Write your Congressmen

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Obama on Iraq: What Would Kennedy Have Done?

I am a child of the 60's. Not to mean that I had long hair, smelled bad, smoked pot, and dodged military service. I mean that a lot of the ideas that came from the 60s got into my head and never left.

John Kennedy, in his inaugural address in January, 1960, kicked off the decade in grand style. If you haven't read the entire address, you should; it's one of the great writings of all time. However, in this political season, I find Kennedy's foreign policy idea from that address useful:

John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses.:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Kennedy didn't just mean liberty for this country, but for all countries - that's clear from the entirety of the speech.

Going forward nearly 50 years, and we find Barack Obama, who does not support this notion. He reminds us often that he opposed our current conflagration with Iraq. But would Kennedy?

There are so many things that Hussein did that I could cite, any one of which should have found him wearing a 500 lb. bomb for a hat. But it didn't. Two things did it for me: there was the rampant criminal behavior of his two sons. They murdered and raped at will. But even before that, there were Hussein's experiments with chemical agents; I recall our own national news broadcasting video footage of the testing he did on puppies, showing them die miserable deaths while subjected to chemical weapons testing. I'd have slit his throat for that, myself.

In the intervening years, Hussein killed thousands of people - all of whom for his own political gain. How quickly we have forgotten Kuwait, and the Kurds. He was the Stalin of the Middle East.

Should nothing have been done? What would Kennedy have done? It's clear that Obama and Kennedy would have been at odds on this matter.

With the 2008 election looming, it's interesting to note that John Kennedy's daughter, Caroline, supports Obama. Through this action, she rejects her own father's great ideas.

How the times change.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Where am I?

I am sitting here, watching the Democratic "debate," becoming ever-more frustrated and depressed. Who are these people, running for the highest office in my country? They and I have nothing in common, and share no ideas.

I have never seen such a bullshit fest in my life. And people are cheering for it.

I am feeling less and less connected here in the United States. Why are people who are going to be elected to protect my interests so concerned with giving everything away to foreigners who are in my homeland illegally? Anyone who's spent any time outside of the US and seen how other governments behave for their people will realize the ludicrousness of American politicians. However, while it's easy to dismiss politicians as liars (they are), these are the people who make the laws that affect everything in our lives. They therefore shape our culture. It's important.

But I swear, hearing the cheers and applause at the insanity coming from these lying idiots, I'm at a complete and utter loss.

How about you?

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Barack Obama and What he will do in Iraq

Boy, can this guy dodge and weave; he learned everything from Muhammed Ali.

Read his plan. He'll bring all troops home within 16 months. But wait... (see below).

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq:
"...if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Tell me where there's so-called "real change?" So troops remain as long as Al Qaeda does. And since Al Qaeda is there even as we speak, it's a safe bet that this is a hollow promise, worded to get votes. Even if he did manage to pull all the troops, then what for Iraq? The power vacuum will enable Iran to not only get a foothold, but take over that country with their radical Islamist government, which is clearly bent on its destruction of the West (meaning us).

And then what for the U.S.? Should we look forward to monthly September 11's? Or should we get used to the erosions of our personal freedoms by ever-more draconian measures necessary to stop Islamist-sponsored terrorism on American soil?

The question: Forget politics; how does Obama's plan make me and my family safer in our beds?

Monday, February 18, 2008

Who gives more, conservatives or liberals? - Examiner.com

During my stint at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, I noticed something that really threw me for a loop: social workers (and particularly social work educators) are not nice people. Arguably the most liberal of all professions, these folks are really more concerned with using politics to shift American culture to their view of "Utopia," rather than they are with helping people deal with the day-to-day of being poor and trying to make one's self better. It was a real eye-opener for me.

So the results of this book are no surprise, if you know what liberals are all about: they think they get warm fuzzies trying to help the poor and act on other liberal causes, but they want someone else to do it. They expend considerable energies on this approach. They use politics to acquire other people's money for their notions, rather than digging deeply into their own pockets. Why else do we find some of the wealthiest people in the world (Barbara Streisand comes to mind) doing fund-raisers, rather than doling out large sums of their own, considerable, cash? And just look at liberal politicians, and what they do with the People's money...

Have a look at the results of this study. Reality is a real kick in the head.

Who gives more, conservatives or liberals? - Examiner.com:
"Those who work in fundraising for charities understand that generosity frequently declines as wealth increases. People of modest incomes in rural South Dakota or Mississippi are typically far more generous than those in affluent areas like San Francisco or Manhattan. What Brooks, who identifies himself as one who was raised in a politically liberal family, found to be most striking was that “liberals, who often claim to care more about others than conservatives do, are personally less charitable.” Brooks was surprised to discover that religious conservatives are the most generous of all."

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

A New Model for the Presidency

Sick of Politicians? Me too. So how can we get a leader into Washington that's actually responsive to the people? A root alteration in how we select our President is called for. Hang on...

Instead of voting for a President, the people select an administrator. This person is selected based on his abilities to effect policies that will guarantee an outcome. But what outcome? Right now, we depend on politicians to not only conduct the People's business but to decide what that business actually is. The latter is where they always fail, and is part of the reason I detest them so much - they're out of touch and have no idea what's needed.

So, in the same spirit as the line-item veto, the people choose the issues, their priority, and what outcome we want. The 'how" is the job of the Presidential Administrator.

So, for example, if we were to go through the laundry lists of each candidate's platform, and select the best approach to each problem, we'd probably come with pretty good solutions. The Presidential administrator is then handed this prioritized list of problems and desired outcomes, which he is to solve within 4 years time.

But whom do we select? I propose we get away from the idea of people running for election entirely. Selection is based on a system of draft of business leaders. They're not allowed to campaign, and they can only refuse if there is some dire personal need. Their payment is based on a percentage of the Gross National Product after the 4 year term is up. Yes, that could be a huge salary.

And since Americans have less and less interest in things of meaning, we could hire out the project to one of the media networks, with the whole election taking on the flavor of a game show. It's a circus, for sure, but certainly no more so than it is now, and at least we'd guarantee more than 30% interest in the election.

So what do you think? Calling me nuts is not allowed; that's self-evident.

The Primaries and their Promises

I've been following the primaries with about the same enthusiasm as most Americans: interest diffused by disgust.

The thing that occurs to me, there's a lot of talk about change and reform. But this happens every election - "We're the reform party," was the battle cry one year. This year it's "Change."

Who is running that's qualified to even know what change is necessary? These slogans come from two parties that created the problems that need reforms in the first place, so why do we think they're capable of making anything different? We're idiots if we think so. To paraphrase Albert Einstein:

It's insanity to think that a solution can come from the same people that created the problem.