This Is a Big Deal
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, NY Times
December 3, 2011
a deal with all the top U.S.-based automakers that will go into effect in 2017 and require annual mileage improvements of 5 percent for cars, and a little less for light trucks and S.U.V.’s, until 2025 — when U.S. automakers will have to reach a total fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon. The current average is 27.5 m.p.g.
I was shocked to read this description. This deal is crap. Typical Obama halfhearted chicken junk.
1. Obama will be out of office when this begins, SIX years from now. That's SIX years in which the pollution loving Republican Party will attempt to overturn this so they can continue to burn every last bit of planet destroying fossil fuel.
2. Five percent? Five stinking percent? That's it?
Outlaw these pollution mobiles! Auto makers will NEVER behave responsibly. NEVER compromise with them. NEVER!
Thomas Freidman, wake the heck up! At first glance you seem like a somewhat enlightened mainstream writer but you're no better than the rest of the blowhards.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Celebrity Electoral College
Why not? Get movie stars, etc. to commit to be electors and have people vote for them for presidential electors who vote for a specified individual.
It's another way to bypass the establishment politics, which has old fart professionals espousing techniques and organizational forms circa 1980. Hire me and I'll help you grind it out in the Iowa caucuses, blah, blah, blah. Hey, just skip the stupid Iowa caucuses! And New Hampshire. In fact, get in late and go directly to go: super Tuesday, etc. None of the clowns who commit to the absurd primary system that has evolved since 1972 has the imagination or nerve to try anything different. That's one reason they deserve to be outflanked by a novel approach to getting the 270 electoral votes in our dysfunctional presidential election system, which should have been reformed after the most recent debacle: 2000.
So use the huge gap in this process against the establishment. Unfortunately, neither current extreme has any more imagination than the establishment. Tea party types, angry old white people, and occupy fill-in-the blank Egyptian/Libyan wannabee U.S. protesters with no goals are just engaging in self-gratification.
Even without celebrities I have long thought that any election can be won with write-in votes promoted with a website. Now with social media, etc. renegade candidates can threaten the establishment with democracy. Too bad nobody else seems interested in actually changing anything. They just want to make spectacles of themselves.
It's another way to bypass the establishment politics, which has old fart professionals espousing techniques and organizational forms circa 1980. Hire me and I'll help you grind it out in the Iowa caucuses, blah, blah, blah. Hey, just skip the stupid Iowa caucuses! And New Hampshire. In fact, get in late and go directly to go: super Tuesday, etc. None of the clowns who commit to the absurd primary system that has evolved since 1972 has the imagination or nerve to try anything different. That's one reason they deserve to be outflanked by a novel approach to getting the 270 electoral votes in our dysfunctional presidential election system, which should have been reformed after the most recent debacle: 2000.
So use the huge gap in this process against the establishment. Unfortunately, neither current extreme has any more imagination than the establishment. Tea party types, angry old white people, and occupy fill-in-the blank Egyptian/Libyan wannabee U.S. protesters with no goals are just engaging in self-gratification.
Even without celebrities I have long thought that any election can be won with write-in votes promoted with a website. Now with social media, etc. renegade candidates can threaten the establishment with democracy. Too bad nobody else seems interested in actually changing anything. They just want to make spectacles of themselves.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Romney can beat Obama.
I thought that in 2008 and I think it now. Willard Mitt Romney is:
- smooth
- articulate
- fairly intelligent
- pretty well informed
- experienced in both government and business
- good looking.
Romney has executive experience. He looks like he was selected out of central casting to play a president in a movie, you know, like Reagan. Romney has a family that looks the same.
Romney is also expedient enough to convince enough independent voters to support him over President Obama. Romney has already started repeating that Obama is a very nice fellow but that he doesn't have a clue how to run the country, a view that many currently share including 2008 Obama supporters.
Romney is not scary like most of the other Republican candidates. Two days ago Romney presented his 59 points for creating jobs in the USA. Nice touch: 59, not a round number like 50 or 60. Sounds more specific. Or did Romney just bore himself when he got that far. Romney made good points, most of which most us can support. Romney spoke in a very friendly but well informed manner. Good speech.
Romney inspires confidence. The most recent media designated front running Republican, Rick Perry, made his debut in the debate held at the Ronald Reagan place in California. Just why is there a life size model of the presidential Air Force One plane filling much of the auditorium? This is especially odd considering how much Reagan hated government, particularly the federal government, which he insisted on heading for eight years. Maybe not so surprising considering that he posthumously hijacked the trappings of President Kennedy's funeral. Four days after his death on June 5, 2004 in his home in Bel Air, California, Reagan had his body flown to Washington, D.C. to lie in state for thirty-four hours, then on to a state funeral in the Washington National Cathedral, then on June 11, six days after his death, flown back to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, where another service was held, and Reagan was interred at long last. All this at taxpayer expense. Reagan should have been rolling over in his grave.
Texas Governor Rick Perry may look as much from central casting as Romney but as a clown presidential hopeful, not the real thing, not the guy who actually wins, unless it's another of those love/hate USA movies in which the country is great but is sabotaged by unscrupulous leaders. Perry is getting roasted for correctly describing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. In the debate Romney aggressively supported Social Security, which was a good political move. Perry is only accustomed to battling other Republicans in primaries, a race to the right. Once nominated for governor his elections have been secure in Republican dominated Texas. Listening to Perry attack the federal government I waited in vain for one of the two wimpy questioners to simply ask Perry why he doesn't explicitly advocate that Texas secede from the union ... again. I wouldn't mind.
Fortunately for Obama, the Republican party is so dominated by nuts that Romney may not get nominated for president in 2012. Since Reagan's inspiring rhetoric in 1980 ("I paid for this microphone.") the old minority country club patrician party of Nelson Rockefeller and William Scanton of 50 years ago has expanded by convincing American citizens to vote against their own best interests by distracting them with a series of irrelevant issues such as:
- race
- homophobia
- socialized health care
- fear of science.
Can Romney be nominated? Yes, if Republicans hate Obama more than they hate the above. Then Obama could be in real trouble.
- smooth
- articulate
- fairly intelligent
- pretty well informed
- experienced in both government and business
- good looking.
Romney has executive experience. He looks like he was selected out of central casting to play a president in a movie, you know, like Reagan. Romney has a family that looks the same.
Romney is also expedient enough to convince enough independent voters to support him over President Obama. Romney has already started repeating that Obama is a very nice fellow but that he doesn't have a clue how to run the country, a view that many currently share including 2008 Obama supporters.
Romney is not scary like most of the other Republican candidates. Two days ago Romney presented his 59 points for creating jobs in the USA. Nice touch: 59, not a round number like 50 or 60. Sounds more specific. Or did Romney just bore himself when he got that far. Romney made good points, most of which most us can support. Romney spoke in a very friendly but well informed manner. Good speech.
Romney inspires confidence. The most recent media designated front running Republican, Rick Perry, made his debut in the debate held at the Ronald Reagan place in California. Just why is there a life size model of the presidential Air Force One plane filling much of the auditorium? This is especially odd considering how much Reagan hated government, particularly the federal government, which he insisted on heading for eight years. Maybe not so surprising considering that he posthumously hijacked the trappings of President Kennedy's funeral. Four days after his death on June 5, 2004 in his home in Bel Air, California, Reagan had his body flown to Washington, D.C. to lie in state for thirty-four hours, then on to a state funeral in the Washington National Cathedral, then on June 11, six days after his death, flown back to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, where another service was held, and Reagan was interred at long last. All this at taxpayer expense. Reagan should have been rolling over in his grave.
Texas Governor Rick Perry may look as much from central casting as Romney but as a clown presidential hopeful, not the real thing, not the guy who actually wins, unless it's another of those love/hate USA movies in which the country is great but is sabotaged by unscrupulous leaders. Perry is getting roasted for correctly describing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. In the debate Romney aggressively supported Social Security, which was a good political move. Perry is only accustomed to battling other Republicans in primaries, a race to the right. Once nominated for governor his elections have been secure in Republican dominated Texas. Listening to Perry attack the federal government I waited in vain for one of the two wimpy questioners to simply ask Perry why he doesn't explicitly advocate that Texas secede from the union ... again. I wouldn't mind.
Fortunately for Obama, the Republican party is so dominated by nuts that Romney may not get nominated for president in 2012. Since Reagan's inspiring rhetoric in 1980 ("I paid for this microphone.") the old minority country club patrician party of Nelson Rockefeller and William Scanton of 50 years ago has expanded by convincing American citizens to vote against their own best interests by distracting them with a series of irrelevant issues such as:
- race
- homophobia
- socialized health care
- fear of science.
Can Romney be nominated? Yes, if Republicans hate Obama more than they hate the above. Then Obama could be in real trouble.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
How to create jobs: just create them.
See this post:
Monday, March 7, 2011
Most American workers are not needed and should stay home.
Economists and politicians have not realized this. That's why they continue to fail. They're fighting the last war.
After Labor Day President Obama will present his jobs creation program. It will be the usual mess of incentives, re-education, blah, blah, blah.
If an American citizen needs a job that person should simply show up Monday morning and be assigned to something that needs to be done such as cleaning up or infrastructure work. Forget about unemployment payments. Even re-educating the unemployed is mostly a waste of money.
We simply have too many people for the work that needs to be done. Face it and stop wasting time and resources. Technology has made it so. For those with jobs that are needed, pay them between $250,000 and $500,000. For those with federal government fill-in jobs, pay them $50,000; that's plenty to get by.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Three word answer to a question for presidential candidates.
I won't tell you the question but the answer is three words and only three words. It will tell a lot about how a candidate's mind works. The answer will also provide a glimpse into that person's view of history and government.
If the candidate cannot provide the three words or tries to supply many more words, be very concerned about that person's capacity to lead and to be honest with him/herself and with the American people.
If the candidate cannot provide the three words or tries to supply many more words, be very concerned about that person's capacity to lead and to be honest with him/herself and with the American people.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Obama's problem: too much like Lincoln.
Similarities:
- tall
- athletic
- big ears
- born elsewhere but elected from Illinois
- attorneys
- no previous executive experience
- limited electoral experience
- very good writers
Unlike most on this planet I have a dim view of Lincoln. I've long thought that had he truly been great there would have been no civil war. At worst the Confederate states would have seceded and Lincoln would have have just let them go. Think how much better the rest of us would be today without those states.
The Confederacy would have failed. It's economy was not only based on slavery but was agrarian and without diversity. It would have opposed a strong central bank as it opposed a strong central government, one of the reasons it lost the war. Texas contributed very few soldiers, Virginia bore the brunt of the war and South Carolina instigated and started the war dragging the others along and then did not contribute its fair share.
The only country in the Americas which had slavery after the United States was Brazil, which abolished it in 1885. No developed nation could have entered the 20th century as a slave nation.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Lincoln did not prevent it and mis-managed it throughout. What salvaged Lincoln's legacy was his assassination, which because of the intense religious feeling at the time turned him into a martyr: father Abraham, the biblical figure with the biblical name, writing with biblical flair. It also spared Lincoln from the drudgery of managing the reconstruction era in the confederate states, which he no doubt would have mis-managed as he had the war. Charity for all is a nice sentiment but it's not policy.
I don't know how much President Obama fancies himself an ironic Lincoln, a black successor to the emancipator of black Americans, but he seems to share many of Lincoln's weaknesses.
Obama is mis-managing wars that do not need to be fought. Obama relies on Congress to develop policy. Obama hesitates, equivocates, disappoints. Most of us who voted for him don't want to admit that he has been a disaster ... like Lincoln.
- tall
- athletic
- big ears
- born elsewhere but elected from Illinois
- attorneys
- no previous executive experience
- limited electoral experience
- very good writers
Unlike most on this planet I have a dim view of Lincoln. I've long thought that had he truly been great there would have been no civil war. At worst the Confederate states would have seceded and Lincoln would have have just let them go. Think how much better the rest of us would be today without those states.
The Confederacy would have failed. It's economy was not only based on slavery but was agrarian and without diversity. It would have opposed a strong central bank as it opposed a strong central government, one of the reasons it lost the war. Texas contributed very few soldiers, Virginia bore the brunt of the war and South Carolina instigated and started the war dragging the others along and then did not contribute its fair share.
The only country in the Americas which had slavery after the United States was Brazil, which abolished it in 1885. No developed nation could have entered the 20th century as a slave nation.
The American Civil War was unnecessary. Lincoln did not prevent it and mis-managed it throughout. What salvaged Lincoln's legacy was his assassination, which because of the intense religious feeling at the time turned him into a martyr: father Abraham, the biblical figure with the biblical name, writing with biblical flair. It also spared Lincoln from the drudgery of managing the reconstruction era in the confederate states, which he no doubt would have mis-managed as he had the war. Charity for all is a nice sentiment but it's not policy.
I don't know how much President Obama fancies himself an ironic Lincoln, a black successor to the emancipator of black Americans, but he seems to share many of Lincoln's weaknesses.
Obama is mis-managing wars that do not need to be fought. Obama relies on Congress to develop policy. Obama hesitates, equivocates, disappoints. Most of us who voted for him don't want to admit that he has been a disaster ... like Lincoln.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
New York State Assembly: pass the damn National Popular Vote legislation!
National Popular Vote: compromise reform of the Electoral College. Friday, October 31, 2008
I posted that almost two years ago. August 8, 2011 I received an e-mail message from the bumblers who are promoting this indicating that with California the "Plan Has Now Been Enacted by 9 States Possessing 49% of Electoral Votes Need to Activate Bill".
That sounds pretty good, maybe even good enough to take effect in time for the 2012 presidential election. The media seems to have no clue that this movement even exists much less that it may be activated, changing all their boring conventional wisdom.
However, the proponents confuse the issue by being incredibly unclear:
"The National Popular Vote bill has now passed 31 legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions, including ... New York.:
Say what? Where the heck does it stand in New York state? I had thought that it passed the legislature but maybe it was only one house. I decided to send a message to the most recent Gov. Cuomo, which I did by filling out one of those forms on the state web site. Here is my message:
Push it through the legislature and sign it. California Governor Jerry Brown has signed the National Popular Vote bill. What are you waiting for?
What the heck? Maybe the National Popular Vote web site has some clue hidden?
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY
Ah.
ALBANY, June 7, 2011 The Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47-13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21-11 and Democrats favoring it by 26-2. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17-7. The bill now goes to the New York State Assembly. The bill passed the New York Senate in 2010 when the chamber was controlled by Democrats and has now passed with the chamber controlled by Republicans.
So, I need to contact my member of the New York State Assembly, a person who has never responded to an e-mail message from me: Amy Paulin. Another online form to fill out. Here goes nothing.
I posted that almost two years ago. August 8, 2011 I received an e-mail message from the bumblers who are promoting this indicating that with California the "Plan Has Now Been Enacted by 9 States Possessing 49% of Electoral Votes Need to Activate Bill".
That sounds pretty good, maybe even good enough to take effect in time for the 2012 presidential election. The media seems to have no clue that this movement even exists much less that it may be activated, changing all their boring conventional wisdom.
However, the proponents confuse the issue by being incredibly unclear:
"The National Popular Vote bill has now passed 31 legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions, including ... New York.:
Say what? Where the heck does it stand in New York state? I had thought that it passed the legislature but maybe it was only one house. I decided to send a message to the most recent Gov. Cuomo, which I did by filling out one of those forms on the state web site. Here is my message:
What the heck? Maybe the National Popular Vote web site has some clue hidden?
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY
Ah.
ALBANY, June 7, 2011 The Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47-13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21-11 and Democrats favoring it by 26-2. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17-7. The bill now goes to the New York State Assembly. The bill passed the New York Senate in 2010 when the chamber was controlled by Democrats and has now passed with the chamber controlled by Republicans.
So, I need to contact my member of the New York State Assembly, a person who has never responded to an e-mail message from me: Amy Paulin. Another online form to fill out. Here goes nothing.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Letter to my former high school: Xavier magazine summer 2011.
I very much enjoyed this edition.
The cover photo really captures the essence of Xavier as I remember it.
Page 2 mentions that military science is now taught by retired Army people. I hadn't known that.
I'm guessing that fewer applicants was the reason that the military was made optional forty years ago but that was always a factor. I agree with Justice Scalia that all Xavier students should be members of the regiment but for different reasons. Now the regiment is an extra circular activity. For us it was the norm.
I've been thinking about 50th anniversaries such as grammar school graduation, Yankee games and especially Xavier. In a couple of weeks we'll be reporting for freshman orientation. I turned 13 in April. I didn't know anything but I learned fast. Xavier made me tough. Other than physical pain nothing intimidated me since then.
I respect Justice Scalia and take pride in his being an Italian New Yorker and especially that he is a fellow Xavier alumnus. I often mention that as a distinguishing fact about Xavier. His address was interesting despite his gratuitous remarks about the Viet Nam era and his repeated allusion to the high calling of military service, which he himself did not embrace any more than his hunting buddy former Vice President Dick Cheney who sought and received multiple exemptions. Chicken hawks is a term sometimes applied to such men.
Scalia also mentioned Cardinal Spellman whom I do not recall favorably:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Spellman#LBJ_and_Vietnam
Spellman was an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War, to the extent that the conflict became known as "Spelly's War" and the Cardinal as the "Bob Hope of the clergy"... When Paul VI visited the United States in October 1965, he indirectly rebuked Spellman's hawkish stance by pleading for peace before the United Nations. A group of college students protested outside his residence in December 1965 for suppressing antiwar priests, and he later spent that year's Christmas with troops in South Vietnam.[1] While in Vietnam, Spellman quoted Stephen Decatur in declaring, "My country, may it always be right, but right or wrong, my country".[1] He also described Vietnam as a "war
for civilization" and "Christ's war against the Vietcong and the people of North Vietnam".[1] One priest accused Spellman of "[blessing] the guns which the pope is begging us to put down".[12] In
January 1967, antiwar protesters disrupted a Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.[21] His support for Vietnam, along with his opposition to Church reform, greatly undermined Spellman's clout within the Church and country.
Xavier needs to be more cognizant of differing views even from such a distinguished alumnus as Antonin Scalia. Scalia's snide remarks about The New York Times also did not serve him or his audience well. I hope dissent is taught at Xavier as well as obedience, conscientious objection as well as military service. For some historical perspective consider a Jesuit of that Viet Nam era which Justice Scalia remembers so differently than I: Daniel Berrigan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan
Kenneth Matinale, class of 1965
The cover photo really captures the essence of Xavier as I remember it.
Page 2 mentions that military science is now taught by retired Army people. I hadn't known that.
I'm guessing that fewer applicants was the reason that the military was made optional forty years ago but that was always a factor. I agree with Justice Scalia that all Xavier students should be members of the regiment but for different reasons. Now the regiment is an extra circular activity. For us it was the norm.
I've been thinking about 50th anniversaries such as grammar school graduation, Yankee games and especially Xavier. In a couple of weeks we'll be reporting for freshman orientation. I turned 13 in April. I didn't know anything but I learned fast. Xavier made me tough. Other than physical pain nothing intimidated me since then.
I respect Justice Scalia and take pride in his being an Italian New Yorker and especially that he is a fellow Xavier alumnus. I often mention that as a distinguishing fact about Xavier. His address was interesting despite his gratuitous remarks about the Viet Nam era and his repeated allusion to the high calling of military service, which he himself did not embrace any more than his hunting buddy former Vice President Dick Cheney who sought and received multiple exemptions. Chicken hawks is a term sometimes applied to such men.
Scalia also mentioned Cardinal Spellman whom I do not recall favorably:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Spellman#LBJ_and_Vietnam
Spellman was an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War, to the extent that the conflict became known as "Spelly's War" and the Cardinal as the "Bob Hope of the clergy"... When Paul VI visited the United States in October 1965, he indirectly rebuked Spellman's hawkish stance by pleading for peace before the United Nations. A group of college students protested outside his residence in December 1965 for suppressing antiwar priests, and he later spent that year's Christmas with troops in South Vietnam.[1] While in Vietnam, Spellman quoted Stephen Decatur in declaring, "My country, may it always be right, but right or wrong, my country".[1] He also described Vietnam as a "war
for civilization" and "Christ's war against the Vietcong and the people of North Vietnam".[1] One priest accused Spellman of "[blessing] the guns which the pope is begging us to put down".[12] In
January 1967, antiwar protesters disrupted a Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.[21] His support for Vietnam, along with his opposition to Church reform, greatly undermined Spellman's clout within the Church and country.
Xavier needs to be more cognizant of differing views even from such a distinguished alumnus as Antonin Scalia. Scalia's snide remarks about The New York Times also did not serve him or his audience well. I hope dissent is taught at Xavier as well as obedience, conscientious objection as well as military service. For some historical perspective consider a Jesuit of that Viet Nam era which Justice Scalia remembers so differently than I: Daniel Berrigan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan
Kenneth Matinale, class of 1965
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Break up the United States of America.
It wasn't worth commenting on the debt ceiling hysteria. Two things were clear:
1, President Obama should have stuck to his original position: bring me a clean bill, one that only increased the federal debt ceiling. He should have emphasized his point by stating that he would veto anything else. Unfortunately he engaged in negotiations at which he may be the worst president of all time. His skills and inclinations are much better suited to being president of a college where he could try to reason with other really smart people.
2. Both major parties should have completely ignored the so called tea party members of the House of Representatives. On the final vote they voted no, which means that no concessions needed to be made to them.
Break up the United States of America.
It's obvious that we have two incompatible views of governance: central v. decentralized. This is the cleaned up version of what we are. Then each of the new components can create a government to their liking.
Geographically, the good old USA does not lend itself to this divide, so three, maybe, four new nations could spring from the grand old 50 states.
1. Dumb States of America (DSA) See post Wednesday, February 24, 2010.
2. Northeast States of America (NSA): New York, New England, maybe New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland.
3. Pacific States of America (PSA): California, Oregon, Washington.
4. Mid-western states would need to choose between #1 and #2 or form their own land locked country (MSA): Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, ... did I omit any?
NSA and PSA belong together philosophically but the geographic divide is too great. We don't need east and west Pakistan circa 1947.
It makes a lot more sense than the mess we currently have. On to the constitutional conventions!
1, President Obama should have stuck to his original position: bring me a clean bill, one that only increased the federal debt ceiling. He should have emphasized his point by stating that he would veto anything else. Unfortunately he engaged in negotiations at which he may be the worst president of all time. His skills and inclinations are much better suited to being president of a college where he could try to reason with other really smart people.
2. Both major parties should have completely ignored the so called tea party members of the House of Representatives. On the final vote they voted no, which means that no concessions needed to be made to them.
Break up the United States of America.
It's obvious that we have two incompatible views of governance: central v. decentralized. This is the cleaned up version of what we are. Then each of the new components can create a government to their liking.
Geographically, the good old USA does not lend itself to this divide, so three, maybe, four new nations could spring from the grand old 50 states.
1. Dumb States of America (DSA) See post Wednesday, February 24, 2010.
2. Northeast States of America (NSA): New York, New England, maybe New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland.
3. Pacific States of America (PSA): California, Oregon, Washington.
4. Mid-western states would need to choose between #1 and #2 or form their own land locked country (MSA): Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, ... did I omit any?
NSA and PSA belong together philosophically but the geographic divide is too great. We don't need east and west Pakistan circa 1947.
It makes a lot more sense than the mess we currently have. On to the constitutional conventions!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Anthony Weiner v. Bill Clinton: who was more offensive?
What Congressman Anthony Weiner and President Bill Clinton have in common:
1. Both engaged in sex related activity that most Americans consider offensive.
2. Both aggressively lied about it to everyone.
3. When finally unable to avoid the truth, both apologized but refused to resign their offices in the federal government.
Differences:
1. Clinton actually had sexual physical contact with at least one other person other than his wife.
2. Clinton lied under oath according to a federal judge.
3. Clinton engaged in his offensive activity on federal government property: the White House.
4. Clinton was the other person's boss.
It seems to me that the behavior of Bill Clinton is far more offensive than that of Anthony Weiner. The main difference between these two lying weasels is that Clinton is far more likable.
The hypocrisy of the millennium award goes to those members of the Democratic party who wanted Clinton to stay in office in 1998 but want Weiner to leave office in 2011. I'll give President Obama a skate on this since he was not a public figure in 1998 and no one knows his position on Clinton, if any. However, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many others have embraced mendacity with a force seldom seen even in our nation's capitol. They kept Clinton but want to expel Weiner.
We hear that Weiner's continued presence in the House of Representatives is a distraction. Compared to what? A presidential impeachment by the House, followed by a trial in the Senate? That was a distraction for months.
Many of Weiner's colleagues seem concerned that he will rehabilitate himself through therapy and move beyond the reach of resignation. Redemption follows contrition and Weiner has taken the first step.
I'm not clear on whether members of the House have the constitutional authority to expel a member or whether it is merely a House rule. My view is that only a member's constituents should remove their elected representative, either through recall or election.
1. Both engaged in sex related activity that most Americans consider offensive.
2. Both aggressively lied about it to everyone.
3. When finally unable to avoid the truth, both apologized but refused to resign their offices in the federal government.
Differences:
1. Clinton actually had sexual physical contact with at least one other person other than his wife.
2. Clinton lied under oath according to a federal judge.
3. Clinton engaged in his offensive activity on federal government property: the White House.
4. Clinton was the other person's boss.
It seems to me that the behavior of Bill Clinton is far more offensive than that of Anthony Weiner. The main difference between these two lying weasels is that Clinton is far more likable.
The hypocrisy of the millennium award goes to those members of the Democratic party who wanted Clinton to stay in office in 1998 but want Weiner to leave office in 2011. I'll give President Obama a skate on this since he was not a public figure in 1998 and no one knows his position on Clinton, if any. However, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many others have embraced mendacity with a force seldom seen even in our nation's capitol. They kept Clinton but want to expel Weiner.
We hear that Weiner's continued presence in the House of Representatives is a distraction. Compared to what? A presidential impeachment by the House, followed by a trial in the Senate? That was a distraction for months.
Many of Weiner's colleagues seem concerned that he will rehabilitate himself through therapy and move beyond the reach of resignation. Redemption follows contrition and Weiner has taken the first step.
I'm not clear on whether members of the House have the constitutional authority to expel a member or whether it is merely a House rule. My view is that only a member's constituents should remove their elected representative, either through recall or election.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Death of Osama Bin Laden
Bin Laden was killed by the American military a week ago. The CBS program "Sixty Minutes" just presented an interview with President Barack Obama on this. Among other things the president stated that anybody who was concerned about Bin Laden's death should have his head examined.
I am concerned. Not that Bin Laden is dead but the way in which he was killed: he was murdered.
I would have been OK with:
1. an American sniper shooting Bin Laden from a distance;
2. bombs being dropped on his compound; my approval of this includes killing all persons in the compound, including Bin Laden's minor children.
These methods would have been acceptable because they would have minimized danger to American military people; anything to protect American lives during the operation.
There were drawbacks to these methods:
1. certainty that the target had been hit;
2. we would not have retrieved that large trove of data.
However:
1. we did not know there was a large trove of data
2. it was dumb luck that the compound was not booby trapped; it was reasonable to assume that Bin Laden would not have wanted to be taken alive and would have wanted to kill himself and as many attackers as possible.
Reports in the last week have shifted a lot but it is clear that the mission was to kill Bin Laden and that our forces would have taken him alive only if that option was forced upon them by abject surrender.
My problems with this intent to murder Bin Laden:
1. Am I the only person who thinks we could have gotten information from Bin Laden?
2. We forced American military people to train and carry out murder. I am appalled that the U.S. Attorney-General testified before Congress that this murder was legal. No one disagreed with him. I do not see how it can be acceptable to kill someone who is not an immediate threat.
If a criminal is apprehended in the U.S. that person may not be murdered. The criminal may be killed only as a last resort. If a law enforcement officer or civilian murders that criminal, the killer would certainly be tried, no matter how terrible the criminal.
Bin Laden did not deserve better treatment but we Americans deserve better and we should be better than we've shown. This includes the totally unacceptable behavior by entitled DC area college students, none of whom would consider joining the military, who went to the White House and treated the death as if it were a sporting event. There's a danger in treating something important as a sporting event and treating a sporting event as if it were something important.
Virtually no commentators found any fault with any of this in the first week since Osama Bin Laden was killed. Shame on them and shame on us.
I am concerned. Not that Bin Laden is dead but the way in which he was killed: he was murdered.
I would have been OK with:
1. an American sniper shooting Bin Laden from a distance;
2. bombs being dropped on his compound; my approval of this includes killing all persons in the compound, including Bin Laden's minor children.
These methods would have been acceptable because they would have minimized danger to American military people; anything to protect American lives during the operation.
There were drawbacks to these methods:
1. certainty that the target had been hit;
2. we would not have retrieved that large trove of data.
However:
1. we did not know there was a large trove of data
2. it was dumb luck that the compound was not booby trapped; it was reasonable to assume that Bin Laden would not have wanted to be taken alive and would have wanted to kill himself and as many attackers as possible.
Reports in the last week have shifted a lot but it is clear that the mission was to kill Bin Laden and that our forces would have taken him alive only if that option was forced upon them by abject surrender.
My problems with this intent to murder Bin Laden:
1. Am I the only person who thinks we could have gotten information from Bin Laden?
2. We forced American military people to train and carry out murder. I am appalled that the U.S. Attorney-General testified before Congress that this murder was legal. No one disagreed with him. I do not see how it can be acceptable to kill someone who is not an immediate threat.
If a criminal is apprehended in the U.S. that person may not be murdered. The criminal may be killed only as a last resort. If a law enforcement officer or civilian murders that criminal, the killer would certainly be tried, no matter how terrible the criminal.
Bin Laden did not deserve better treatment but we Americans deserve better and we should be better than we've shown. This includes the totally unacceptable behavior by entitled DC area college students, none of whom would consider joining the military, who went to the White House and treated the death as if it were a sporting event. There's a danger in treating something important as a sporting event and treating a sporting event as if it were something important.
Virtually no commentators found any fault with any of this in the first week since Osama Bin Laden was killed. Shame on them and shame on us.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Write-in votes: the way to break the stranglehold of the two major parties.
See a local example of obfuscation.
With all the online resources, I cannot understand why those who find the two major political parities so unacceptable do not mount write-in campaigns, unless they really prefer to curse the darkness rather than light a candle.
Such a campaign could be done with very little money, certainly much less than the disgraceful and obscene one billion dollar objective of President Obama for his re-election in 2012.
With all the online resources, I cannot understand why those who find the two major political parities so unacceptable do not mount write-in campaigns, unless they really prefer to curse the darkness rather than light a candle.
Such a campaign could be done with very little money, certainly much less than the disgraceful and obscene one billion dollar objective of President Obama for his re-election in 2012.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Hillary rising and just how big a wimp is Obama?
Yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the transfer of military no fly operations in Libya from the United States to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Say what?
How come President Barack Obama didn't make the announcement himself? Or if the president delegated the announcement shouldn't it have been to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, especially since it was basically a military issue?
Or was Obama placating his women hawks featuring Hillary Clinton at the expense of his men doves featuring Robert Gates? Obama had already acceded to Hillary Clinton's wishes and ignored those of Gates.
This is more than a simple point of protocol. Did Hillary Clinton take this upon herself? Unlikely. But it's still alarming given that Hillary Clinton is the least qualified Secretary of State since World War II.
There are two qualifications for any cabinet position: executive experience and subject matter knowledge and experience. Hillary Clinton was zero for two. No, being married to the president and making trips to foreign countries does not count as foreign policy experience. Nor does being a U.S. Senator. The last Senator to be Secretary of State was Edmund Muskie and he was a late term fill in during the failed term of Jimmy Carter after Cyrus Vance had resigned in protest over Carter's failed rescue attempt of the Americans being held hostage in Iran. Even Muskie had been a governor.
The closest thing to executive experience that Hillary Clinton had prior to being named Secretary of State was heading her can't lose presidential campaign in 2008, which was mismanaged into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In her brief time as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over the most enormous leaking of secret government documents (to wiki leaks) and has yet to be taken to account. Why is that?
Here's a trip down memory lane of Secretaries of State past and their qualifications. Read this and you'll see how pathetic Hillary Clinton's credentials were.
Condoleezza Rice January 26, 2005 – January 20, 2009: President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term; President George H.W. Bush's Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Colin Powell January 20, 2001 – January 26, 2005: retired four-star general in the United States Army; National Security Advisor; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Madeleine Albright January 23, 1997 – January 20, 2001: fluent in English, French, Russian, and Czech; she speaks and reads Polish and Serbo-Croatian; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Carter's National Security Council’s congressional liaison; academic staff at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., specializing in Eastern European studies.
Warren Christopher January 20, 1993 – January 17, 1997: Deputy Attorney General in the Lyndon Johnson administration: Deputy Secretary of State in the Jimmy Carter administration negotiating the Algiers Accords, and securing the release of 52 American hostages in Iran. He also spearheaded the Sino-American relations with the People's Republic of China, helped to win ratification of the Panama Canal treaties, and headed the first interagency group on human rights. President Jimmy Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, on January 16, 1981.
Lawrence Eagleburger December 8, 1992 – January 20, 1993: career diplomat; joined the US Foreign Service in 1957, and served in various posts in embassies, consulates, and the State Department.
James Baker January 20, 1989 – August 23, 1992: Secretary of the Treasury from 1985-1988; Chief of Staff for Reagan and Bush the elder; served on the Economic Policy Council and National Security Council.
George P. Shultz July 16, 1982 – January 20, 1989: Secretary of Labor from 1969 to 1970; Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974; professor of economics at MIT and the University of Chicago, serving as Dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business from 1962 to 1969; 1974 to 1982, Shultz was an executive at Bechtel, eventually becoming the firm's president.
Alexander Haig January 22, 1981 – July 5, 1982: United States Army general who served as White House Chief of Staff under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, the second-highest ranking officer in the Army, and as Supreme Allied Commander Europe commanding all U.S. and NATO forces in Europe.
Edmund Muskie May 8, 1980 – January 20, 1981: governor of Maine from 1955 to 1959, United States Senator from 1959 to 1980; Democratic nominee for Vice President in the 1968; Maine House of Representatives.
Cyrus Vance January 20, 1977 – April 28, 1980: Secretary of the Army and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Henry Kissinger September 22, 1973 – January 20, 1977: Nobel Peace Prize; National Security Advisor; consultant to the Director of the Psychological Strategy Board; doctoral dissertation was titled "Peace, Legitimacy, and the Equilibrium (A Study of the Statesmanship of Castlereagh and Metternich)."; Director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program between 1958 and 1971 and Director of the Harvard International Seminar between 1951 and 1971; consultant to several government agencies, including the Operations Research Office, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Department of State, and the Rand Corporation; U.S. Army Sergeant: volunteered for hazardous intelligence duties during the Battle of the Bulge; awarded the Bronze Star; taught at the European Command Intelligence School.
William P. Rogers January 22, 1969 – September 3, 1973: Attorney General from 1957 to 1961; U.S. Navy lieutenant commander in WWII.
Dean Rusk January 21, 1961 – January 20, 1969 (second-longest serving U.S. Secretary of State of all time, behind only Cordell Hull): World War II Army infantry reserve captain; work briefly for the War Department in Washington. Joined the State Department in February 1945, and worked for the office of United Nations Affairs; Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950; president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Christian Herter April 22, 1959 РJanuary 20, 1961: governor of Massachusetts from 1953 to 1956; born in Paris, France; attach̩ to the U.S. Embassy in Berlin; part of the U.S. delegation to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference; Commerce Secretary; Massachusetts House of Representatives; United States House of Representatives; founded the Middle East Institute; served on the board of trustees of the World Peace Foundation.
John Foster Dulles January 26, 1953 – April 22, 1959: Both his grandfather, John W. Foster, and his uncle, Robert Lansing, served as Secretary of State; legal counsel to the United States delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference; member of the War Reparations Committee; participated in the San Francisco Conference and worked as adviser to Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg and helped draft the preamble to the United Nations Charter. He subsequently attended the United Nations General Assembly as a United States delegate in 1946, 1947 and 1950; appointed by New York Governor Dewey to the United States Senate July 7, 1949, to November 8, 1949; In 1950, Dulles published War or Peace, a critical analysis of the American policy of containment.
Dean Acheson January 21, 1949 – January 20, 1953: Undersecretary of the United States Treasury; 1939-1940 he headed a committee to study the operation of administrative bureaus in the federal government; assistant secretary of state in 1941; implemented the Lend-Lease policy that helped re-arm Great Britain and the American/British/Dutch oil embargo that cut off 95 percent of Japanese oil supplies and escalated the crisis with Japan in 1941; attended the Bretton Woods Conference (the birthplace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the last of which would evolve into the World Trade Organization.) as the head delegate from the State department; Undersecretary of of State.
George Marshall January 21, 1947 – January 20, 1949: Chief of Staff of the Army; third Secretary of Defense.
James F. Byrnes July 3, 1945 – January 21, 1947: U.S. House of Representatives (1911–1925), U.S. Senator (1931–1941), Justice of the Supreme Court (1941–1942); headed Roosevelt's Economic Stabilization Office; also headed of the Office of War Mobilization; attended Yalta Conference in early 1945; close advisor to President Truman.
So where would you rank Hillary Clinton among these people as far as credentials to be Secretary of State prior to being appointed? Last if you're even a little bit objective. That's why it's alarming that Obama would let her infringe upon his responsibilities or those of the Secretary of Defense.
Say what?
How come President Barack Obama didn't make the announcement himself? Or if the president delegated the announcement shouldn't it have been to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, especially since it was basically a military issue?
Or was Obama placating his women hawks featuring Hillary Clinton at the expense of his men doves featuring Robert Gates? Obama had already acceded to Hillary Clinton's wishes and ignored those of Gates.
This is more than a simple point of protocol. Did Hillary Clinton take this upon herself? Unlikely. But it's still alarming given that Hillary Clinton is the least qualified Secretary of State since World War II.
There are two qualifications for any cabinet position: executive experience and subject matter knowledge and experience. Hillary Clinton was zero for two. No, being married to the president and making trips to foreign countries does not count as foreign policy experience. Nor does being a U.S. Senator. The last Senator to be Secretary of State was Edmund Muskie and he was a late term fill in during the failed term of Jimmy Carter after Cyrus Vance had resigned in protest over Carter's failed rescue attempt of the Americans being held hostage in Iran. Even Muskie had been a governor.
The closest thing to executive experience that Hillary Clinton had prior to being named Secretary of State was heading her can't lose presidential campaign in 2008, which was mismanaged into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In her brief time as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over the most enormous leaking of secret government documents (to wiki leaks) and has yet to be taken to account. Why is that?
Here's a trip down memory lane of Secretaries of State past and their qualifications. Read this and you'll see how pathetic Hillary Clinton's credentials were.
Condoleezza Rice January 26, 2005 – January 20, 2009: President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term; President George H.W. Bush's Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Colin Powell January 20, 2001 – January 26, 2005: retired four-star general in the United States Army; National Security Advisor; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Madeleine Albright January 23, 1997 – January 20, 2001: fluent in English, French, Russian, and Czech; she speaks and reads Polish and Serbo-Croatian; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Carter's National Security Council’s congressional liaison; academic staff at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., specializing in Eastern European studies.
Warren Christopher January 20, 1993 – January 17, 1997: Deputy Attorney General in the Lyndon Johnson administration: Deputy Secretary of State in the Jimmy Carter administration negotiating the Algiers Accords, and securing the release of 52 American hostages in Iran. He also spearheaded the Sino-American relations with the People's Republic of China, helped to win ratification of the Panama Canal treaties, and headed the first interagency group on human rights. President Jimmy Carter awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, on January 16, 1981.
Lawrence Eagleburger December 8, 1992 – January 20, 1993: career diplomat; joined the US Foreign Service in 1957, and served in various posts in embassies, consulates, and the State Department.
James Baker January 20, 1989 – August 23, 1992: Secretary of the Treasury from 1985-1988; Chief of Staff for Reagan and Bush the elder; served on the Economic Policy Council and National Security Council.
George P. Shultz July 16, 1982 – January 20, 1989: Secretary of Labor from 1969 to 1970; Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974; professor of economics at MIT and the University of Chicago, serving as Dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business from 1962 to 1969; 1974 to 1982, Shultz was an executive at Bechtel, eventually becoming the firm's president.
Alexander Haig January 22, 1981 – July 5, 1982: United States Army general who served as White House Chief of Staff under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, the second-highest ranking officer in the Army, and as Supreme Allied Commander Europe commanding all U.S. and NATO forces in Europe.
Edmund Muskie May 8, 1980 – January 20, 1981: governor of Maine from 1955 to 1959, United States Senator from 1959 to 1980; Democratic nominee for Vice President in the 1968; Maine House of Representatives.
Cyrus Vance January 20, 1977 – April 28, 1980: Secretary of the Army and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Henry Kissinger September 22, 1973 – January 20, 1977: Nobel Peace Prize; National Security Advisor; consultant to the Director of the Psychological Strategy Board; doctoral dissertation was titled "Peace, Legitimacy, and the Equilibrium (A Study of the Statesmanship of Castlereagh and Metternich)."; Director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program between 1958 and 1971 and Director of the Harvard International Seminar between 1951 and 1971; consultant to several government agencies, including the Operations Research Office, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Department of State, and the Rand Corporation; U.S. Army Sergeant: volunteered for hazardous intelligence duties during the Battle of the Bulge; awarded the Bronze Star; taught at the European Command Intelligence School.
William P. Rogers January 22, 1969 – September 3, 1973: Attorney General from 1957 to 1961; U.S. Navy lieutenant commander in WWII.
Dean Rusk January 21, 1961 – January 20, 1969 (second-longest serving U.S. Secretary of State of all time, behind only Cordell Hull): World War II Army infantry reserve captain; work briefly for the War Department in Washington. Joined the State Department in February 1945, and worked for the office of United Nations Affairs; Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950; president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Christian Herter April 22, 1959 РJanuary 20, 1961: governor of Massachusetts from 1953 to 1956; born in Paris, France; attach̩ to the U.S. Embassy in Berlin; part of the U.S. delegation to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference; Commerce Secretary; Massachusetts House of Representatives; United States House of Representatives; founded the Middle East Institute; served on the board of trustees of the World Peace Foundation.
John Foster Dulles January 26, 1953 – April 22, 1959: Both his grandfather, John W. Foster, and his uncle, Robert Lansing, served as Secretary of State; legal counsel to the United States delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference; member of the War Reparations Committee; participated in the San Francisco Conference and worked as adviser to Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg and helped draft the preamble to the United Nations Charter. He subsequently attended the United Nations General Assembly as a United States delegate in 1946, 1947 and 1950; appointed by New York Governor Dewey to the United States Senate July 7, 1949, to November 8, 1949; In 1950, Dulles published War or Peace, a critical analysis of the American policy of containment.
Dean Acheson January 21, 1949 – January 20, 1953: Undersecretary of the United States Treasury; 1939-1940 he headed a committee to study the operation of administrative bureaus in the federal government; assistant secretary of state in 1941; implemented the Lend-Lease policy that helped re-arm Great Britain and the American/British/Dutch oil embargo that cut off 95 percent of Japanese oil supplies and escalated the crisis with Japan in 1941; attended the Bretton Woods Conference (the birthplace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the last of which would evolve into the World Trade Organization.) as the head delegate from the State department; Undersecretary of of State.
George Marshall January 21, 1947 – January 20, 1949: Chief of Staff of the Army; third Secretary of Defense.
James F. Byrnes July 3, 1945 – January 21, 1947: U.S. House of Representatives (1911–1925), U.S. Senator (1931–1941), Justice of the Supreme Court (1941–1942); headed Roosevelt's Economic Stabilization Office; also headed of the Office of War Mobilization; attended Yalta Conference in early 1945; close advisor to President Truman.
So where would you rank Hillary Clinton among these people as far as credentials to be Secretary of State prior to being appointed? Last if you're even a little bit objective. That's why it's alarming that Obama would let her infringe upon his responsibilities or those of the Secretary of Defense.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Libya: what the heck are we doing?
President Obama is making his usual mess of things in the Libyan civil war, trying to split differences. What happened to his willingness to negotiate with anyone as he stated during the 2008 campaign? He seems to be bouncing between two of his secretaries: Robert Gates at Defense and Hillary Clinton at State. Gates has the dove position and Hillary Clinton has the hawk position with Obama being dragged into the hawk sphere, trying to make amends for former President Bill Clinton's lament that he did not act more decisively to stop genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s.
The Arab League seemed to advocate then equivocate about wanting a no fly zone established in Libya. So why don't the Arab states just do it? Why do they need western states, especially the Unites States, to do it for them? They hate the west, especially the Unites States.
And why are so many in favor of opposing this particular tin horn dictator when there are so many from which to choose? If this were Mr. fill in the blank tin horn dictator, I doubt that much, if anything, would be said much less done. But because this tin horn dictator happens to be who he is, entire nations are behaving differently.
And why are U.S. war ships necessary to launch attacks? Why not launch them from Italy or France or Greece or, better yet, neighboring Egypt?
The United States Air Force is the world's largest. Second largest: the United States Navy. What the heck are we doing spending so much money on our military when Europe is spending less each year. One way to reduce our military spending is to eliminate the Army. That would not just save enormous amounts of money but preclude us from engaging in mindless WWII type military activities like those conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan for so many years, including the incomprehensively stupid house to house search. It's not 1944.
NO boots on the ground. Anywhere. Certainly not in stupid Libya, which is probably devolving into tribal war.
More fundamentally, Obama should have gotten Congressional approval, as Bush the younger did before attacking Iraq, and not acted unilaterally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative for Ohio's 10th congressional district, has been making the point on TV talk shows that Obama is/may be committing impeachable offenses. Unfortunately, all Kucinich is doing is talk. He has taken no formal action. If we removed a few of these presidents when they do this stuff they'd stop doing this stuff.
Leave Libya to the Libyans, whatever they are.
The Arab League seemed to advocate then equivocate about wanting a no fly zone established in Libya. So why don't the Arab states just do it? Why do they need western states, especially the Unites States, to do it for them? They hate the west, especially the Unites States.
And why are so many in favor of opposing this particular tin horn dictator when there are so many from which to choose? If this were Mr. fill in the blank tin horn dictator, I doubt that much, if anything, would be said much less done. But because this tin horn dictator happens to be who he is, entire nations are behaving differently.
And why are U.S. war ships necessary to launch attacks? Why not launch them from Italy or France or Greece or, better yet, neighboring Egypt?
The United States Air Force is the world's largest. Second largest: the United States Navy. What the heck are we doing spending so much money on our military when Europe is spending less each year. One way to reduce our military spending is to eliminate the Army. That would not just save enormous amounts of money but preclude us from engaging in mindless WWII type military activities like those conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan for so many years, including the incomprehensively stupid house to house search. It's not 1944.
NO boots on the ground. Anywhere. Certainly not in stupid Libya, which is probably devolving into tribal war.
More fundamentally, Obama should have gotten Congressional approval, as Bush the younger did before attacking Iraq, and not acted unilaterally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative for Ohio's 10th congressional district, has been making the point on TV talk shows that Obama is/may be committing impeachable offenses. Unfortunately, all Kucinich is doing is talk. He has taken no formal action. If we removed a few of these presidents when they do this stuff they'd stop doing this stuff.
Leave Libya to the Libyans, whatever they are.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Catastrophe in Japan: It's the Tsunami, Stupid.
The scenes of horrendous death and destruction continue to dominate our mass news coverage, especially on television. Nuclear radiation could almost be mistaken as the cause. It is not. People in Japan died because of the earthquake and tsunami (tidal wave) that smashed northeastern Japan ten days ago. The radiation from the damaged nuclear plants has killed no one so far.
We hear about our brush with possible nuclear catastrophe at Three Mile Island, PA in 1979 mentioned as comparable to the disaster at Chernobyl in the defunct Soviet Union. The Chernobyl plant did not even have a containment chamber, the massively thick concrete structure designed to prevent nuclear radiation from escaping into the air in the event of a meltdown of the nuclear reactor within it.
The Japanese stored significant amounts of spent nuclear fuel rods on the roofs of its containment chambers. On the ROOFS! This is incomprehensibly stupid. And the Japanese did it, not the Russians.
Lest you think that I endorse nuclear energy in the United States I advocate closing our nuclear plants immediately. There is no way to safely dispose of the spent nuclear fuel rods. No one has found a way to do it, not we Americans, not the French, not the Japanese, obviously.
Every expert I've heard interviewed in recent days states that the U.S. must continue to use nuclear energy, just be really careful. There's no such thing as careful in disposing of the spent nuclear fuel rods. Ask the Japanese.
The explanation is that the U.S. gets 20% of its electricity from "clean" nuclear energy. How about we CONSERVE 20% and close the damn nuclear energy plants? Doesn't that make more sense?
Oh, how ever could we do that? Suppose that those nuclear energy plants stopped functioning. Do you think we could figure it out? Of course. So let's just do it. And while we're at it stop using oil. Same idea. Just stop. That would kick renewable energy into high gear.
We hear about our brush with possible nuclear catastrophe at Three Mile Island, PA in 1979 mentioned as comparable to the disaster at Chernobyl in the defunct Soviet Union. The Chernobyl plant did not even have a containment chamber, the massively thick concrete structure designed to prevent nuclear radiation from escaping into the air in the event of a meltdown of the nuclear reactor within it.
The Japanese stored significant amounts of spent nuclear fuel rods on the roofs of its containment chambers. On the ROOFS! This is incomprehensibly stupid. And the Japanese did it, not the Russians.
Lest you think that I endorse nuclear energy in the United States I advocate closing our nuclear plants immediately. There is no way to safely dispose of the spent nuclear fuel rods. No one has found a way to do it, not we Americans, not the French, not the Japanese, obviously.
Every expert I've heard interviewed in recent days states that the U.S. must continue to use nuclear energy, just be really careful. There's no such thing as careful in disposing of the spent nuclear fuel rods. Ask the Japanese.
The explanation is that the U.S. gets 20% of its electricity from "clean" nuclear energy. How about we CONSERVE 20% and close the damn nuclear energy plants? Doesn't that make more sense?
Oh, how ever could we do that? Suppose that those nuclear energy plants stopped functioning. Do you think we could figure it out? Of course. So let's just do it. And while we're at it stop using oil. Same idea. Just stop. That would kick renewable energy into high gear.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Most American workers are not needed and should stay home.
Prior to this blog I had some truisms. These three seem to be converging:
1. Around 1990 I stated that there would be an ever increasing gap not only between the haves and the have nots but also between the knows and the know nots.
2. We're all on welfare, especially people with jobs. For instance, retired people get paid to not work. They don't want to consider that welfare but it is.
3. 90% of work in America is not necessary.
How can this be? Technology. We no longer need all adults to work for the country to be prosperous. In fact, we're probably better off with them not working. The percentage of adults needed for work will continue to decrease.
Recent articles have impacted these concepts. Computer systems, including artificial intelligence for things like e-discovery in the practice of law, degrade the job possibilities for the knows, i.e., those who are educated. There are computer systems that can generate newer computer systems. Obviously, this undermines the mindless conventional wisdom most recently espoused by former Florida governor Jeb Bush at a joint appearance in Florida with President Obama. Even if throwing money at the education disaster worked and properly educated most students, there may not be enough jobs to support all the educated in our model of middle class life, which is assumed to be necessary to support our capitalist economic system.
Most entire industries in the U.S. are not necessary: advertising, insurance, junk food, real estate sales, insurance, much of law, sales, banking, etc. Necessary are:
- food production
- health care
- public safety: military, police, fire protection
- communication
- distribution
- infrastructure
- high level engineering, especially computer science
- physical labor, especially the big three that cannot be outsourced: electrician, plumber, carpenter.
Much of the rest is done in other countries anyway: clothing, manufacturing (especially electronic), toys. etc.
That's about it. How many people do you who know are working in those necessary categories and, if they are, how many are doing jobs that require a human being? What percentage of the U.S. work force is necessary? I'm guessing ten percent.
So instead of fighting the obvious, why not deal with it. Send people home and share the remaining work. Or have everybody do something local like cleaning up public areas. Stop trying to decrease unemployment. That's a losing strategy.
Our Puritan American work ethic is still very valuable. However, it is misplaced for most American workers who would rather work for a paycheck than accept welfare. The problem is that most of their jobs are welfare because the jobs themselves are not needed. What else would you call that? They are performing the old 1930s depression era economic concept of being paid to dig a hole and then fill it up.
Just let most of them stay the heck home and take care of their kids. That would be a greater contribution to the nation than jerking around at work, consuming energy both at the work place and in transportation to/from it.
At least 30 years ago it was thought that office workers could tele-commute, i.e. work from home. That never happened, I think, because boring old corporate management did not trust its workers to work at home. Better to have them goofing off at the office and tending to personal stuff on company time.
Even education, once kids are taught to read and write, may be done better by computers and those stay at home parents. Today's teachers are clearly getting increasingly worse results. Those clowns in Wisconsin should wake up and realize that most of them are not needed.
With the web people can educate themselves, even without using formal educational online programs. Most colleges have online classes. Many, maybe most, will not educate themselves. Those are the same ones who are not learning now, except that they are consuming resources better allocated elsewhere.
Grammar schools have devolved into incredibly inefficient baby sitters for working mothers, still earning less than their male counterparts, who would be more valuable staying home and educating their kids themselves. With my system, most dads could stay home, too, and do likewise.
Pay people to:
- educate their own kids
- perform local public service stuff
- spend.
That should have the economy humming along nicely.
1. Around 1990 I stated that there would be an ever increasing gap not only between the haves and the have nots but also between the knows and the know nots.
2. We're all on welfare, especially people with jobs. For instance, retired people get paid to not work. They don't want to consider that welfare but it is.
3. 90% of work in America is not necessary.
How can this be? Technology. We no longer need all adults to work for the country to be prosperous. In fact, we're probably better off with them not working. The percentage of adults needed for work will continue to decrease.
Recent articles have impacted these concepts. Computer systems, including artificial intelligence for things like e-discovery in the practice of law, degrade the job possibilities for the knows, i.e., those who are educated. There are computer systems that can generate newer computer systems. Obviously, this undermines the mindless conventional wisdom most recently espoused by former Florida governor Jeb Bush at a joint appearance in Florida with President Obama. Even if throwing money at the education disaster worked and properly educated most students, there may not be enough jobs to support all the educated in our model of middle class life, which is assumed to be necessary to support our capitalist economic system.
Most entire industries in the U.S. are not necessary: advertising, insurance, junk food, real estate sales, insurance, much of law, sales, banking, etc. Necessary are:
- food production
- health care
- public safety: military, police, fire protection
- communication
- distribution
- infrastructure
- high level engineering, especially computer science
- physical labor, especially the big three that cannot be outsourced: electrician, plumber, carpenter.
Much of the rest is done in other countries anyway: clothing, manufacturing (especially electronic), toys. etc.
That's about it. How many people do you who know are working in those necessary categories and, if they are, how many are doing jobs that require a human being? What percentage of the U.S. work force is necessary? I'm guessing ten percent.
So instead of fighting the obvious, why not deal with it. Send people home and share the remaining work. Or have everybody do something local like cleaning up public areas. Stop trying to decrease unemployment. That's a losing strategy.
Our Puritan American work ethic is still very valuable. However, it is misplaced for most American workers who would rather work for a paycheck than accept welfare. The problem is that most of their jobs are welfare because the jobs themselves are not needed. What else would you call that? They are performing the old 1930s depression era economic concept of being paid to dig a hole and then fill it up.
Just let most of them stay the heck home and take care of their kids. That would be a greater contribution to the nation than jerking around at work, consuming energy both at the work place and in transportation to/from it.
At least 30 years ago it was thought that office workers could tele-commute, i.e. work from home. That never happened, I think, because boring old corporate management did not trust its workers to work at home. Better to have them goofing off at the office and tending to personal stuff on company time.
Even education, once kids are taught to read and write, may be done better by computers and those stay at home parents. Today's teachers are clearly getting increasingly worse results. Those clowns in Wisconsin should wake up and realize that most of them are not needed.
With the web people can educate themselves, even without using formal educational online programs. Most colleges have online classes. Many, maybe most, will not educate themselves. Those are the same ones who are not learning now, except that they are consuming resources better allocated elsewhere.
Grammar schools have devolved into incredibly inefficient baby sitters for working mothers, still earning less than their male counterparts, who would be more valuable staying home and educating their kids themselves. With my system, most dads could stay home, too, and do likewise.
Pay people to:
- educate their own kids
- perform local public service stuff
- spend.
That should have the economy humming along nicely.
Monday, February 21, 2011
One man, one vote. One millionaire, one million votes.
That's what you might conclude from some of the hysterical comments from "experts" with whom I might normally agree. However, the mess in Wisconsin in which public school teachers are conducting a fit has most commentators becoming irrational.
If Wisconsin eliminates or reduces the bargaining rights of public service workers it will not be the end of democracy. It's a bit analogous to term limits. My position is that we have had term limits all along. They're called elections. However, to protect us from ourselves many people believe that we need to limit the ability of an individual to run for the same office too many consecutive times, lest his/her constituents actually vote for that person again and again.
State legislators and governors are the ones to blame for public service workers having such lucrative deals. The state legislators and governors cave in pretty much every time they are threatened with a loss of services by public school teachers, fire fighters and police officers.
In 2010 the traditionally liberal state of Wisconsin voted for conservative Republican state legislators and governor who are now trying to do what Wisconsin voters should have expected. What to do? How about voting them out next time and insisting that their replacements replace the union rights taken away in 2011? The solution is not a panic attack.
The power of the ballot is not going away, so everyone should just calm the heck down.
A commentator whom I usually respect is Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Krugman is also a teacher. Consider this from Krugman's column today:
what (Republicans) are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy...
On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Krugman is correct that wealthy people have disproportionate power in the United States. That's because they are active. Contrary to Krugman's assertion that we need to codify the power of working people what is needed to counter one millionaire using one million dollars to influence public policy is for one million people to contribute one dollar to work against that position.
So why doesn't that happen? It's because the American people are dumb and lazy. Like the basic problem in the housing scandal, people do not have the right to be stupid.
If Wisconsin eliminates or reduces the bargaining rights of public service workers it will not be the end of democracy. It's a bit analogous to term limits. My position is that we have had term limits all along. They're called elections. However, to protect us from ourselves many people believe that we need to limit the ability of an individual to run for the same office too many consecutive times, lest his/her constituents actually vote for that person again and again.
State legislators and governors are the ones to blame for public service workers having such lucrative deals. The state legislators and governors cave in pretty much every time they are threatened with a loss of services by public school teachers, fire fighters and police officers.
In 2010 the traditionally liberal state of Wisconsin voted for conservative Republican state legislators and governor who are now trying to do what Wisconsin voters should have expected. What to do? How about voting them out next time and insisting that their replacements replace the union rights taken away in 2011? The solution is not a panic attack.
The power of the ballot is not going away, so everyone should just calm the heck down.
A commentator whom I usually respect is Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Krugman is also a teacher. Consider this from Krugman's column today:
what (Republicans) are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy...
On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Krugman is correct that wealthy people have disproportionate power in the United States. That's because they are active. Contrary to Krugman's assertion that we need to codify the power of working people what is needed to counter one millionaire using one million dollars to influence public policy is for one million people to contribute one dollar to work against that position.
So why doesn't that happen? It's because the American people are dumb and lazy. Like the basic problem in the housing scandal, people do not have the right to be stupid.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Last grownup standing: why Obama will be re-elected.
As big a disappointment as Obama has been and as much as of a disaster as Obama has been, he is likely to be re-elected in 2012 because every other possible candidate and almost all major national political figures have abdicated that most basic position: grownup.
In the less than two months that John Boehner has been Speaker of the House of Representatives he may have already become even more objectionable than his predecessor Nancy Pelosi as impossible as that may seem at first glance.
Obama actually sounds like he is in control of his emotions and thinking rationally. Obama seems intelligent and knowledgeable. Obama seems respectful of both his supporters and opponents. Obama seems to consider the impact of both what he does and what he says. Plus, Obama is already president, making everything he does and says seem grownup.
The other basic thing that will help Obama get re-elected is that you cannot beat somebody with nobody. Right now his opponents have a bunch of nobodies who seem intent on remaining nobodies, pandering to the most basic biases of the American people to the detriment of the country. While the American people have continually and consistently demonstrated their willingness to act against their own best interests, it does not enhance presidential aspirations to join in that counterproductive exercise. You may get elected that way but you cannot improve conditions once in office because you will be expected to act as a non-grownup, something that will surely fail and ultimately earn the wrath of the American people.
While you'll never consistently lose elections by underestimating the foolhardiness of the American people, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The chickens will come home to roost. The American people will waste votes in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the office, with president being the post least likely to get votes for candidates who have less than 40% chance of winning, i.e., getting less than 40% of the popular vote.
If the 2012 presidential election is between a grownup and one of the non-grownups, the grownup wins.
In the less than two months that John Boehner has been Speaker of the House of Representatives he may have already become even more objectionable than his predecessor Nancy Pelosi as impossible as that may seem at first glance.
Obama actually sounds like he is in control of his emotions and thinking rationally. Obama seems intelligent and knowledgeable. Obama seems respectful of both his supporters and opponents. Obama seems to consider the impact of both what he does and what he says. Plus, Obama is already president, making everything he does and says seem grownup.
The other basic thing that will help Obama get re-elected is that you cannot beat somebody with nobody. Right now his opponents have a bunch of nobodies who seem intent on remaining nobodies, pandering to the most basic biases of the American people to the detriment of the country. While the American people have continually and consistently demonstrated their willingness to act against their own best interests, it does not enhance presidential aspirations to join in that counterproductive exercise. You may get elected that way but you cannot improve conditions once in office because you will be expected to act as a non-grownup, something that will surely fail and ultimately earn the wrath of the American people.
While you'll never consistently lose elections by underestimating the foolhardiness of the American people, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The chickens will come home to roost. The American people will waste votes in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the office, with president being the post least likely to get votes for candidates who have less than 40% chance of winning, i.e., getting less than 40% of the popular vote.
If the 2012 presidential election is between a grownup and one of the non-grownups, the grownup wins.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Wisconsin teachers suck.
Wisconsin teachers have been beseeching the state capitol trying to pressure the governor and majority of legislators to negotiate into backing down from changing state policy regarding public service unions.
The merits of the issue are not what is important, although you'd never know that from the news coverage, which emphasises video of unacceptable behavior by the teachers and couching that behavior in terms that are intended to make it acceptable.
1. Almost all Wisconsin teachers have attended these activities by taking paid sick days, i.e., lying about their health and defrauding the entity that pays them.
2. Wisconsin teachers are often screaming nonsense and otherwise behaving out of control.
3. Many Wisconsin teachers are carrying signs depicting the governor as Adolf Hitler and describing him as a Nazi. Other signs are incoherent.
Remember, these are TEACHERS, not clerks in the department of motor vehicles, or cops, or firefighters. TEACHERS! People who have graduated college, specializing in teaching and leading young people, guiding them in dealing with life.
If this is what President Obama would describe as a teachable moment, then what is being taught by these professional Wisconsin teachers to the students of Wisconsin? Nothing positive that I can see.
Wisconsin parents should condemn the teachers and demand that they go back to work and behave themselves. The students of Wisconsin will have plenty of embarrassing and humiliating video of their teachers to throw back at them the next time a Wisconsin teacher tries to exercise classroom discipline or moral suasion.
The merits of the issue are not what is important, although you'd never know that from the news coverage, which emphasises video of unacceptable behavior by the teachers and couching that behavior in terms that are intended to make it acceptable.
1. Almost all Wisconsin teachers have attended these activities by taking paid sick days, i.e., lying about their health and defrauding the entity that pays them.
2. Wisconsin teachers are often screaming nonsense and otherwise behaving out of control.
3. Many Wisconsin teachers are carrying signs depicting the governor as Adolf Hitler and describing him as a Nazi. Other signs are incoherent.
Remember, these are TEACHERS, not clerks in the department of motor vehicles, or cops, or firefighters. TEACHERS! People who have graduated college, specializing in teaching and leading young people, guiding them in dealing with life.
If this is what President Obama would describe as a teachable moment, then what is being taught by these professional Wisconsin teachers to the students of Wisconsin? Nothing positive that I can see.
Wisconsin parents should condemn the teachers and demand that they go back to work and behave themselves. The students of Wisconsin will have plenty of embarrassing and humiliating video of their teachers to throw back at them the next time a Wisconsin teacher tries to exercise classroom discipline or moral suasion.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Obama, super wimp!
Super Bowl Sunday on the FOX network established two things:
- Bill O'Reilly is the most boorish American
- Barack Obama is a super wimp.
It was demonstrated on MS-NBC last night that in his White House interview of the president O'Reilly interrupted Obama at least once on every question, about 50 times. I have never seen an American president treated so rudely.
In recent years the conduct and treatment of the president has continuously declined, starting at least as far back as George Bush the elder in 1992 when he was unsuccessfully running for re-election against Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. Bush was interviewed on the NBC Today show starting around 7:15AM. He submitted not only to commercial interruption but to a 15-20 minute break for the local news.
As a kid I can recall seeing an hour long interview of President Eisenhower at 10PM. There were no commercials. Eisenhower was treated with great respect and the setting was very formal.
Obama followed his humiliation at the hands of O'Reilly with a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce intended to convince the U.S. business community that Obama doesn't really regard them as the Republicans they are: bums who are only concerned about themselves and their rich friends. I heard this morning on CNN that 48% of their business is outside the U.S. Maybe the name of their lobby group should be changed to reflect that: 52% U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- Bill O'Reilly is the most boorish American
- Barack Obama is a super wimp.
It was demonstrated on MS-NBC last night that in his White House interview of the president O'Reilly interrupted Obama at least once on every question, about 50 times. I have never seen an American president treated so rudely.
In recent years the conduct and treatment of the president has continuously declined, starting at least as far back as George Bush the elder in 1992 when he was unsuccessfully running for re-election against Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. Bush was interviewed on the NBC Today show starting around 7:15AM. He submitted not only to commercial interruption but to a 15-20 minute break for the local news.
As a kid I can recall seeing an hour long interview of President Eisenhower at 10PM. There were no commercials. Eisenhower was treated with great respect and the setting was very formal.
Obama followed his humiliation at the hands of O'Reilly with a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce intended to convince the U.S. business community that Obama doesn't really regard them as the Republicans they are: bums who are only concerned about themselves and their rich friends. I heard this morning on CNN that 48% of their business is outside the U.S. Maybe the name of their lobby group should be changed to reflect that: 52% U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Repeal Obamacare!
2-2. That's the score in federal court after a judge just supported the 26 of our 50 states bringing the case by declaring the entire health care law unconstitutional. Two courts have upheld the law and two have ruled against it.
Cool.
That means the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly have to hear the case, hopefully soon enough that the ruling will cause the issue to be a major issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional election.
The main provision providing the basis for appeal is the mandate that people buy health insurance starting in 2014 if they do not otherwise have it. If the law is struck down in 2012 then there will plenty of time for a new president and congress (all of the House and one third of the Senate) to be elected and pass universal health care (Medicare for all U.S. citizens) in 2013. Not much lost in time but much gained by ridding of us of that mess of a law that Obama to his shame agreed to support in his most offensive weasel compromise.
Cool.
That means the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly have to hear the case, hopefully soon enough that the ruling will cause the issue to be a major issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional election.
The main provision providing the basis for appeal is the mandate that people buy health insurance starting in 2014 if they do not otherwise have it. If the law is struck down in 2012 then there will plenty of time for a new president and congress (all of the House and one third of the Senate) to be elected and pass universal health care (Medicare for all U.S. citizens) in 2013. Not much lost in time but much gained by ridding of us of that mess of a law that Obama to his shame agreed to support in his most offensive weasel compromise.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Is Arizona evil?
Two days ago that might have seemed like an absurd question to most Americans despite the criticisms that Arizona has received, from its revoking the Martin Luther King Day holiday over a decade ago despite the threat of Arizona being denied the Super Bowl game to the Arizona immigration law in 2010, which several other states are trying to emulate and which inspired an Arizona member of the House of Representatives to call for a business boycott of his own state. I had thought that Arizona was unfairly being picked on, maybe because it seemed so inept at defending itself.
Until two days ago when she was shot in the head in an assassination attempt in a Tuscon shopping center I had never heard of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona's 8th congressional district, never seen her on C-Span, never heard her speak on one of the many political talk shows. Apparently the assassin picked on one of the quiet ones.
Arizona and Arizonans are no more or less evil than the rest of us Americans. I live in a border state: New York. One of the differences between these two border states is the countries that they border. Canada to the north is like the United States without the violence: advanced and prosperous. Mexico to the south is a third world country, which all but encourages its most disadvantaged citizens to cross the border into the United States to improve their quality of life even a little bit.
I have written in this blog about "immigration":
Immigration: the solution
Immigration: suppose you change country to company?
Maybe some Arizonans would be surprised to read how much they agree with some of my positions.
The crazy person who shot the Congresswoman and about twenty innocent bystanders could have done that anywhere in the United States. It seemed that most people worth quoting on the day of the shooting responded responsibly, although the usual partisan reactions have already started.
Regarding the harsh treatment that Arizona received because of the shooting a dear friend wrote to me: "if my mother were mentally unbalanced, she might have done the shooting herself. She lives in Arizona, she owns several guns and she hates Democrats, Liberals, the Sierra Club, Obama, and Mexicans". Her mother is a kind and gentle person and I cannot imagine that she would behave violently no matter how angry.
This Arizona phenomenon seems more a reflection of what we have become as Americans. We overvalue the constitution and its authors, implying qualities of sacred scripture and prophets. With that perspective almost anything can be justified. There is enormous pressure and frustration because our views do not seem to be respected much less embraced. Our rhetoric is not merely intense, it's mean and intended to be so.
Mean words are better than mean actions. Sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us. But we've resorted to sticks and stones too often, not nearly as often as in other parts of the world but far too often for the most affluent and most free place on the planet. That combination of affluence and freedom is what makes the United States the best place to live. That's why people, primarily from Mexico, driven by their own callous government violate U.S. laws to enter and remain here.
We will never resolve the "immigration" problem. We are at once too greedy for cheap labor and too compassionate toward the weak against the powerful to ever adopt a policy that would come close to satisfying American citizens on either side of the issue. We need to live with it as we do with a relative we can't stand but can't turn away.
We also need to get a grip on ourselves and our love of guns. Several congressman have reacted to the shooting of their colleague by announcing that they will carry the hand guns for which they have permits. Growing up in New York and watching cowboy TV shows and movies I loved guns even though I never had a real one. I wish I could find my toy hand guns, some of which were very realistic. As a kid I would practice the quick draw and twirling out of and into my holster. I can understand the special bond with their guns and gun culture of those who grew up in rural America and learned to shoot when they were young. They are not evil.
What is evil is our not resolving the inherent conflict between our gun heritage and our modern society, which allowed a nut to arm himself and commit an unspeakable act. We need to speak about that as calmly as we can. That's the least we can do. It won't prevent an assassination attempt but might restrict it to a knife attack on the intended target and save all those innocent bystanders.
Will things improve? No. I say that not because I am pessimistic or cynical but because I am realistic. We've become cowards, unable and unwilling to: "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - JFK inaugural address, January 20, 1961. Since his assassination the sword has remained in the stone and it seems increasingly unlikely that anyone will have the stature and integrity to remove it.
Until two days ago when she was shot in the head in an assassination attempt in a Tuscon shopping center I had never heard of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona's 8th congressional district, never seen her on C-Span, never heard her speak on one of the many political talk shows. Apparently the assassin picked on one of the quiet ones.
Arizona and Arizonans are no more or less evil than the rest of us Americans. I live in a border state: New York. One of the differences between these two border states is the countries that they border. Canada to the north is like the United States without the violence: advanced and prosperous. Mexico to the south is a third world country, which all but encourages its most disadvantaged citizens to cross the border into the United States to improve their quality of life even a little bit.
I have written in this blog about "immigration":
Immigration: the solution
Immigration: suppose you change country to company?
Maybe some Arizonans would be surprised to read how much they agree with some of my positions.
The crazy person who shot the Congresswoman and about twenty innocent bystanders could have done that anywhere in the United States. It seemed that most people worth quoting on the day of the shooting responded responsibly, although the usual partisan reactions have already started.
Regarding the harsh treatment that Arizona received because of the shooting a dear friend wrote to me: "if my mother were mentally unbalanced, she might have done the shooting herself. She lives in Arizona, she owns several guns and she hates Democrats, Liberals, the Sierra Club, Obama, and Mexicans". Her mother is a kind and gentle person and I cannot imagine that she would behave violently no matter how angry.
This Arizona phenomenon seems more a reflection of what we have become as Americans. We overvalue the constitution and its authors, implying qualities of sacred scripture and prophets. With that perspective almost anything can be justified. There is enormous pressure and frustration because our views do not seem to be respected much less embraced. Our rhetoric is not merely intense, it's mean and intended to be so.
Mean words are better than mean actions. Sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us. But we've resorted to sticks and stones too often, not nearly as often as in other parts of the world but far too often for the most affluent and most free place on the planet. That combination of affluence and freedom is what makes the United States the best place to live. That's why people, primarily from Mexico, driven by their own callous government violate U.S. laws to enter and remain here.
We will never resolve the "immigration" problem. We are at once too greedy for cheap labor and too compassionate toward the weak against the powerful to ever adopt a policy that would come close to satisfying American citizens on either side of the issue. We need to live with it as we do with a relative we can't stand but can't turn away.
We also need to get a grip on ourselves and our love of guns. Several congressman have reacted to the shooting of their colleague by announcing that they will carry the hand guns for which they have permits. Growing up in New York and watching cowboy TV shows and movies I loved guns even though I never had a real one. I wish I could find my toy hand guns, some of which were very realistic. As a kid I would practice the quick draw and twirling out of and into my holster. I can understand the special bond with their guns and gun culture of those who grew up in rural America and learned to shoot when they were young. They are not evil.
What is evil is our not resolving the inherent conflict between our gun heritage and our modern society, which allowed a nut to arm himself and commit an unspeakable act. We need to speak about that as calmly as we can. That's the least we can do. It won't prevent an assassination attempt but might restrict it to a knife attack on the intended target and save all those innocent bystanders.
Will things improve? No. I say that not because I am pessimistic or cynical but because I am realistic. We've become cowards, unable and unwilling to: "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - JFK inaugural address, January 20, 1961. Since his assassination the sword has remained in the stone and it seems increasingly unlikely that anyone will have the stature and integrity to remove it.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Obamacare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Obama's plans for health care reform in general, is often nicknamed "Obamacare".[138] The term was usually used pejoratively, but some supporters of the act suggested after being passed that it be embraced and used positively, a la the term Reaganomics to refer to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies of the 1980s
http://speaker.gov/Bio/
John Boehner (bay-ner) serves as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Elected to represent the Eighth Congressional District of Ohio for an 11th term in November 2010, John is a proven leader in the drive for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satiric_misspelling#.E2.80.9CK.E2.80.9D_replacing_.E2.80.9CC.E2.80.9D
In the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, leftists, particularly the Yippies, sometimes used "Amerika" rather than "America" in referring to the United States.[1] It is still used as a political statement today.[2] It is likely that this was originally an allusion to the German spelling of America, and intended to be suggestive of Nazism, a hypothesis that the Oxford English Dictionary supports.
__________________________________________
Former back bench flame thrower and later smart aleck speaker Newt Gingrich (1995-1999) popularized the use of democrat instead of Democratic as in the democrat congressman. It was obviously intended as an insult and display of disdain, similar to the misspelling of Amerika. The Democratic polititians either were too dense to realize this or, more likely, too wimpy to do anything about it. Personally, I would have retaliated with the grammatically less sound pejorative republic congressman but that's just me.
Following suit, the much less smart Boehner is the leading user of the term Obamacare, I think unwisely. Next week, his second as speaker, Boehner will lead a pointless exercise in the House to repeal Obamacare. The Senate will not vote for it and the President would veto it even if both houses of congress passed it.
So why do it? Boehner wants to undermine the President and force the "democrat" members of the House to take a stand on it, something which they inexplicably refused to do before they were all elected in November 2010.
Boehner and the other republic members of the House are making a huge mistake. Most Americans are just beginning to feel the impact of the Obamacare legislation and it will be either a non-issue or an improvement. What else could it be? For those of us on planet earth in the good old USA how could anything be much worse than the private health insurance bureaucracy, which has been in effect in recent years?
___________________________
http://matinale.blogspot.com/2010/03/personal-experience-with-health-care.html
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A personal experience with health care insurance.
___________________________
Republic politicians bamboozled American voters once again into voting against their best interests. Democratic politicians were too wimpy and ineffectual to counter this. Shame on them both.
In next week's debate Democratic members of the House may feel unburdened by election pressures and actually attack the increasingly silly positions of their republic colleagues.
Republic politicians are foolishly forcing people to closely associate the President with the improvements in health insurance and care that are likely to occur before he faces re-election in November 2012 and before any real negative impact occurs.
Perhaps even more stupid is the term itself: Obamacare. Parse it. Obama care. Obama cares. When an American voter feels good about medical care in the next two years with whom will that individual personally associate that? Obama, who cares. About them.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Obama's plans for health care reform in general, is often nicknamed "Obamacare".[138] The term was usually used pejoratively, but some supporters of the act suggested after being passed that it be embraced and used positively, a la the term Reaganomics to refer to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies of the 1980s
http://speaker.gov/Bio/
John Boehner (bay-ner) serves as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Elected to represent the Eighth Congressional District of Ohio for an 11th term in November 2010, John is a proven leader in the drive for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satiric_misspelling#.E2.80.9CK.E2.80.9D_replacing_.E2.80.9CC.E2.80.9D
In the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, leftists, particularly the Yippies, sometimes used "Amerika" rather than "America" in referring to the United States.[1] It is still used as a political statement today.[2] It is likely that this was originally an allusion to the German spelling of America, and intended to be suggestive of Nazism, a hypothesis that the Oxford English Dictionary supports.
__________________________________________
Former back bench flame thrower and later smart aleck speaker Newt Gingrich (1995-1999) popularized the use of democrat instead of Democratic as in the democrat congressman. It was obviously intended as an insult and display of disdain, similar to the misspelling of Amerika. The Democratic polititians either were too dense to realize this or, more likely, too wimpy to do anything about it. Personally, I would have retaliated with the grammatically less sound pejorative republic congressman but that's just me.
Following suit, the much less smart Boehner is the leading user of the term Obamacare, I think unwisely. Next week, his second as speaker, Boehner will lead a pointless exercise in the House to repeal Obamacare. The Senate will not vote for it and the President would veto it even if both houses of congress passed it.
So why do it? Boehner wants to undermine the President and force the "democrat" members of the House to take a stand on it, something which they inexplicably refused to do before they were all elected in November 2010.
Boehner and the other republic members of the House are making a huge mistake. Most Americans are just beginning to feel the impact of the Obamacare legislation and it will be either a non-issue or an improvement. What else could it be? For those of us on planet earth in the good old USA how could anything be much worse than the private health insurance bureaucracy, which has been in effect in recent years?
___________________________
http://matinale.blogspot.com/2010/03/personal-experience-with-health-care.html
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A personal experience with health care insurance.
___________________________
Republic politicians bamboozled American voters once again into voting against their best interests. Democratic politicians were too wimpy and ineffectual to counter this. Shame on them both.
In next week's debate Democratic members of the House may feel unburdened by election pressures and actually attack the increasingly silly positions of their republic colleagues.
Republic politicians are foolishly forcing people to closely associate the President with the improvements in health insurance and care that are likely to occur before he faces re-election in November 2012 and before any real negative impact occurs.
Perhaps even more stupid is the term itself: Obamacare. Parse it. Obama care. Obama cares. When an American voter feels good about medical care in the next two years with whom will that individual personally associate that? Obama, who cares. About them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)