresh their memories. On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid was apprehended on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami when he attempted to set off an explosive hidden in the hollowed out bottoms of his shoes. He was arrested, tried and convicted in Federal court. He is now serving three consecutive life sentences without parole in a Federal SuperMax prison in Colorado. As you'll note from the date, this happened at the end of the first year of President Bush's first term. Reid used the same explosive that Abdulmutalib attempted to use and like the 'underwear bomber' was unable to actually get the explosive to detonate. Explain to me why Federal court worked fine in Reid's case and faced no objections under the Bush/Cheney Administration, yet it's now considered outrageous to use it in the current and nearly identical situation? And, as to Obama's three day reaction time? Well if you want to get into that level of minutia, Bush actually waited six days to make a formal statement after the 'shoe bomber' was arrested. Does any of this make sense to anyone? The hypocrisy is so thick as to be almost a solid mass.
It's fair to question how Abdulmutalib should be treated, as it is a bit of a gray area if you look at the 'enemy combatant' definition. But to look straight faced into the camera and act shocked when eight years ago you had no problems with an almost identical situation is beginning to strain my surprise muscle. These individuals are so shameless it makes me ill. I swear that if Obama had decreed that the 'underwear bomber' be sent to Gitmo for interrogation, they would have demanded he be tried in Federal court! How do they even keep things straight with so much spin?
And in a continuation of this despicable trend we have people like Rudi Giuliani. Last Friday we had this nugget from the self styled 'terrorism expert'. "We had no domestic attacks under Bush," Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama." Really, Rudi? Are you sure? Later, on CNN, he backpedaled. "I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since Sept. 11, . . . I did omit the words 'since Sept. 11.' I apologize for that." Well, that's better, but you'll notice the careful use of 'domestic', then quickly narrowed even further with 'major domestic'. The reason he had to do that is because there are a whole string of incidents during Bush's tenure that were defined as terrorism, the above mentioned 'shoe bomber' being the first to come to mind. But we also have the multiple deaths from the anthrax mailings, the Muslim man who plowed his SUV into students on the UNC campus and others that all had a terrorist tone to them. Of course by pulling back so far from his original statement he has pretty much invalidated his entire point. And what's with "I usually say..."? Usually? Has he really gotten to the point where this is some scripted talking point? But Gulliani is not the first or the only one to come out with verifiable lies such as this. Back in November, former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino passionately proclaimed that "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term in office." She even said it twice during the broadcast! Without any seeming thought to the fact that 9/11 happened on . . . September 11th, 2001, over eight months into Bush's first year in office. This sort of blinkered nostalgia that is being slathered all over the media is astonishing. It's as if the Bush years were a time of milk and honey rather than a time of sharply rising tensions, the beginning of two long and costly wars and a significant number of terrorist related incidents. Either Perino is stupid or just lacking the ability or desire to be ethical.
As I've said many times, we can differ on policies. We can argue over nuances. We can scream at each other about the correct course of action. But to actually lie and blatantly warp the facts like this is embarrassing and shows a complete lack of even the most basic ethical standards. I'm not naive. I realize that the majority of the politicians in Washington are guilty of at least some corruption and unethical behavior. What is hard to understand is this kind of transparent crap. It's especially insulting, or should be, for all the die-hard supporters of any of these men. Their supporters should be outraged to be lied to, blatantly manipulated and just generally treated like stupid lemmings who will follow wherever their 'leaders' take them. And Americans in general should not stand for it either. Sadly, I expect politicians to bend the truth, but if these guys are reduced to bold face lying they really must be out of legitimate things to rail against. My suggestion? They should just shut up unless they have something constructive to say. I suspect that would result in a long and satisfying silence.
I'll avoid another in depth examination of the hypocrisy and the truly unprofessional way Cheney has repeatedly attacked President Obama from the beginning of his term. But Cheney and the rest of these oh so vocal Republicans have found a new low. Considering the history of some of these guys, that's an accomplishment. The manner and substance of their comments are something even their most avid supporters should be up in arms about. They have regurgitated a collection of lies and hair-pin opinion reversals of staggering proportions. We're talking about verifiable lies and verifiable reversals of opinion on a nearly identical incident that occurred eight years ago.
First, according to every one of these guys, President Obama doesn't talk about terrorism enough. They seem to feel that merely speaking the word 'terrorism' acts as a sacred chant to ward off evil. They claim Obama doesn't even seem to want to use the word 'terrorism'. Uh-huh. I see. Ok, let's take a couple minutes of quick research to confirm, shall we? I'll even be fair and ignore the post Christmas day remarks.
- December 10th speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. Terrorism, was mentioned directly twice. And this was for the Peace prize.
- December 7th remarks with Turkish Prime Minister in Oval Office. The word 'Terror' or 'Terrorist' used twelve times.
- December 1st remarks at West Point on the Afghanistan strategy. Six times.
- November 24th remarks with Indian Prime Minister in the East Room. Seven times.
Basically, anytime the President has spoken about foreign policy he has mentioned terrorism. Keep in mind that I spent less than five minutes researching this and all I did was got to the White House web site and do word searches through the President's posted speeches! It hardly takes Woodward and Bernstein to dig up this info. And I didn't even check all of the posted transcripts for the preceding month. So this accusation is an outright lie. Obama has not stopped talking about terrorism. What he has done is stop talking in abstract terms like 'War on Terror'. This phrase, like the 'War on Drugs,' is a great slogan, but is a lousy basis for foreign policy. It's much more accurate to focus on Al-Qaida and other specific organizations. The 'War on Terror' is, like the one on drugs, unwinnable. It's a practical impossibility to catch or kill all terrorists or even all those who just want to attack America. Obama is quite correct in concentrating on the most important and achievable goal of fighting and destroying Al-Qaida and other groups like it rather than some vague, ill defined concept.
Then Obama was chided by several of these individuals for waiting so long to respond to the Christmas day attempted bombing when he didn't make a formal statement for three days following the incident. Also he was ripped for intending to prosecute Abdulmutalib in Federal Court. This is obviously a case of amnesia brought on by acute 'InTheMinoritus'. Let me refresh their memories. On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid was apprehended on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami when he attempted to set off an explosive hidden in the hollowed out bottoms of his shoes. He was arrested, tried and convicted in Federal court. He is now serving three consecutive life sentences without parole in a Federal SuperMax prison in Colorado. As you'll note from the date, this happened at the end of the first year of President Bush's first term. Reid used the same explosive that Abdulmutalib attempted to use and like the 'underwear bomber' was unable to actually get the explosive to detonate. Explain to me why Federal court worked fine in Reid's case and faced no objections under the Bush/Cheney Administration, yet it's now considered outrageous to use it in the current and nearly identical situation? And, as to Obama's three day reaction time? Well if you want to get into that level of minutia, Bush actually waited six days to make a formal statement after the 'shoe bomber' was arrested. Does any of this make sense to anyone? The hypocrisy is so thick as to be almost a solid mass.
It's fair to question how Abdulmutalib should be treated, as it is a bit of a gray area if you look at the 'enemy combatant' definition. But to look straight faced into the camera and act shocked when eight years ago you had no problems with an almost identical situation is beginning to strain my surprise muscle. These individuals are so shameless it makes me ill. I swear that if Obama had decreed that the 'underwear bomber' be sent to Gitmo for interrogation, they would have demanded he be tried in Federal court! How do they even keep things straight with so much spin?
And in a continuation of this despicable trend we have people like Rudi Giuliani. Last Friday we had this nugget from the self styled 'terrorism expert'. "We had no domestic attacks under Bush," Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama." Really, Rudi? Are you sure? Later, on CNN, he backpedaled. "I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since Sept. 11, . . . I did omit the words 'since Sept. 11.' I apologize for that." Well, that's better, but you'll notice the careful use of 'domestic', then quickly narrowed even further with 'major domestic'. The reason he had to do that is because there are a whole string of incidents during Bush's tenure that were defined as terrorism, the above mentioned 'shoe bomber' being the first to come to mind. But we also have the multiple deaths from the anthrax mailings, the Muslim man who plowed his SUV into students on the UNC campus and others that all had a terrorist tone to them. Of course by pulling back so far from his original statement he has pretty much invalidated his entire point. And what's with "I usually say..."? Usually? Has he really gotten to the point where this is some scripted talking point? But Gulliani is not the first or the only one to come out with verifiable lies such as this. Back in November, former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino passionately proclaimed that "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term in office." She even said it twice during the broadcast! Without any seeming thought to the fact that 9/11 happened on . . . September 11th, 2001, over eight months into Bush's first year in office. This sort of blinkered nostalgia that is being slathered all over the media is astonishing. It's as if the Bush years were a time of milk and honey rather than a time of sharply rising tensions, the beginning of two long and costly wars and a significant number of terrorist related incidents. Either Perino is stupid or just lacking the ability or desire to be ethical.
As I've said many times, we can differ on policies. We can argue over nuances. We can scream at each other about the correct course of action. But to actually lie and blatantly warp the facts like this is embarrassing and shows a complete lack of even the most basic ethical standards. I'm not naive. I realize that the majority of the politicians in Washington are guilty of at least some corruption and unethical behavior. What is hard to understand is this kind of transparent crap. It's especially insulting, or should be, for all the die-hard supporters of any of these men. Their supporters should be outraged to be lied to, blatantly manipulated and just generally treated like stupid lemmings who will follow wherever their 'leaders' take them. And Americans in general should not stand for it either. Sadly, I expect politicians to bend the truth, but if these guys are reduced to bold face lying they really must be out of legitimate things to rail against. My suggestion? They should just shut up unless they have something constructive to say. I suspect that would result in a long and satisfying silence.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Policy and Impatience
I just read a very interesting and thoughtful article in the online edition of Foreign Policy magazine. The article, titled 'The Carter Syndrome', focuses on how US Presidents often approach policy through four schools of thought:
"In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary's belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today's Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness."
Full article available Here.
I think this article only underscores the need for a balanced, common sense approach to American policy. None of these schools of thought are workable alone. All suffer from, at their most pure level, an idealism that is unworkable in the real world. Certainly the Bush years, where Jacksonian absolutism held sway, did not solve much yet cost greatly. What is needed, in my opinion, is a core of the Jeffersonian but infused with elements of the others. After all, it's pure common sense that America cannot stop all evil or decree democracy to all the nations of the world. We can't force our ideals on those who resist without becoming that which we have always claimed that we stand against.
Obama is in an extremely difficult situation, as often happens when there is a major change in leadership after 8 years. Part of the challenge is the American people themselves. Conservatives want only a continuation, at least for the most part, of the policies of the Bush years. Liberals want a complete reversal of those policies. Both sides expect everything they ask for, now, or they are furious. As with most things, the truth is in the middle somewhere. The Liberals must accept that Obama cannot simply sign a stack of Executive Orders and whisk away all signs of the Bush years. And Conservatives must accept that the Bush doctrine is inherently flawed and did little in eight years to solve our problems. But none of this is going to happen quickly. America needs to be the one thing it's always been very bad at; we need to be patient.
I do believe that Obama is trying very hard to find that common sense path out of the forest. But since he can't just wrench it all into line with his preferences in one fell swoop, he has to make changes here and there with an eye to the long term rather than tomorrow's headlines. And every policy initiative carries a political cost that he cannot ignore, any more than any other President in our history. And it's these political costs that I believe are the most damaging. Or more accurately, it's the need to weigh them so carefully. I suspect that there are many policies that, given free reign, Obama would change tomorrow. But for every Presidential action, there is an amplified political reaction. Just look at the healthcare reform agenda. It has taken the better part of a year just to get disparate House and Senate bills passed. It still remains to be seen if these two, very different bills can be merged into anything useable. This single agenda item has cost Obama huge amounts of time, energy and intense negotiation and it's not over yet. And just as striking, it may not end up very close to what he actually wanted in the first place. And we still have, in no particular order, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', security threats, Iran, North Korea, the list goes on. And these are all issues that seem to have few moderates. We seem to be in an era when everything is a partisan war. Obama has to step carefully and pick his fights. He cannot risk too many battles at once without the risk of losing them all.
The irony to it all is that no matter what he does, the Right will scream in horror that he's moving too fast and the Left will roar in frustration that he's moving too slow. Americans, in my opinion, need to step back and take a few breaths before agonizing over what Obama has or has not done. In many cases it's obvious why he's made the decisions he has. Doesn't mean I agree with them all, but I can at least see why he has made them. Americans have to control this emotional knee-jerk reactionist tendency. We must all use our brains and see that there is more to policy issues than simple slogans and sound bites. I think what many just don't understand, is that being President is much more about doing what you Can do rather than what you Want to do.
"In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary's belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today's Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness."
Full article available Here.
I think this article only underscores the need for a balanced, common sense approach to American policy. None of these schools of thought are workable alone. All suffer from, at their most pure level, an idealism that is unworkable in the real world. Certainly the Bush years, where Jacksonian absolutism held sway, did not solve much yet cost greatly. What is needed, in my opinion, is a core of the Jeffersonian but infused with elements of the others. After all, it's pure common sense that America cannot stop all evil or decree democracy to all the nations of the world. We can't force our ideals on those who resist without becoming that which we have always claimed that we stand against.
Obama is in an extremely difficult situation, as often happens when there is a major change in leadership after 8 years. Part of the challenge is the American people themselves. Conservatives want only a continuation, at least for the most part, of the policies of the Bush years. Liberals want a complete reversal of those policies. Both sides expect everything they ask for, now, or they are furious. As with most things, the truth is in the middle somewhere. The Liberals must accept that Obama cannot simply sign a stack of Executive Orders and whisk away all signs of the Bush years. And Conservatives must accept that the Bush doctrine is inherently flawed and did little in eight years to solve our problems. But none of this is going to happen quickly. America needs to be the one thing it's always been very bad at; we need to be patient.
I do believe that Obama is trying very hard to find that common sense path out of the forest. But since he can't just wrench it all into line with his preferences in one fell swoop, he has to make changes here and there with an eye to the long term rather than tomorrow's headlines. And every policy initiative carries a political cost that he cannot ignore, any more than any other President in our history. And it's these political costs that I believe are the most damaging. Or more accurately, it's the need to weigh them so carefully. I suspect that there are many policies that, given free reign, Obama would change tomorrow. But for every Presidential action, there is an amplified political reaction. Just look at the healthcare reform agenda. It has taken the better part of a year just to get disparate House and Senate bills passed. It still remains to be seen if these two, very different bills can be merged into anything useable. This single agenda item has cost Obama huge amounts of time, energy and intense negotiation and it's not over yet. And just as striking, it may not end up very close to what he actually wanted in the first place. And we still have, in no particular order, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', security threats, Iran, North Korea, the list goes on. And these are all issues that seem to have few moderates. We seem to be in an era when everything is a partisan war. Obama has to step carefully and pick his fights. He cannot risk too many battles at once without the risk of losing them all.
The irony to it all is that no matter what he does, the Right will scream in horror that he's moving too fast and the Left will roar in frustration that he's moving too slow. Americans, in my opinion, need to step back and take a few breaths before agonizing over what Obama has or has not done. In many cases it's obvious why he's made the decisions he has. Doesn't mean I agree with them all, but I can at least see why he has made them. Americans have to control this emotional knee-jerk reactionist tendency. We must all use our brains and see that there is more to policy issues than simple slogans and sound bites. I think what many just don't understand, is that being President is much more about doing what you Can do rather than what you Want to do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
