It is so promising to see good ole' Condi Rice hanging out in the Middle East, refereeing what has become by now a tired conflict. What is unfortunate is that in the twenty plus years since our "Peacekeeping" force of Marines was killed in Beirut we have learned so little about Middle East politics. I will give credit to Bush for not immediately sending thousands of troops to pacify this region, but our policy in regards to the current conflict has been no less enlightened than are arming of the Taliban and Sadam Husein. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not understand Middle Eastern Politics. We do not understand them in theory or in practice. We tend to view the world through a western (if not American) set of binoculars. Unfortunately, we cannot possibly understand what is going on in the Middle East through this set of eyes.
First and foremost, if there is one thing to learn about the Middle East and in particular Lebanon, it is that nothing is as it seems. Yes it appears quite simple, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization is fighting against Israel. Nothing new here, a radical Islamic organization fighting against the world's only Jewish state. Unfortunately for all of us it just isn't that simple. See in the Middle East politics are not just discussed at a national level, but also at a secular (read religious) level, local level, tribal level, etc, etc. There is no easy comparison to garner in America outside of the Catholic Church taking up arms agains the Baptist Church, against the Seventh Day Adventist and so on and so on. Then within each of these groups you have a myriad of factions which each have their not only their own political agenda, but also their own militias, social services, and press offices with which to spread their opinion of the conflict. Such is the case with Hezbollah, an organization founded by the Shiite state of Iran in order to combat Israel. Hezbollah, not only is an organization whose fundamental principles often run perpendicular to the Lebanese government, but also an organization which still struggles to find an identity within the Muslim world. Caught between wanting to be a legitimate social and political organization and a true guerilla force, Hezbollah has worked at both aims and had measurable success in both arenas.
This is perhaps what makes this organization so dangerous. Not only is it an extention of the Tehran power apparatus (run by Ahjamenejad a ferverant anti-American, anti-western leader), but also a collection of loose Shiite tribal factions, all of which aspire to power and none of which care for the Jewish or American States. So what can be done in the midst of this crisis? Well that is a good question and one that American policy makers and diplomats have been trying to avoid. By allowing Israel to carry out continued operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the US has sent a clear signal that it believes Israel has the right to defend itself. The real question is how long a nation (no matter how great, technologically advanced, or militarily superior) can hold out when surrounded by neighbors who not only hate it, but are willing to die to see it's destruction. As Golda Meyer once said: "We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us".
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Just a Bit Tasteless....
So I know that I haven't posted in a long time and there has been a lot going on in the world, so I do hope to get caught up over the next few weeks. With all that is going on in the world it is strange that I have chosen this topic, but for some reason it is really annoying me so I decided to put the perverbial pen to paper.
Today I saw for the umpteenth time a preview for the new movie "World Trade Center". I don't know if I am alone on this, but it seems extremely tasteless to make a movie about an event where so many people lost their lives. Yes, I know there have been many movies made about the American Revolution, the Civil War, and of course Pearl Harbor. But none of these movies were produced less than five years after a life changing, world altering event. It is as if our capitalism knows no bounds. Let's generate a huge amount of profit by exploiting the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Wow! I am so excited to buy a ticket. I mean really, have we not seen enough documentaries on the History Channel and Discovery Channel, not to mention the repetitiveness of the network news channels. I have probably seen the second plane hit the tower no less than a thousand times. I am so glad that someone has put together a dramatic "human interest story" for us to all relate to.
Guess what? We lived through this disaster. And relived it day after day, week after week, and month after month for the five years that followed this tragic attack. This terrorist action has been used as an excuse to invade a soveign nation, to dramatically bloat the deficit, and to strip American's of fundamental rights guarenteed by our great Constitution. Not to mention degrading our reputation amongst the powers of the world and ensuring instability in the Middle East for the next century. So why not play out this drama on the big screen? It simply seems like too small a venue to portray the overwhelming emotion of the moment. The feeling of a country once thought invincible, attacked for the first time on it's own soil by a foreign enemy. Making a movie about this a mear few years later belittles the experience. It makes it seem as if this was not the massive and life chaning event that it was, and rather a mere blip in on our pop culture radar.
So often the right wing of our country tries to justify their defiling of the Constitution and the cancellation of our individual rights as a necessary step in a "Post 9-11 World". Perhaps it is time for this same political machine to speak out against a movie that trivilizes the experience as just another of our pop culture adventures. I certainly hope the American public sees this film as the propaganda that it is. Intended to solicit feelings fear and resentment that lead to irrational policy decisions. This is the only way in which the right will be able to continue to play the "9-11 Card."
Today I saw for the umpteenth time a preview for the new movie "World Trade Center". I don't know if I am alone on this, but it seems extremely tasteless to make a movie about an event where so many people lost their lives. Yes, I know there have been many movies made about the American Revolution, the Civil War, and of course Pearl Harbor. But none of these movies were produced less than five years after a life changing, world altering event. It is as if our capitalism knows no bounds. Let's generate a huge amount of profit by exploiting the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Wow! I am so excited to buy a ticket. I mean really, have we not seen enough documentaries on the History Channel and Discovery Channel, not to mention the repetitiveness of the network news channels. I have probably seen the second plane hit the tower no less than a thousand times. I am so glad that someone has put together a dramatic "human interest story" for us to all relate to.
Guess what? We lived through this disaster. And relived it day after day, week after week, and month after month for the five years that followed this tragic attack. This terrorist action has been used as an excuse to invade a soveign nation, to dramatically bloat the deficit, and to strip American's of fundamental rights guarenteed by our great Constitution. Not to mention degrading our reputation amongst the powers of the world and ensuring instability in the Middle East for the next century. So why not play out this drama on the big screen? It simply seems like too small a venue to portray the overwhelming emotion of the moment. The feeling of a country once thought invincible, attacked for the first time on it's own soil by a foreign enemy. Making a movie about this a mear few years later belittles the experience. It makes it seem as if this was not the massive and life chaning event that it was, and rather a mere blip in on our pop culture radar.
So often the right wing of our country tries to justify their defiling of the Constitution and the cancellation of our individual rights as a necessary step in a "Post 9-11 World". Perhaps it is time for this same political machine to speak out against a movie that trivilizes the experience as just another of our pop culture adventures. I certainly hope the American public sees this film as the propaganda that it is. Intended to solicit feelings fear and resentment that lead to irrational policy decisions. This is the only way in which the right will be able to continue to play the "9-11 Card."
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The Next Great Evolution....
Today the Supreme Court announced that there was still some value to the Constitution of the United States and to our signature at the Geneva Convention. In the process, the court struck down the President's assertion that he had the right to try "Enemy Combatants" in military tribunals that do not follow the rules of our judiciary system, and were not authorized by Congress. So why is this a big deal? Well there are several reasons why (fair rights for those being held, the right to face ones accusers, etc etc), but the most important reason is that this is a major victory in the "war" against terrorism.
I know, many of you are not following me here, and those of you that fall on the right side of the political spectrum are cursing me at this moment, but it is true. Despite what Fox News, Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Bush Administration want you to believe, holding prisoners indefinitely, convicting them in makeshift courts, and shipping them to prisons in other parts of the world to be tortured is not effective in fighting terrorism. The idea that by doing these things it will deter terrorist from attacking is ludicrous. You have a cadre of people who are so ardently and preferences entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to die for their cause and therefore will not be deterred by this kind of treatment. On the contrary this type of treatment only helps the terrorist cause. Still not following me? Let me lay it out again.
Terrorists are helped in two ways by the recent behavior of the Bush Administration. The first and most important is that they have succeeded in their mission. They have brought about change in the American system and proven that our government and judicial systems do not work (think how happy the communist would have been if we would have began restricing markets). Secondly, our reaction to terrorists, and our continued mistreatment of Muslim civilians around the world gives terrorists everywhere a rallying cry. When I watch TV at night and see ads for the US Army that are professionally produced, using and ad agency, marketing firm, and millions of taxpayer dollars I laugh. I laugh because I know that the terrorists networks around the world don't need to go to so much trouble to recruit, they simply show speeches given by George Bush, they show the torture at Abu Graib, the killings in Haditha, and the complete breakdown of the legal process in America. There is an old saying, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face", I never really understood it before, but I think I do now.
Now of course reading the above one some would say that I am in favor of appeasing terrorists. This is not the case, however, at some point in time we have to come to the realization that we are fighting an unconventional war and therefore must use unconventional means. I recall hearing Benjamin Netanyahu speak when I was in college. He talked about the differences between having Russia as an enemy during the Cold War and now having radical Muslims as our foes. He spoke of the Bay of Pigs and how both countries came to the realization of the consequences of mutual destruction and therefore chose not to engage. He then reminded us that radical Islamic terrorist have no fear of death, and therefore they must be dealt with in a different manner. These were interesting words coming from a hard-line hawk like Netanyahu, but he understood his enemy.
For years we have had the doctrine that we will not negotiate with terrorists. We draw the line in the sand and say that no one will hold a gun to our head. Israel has done the same since it's inception. Here we are over five decades later and Israel still experiences incidents of terrorism routinely. We have been hit by terrorist attacks in the United States, Europe continues to have to deal with violence, and the incidents of terrorism in US occupied Iraq occur everyday. What I am saying here is that we need a new strategy. Simply saying that we will not negotiate does not work. For as steadfast as we are in our beliefs, the radical Islamic are in theirs. This is a contest where someone either has to blink or there will continue to be casualties on both sides. The essence of human and cultural evolution is our ability to continuously come up with better ways to solve problems. Throughout history we have continuously improved our ability to handle difficult situations without resorting to violence. It is time for logic to intercede, for the great minds of this generation to use their gifts to bring an end to what has become the most pressing global emergency. Intelligence and ingenuity have brought the human race this far, why stop now?
I know, many of you are not following me here, and those of you that fall on the right side of the political spectrum are cursing me at this moment, but it is true. Despite what Fox News, Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Bush Administration want you to believe, holding prisoners indefinitely, convicting them in makeshift courts, and shipping them to prisons in other parts of the world to be tortured is not effective in fighting terrorism. The idea that by doing these things it will deter terrorist from attacking is ludicrous. You have a cadre of people who are so ardently and preferences entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to die for their cause and therefore will not be deterred by this kind of treatment. On the contrary this type of treatment only helps the terrorist cause. Still not following me? Let me lay it out again.
Terrorists are helped in two ways by the recent behavior of the Bush Administration. The first and most important is that they have succeeded in their mission. They have brought about change in the American system and proven that our government and judicial systems do not work (think how happy the communist would have been if we would have began restricing markets). Secondly, our reaction to terrorists, and our continued mistreatment of Muslim civilians around the world gives terrorists everywhere a rallying cry. When I watch TV at night and see ads for the US Army that are professionally produced, using and ad agency, marketing firm, and millions of taxpayer dollars I laugh. I laugh because I know that the terrorists networks around the world don't need to go to so much trouble to recruit, they simply show speeches given by George Bush, they show the torture at Abu Graib, the killings in Haditha, and the complete breakdown of the legal process in America. There is an old saying, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face", I never really understood it before, but I think I do now.
Now of course reading the above one some would say that I am in favor of appeasing terrorists. This is not the case, however, at some point in time we have to come to the realization that we are fighting an unconventional war and therefore must use unconventional means. I recall hearing Benjamin Netanyahu speak when I was in college. He talked about the differences between having Russia as an enemy during the Cold War and now having radical Muslims as our foes. He spoke of the Bay of Pigs and how both countries came to the realization of the consequences of mutual destruction and therefore chose not to engage. He then reminded us that radical Islamic terrorist have no fear of death, and therefore they must be dealt with in a different manner. These were interesting words coming from a hard-line hawk like Netanyahu, but he understood his enemy.
For years we have had the doctrine that we will not negotiate with terrorists. We draw the line in the sand and say that no one will hold a gun to our head. Israel has done the same since it's inception. Here we are over five decades later and Israel still experiences incidents of terrorism routinely. We have been hit by terrorist attacks in the United States, Europe continues to have to deal with violence, and the incidents of terrorism in US occupied Iraq occur everyday. What I am saying here is that we need a new strategy. Simply saying that we will not negotiate does not work. For as steadfast as we are in our beliefs, the radical Islamic are in theirs. This is a contest where someone either has to blink or there will continue to be casualties on both sides. The essence of human and cultural evolution is our ability to continuously come up with better ways to solve problems. Throughout history we have continuously improved our ability to handle difficult situations without resorting to violence. It is time for logic to intercede, for the great minds of this generation to use their gifts to bring an end to what has become the most pressing global emergency. Intelligence and ingenuity have brought the human race this far, why stop now?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Most Important Issue Ever! or Not
So it is very rare the congress actually takes on important issues, but over the past few days they have keyed in on what I believe is quite possibly the most important issue of our generation. They have been debating about and voting on an issue that effects almost every person in the country.
Yes this issue is so big, so important that it trumps many of the smaller, pettier issues of the day. In perspective, the looming nuclear crisis in Iran looks petty. The escalating violence in Iraq that continues to take American lives seems unimportant. Even the ongoing investigation into congressman William Jefferson falls down the priority list.
For those of you who aren’t with me yet, I’m talking about banning gay marriage. Oh wait. Did I catch you off guard with that one? Yes it is an even numbered year, that means that at some point this fall we will be voting, and of course that means that the number one thing on everyone’s mind is Gay Marriage. The Republican’s dug up this issue in 2004 and were very successful in using it to get out the vote. See it seems the GOP’s leadership believes its members are all idiots who will rally around any cause no matter how unimportant or inconsequential. In fact they were able to drum up enough hype about this issue that congress took several days to debate a Constitutional Amendment, the President gave several speeches on the matter and CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CSpan could not possibly give it enough coverage.
Now for those of you not well versed in the workings of our fine government, passing a constitutional amendment is the most permanent and lasting action that any congress can take. It inserts a new law into the Constitution of the United States-the ultimate law that governs our nation. Over the past 200 plus years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution (the first ten comprise the Bill of Rights that were ratified with the original constitution). Of these 27 amendments only two have been written to explicitly outlaw a given behavior or action: the 13th Amendment that prohibited slavery, and the 18th Amendment that prohibited the production and consumption of alcohol. As we all know the 18th Amendment was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. My point here is that passing a Constitutional Amendment to make something illegal is a wholly new proposition in the history of our country. The entire point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights (along with several of the later Amendments) was written expressly to protect the rights of the citizenry, not to limit them.
Now as a social liberal I cannot understand the need to ban gays from marrying. There are several arguments brought forward by the right wing conservative movement. Perhaps the most prominent argument is that the Bible defines marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Fortunately for all of us our forefathers had the insight to form our government separate of any particular religious group. Therefore, we are not bound by Biblical law (if you would like to see the results of countries that are bound by religious law then take a trip to the Arabian Peninsula). Secondly, many argue that allowing gays to marry would be an assault on traditional marriage in this country. Well as someone who is married myself, I cannot possibly see how having gays marry will assault my marriage. Will they come in my home and beat me up? Will having married gays plunge us into war, create more terrorist attacks, raise gas prices to ridiculous levels, or precipitate the explosion of the national deficit? No, no, no, all of those conditions have been caused by a Republican Administration and Aided by a Republican Congress. Perhaps if they had spent more time focusing on these real important issues than our country would be in a better place now. So I have give you two good reasons why this Amendment was a bad idea, so here is the third and most important: It had absolutely no chance of passing. That’s right, congress just sat and had debates and the President gave speeches, and all about an issue that the majority of Americans either don’t support, or don’t care about, and the majority of Senators were not going to vote for anyway.
The bottom line here is that I don’t care what someone does in the bedroom. I do not care whom they choose to love or live with, and I don’t want the government telling me whom I can spend my life with. Not so long ago there were laws against interracial marriage; one would think that our country had evolved. Banning gay marriage leads us down a slippery slope. It says that government can regulate whom we associate with, and whom we choose to partner with. What’s next banning marriage between social classes, between different races, different religions? I can respect the views of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on their religion. However, they have no more right to impose their religion on me, than the radical Islamic terrorist have to impose their religion on America.
Aside:
The sponsor of this amendment was Colorado’s own Wayne Allard. Yes this is the same Wayne Allard who was recently chronicled in TIME Magazine as one of the five worst Senators in the United States (April 24, 2006 p.28 The Invisible Man). The article discusses Allard’s total lack of action in his 10 years in the Senate. Well at least Allard who’s claim to fame during his tenure in the Senate has been his post as overseer of the Capital Hill Visitor Center has now added some real substance to his resume. Please feel free to contact Senator Allard and let him know your thoughts on the issue.
Senator Wayne Allard’s Offices:
Washington, D.C. Office521 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510Phone: (202) 224-5941Fax: (202) 224-6471
Colorado Springs Office111 S. Tejon, Suite 300Colorado Springs, CO 80903Phone: (719) 634-6071Fax: (719) 636-2590
Denver Office7340 E. Caley, Suite 215Englewood, CO 80111Phone: (303) 220-7414Fax: (303) 220-8126
Grand Junction Office215 Federal Bldg.,400 Rood Ave.Grand Junction, CO 81501Phone: (970) 245-9553Fax: (970) 245-9523
Loveland Office5401 Stone Creek Circle,Suite 203Loveland, CO 80538Phone: (970) 461-3530Fax: (970) 461-3658
Pueblo Office411 Thatcher Bldg.,5th & Main Sts.Pueblo, CO 81003Phone: (719) 545-9751Fax: (719) 545-3832
Durango Office954 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 107Durango, CO 81301Phone: (970) 375-6311Fax: (970) 375-1321
Yes this issue is so big, so important that it trumps many of the smaller, pettier issues of the day. In perspective, the looming nuclear crisis in Iran looks petty. The escalating violence in Iraq that continues to take American lives seems unimportant. Even the ongoing investigation into congressman William Jefferson falls down the priority list.
For those of you who aren’t with me yet, I’m talking about banning gay marriage. Oh wait. Did I catch you off guard with that one? Yes it is an even numbered year, that means that at some point this fall we will be voting, and of course that means that the number one thing on everyone’s mind is Gay Marriage. The Republican’s dug up this issue in 2004 and were very successful in using it to get out the vote. See it seems the GOP’s leadership believes its members are all idiots who will rally around any cause no matter how unimportant or inconsequential. In fact they were able to drum up enough hype about this issue that congress took several days to debate a Constitutional Amendment, the President gave several speeches on the matter and CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CSpan could not possibly give it enough coverage.
Now for those of you not well versed in the workings of our fine government, passing a constitutional amendment is the most permanent and lasting action that any congress can take. It inserts a new law into the Constitution of the United States-the ultimate law that governs our nation. Over the past 200 plus years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution (the first ten comprise the Bill of Rights that were ratified with the original constitution). Of these 27 amendments only two have been written to explicitly outlaw a given behavior or action: the 13th Amendment that prohibited slavery, and the 18th Amendment that prohibited the production and consumption of alcohol. As we all know the 18th Amendment was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. My point here is that passing a Constitutional Amendment to make something illegal is a wholly new proposition in the history of our country. The entire point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights (along with several of the later Amendments) was written expressly to protect the rights of the citizenry, not to limit them.
Now as a social liberal I cannot understand the need to ban gays from marrying. There are several arguments brought forward by the right wing conservative movement. Perhaps the most prominent argument is that the Bible defines marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Fortunately for all of us our forefathers had the insight to form our government separate of any particular religious group. Therefore, we are not bound by Biblical law (if you would like to see the results of countries that are bound by religious law then take a trip to the Arabian Peninsula). Secondly, many argue that allowing gays to marry would be an assault on traditional marriage in this country. Well as someone who is married myself, I cannot possibly see how having gays marry will assault my marriage. Will they come in my home and beat me up? Will having married gays plunge us into war, create more terrorist attacks, raise gas prices to ridiculous levels, or precipitate the explosion of the national deficit? No, no, no, all of those conditions have been caused by a Republican Administration and Aided by a Republican Congress. Perhaps if they had spent more time focusing on these real important issues than our country would be in a better place now. So I have give you two good reasons why this Amendment was a bad idea, so here is the third and most important: It had absolutely no chance of passing. That’s right, congress just sat and had debates and the President gave speeches, and all about an issue that the majority of Americans either don’t support, or don’t care about, and the majority of Senators were not going to vote for anyway.
The bottom line here is that I don’t care what someone does in the bedroom. I do not care whom they choose to love or live with, and I don’t want the government telling me whom I can spend my life with. Not so long ago there were laws against interracial marriage; one would think that our country had evolved. Banning gay marriage leads us down a slippery slope. It says that government can regulate whom we associate with, and whom we choose to partner with. What’s next banning marriage between social classes, between different races, different religions? I can respect the views of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on their religion. However, they have no more right to impose their religion on me, than the radical Islamic terrorist have to impose their religion on America.
Aside:
The sponsor of this amendment was Colorado’s own Wayne Allard. Yes this is the same Wayne Allard who was recently chronicled in TIME Magazine as one of the five worst Senators in the United States (April 24, 2006 p.28 The Invisible Man). The article discusses Allard’s total lack of action in his 10 years in the Senate. Well at least Allard who’s claim to fame during his tenure in the Senate has been his post as overseer of the Capital Hill Visitor Center has now added some real substance to his resume. Please feel free to contact Senator Allard and let him know your thoughts on the issue.
Senator Wayne Allard’s Offices:
Washington, D.C. Office521 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510Phone: (202) 224-5941Fax: (202) 224-6471
Colorado Springs Office111 S. Tejon, Suite 300Colorado Springs, CO 80903Phone: (719) 634-6071Fax: (719) 636-2590
Denver Office7340 E. Caley, Suite 215Englewood, CO 80111Phone: (303) 220-7414Fax: (303) 220-8126
Grand Junction Office215 Federal Bldg.,400 Rood Ave.Grand Junction, CO 81501Phone: (970) 245-9553Fax: (970) 245-9523
Loveland Office5401 Stone Creek Circle,Suite 203Loveland, CO 80538Phone: (970) 461-3530Fax: (970) 461-3658
Pueblo Office411 Thatcher Bldg.,5th & Main Sts.Pueblo, CO 81003Phone: (719) 545-9751Fax: (719) 545-3832
Durango Office954 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 107Durango, CO 81301Phone: (970) 375-6311Fax: (970) 375-1321
Friday, May 26, 2006
For a Minute I Was a Fan....
Over the last six years I have had ample opportunities to express my dissatisfaction, frustration, and at times anger with our President. At issue in most of these cases was not only my disagreement with the policy advanced by the Administration, but also by the way it was presented. This White House has been smug, secretive, and condescending. The President himself seems to epitomize these attitudes, often spewing nonsense that leaves the audience questioning the intelligence of their fearless leader.
More than the many "Bushisms" (there are now three full books of funny, flipped, or down-right stupid remarks made by Bush) it is his disingenuous delivery that makes one feel like they are watching a high school play. To his supporters this is the essence of his leadership style. Strong, decisive, and not afraid to say what is on his mind, and absolutely unrelenting when questioned. Through five plus years of Bush 43, he had never admitted making an error, never backed down from a previous statement, and never claimed responsibility for a blunder. Instead he surrounded himself in the insular cage of the West Wing. That small group of advisors for which outsiders were banned. Press conferences were choreographed, interviews were pre-screened, and even ordinary citizens had to sign pledges of allegiance to the President simply to attend a "public" event.
However, over the past few months that has began to change. The steel curtain around the West Wing has been lowered and the President has began to answer questions. This is not such a novel concept, but one that the Administration long resisted. So what prompted the change you ask? Legacy. A President's second term is about creating, cultivating, and leaving a legacy to the country and to the world. With a little over two years remaining on his contract, Bush sees his popularity at an all time low. His political agenda is in shambles (social security, immigration, etc), his party is surrounded by scandal (Abramhoff, Delay, Libby), and his legacy as a man of action, a man of the people is quickly slipping away. Yes, drastic times call for drastic measures, and that is what we saw this past week from the White House.
Bush went on television and shocked almost everyone with his mea culpa. Admitting for the first time that mistakes were made in the handling of the war. Specifically admitting the damaging effects of the Abu Graib scandal. That's not where it stopped though. He admitted that one of his biggest regrets was his attitude and language at the beginning of the war. Saying that it was a mistake to say "Bring em' on" and "We will get them dead or alive". He even went as far as saying that he should have been more sophisticated in his rhetoric. All the while he delivered his self admission with a true genuineness that even this liberal Democrat had to applaud. It seems that there has been some evolution and growth in the White House over the past few months. Bush has come not only to realize, but to publicly say that the leader of our country has a responsibility to be mature enough to admit his mistakes and to show that he has learned from them.
I do not anticipate that I will ever see eye-to-eye with the President's ideals and policies, but for the first time I felt like the President was actually speaking to me. This press conference was not designed for the blue blood elites, for the neo-cons, or for the religious right. No, this time we got to see our President stand up and speak to all of us, to admit to us that mistakes had been made. Is there much more that we can and should expect of our President? Absolutely. But for a few minutes (and I am sure this will change tomorrow) I have to say I was a fan.
More than the many "Bushisms" (there are now three full books of funny, flipped, or down-right stupid remarks made by Bush) it is his disingenuous delivery that makes one feel like they are watching a high school play. To his supporters this is the essence of his leadership style. Strong, decisive, and not afraid to say what is on his mind, and absolutely unrelenting when questioned. Through five plus years of Bush 43, he had never admitted making an error, never backed down from a previous statement, and never claimed responsibility for a blunder. Instead he surrounded himself in the insular cage of the West Wing. That small group of advisors for which outsiders were banned. Press conferences were choreographed, interviews were pre-screened, and even ordinary citizens had to sign pledges of allegiance to the President simply to attend a "public" event.
However, over the past few months that has began to change. The steel curtain around the West Wing has been lowered and the President has began to answer questions. This is not such a novel concept, but one that the Administration long resisted. So what prompted the change you ask? Legacy. A President's second term is about creating, cultivating, and leaving a legacy to the country and to the world. With a little over two years remaining on his contract, Bush sees his popularity at an all time low. His political agenda is in shambles (social security, immigration, etc), his party is surrounded by scandal (Abramhoff, Delay, Libby), and his legacy as a man of action, a man of the people is quickly slipping away. Yes, drastic times call for drastic measures, and that is what we saw this past week from the White House.
Bush went on television and shocked almost everyone with his mea culpa. Admitting for the first time that mistakes were made in the handling of the war. Specifically admitting the damaging effects of the Abu Graib scandal. That's not where it stopped though. He admitted that one of his biggest regrets was his attitude and language at the beginning of the war. Saying that it was a mistake to say "Bring em' on" and "We will get them dead or alive". He even went as far as saying that he should have been more sophisticated in his rhetoric. All the while he delivered his self admission with a true genuineness that even this liberal Democrat had to applaud. It seems that there has been some evolution and growth in the White House over the past few months. Bush has come not only to realize, but to publicly say that the leader of our country has a responsibility to be mature enough to admit his mistakes and to show that he has learned from them.
I do not anticipate that I will ever see eye-to-eye with the President's ideals and policies, but for the first time I felt like the President was actually speaking to me. This press conference was not designed for the blue blood elites, for the neo-cons, or for the religious right. No, this time we got to see our President stand up and speak to all of us, to admit to us that mistakes had been made. Is there much more that we can and should expect of our President? Absolutely. But for a few minutes (and I am sure this will change tomorrow) I have to say I was a fan.
Monday, May 22, 2006
It's Your World Too...
As many of you know I consistently listen to talk radio. Yes, I know that this is the bastion of conservative thought and one of the driving forces behind the resurgent conservative revolution of the past few years. And, yes, I am still a liberal minded Democrat, who holds the Bush Administration in the strongest of contempt. So why then do I listen? The answer is simple, I am a liberal. See to me, being a liberal does not mean that I support communist, want to kill babies, or believe our tax rates should rival those in Europe. No, being a liberal means that I can keep an open mind and hear more than one side of an issue. It seems that this is increasingly becoming a mind-set that Americans try to avoid. Why should I turn on Fox news when I can watch CNN? Why should I buy the New York Times when Rush Limbaugh tells me everything I need to know? Why should I read the entire ballot when I can just vote the party ticket???
It is an unfortunate by-product of the two party system I suppose, nonetheless, a very scary evolution. What happened to critical thought, why do we not take the time to educate ourselves? I can attribute this lack of action by the citizen public to two main reasons; laziness and complete and total apathy.
Yes, I said it, we as Americans are overwhelmingly lazy. We are a push button society. We believe in instant everything, automatic vehicles, nanny's, housekeepers, and personal assistants. We prefer diet pills to working out, email to actual conversation, and have found a way to accomplish virtually anything from our own couch. So why should we take the time to involve ourselves in the political process? It takes effort, we would have to be educated on the issues, read about the candidates, and analyze different ideas. Yes, being politically active takes some initiative, and at minimum a desire to understand the world around you.
The second problem of the American politic is not nearly as easily solved as the first; apathy. I see and hear examples of this almost everyday. In fact most of my friends and family cannot understand why I want to be so engaged in the political process. It is not that they don't understand politics, it is that they really don't believe that they can have any effect on policy. It is the ownership principle: people care about things that they have ownership in. If you want evidence to support this theory, simply drive down your own street. Which houses have the nicest lawns, the freshest paint, and the most colorful flower beds? I would be willing to bet it is not the rental houses.
Our selfish human nature tells us to take time, pay attention to, and work to improve things that we own. There is nothing wrong with this attitude, except when we fail to realize the true scope of our dominion. It is people like me and you who make up the local school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and ultimately the congress of the United States. And here is the scary part; those people are making decisions that do effect your life! Let me say it again, politics effects you, each and every one of you! From how much you pay in taxes, to where you can live, who you can marry, and what country you may be asked to fight against, politics effects you. To sit back and say that you cannot affect what goes on in the world around you is choosing to be the ultimate victim. Revolution after revolution has proven the power of the people. It is easy to sit back and complain when you are not a part of the process. This is the epitome of Monday night quarterbacking. So next time things aren't going the way you would like you only have one question to ask yourself: Was I too lazy, or did I just not care?
It is an unfortunate by-product of the two party system I suppose, nonetheless, a very scary evolution. What happened to critical thought, why do we not take the time to educate ourselves? I can attribute this lack of action by the citizen public to two main reasons; laziness and complete and total apathy.
Yes, I said it, we as Americans are overwhelmingly lazy. We are a push button society. We believe in instant everything, automatic vehicles, nanny's, housekeepers, and personal assistants. We prefer diet pills to working out, email to actual conversation, and have found a way to accomplish virtually anything from our own couch. So why should we take the time to involve ourselves in the political process? It takes effort, we would have to be educated on the issues, read about the candidates, and analyze different ideas. Yes, being politically active takes some initiative, and at minimum a desire to understand the world around you.
The second problem of the American politic is not nearly as easily solved as the first; apathy. I see and hear examples of this almost everyday. In fact most of my friends and family cannot understand why I want to be so engaged in the political process. It is not that they don't understand politics, it is that they really don't believe that they can have any effect on policy. It is the ownership principle: people care about things that they have ownership in. If you want evidence to support this theory, simply drive down your own street. Which houses have the nicest lawns, the freshest paint, and the most colorful flower beds? I would be willing to bet it is not the rental houses.
Our selfish human nature tells us to take time, pay attention to, and work to improve things that we own. There is nothing wrong with this attitude, except when we fail to realize the true scope of our dominion. It is people like me and you who make up the local school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and ultimately the congress of the United States. And here is the scary part; those people are making decisions that do effect your life! Let me say it again, politics effects you, each and every one of you! From how much you pay in taxes, to where you can live, who you can marry, and what country you may be asked to fight against, politics effects you. To sit back and say that you cannot affect what goes on in the world around you is choosing to be the ultimate victim. Revolution after revolution has proven the power of the people. It is easy to sit back and complain when you are not a part of the process. This is the epitome of Monday night quarterbacking. So next time things aren't going the way you would like you only have one question to ask yourself: Was I too lazy, or did I just not care?
The News...it's a Sad Thing....
So I have been less than faithfully in posting everyday like I committed to doing, so I am going to get back to it. Thanks to all of you who have been complaining about the lack of my mindless dribble to read...Okay here we go.
I suppose that one of the reasons why I have not been writing much is that frankly I cannot stand to watch the news. You would think that in this era of 24 hour news channels that I would be able to find plenty of things that infuriate me, make me laugh, or that I want to give my spin to. The problem is that for every hour of programming on the news channels there is about 2 minutes of actual news. Now I can be as sentimental as the next guy (yes for those who know me you know this isn't true), but I have had it up to my neck in human interest stories.
Yes, I know it is great to profile cancer survivors, to talk about the kid who sold lemonade to help hurricane victims, and show the whole world the good work that the local church is doing, but come on, enough is enough. Lets take today for example; today's leading stories on CNN, ABC, NBC, and Fox News were: 1) Barbaro-will the horse make it with a broken leg? And 2) The seven year old boy who swam from Alcatraz to San Francisco. Now, yes it is sad that a horse broke it's leg, and it is quite impressive that a seven year old swam across a bay (what the hell were his parents thinking?), but should these be the two leading stories?
How about we talk about the congressman who is being investigated for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes? Maybe we should be hearing more about a nation run by the most extreme of radical Islamists who refuse to abandon their nuclear program? Or perhaps the Attorney General taking on the first amendment by saying that his office will prosecute reporters who publish classified information. Are these not more noteworthy stories?
Here is a thought; we are in a war. Yes I know it is difficult to remember that at times but we have tens of thousands of troops fighting. Putting their lives in danger everyday. See, this war is different from any other that we have ever had. During the World Wars the entire country rallied around, industry changed over to support the war, Rosie the Riveter was born, people bought war bonds, contributed to the USO, and read every single piece of news they could find about the war. During Vietnam we were engrossed in the war. The controversy and protest kept America's attention. Even during the first Gulf War I remember coming home and doing nothing but watching news coverage, hour after hour.
So what has changed? We have become a microwave nation. Our attention span last only as long as there is nothing new to focus on. We have to have everything instantly, and grow tired of news as quickly as we do a stale piece of gum. The problem is that we see the stories daily, but we fail to understand their importance, and almost never take any action as a result of what we have seen. We find out that we are being wiretapped without warrants and there is a two day uproar. Scientist tell us that climate change is happening quicker than we anticipated and that it could have dramatic effects; 24 hour news cycle. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, North Korea has the bomb, Hamas takes over; two day stories at most. Where is the resolution? The public outcry? The action by our elected officials? It is not there, because these are not popular issues.
Now if you want to see action, then expose a breast during the SuperBowl and instantly you will have hearings in both the Senate and House. Why? It is sexy, its exciting, people want to know about it. Yes I know I am painting a sad picture. That of a nation that is out of touch with what is important. And yes, there are many of us out there who strive to keep up with current events, to understand the world we live in, and to even try to help shape it. But this group is a minority, and that my friends is a sad thing.
I suppose that one of the reasons why I have not been writing much is that frankly I cannot stand to watch the news. You would think that in this era of 24 hour news channels that I would be able to find plenty of things that infuriate me, make me laugh, or that I want to give my spin to. The problem is that for every hour of programming on the news channels there is about 2 minutes of actual news. Now I can be as sentimental as the next guy (yes for those who know me you know this isn't true), but I have had it up to my neck in human interest stories.
Yes, I know it is great to profile cancer survivors, to talk about the kid who sold lemonade to help hurricane victims, and show the whole world the good work that the local church is doing, but come on, enough is enough. Lets take today for example; today's leading stories on CNN, ABC, NBC, and Fox News were: 1) Barbaro-will the horse make it with a broken leg? And 2) The seven year old boy who swam from Alcatraz to San Francisco. Now, yes it is sad that a horse broke it's leg, and it is quite impressive that a seven year old swam across a bay (what the hell were his parents thinking?), but should these be the two leading stories?
How about we talk about the congressman who is being investigated for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes? Maybe we should be hearing more about a nation run by the most extreme of radical Islamists who refuse to abandon their nuclear program? Or perhaps the Attorney General taking on the first amendment by saying that his office will prosecute reporters who publish classified information. Are these not more noteworthy stories?
Here is a thought; we are in a war. Yes I know it is difficult to remember that at times but we have tens of thousands of troops fighting. Putting their lives in danger everyday. See, this war is different from any other that we have ever had. During the World Wars the entire country rallied around, industry changed over to support the war, Rosie the Riveter was born, people bought war bonds, contributed to the USO, and read every single piece of news they could find about the war. During Vietnam we were engrossed in the war. The controversy and protest kept America's attention. Even during the first Gulf War I remember coming home and doing nothing but watching news coverage, hour after hour.
So what has changed? We have become a microwave nation. Our attention span last only as long as there is nothing new to focus on. We have to have everything instantly, and grow tired of news as quickly as we do a stale piece of gum. The problem is that we see the stories daily, but we fail to understand their importance, and almost never take any action as a result of what we have seen. We find out that we are being wiretapped without warrants and there is a two day uproar. Scientist tell us that climate change is happening quicker than we anticipated and that it could have dramatic effects; 24 hour news cycle. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, North Korea has the bomb, Hamas takes over; two day stories at most. Where is the resolution? The public outcry? The action by our elected officials? It is not there, because these are not popular issues.
Now if you want to see action, then expose a breast during the SuperBowl and instantly you will have hearings in both the Senate and House. Why? It is sexy, its exciting, people want to know about it. Yes I know I am painting a sad picture. That of a nation that is out of touch with what is important. And yes, there are many of us out there who strive to keep up with current events, to understand the world we live in, and to even try to help shape it. But this group is a minority, and that my friends is a sad thing.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Response to Jim on Ward Churchill
Jim,
There is no doubt that Ward Churchill is a very controversial figure. I consider myself a liberal Democrat, and even I have been appalled by many of his public statements. However, as a campaigner for the First Amendment, I believe that he has a right to say what he would like and express his opinions regardless of how unpopular they may be. On the issue of the tax payers paying him to write a book. Well, this is nothing new in academia. Many professors who are employed by public colleges and universities use their tenure as an opportunity to fund their research and write books. The thought here is that generally these people are working for a public institution making less than they would earn in the private sector. They choose to teach so they can utilize the resources of the university to further advance their studies. I do not have a problem with this system, outside of the fact that I believe that it does not necessarily encourage the "best and brightest" in any given field to pursue a career in teaching. Instead it gives opportunity for those who prefer to live in the world of academia to continue to do so.
Now, where I do have a huge issue with Ward Churchill is in the accusations of academic fraud and plagiarism. If these accusations are true, which it appears based on the recently released peer reviewed report that they are, than Mr. Churchill should be disciplined accordingly. The only circumstance in which the tax payers will have to pay his attorneys fees is if he is able to prevail in a court battle. Which, based on the evidence already released, seems highly unlikely.
There is no doubt that Ward Churchill is a very controversial figure. I consider myself a liberal Democrat, and even I have been appalled by many of his public statements. However, as a campaigner for the First Amendment, I believe that he has a right to say what he would like and express his opinions regardless of how unpopular they may be. On the issue of the tax payers paying him to write a book. Well, this is nothing new in academia. Many professors who are employed by public colleges and universities use their tenure as an opportunity to fund their research and write books. The thought here is that generally these people are working for a public institution making less than they would earn in the private sector. They choose to teach so they can utilize the resources of the university to further advance their studies. I do not have a problem with this system, outside of the fact that I believe that it does not necessarily encourage the "best and brightest" in any given field to pursue a career in teaching. Instead it gives opportunity for those who prefer to live in the world of academia to continue to do so.
Now, where I do have a huge issue with Ward Churchill is in the accusations of academic fraud and plagiarism. If these accusations are true, which it appears based on the recently released peer reviewed report that they are, than Mr. Churchill should be disciplined accordingly. The only circumstance in which the tax payers will have to pay his attorneys fees is if he is able to prevail in a court battle. Which, based on the evidence already released, seems highly unlikely.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
I'm Baaaacck!!!
Sorry to all...I have been gone on vacation for nearly a week and therefore have not been posting. There has been a lot happening lately, and fear not dear readers for I will get caught up. Expect to see several post a day over the next few days. Keep the comments coming, they are insightful and appreciated. Happy reading,
RR
RR
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
A Little Something about Nothing
It would be my sincere hope that if today is the first day you are reading this blog that instead of reading this post you skip down to some of the previous post. For hopefully there you will find something that resembles an intelligent thought. Or simply come back tomorrow, as I hope to return to some sense of normalcy.
I have been sitting here this evening trying to come up with something interesting to write about. Okay, so that is not entirely true, I haven't been sitting here this evening, as much as I have been sitting her for about five minutes. I guess I am not in the mood to bring my normal gravitas to the events of the day. So instead I do suppose that I can take up some of my time, and if your reading this yours, by simply writing about nothing. Nothing is such a fickle thing, however, and such a tough concept to embrace that I have all but given up on making it make any sense. Now lets be clear nothing is a very distinct and unusually coy concept that cannot be easily examined, much the less explained away. For nothing, as you all know is more than simply the lack of anything.
Now if one were to take the previous statement to be true, then you would still be left with the question of what in fact nothing is. This takes us to one of my most favorite quotes of all time "It depends on what your definition of is is." Wow, talk about priceless. If I were to talk double as much as he talked triple, than I would have to quadruple my words just to stay even. Ah none the less, it appears that I have filled up a couple of paragraphs with nothing, that is to say not the lack of something, but an entirely different thing.
That reminds me of a pet peeve of mine. I really cannot stand it when someone says that I have something just like that only its different. Now I am not going to be so elementary as to point out the outrageous faux paux in that statement, but suffice to say that it is difficult for something to be the same and yet different. Then again, what really makes one thing different from the other? Now to answer that question we have to examine the level that we really want to dive into such a random and entirely inconsequential argument. For to examine what makes things different is all in the eye of the beholder. Now granted that some eyes are better than others, the difference may in fact be something, or it may be nothing at all. Again please keep in mind that nothing and the lack of something can co-exist and share a meaning, however that meaning is completely different in each individual case.
Well I suppose that this incessant babbling has turned into complete rubbish, and my circular logic has become quite square by now. With that in mind I bid you all a fair evening, keep doing what it is you do, don't do, or do nothing, for as we have illustrated above, it really just doesn't matter.
I have been sitting here this evening trying to come up with something interesting to write about. Okay, so that is not entirely true, I haven't been sitting here this evening, as much as I have been sitting her for about five minutes. I guess I am not in the mood to bring my normal gravitas to the events of the day. So instead I do suppose that I can take up some of my time, and if your reading this yours, by simply writing about nothing. Nothing is such a fickle thing, however, and such a tough concept to embrace that I have all but given up on making it make any sense. Now lets be clear nothing is a very distinct and unusually coy concept that cannot be easily examined, much the less explained away. For nothing, as you all know is more than simply the lack of anything.
Now if one were to take the previous statement to be true, then you would still be left with the question of what in fact nothing is. This takes us to one of my most favorite quotes of all time "It depends on what your definition of is is." Wow, talk about priceless. If I were to talk double as much as he talked triple, than I would have to quadruple my words just to stay even. Ah none the less, it appears that I have filled up a couple of paragraphs with nothing, that is to say not the lack of something, but an entirely different thing.
That reminds me of a pet peeve of mine. I really cannot stand it when someone says that I have something just like that only its different. Now I am not going to be so elementary as to point out the outrageous faux paux in that statement, but suffice to say that it is difficult for something to be the same and yet different. Then again, what really makes one thing different from the other? Now to answer that question we have to examine the level that we really want to dive into such a random and entirely inconsequential argument. For to examine what makes things different is all in the eye of the beholder. Now granted that some eyes are better than others, the difference may in fact be something, or it may be nothing at all. Again please keep in mind that nothing and the lack of something can co-exist and share a meaning, however that meaning is completely different in each individual case.
Well I suppose that this incessant babbling has turned into complete rubbish, and my circular logic has become quite square by now. With that in mind I bid you all a fair evening, keep doing what it is you do, don't do, or do nothing, for as we have illustrated above, it really just doesn't matter.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
We are no longer "Un-American"
An interesting thing happened this past week; one of the administration's most effective weapons was rendered useless. No it wasn't a bomb or a fighter jet, but rather a very strong weapon against those who's opinions do not fall in line with the motives and actions of the Bush administration. Following comments from several retired Generals criticizing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the handling of the war in Iraq, it suddenly became okay to criticize the war. Up until this point in time the President of the United States, the right wing talk radio, and of course our friends at Fox News had found an effective way to stifle any criticism of the Bush administration or the war; simply label all people who disagree as Un-American. However, after this past week the administration must realize that the "Un-American" label can no longer be applied to those who share their dissenting opinions.
The idea that those who disagree with Bush Administration policies are somehow unpatriotic or Un-American is in itself ludicrous, albeit very effective. Now I have to say that as spins go this was a very good one. In fact this administration has been perhaps the best in history at rebutting, labeling, and ultimately marginalizing those who disagree with it. Through the vehicle of talk radio, Democrats have become "leftist-liberals", those who disagree with the war are "unpatriotic", and anyone who disagrees on social policy suddenly "lacks values". Of course no one wants to be labeled as unpatriotic or told they have no morals or values. In this regard the right wing spin machine has succeeded in shutting down objections to policy and practices that would otherwise be criticized extensively. From a strategic standpoint this playbook has served the administration well. A shift is about to occur, however, as it is dangerous if not politically suicidal to accuse retired general officers of being unpatriotic.
Finally someone is saying the right things, and coming after Rumsfeld for the right reasons. This is no left-wing partisan attack, but rather a demand for accountability from the man who runs the Pentagon. This has been a long time coming and it is amazing that the Democratic leaders in congress could not come to this resolution earlier. It is not about whether one agrees with the war or not. The issue is whether this process was managed in the right way, and if it was not, who is accountable? Frankly, I believe that the man at the top of the organization should shoulder the responsibility, but asking for the resignation of Rumsfeld is a good start.
For those of you who are still not with me, let me illustrate it in another way. As a manager of a business, I have to make decisions every single day based on information brought to me by others. If I make a bad decision, regardless of who brought me the information, I am accountable for it. This could mean that I am reprimanded, disciplined, or even fired. The debate over the Iraq War should not be whether or not we should be there, but rather, was the decision to go to war the right one. Since the beginning of the war the administration has changed its reasons for going to war three times. First it was all about WMD, then we heard about regime change, and now we are there to bring democracy to Iraq (I do believe that democracy must come internally from the people, but that is a conversation for later). The simple fact of the matter is that the President acted on bad intelligence and that both he and those responsible for the bad intelligence should be held accountable. In the same vein, Rumsfeld should be held accountable for his lack of planning and mismanagement of the war.
Now, I am not naive enough to believe that we can simply bring our troops home at this point. However, when you have general officers speaking out against the Secretary of Defense, everyone should be listening. These are men who have devoted their entire lives to the service of their country. These men understand better than anyone how to run a war and what is necessary to be successful. The idea of politicians and appointees ignoring high ranking military officers harkens us back 30 years to a different war. Did we learn nothing then that could help us now?
The idea that those who disagree with Bush Administration policies are somehow unpatriotic or Un-American is in itself ludicrous, albeit very effective. Now I have to say that as spins go this was a very good one. In fact this administration has been perhaps the best in history at rebutting, labeling, and ultimately marginalizing those who disagree with it. Through the vehicle of talk radio, Democrats have become "leftist-liberals", those who disagree with the war are "unpatriotic", and anyone who disagrees on social policy suddenly "lacks values". Of course no one wants to be labeled as unpatriotic or told they have no morals or values. In this regard the right wing spin machine has succeeded in shutting down objections to policy and practices that would otherwise be criticized extensively. From a strategic standpoint this playbook has served the administration well. A shift is about to occur, however, as it is dangerous if not politically suicidal to accuse retired general officers of being unpatriotic.
Finally someone is saying the right things, and coming after Rumsfeld for the right reasons. This is no left-wing partisan attack, but rather a demand for accountability from the man who runs the Pentagon. This has been a long time coming and it is amazing that the Democratic leaders in congress could not come to this resolution earlier. It is not about whether one agrees with the war or not. The issue is whether this process was managed in the right way, and if it was not, who is accountable? Frankly, I believe that the man at the top of the organization should shoulder the responsibility, but asking for the resignation of Rumsfeld is a good start.
For those of you who are still not with me, let me illustrate it in another way. As a manager of a business, I have to make decisions every single day based on information brought to me by others. If I make a bad decision, regardless of who brought me the information, I am accountable for it. This could mean that I am reprimanded, disciplined, or even fired. The debate over the Iraq War should not be whether or not we should be there, but rather, was the decision to go to war the right one. Since the beginning of the war the administration has changed its reasons for going to war three times. First it was all about WMD, then we heard about regime change, and now we are there to bring democracy to Iraq (I do believe that democracy must come internally from the people, but that is a conversation for later). The simple fact of the matter is that the President acted on bad intelligence and that both he and those responsible for the bad intelligence should be held accountable. In the same vein, Rumsfeld should be held accountable for his lack of planning and mismanagement of the war.
Now, I am not naive enough to believe that we can simply bring our troops home at this point. However, when you have general officers speaking out against the Secretary of Defense, everyone should be listening. These are men who have devoted their entire lives to the service of their country. These men understand better than anyone how to run a war and what is necessary to be successful. The idea of politicians and appointees ignoring high ranking military officers harkens us back 30 years to a different war. Did we learn nothing then that could help us now?
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Immigration....Isn't it Simple???
Of course immigration is a simple issue, if by simple you mean incredibly complex, controversial, and without an easy solution. I have to say that my thoughts on this issue have evolved the more that I step back and look at all perspectives and angles.
When I initially saw the thousands of people demonstrating across the country I had a hard time coming to grips with what they were protesting. Illegal immigration is just that, illegal. What is there to protest when one is breaking the law. Yes, I had heard all of the arguments about how crucial this group of people is to our economy. How in many cases they take the jobs that others won't do. How they work for less which helps American businesses earn more and therefore grow the economy. Still I thought to myself, if I broke the law I would most certainly be punished for it. Why should immigrants who break the law be treated any differently.
I continued to hear the arguments against immigration; the strain on social services, the fear of terrorism, and my favorite, the issue of language. All of these are compelling arguments against allowing foreign persons to enter our country.
Then I stepped back for a minute and was hit with a whole new perspective. Who's country was this? Where did the current 300 million US citizens come from? To be sure, that majority were born here in this wonderful country, but what about their parents? Grandparents? Great Grand Parents? In case I need to give anyone a history lesson, almost all of us trace our family tree across an ocean. America was built on the backs of immigrants and slaves. The quintessential American tale is that of an immigrant who came to our shores with nothing, only to build a business and become a huge success. So what has changed? Has our nation become so large that we can no longer accommodate any more people? Hardly.
What has changed is our view of our country and what it means to be an American. It was okay for millions of Europeans to come through Ellis Island looking for a better life, but is it not okay for Mexicans and others from south of our border to cross the Rio Grande on the same quest?
The answer lies in what our nation has become, what we value, and how we view the rest of the world. We are the Bad-News-Bear's team that grew up to win the championship and then forgot what it meant to struggle, to be mocked, and to grow from it. We no longer see the value of nations outside of our own, and most certainly don't value their cultures or peoples. America is no doubt the greatest nation on the globe, unchallenged be it technologically, economically, or militarily. In our climb to the top we have forgotten where we came from and what helped our nation grow. The Irish and Chinese immigrants who built the railroad, the many eastern European scientist that helped us end the Second World War, and thousands of others who came to our country, built their businesses, and in the process made this nation the most powerful in the world.
All of the reasons why we are hearing to keep people out are simply there to mask the xenophoebic fears of an elitist society. The social argument is bunk. Any economist will tell you that the work performed by illegals more than outweighs any social drain. Plus, many of these illegal workers pay into social security and Medicare and will never be able to take advantage of these programs because of their illegal status.
The argument for securing the borders because of possible terrorist infiltration is a valid one. However, closing our border to the south will not make America any safer. To date no foreign alien charged or convicted of terrorist activities has entered the United States via Mexico, and none of the 9-11 hijackers entered the country illegally.
Lastly, the belief that by opening our southern border we would be overrun by Spanish speaking peoples and therefore loose English as our predominant language is completely ignorant . A recent article published in Time (March 20th, 2006. p. 89) points out that over seventy percent of all third generation Mexican-Americans speak only one language; English. America has demonstrated for over 200 years that we are a nation who takes the best from our immigrants and then assimilates the rest.
As I said, it is a complicated issue with no easy solution. However, in the increasingly globalized world, we must realize the impact of our domestic policy not only within, but also outside of our borders. Yes, we must always protect the interest of American citizens first and foremost, for that is the job of our government. However, we cannot be short-sided in our analysis of how our decisions effect the rest of the world. People must have the most basic necessities to survive and nations must have strong economies to be politically stable. It is time that we practice the principle that our parents taught us; do to others as you would like them to do to you. Think about yourself on the outside looking in, and then decide what policy you would choose.
When I initially saw the thousands of people demonstrating across the country I had a hard time coming to grips with what they were protesting. Illegal immigration is just that, illegal. What is there to protest when one is breaking the law. Yes, I had heard all of the arguments about how crucial this group of people is to our economy. How in many cases they take the jobs that others won't do. How they work for less which helps American businesses earn more and therefore grow the economy. Still I thought to myself, if I broke the law I would most certainly be punished for it. Why should immigrants who break the law be treated any differently.
I continued to hear the arguments against immigration; the strain on social services, the fear of terrorism, and my favorite, the issue of language. All of these are compelling arguments against allowing foreign persons to enter our country.
Then I stepped back for a minute and was hit with a whole new perspective. Who's country was this? Where did the current 300 million US citizens come from? To be sure, that majority were born here in this wonderful country, but what about their parents? Grandparents? Great Grand Parents? In case I need to give anyone a history lesson, almost all of us trace our family tree across an ocean. America was built on the backs of immigrants and slaves. The quintessential American tale is that of an immigrant who came to our shores with nothing, only to build a business and become a huge success. So what has changed? Has our nation become so large that we can no longer accommodate any more people? Hardly.
What has changed is our view of our country and what it means to be an American. It was okay for millions of Europeans to come through Ellis Island looking for a better life, but is it not okay for Mexicans and others from south of our border to cross the Rio Grande on the same quest?
The answer lies in what our nation has become, what we value, and how we view the rest of the world. We are the Bad-News-Bear's team that grew up to win the championship and then forgot what it meant to struggle, to be mocked, and to grow from it. We no longer see the value of nations outside of our own, and most certainly don't value their cultures or peoples. America is no doubt the greatest nation on the globe, unchallenged be it technologically, economically, or militarily. In our climb to the top we have forgotten where we came from and what helped our nation grow. The Irish and Chinese immigrants who built the railroad, the many eastern European scientist that helped us end the Second World War, and thousands of others who came to our country, built their businesses, and in the process made this nation the most powerful in the world.
All of the reasons why we are hearing to keep people out are simply there to mask the xenophoebic fears of an elitist society. The social argument is bunk. Any economist will tell you that the work performed by illegals more than outweighs any social drain. Plus, many of these illegal workers pay into social security and Medicare and will never be able to take advantage of these programs because of their illegal status.
The argument for securing the borders because of possible terrorist infiltration is a valid one. However, closing our border to the south will not make America any safer. To date no foreign alien charged or convicted of terrorist activities has entered the United States via Mexico, and none of the 9-11 hijackers entered the country illegally.
Lastly, the belief that by opening our southern border we would be overrun by Spanish speaking peoples and therefore loose English as our predominant language is completely ignorant . A recent article published in Time (March 20th, 2006. p. 89) points out that over seventy percent of all third generation Mexican-Americans speak only one language; English. America has demonstrated for over 200 years that we are a nation who takes the best from our immigrants and then assimilates the rest.
As I said, it is a complicated issue with no easy solution. However, in the increasingly globalized world, we must realize the impact of our domestic policy not only within, but also outside of our borders. Yes, we must always protect the interest of American citizens first and foremost, for that is the job of our government. However, we cannot be short-sided in our analysis of how our decisions effect the rest of the world. People must have the most basic necessities to survive and nations must have strong economies to be politically stable. It is time that we practice the principle that our parents taught us; do to others as you would like them to do to you. Think about yourself on the outside looking in, and then decide what policy you would choose.
And today it begins.....
So I do suppose that I have ignored this trend for as long as possible. I was very resistant to start a blog. I mean, really, who reads this crap anyway. Nonetheless, this is the new communication medium and it is far easier than writing, researching, and submitting an article to be published. As many of you know, I am far to busy to do that at this point in time, so instead I can share my perspective with all of you in a free and easy format. My intention is to address the issues of the day through my own eyes. To perhaps share a new opinion or give a different perspective from the other sources you may read.
There are so many things going on in our world everyday, and unfortunately, we have been trained to ignore the vast majority of them. We have our own lives, work to be done, children to feed, houses to clean, and occasionally recreation to enjoy. All of this is well and good, but as I grow older and progress both in my personal and professional lives I have found that there is still a large part of me that is unsatisfied. I know that I will not be the man to cure AIDS, to bring about peace in the Middle East, or to foster the next great technological revolution. However, I do believe that I have something to contribute to our society and am terribly frustrated at my current path. As many others have, I have fallen into the trap of the everyday. I now find myself at a job that was never intended to be a career. I have to wonder how many great thinkers, artists, and innovators are stuck in the trap of the everyday. How many have sacrificed their hopes and dreams and instead settled for a life of comfort without rewards.
My goal is to bring about a change to my current dilemma, to come out of the cave and run towards the light. This blog will chronicle my hopeful move from frustration to fulfillment. I have a passion for current events and for the political process in all its glory and deceit. I want to share the passion and believe that I can have an impact on someone at the end of the day. I have to say, that I am not optimistic, however, I do believe in perserverance and persistence, and that with the billions of people who live on this planet at least one person has to find this entertaining or amusing.
There are so many things going on in our world everyday, and unfortunately, we have been trained to ignore the vast majority of them. We have our own lives, work to be done, children to feed, houses to clean, and occasionally recreation to enjoy. All of this is well and good, but as I grow older and progress both in my personal and professional lives I have found that there is still a large part of me that is unsatisfied. I know that I will not be the man to cure AIDS, to bring about peace in the Middle East, or to foster the next great technological revolution. However, I do believe that I have something to contribute to our society and am terribly frustrated at my current path. As many others have, I have fallen into the trap of the everyday. I now find myself at a job that was never intended to be a career. I have to wonder how many great thinkers, artists, and innovators are stuck in the trap of the everyday. How many have sacrificed their hopes and dreams and instead settled for a life of comfort without rewards.
My goal is to bring about a change to my current dilemma, to come out of the cave and run towards the light. This blog will chronicle my hopeful move from frustration to fulfillment. I have a passion for current events and for the political process in all its glory and deceit. I want to share the passion and believe that I can have an impact on someone at the end of the day. I have to say, that I am not optimistic, however, I do believe in perserverance and persistence, and that with the billions of people who live on this planet at least one person has to find this entertaining or amusing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
