Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

Politics should stop being politics

Obama: Congress should stop bickering

The President thinks that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting and arguing over how the federal government spends its money. They should stop “manufacturing” crises and stop being “out of touch” with the American people.

TIME OUT!

Mr. President, what world are you living on, because it sure ain’t the same one the rest of America lives on.

Sorry, but the Republicans and the Democrats pretty much are doing what they are supposed to do: Represent the interests of the people who sent them there. Now that does not mean everybody in their district or state, but the people who voted and supported them. That, Mr. President, is how a representative democracy works. You don’t like that, then move to a different universe.

I know that I am a voice in the wilderness here, but, people, we have to understand that the US does not speak with one voice. It never has and it never will. Currently there are more that 310 million of us, each with our own mind and our own view of how things ought to be. Neither of the major political parties represents the view of the majority of Americans – especially on every issue. That is what makes politics politics.

Mr. President, you want Congress to pass a budget? Then call Harry Reid over in the Senate and tell him to pass the next budget bill that comes over from the House as is. Don’t play around with it, just pass it. And then you sign it. But, you and I know that isn’t going to happen.

And it hasn’t happened since the Republicans became the majority in the House. Every year, since 2009, the House dutifully passes the various and sundry authorizations and appropriations bills (like some 26 of them each year) and every year during that time the Senate has piddled and diddle and not one thing has it resolved. Why? Because the Democrats won’t accept what the Republicans have passed.

Every year, the Congress ends up passing a “continuing resolution” that, I guess, now extends all the way back to 2009 (it actually doesn’t but that is a different story). As Pappy used to say: That is one heck (he WAS a gentleman after all) of a way to run a railroad.

All continuing resolutions do is kick the can down the road to be dealt with again whenever it runs out.

So, the problem has not been in the House. It has been doing its job all along. And the problem is not with the Senate Republicans; they are just standing by what their House brethren have sent over. No, the problem lies on the other side of the aisle.

Now, I will guarantee you that you will not see it reported that way because it does not fit the establishment narrative of the problem.

I saw this back in 1994 when the GOP first took the House after being the minority party for more than 40 years. The establishment media was in a quandary. Over 40 years the reporters and pundits had established where they could go to get information and where the levers of power were. In an election, all that was washed away and it upset them. No longer could they go to the “usual suspects” and get the low-down on what was going on the backrooms and the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill. For a reporter who has spent years developing news source relationships, that is a very disconcerting feeling.

The new folks in power on the Hill, a bit chary of those who had developed such deep relations with their opponents, were less than welcoming to the established reporter and pundit class. So the feeling became mutual and the media bias grew to a deeper chasm.

Now, Mr. President, I know that neither you, nor any of your staff, or anyone else of note or power will read my ramblings (well, maybe someone at the NSA who is bored to death might), but please quit blaming others for your own lack of leadership.

The budgetary train wreck, the health care train wreck, the foreign policy train wreck, they are all your responsibility. Don’t slough them off on your minions. Don’t ask your co-equals in government (the ones who are to set the polices and priorities that you are to execute with the resources they give you) to do things that you apparently are unwilling to do.

Compromise is a two-way street and Congress is a co-equal with the Presidency (as is the Supreme Court). That is how the American republic was designed and how it is supposed to work. (Not by executive order and writ, as you just demonstrated with the setting up of new panels, etc., to sidestep the role of the uncooperative Congress – AND that is yet another rambling I will not digress into)

Nuff Said. Have a nice day. 

Next logical step

Here comes polyamory ... or is that polygamy?

Well, Katy bar the windows, they are coming through the doors.

The above story is about polyamory, a domestic living arrangement that permits multiple partners. Without being coy about it, we are talking about polygamy under a different name. Literally, from its Latin roots, “polyamory” should mean “many love” (poly = many, amor = love).

Well, once we condoned homosexual relationships and decided they were acceptable, then multiple relationships was the next obvious step.

It is not that either is unnatural, because they aren’t. Homosexuality has been less accepted in human societies, but polygamous and polyamorous relationships have been and still are acceptable in a good number of societies around the world.

Now, given that we living in an instantaneous communication and gratification society, it is no small surprise that coming so quickly on the heels of acceptance of homosexuality as a positive norm that the next logical step to multiple, multi-sexual relations be advocated for acceptance. I mean we see a form of polygamy exercised in our culture in the serial marriages in the lives of our opinion makers and cultural leaders, if not just serial relationships and to heck with the institution of marriage.

Of course, those who wish to see the overthrow of all traditions will greet this development with open arms. It frees them up to focus on their satisfaction, regardless of the consequences to society.

Therein, I propose, is the problem. You see, change is not necessarily bad. Far from it, actually. Change is a natural part of the evolution of human existence. However, uncontrolled change can create havoc and conflict as those who are comfortable with the status quo seek to protect its status.

So, I am not opposed to change (although a lot of people seem to think I am) but I always question the necessity and rational for any changes and often ask troublesome questions like “What if … ?”

It is all well and good to want to change society, to change social structure, change the way we do things or the way we are governed. But one must be wary when proposing grand sweeping changes because the law of unintended consequences (as President Obama’s signature Patient Protection  and Affordable Care Act is providing ample illustrations) has not been repealed.

I was just reading the fall news letter from my local state senator (a Democrat in a state where the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and a Republican sits as governor) where he was lamenting the fact that government gridlock was limiting changes to small incremental things (with special interest groups of all shapes and sizes doing all they could to protect their vision of the status quo). He was hoping that there could be broad and sweeping revisions and change. To me, that man is dangerous.

He may tout bipartisanship, but broad changes usually are only reflective on one world view (Much like the PPACA) and not of a consensus.

Governing by consensus, rather than just majority rule, usually is slower, but it usually brings with it less strife … and less hate and discontent among those being forced to accept the changes being imposed by those whose vision of the world and how society is different from those who are being asked to accept the changes.

It is something I think Americans would do well to ponder as we look around the world and see the fruits of rapid and uncontrolled changes. Is that what we want? I don’t think so. It is not our style.

I hope it gives you something to think about.

Nuff Said.

More rambling thoughts

Go win an election – Obama

President Obama sometimes gives the impression that as president, he is the only one who counts.  Sorry, the US government doesn’t work that way.

Gloating over the capitulation of his opponents in Congress on the issues of  what form of government funding was to be passed and how much debt the federal government would be allowed to take on, he told the losers they “needed to win an election.” The implication here, I suppose, is that the only election that counts is the presidential one. I guess if you think that the government should answer only to the president and be at his beck and call, that would be true but it is not what a democratic federal republic is all about.

You see, Mister President, your opponents on policy issues did win 232 elections in 2012 (out of 435 for seats in the House of Representatives), which means they hold a majority there. Now, if the US was a parliamentary system, it would mean that you would not be the elected leader of the United States … but that is a never-mind.

The point being is that not all power is supposed to reside in the White House and those people who control the other House were doing, essentially, what the people who voted them into office asked them to do.

No, Mister President (and your allies across the aisle in the House and across the hall in the Senate where they have control), that does not mean that those people who oppose you are extremists – despite being repeatedly labeled as such, nor racists – another favorite label being thrown around, nor hostage takers or terrorists or anarchists or arsonists or bombers. Despite your rhetoric to that effect, these people are not out to destroy the government, any more than one would hope you are. These merely are people who have a profound difference of opinion and world view than yours.

To me, it is tragic to see so many news stories and political pundits saying that the shutdown (such as it was) and the resistance to raising the debt ceiling was all the fault of the conservative Republicans and their Tea Party allies.

The shutdown did not have to happen and all the “painful” closures were not necessary. It doesn’t take much critical thinking to realize that the needed legislation had been passed by the House of Representatives but was blocked from passage by the presidential party loyalists in the Senate. It was those Senators who were holding the government hostage until they got what they wanted, not the other way around. Unfortunately, that was not nor will it be the way it was reported in the majority of the news dissemination outlets in the United States.

And now they are gloating over their victory and telling their opponents don’t ever oppose us again.

It is even more distressing to see liberal/progressive web sites like the Huffington Post headlining their page with demands that the loyal opposition bow down in obeisance to the righteousness of the progressives demands. What was it Churchill said about in victory? Something about magnanimity?

I read somewhere about how progressives are looking to create a country where it is the elite (themselves) who will perpetually be in power and those beneath them will just accept the justness of such an arrangement.

As for the other issue at the bar in the shutdown – Obamacare, or as it officially is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it was designed to fail and that has been the intention of its “supporters” all along. I know that is being dreadfully cynical of me, but given the absolute disastrous train wreck the rollout of the “health insurance exchanges” this month, it is hard to believe that even our government and its contractors could be that incredibly incompetent. Those who know me know that I am loath to attribute to conspiracy anything that can be explained by mere incompetence, but this really has been pushing the envelope on that viewpoint.

I mean, nobody read the bill (supposedly) before it was passed and since then it seems that waivers and exceptions to its application have been the rule rather than the other way.

You see, here I tend to agree with the people who have been denigrated as Tea-baggers: I am of the opinion that the law, whatever it is, should be applied without regard to wealth, social status, gender, race, creed, religion, color, parentage or any of the plethora of other things that we use to divide us. In fact, I have feared the Balkanization of the United States for many years.

The law, in my humble opinion, should apply to all or to none at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Obamacare law and its mind-boggling pages of regulations. To me, this is an egregious error, but I guess I am one of those bomb-throwers.

The funny thing to me is that, outside a few notable exceptions, I have met very few health care professionals who are in favor of Obamacare … actually most of them have expressed very negative views about the “reforms”.

As I discussed with one recently, the problem we have in the United States is not with our health care delivery system. It, in fact, is in really good shape, considering all the challenges it faces. Rather, the problem lies in how we are going to ration that delivery because it must be rationed. We have no other choice. Health care is a finite resource. We have only so many doctors, nurses, health care technicians and right on down to the porters and maids (not to mention the clerks and accountants in the billing offices).

To me the problem always has been how do you pay for all of that and who gets to decide who gets what? I am of the opinion that is not the in the purview of the US federal government, but since the bulk of the opinion makers in the US are now allied with national news dissemination organizations, all problems are nationalized (even if national solutions rarely are able to solve all problems).

I mean what would all the Bill O’Reillys, Anderson Coopers, Rachel Maddows, etc., do if they had to address merely local issues (even if they had some national implications) in all the various markets around the nation. They would not be able to cope.

I cite as a for-instance, an issue brewing in southern Maine over the use of the port facilities in South Portland to export Canadian oil. Currently, the facilities are used to pump oil from tankers from other places to Canada to feed its needs for heat, energy and transportation. The people who operate the pipeline, apparently plan to use the same facilities to take Canadian oil and export it to markets elsewhere in the world.

There are those around here are extremely put out that such a plan would be put forth at all. Of course, these people would dearly love to see the Port of Portland closed down, or so I overheard one supporter of a ballot initiative  to place such strict restrictions on the oil facilities that it would force them to close, tell another person today. They said something to the effect that so what if the 10 people working at the terminal were put out of work.

That would not be my point, however. Mine would say something about why should we in Portland be wanting to hurt so many Canadians?

However, I also know that this is not just about oil, but “tar sand” oil which those whose minds are focused on “protecting” the environment are so adamantly opposed to being developed. It doesn’t matter that the Canadians in Alberta are getting a good deal out of selling the oil, we just can’t have that happen, I guess.

And last but not least … I think the internet is a good thing. I think that letting people “blog” their thoughts and views is a good thing.

You see, apparently unlike the President of the United States, I think that blogging is of benefit and the more ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc., competing in the free market of politics the better … and may the better ideas float to the top.

Apparently, President Obama doesn’t agree and thinks that “bloggers” have too much influence. Well, I guess if your goal is to control the flow of information to the vast unwashed masses out there (note all the lengths the current administration has gone to combat leaks to reporters and the news media – which is predominately friendly to the Obama government), then the unrestrained freedom of social media and blogging would be more than disconcerting.

Just another sign that progressives and the president really don’t trust anyone but their fellow travellers.

Well, nuff said and nuff rambling for one post.

Who is blocking the solution to shutdown, debt limit?

Senate Democrats block progress on debt limit, shutdown

Reid nixes bipartisan compromise in Senate

The folks over the Huffington Post are all happy because the people they like in the Senate are all over throwing various compromise solutions back in the faces of the Republicans if they offer any.

 

NO SURRENDER! NO RETREAT!

 

I think the American people deserve a little bit better than this, but I understand the sentiment and it is a two-way street. However, having said that, it seems egregious to me that the Majority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that had the support of at least six Democrats. Not enough to invoke cloture (should someone decide to filibuster it), but enough to pass the bill if all the Republicans bought into the measure.

So, the narrative remains that it all the Republicans’ fault. I am sorry, but that meme doesn’t fly anymore. This has become a situation where the progressives/liberals are saying “We won the White House. We still control the Senate. It don’t matter what the House says, especially since it is controlled by the opposition. What we want goes, period. End of sentence. End of story. And if you don’t like that you are a hostage-taking, kidnapping, baby-killing, ransom-demanding, terrorist bomber.”

If it were left to me, and I was the only one whose vote mattered, I would start with serious clearing out of the halls of Congress in November 2014 (if not sooner in those states where recall elections are permitted) and I would start with the liberals and progressives, and probably would continue on down to all the elected folks, and then start on the career staff that man all the policy-affecting offices in the congress members’ offices. Now, that is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Of course, there is little I could or would do with the blatant partisanship among the various news gathering and news disseminating organizations, other than call them on the fact that they are not fair and balanced, especially the ones in the broadcasting field but also including those in the traditional print media.

Sorry, but label what passes for journalism now as what it is: in the traditional sense of it, we are living again in the heyday of new era of Yellow Journalism.

Wikipedia's defines "Yellow Journalism"

Now, if you don’t know about Yellow Journalism, you need to go back a little more than a century or so, and look at the way the news was covered by the “majors” … not a pretty sight.

The “objective journalism” standard never really has been the norm, but for a brief shining period there in the 1950s and 1960s (and maybe into the 1970s and early 1980s) it was something that mainstream journalists professed as their goal. Not that they even came close, but it was the dream of a lot journalists that trained in that era.

So, I think it is time for us to let go of that illusion and realize that is not the case. Time to realize that everyone has a point of view and to them, it is fair and balanced and everyone else’s is prejudiced.

However, I would like to disabuse those who say that the House has no right to defund programs it doesn’t like. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. You may not like it, but the same thing was tried when the Iraq War went south. Remember the people who voted for the war before they voted against it? If you don’t remember that issue, then you need to have your memory checked because it wasn’t that long ago.

And just because some law has passed Congress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, does not mean that law is engraved in stone … and unless it is an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessarily the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes do take precedence over state law, but that does not equal constitutional status.

If it were the case, then little things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Volstead Act would still be the law of the land. Or Plessey v. Ferguson would still be in effect. Nope, laws can be changed. Courts can change their opinion on what is constitutional and what is not.

Even if it is a law, Congress (especially in the case of the House) has the prerogative to vote against providing any funds to enforce or put any law into effect. Heck, it has been underfunding immigration enforcement for years.

I really would hope, however, that more people would look at the situation unfolding in Washington, D.C., and recognize that despite the repetition of the canard that it all is the fault of the party that controls the House of Representatives, the fault for this mess does indeed lie elsewhere.

To me, the answer is obvious beyond debate.

Nuff said.

I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Abdication of responsibility

Reid tells Obama not to wait for Congressional OK to raise debt

Did I miss something, or has the Senate been out to lunch for a few years now.

Ok, Congress is split between the Republicans holding the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate. It has been a recipe for gridlock (which really isn’t all bad) but it supposed to be a recipe for compromise. Unfortunately, it seems, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, compromise with the House is beneath the Senate under his watch.

Note that the Senate has not passed an actual budget in more than three years, and now Reid is telling the president that he can raise the congressionally mandated debt ceiling by executive fiat and to ignore those idiots in the House who are demanding some cuts to federal expenditures as the price for raising the debt ceiling.

It matters not that the federal government already owes $15 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION as in 15,000,000,000,000 – yeah … with 12 zeros). It will run into a problem, because it is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends these days. Of course, it is all in the name of stimulating the economy.

However, it is Congress, not the Executive Branch, which controls the federal government’s purse strings according to that document nobody seems to want to remember these days called the Constitution. You know the basic law and charter that underpins who does what in the federal government and what the federal government can and cannot do. Yeah, that obscure document.

Well, it seems to me that Sen. Reid and his cohorts have pretty much punted and have abdicated their responsibility for the last three years. Now, it seems they want to give up even more responsibility to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

You know, just how modern American is that. Nobody seems to what to take responsibility for what they are supposed to do, society-wide, it seems. Okay, I am being a bit harsh on a goodly chunk of Americans, but it does seem that the mindset of let the other guy (i.e. government) take care of what needs to be done is carrying the day.

Washington Post political columnist George Will recently pointed how just how much the Democrats have basically given up on ever balancing the federal budget. Time for a balanced budget

It really is sad, when the people who are supposed to be representing the states can’t seem to do their jobs. But then again, I remind myself, this is what 52 percent or so of the country voted for back in November.

Just remember two things when the train wreck hits.

1. It is all the Republicans fault.

2. The federal government can spend all the money it wants because the “rich” will pay for it.

But that is the way it is in America … instead of a nation of industrious ants, we have become a nation of grasshoppers as per the ancient fable.

What was it the poet laureate of my generation used to say?

“What? Me worry?”   – Alfred E. Neuman.

Off the deep end

I love it when American politicians use rhetoric to describe their foes that probably are merely self-reflections.



Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, assails the speaker of the House, his Republican counterpart, Rep. John Bohner of Ohio, as a dictator because he can't seem to get is fractious body to pass legislation that either the Senate or the President will approve. Ah, Sen. Reid, when was the last time the Senate passed a budget bill (rather than merely a continuing resolution which doesn’t really qualify).  Come to think of it, how many major bills the House have been voted on in the Senate?



Then Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, thinks all Republicans are freaky fanatics, or so he said in a Huffington Post piece. Heck, I could say that about a lot of the Democrats and progressives I know. Especially those who seem to freak out about guns.



I would like to point out to the latter the Second Amendment is not about hunting or shooting at targets. It is about giving the people the means to resist tyranny of the federal government. That is why the acts concerning the unorganized militia (the organized ones being the Reserves and National Guards) stipulate that the folks in the unorganized militias arm themselves with military caliber weapons (which right now means Remington’s .223 caliber and the Winchester .308 caliber, with 9mm being the choice for pistols – except for the Marines who may be going back to the .45 caliber ACP)


And whilst we toddle off the fiscal cliff, whatever that may be, it is comforting to see out president doing what he does best, it seems, leading from behind.

Oh, well, Doomsday didn’t happen and it won’t happen Jan 1, 2013, despite what the media pundits and politicians tell us.

How can there be a vote with nobody there?

Harry Reid: Filibuster Changes Will Take Place In January

“Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has been working with Reid on the proposed changes, which would effectively force any senators wanting to delay a vote to visibly take to the floor and talk. Once every senator had left the floor and could no longer debate, a cloture vote would be taken that would require only a simple majority rather than two-thirds of the chamber in order to pass muster”

-  Quote from Huffington Post story on reforming the Senate filibuster rules.

Ok, let me see if I understand how this is going to work:

There is only one person left on the floor to debate and then they take a vote to cut off debate. Who the heck is voting? That one person? That would be a majority of one.

I thought a Senator had to be on the floor to vote, but I guess they now have early voting (they don’t?) and absentee ballots (they don’t?) or some other magical method to cast a vote without being in the Senate Chamber (i.e. on the floor).

It would seem to me, that the moment another senator returned to the floor, the debate would, in effect, be rejoined.

However, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, this is how Congress works folks with a huge hole in logic and understanding.

Then there is the little matter of having a quorum of Senators present in order to have a legal vote.

And people wonder why our faith in the federal government institutions is being sorely tested.

Well, I am glad that is over …

Americans and gridlock - very good article

Why Obama won?

Well, the 2012 presidential election is over … whew!

My initial reaction: Disappointment.

Not that I did not expect it, but I would much rather President Obama had not won re-election. Why? Because of the two evils, I felt that Obama has the potential for wreaking far more havoc than Romney did. But then we will never know, will we?

As for the future, I take solace in the fact that Congress remains divided. In that, I agree with George Friedman above, the American people have chosen gridlock because – contrary to the views of some Obama supporters – the nation remains strongly divided between two visions and – despite some progressives feeling of vindication – it will continue to remain that way.

However, I do think that my dear spouse (viewing the election from her Canadian perspective) pretty much hit the nail on the head. People vote for free stuff and that pretty much was Obama’s message.

It is echoed in the old saw about democracies that goes, loosely paraphrased: They only work until the voters figure out they can vote themselves other people’s money out of the common treasury and that cat is done got out of the bag in the U.S.

So, we are going to have a president who will continue to play class warfare and wealth envy to advance his agendas. Ok, I can live with that. That is what democracy is about anyway. Besides, since I probably won’t be alive all that much longer (10, maybe 15 years at the outside, and probably less given my health), it won’t be my problem.

Unfortunately, my kids and my grandkids will have to deal with the fallout, just like my generation had to live with the fallout from my parents’ and grandparents’ decisions (only I think they were better deciders than the current 21^st generation crop)

Still, the reactions of some progressives I know was an even greater disappointment to me. I mean, basically telling the 50 percent of the nation that did not vote for their candidate that they can F___ O__, does not comport with what I see as magnanimity in victory (sorry to borrow your line, Winston). It is attitudes like that that lay the foundations for violent confrontations later (See the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath). But again, I won’t have to deal with that.

As for why Obama won? It is simple: More people voted for him than any of the other candidates. Considering that 14 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008, that also is a sad commentary on the American people. Still it is a tribute to the Obama campaign machine that it was able to get more of its supporters to go to the polls than his opponents and you have to respect that.

Could Romney have done better? Does it matter? No. Sorry, no do overs. We have to live with the choices we make as a nation.

I really hope that my cynical old person is wrong and the progressives are right and that their world view really will make everything peachy keen and peace and happiness. However, I suspect that historian in me sees a rerun of the first few decades of the last century. I know, that really is pessimistic, but what the heck – humans are humans and we keep doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.

If we look back at what actually worked and helped create what we have and took that as a model, well … who knows what might happen.

Instead, we will go forward and blaze essentially a new trail. I hope people aren’t looking for an easy time of it, because when you blaze a new trail it is hard work because nobody has laid down a path for you to follow and sometimes bad things happen and you end up in places you didn’t want to be.

And in the end, President Obama may – it is possible I could be wrong here – fundamentally transform what America is as he said he was going to do when he was elected in 2008. I am not sure that is what people really want, nor do I think that people really understand what that might mean, but that has been their choice.

Remember, life is about choices and we have to live with the ones we make. Nobody – not the government, family or friends – can protect us from the consequences of those choices. They may be able to ameliorate the impact, but we still will have to endure the consequences. I fear that our desire to make our society “fair” and “equal” has forgotten that we are individuals, unique and definitely not equal (the equality should be before the law and government and not the equality of outcome or results, which are two different things).

Change will come to America, just like the weather will change, and the cycle of life, and governance, will continue. Funny about that, but it just seems to go on and on.

Failure to understand

Failure of the campaigns
American political system is not working
No matter how Tuesday’s (Nov. 6) election turns out, at all levels, we will have those 21^st Century types that don’t understand how this venerable American political system designed in the 18^th Century is working actually the way it was designed, which really is an amazing tribute to the people who have shaped it over the last 225 years.
In both of the above referenced articles, the authors complain of the “failure” of the American political system. Apparently, if I am interpreting their rhetoric correctly, the failure is in that the government apparently is gridlocked and cannot agree on solutions. This is bad, according to them.
Well, count me among those who say maybe it isn’t so bad.
Yes, both sides of the political spectrum are being fairly obstructive, but then that is their jobs. Their jobs are to represent the people who voted them into office, not their constituency at large. Now, I am not saying that these people are not educated, or unintelligent, but I am saying that I don’t agree with their understanding of how a democratic republic is supposed to operate.
To that end, I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
First, there is a failure to communicate exactly what Americans view as their expectations of the role government (especially the federal government) in their lives, in their finances, their health and nutrition, and in the economic affairs of the nation in general.
There is a great divide in America right now between those who see a big role for the federal government providing for welfare of the American people and those who are suspicious of the federal government intervening in the lives of individuals. That divide, unfortunately, is wide and probably can’t be reconciled, but it will have to be accommodated somehow.
Second, somewhere along the line, two concepts were missed in translation and apparently failed to be communicated to the generations in the 21^st Century. The first concept is that instantaneous gratification really is not possible, no matter how much we want to believe it is. Part two is that winner takes all is not part of the democratic equation; rather it sows the seeds of conflict in the future, especially in a country that has more than one vision of what that future ought to be.
So, we have people looking at the American system and saying “It is broken” or “It is dysfunctional” when they really mean that it is not providing the solutions that they think it should. That seems to be more a problem of their expectations than whether the system is broken or dysfunctional.
However, assuming that it is “broken”, I would be very curious as to what their “solution” would be. My question is that while they may think it is broken, could it not be that the “system” is thinking, trying to ascertain what the best solution might be.
You see, your first reaction sometimes is not the best reaction. Sometimes it is, and then again sometimes it isn’t. We used to value people in this country people who would take the time to consider their actions, rather than merely react to certain stimuli. I fear that carefully considered approach is waning, to be replaced by the demands of those who require instant gratification.
I mean, just look at our wired world today. Millions, if not billions, of people have the ability to access information nearly instantaneously, make a snap judgment on that information (as incomplete as it may be) and then move on to the next thing that may attract their attention.
It takes no thought to do that. I would call it reactionary, but I suspect that many of those who are addicted to the swiftness of modern communications would revolt at being labeled as such, particularly progressives who seem to be enamored with the benefits of such technology.
We seem to have forgotten that it takes time to lay foundations and to build new edifices to our dreams and hopes for the future. No, we seem to have lost that perspective … and this is not just a left-right deal or liberal/progressive-v-conservative argument.
It is more of a generational thing, where those who vaguely remember what life was like before television, cell phones and the internet can recall having to wait … and wait … and wait … sometimes. Not just for decisions, but for the information to base those decisions on. Patience is not a virtue that Americans have.
The election, whenever it is decided, will not change things immediately. I hope people realize that. The system will continue its slow, inexorable process toward resolution of issues large and small … and no, the world is not going to come to end on Dec. 21.
The system is not broken or dysfunctional … it merely is not spitting out solutions at the pace your video game has taught you to react to.

Boy, the Democrats must be getting desperate

Hillary says it is all her fault in Benghazi
Clinton falls on her sword claiming responsibility for failures in Benghazi
I guess President Barack Obama’s campaign handlers are panicking. Somehow they talked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the fall for the lack of security at the diplomatic facility (I won’t elevate it to the level of a real consulate) in Benghazi last month.
It took a month, but Clinton finally said, in this, the buck stops with me. Nice try, Ms. Rodham, but your credibility was shot back with Monica and the other girls.
Look, Clinton wants to run in 2116, so Bill and she can be co-presidents again. To do that, she has to smooth the waters with the wheels in smoke-filled rooms (ok, they aren’t smoke filled any more) out back so they will help her get the nomination. This is the price she pays: Get Barry re-elected. Deflect any and all criticism from him.
Fall on your sword, woman.
Well, I am sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but President Obama, and his invisible National Security Council advisor are responsible. If you didn’t coordinate your actions with them, then they screwed you over and let you take the fall. You should have coordinated those types of requests with the White House because, as you know very well, they have very large foreign policy implications. And while you are delegated the task of executing the foreign policy of the United States, if you go free-lancing it without discussing it with the boss, then you will find yourself in a very deep pile of horse manure.
You see, because that is the way things work. When you work for someone, you don’t free-lance the big stuff … and when it comes to terrorist attacks, it is all big stuff.
So, it would seem that logic would dictate the reason, the day before the second presidential debate of the season, that somebody, anybody, takes a sword for the embarrassing debacle that is Libya and the ambassador’s death. Vice President Biden tried to blame the intelligence people, and the DNI tried falling on his sword, but it seems that no one bought that. So, now it is Miss Hillary’s turn.
Please, Mister President, step up to the plate and do your mea culpa. It would make you look much more presidential and prop up your leadership image. To do anything else, merely mocks it. (And it makes Hillary look presidential and you look like a jerk)

Assault on the Electoral College

Electoral votes not equal

How the Electoral “College” system works

It seems, of late, we go through this spasm – mainly by progressives – over the U.S. Constitution’s specifications for electing a president. You see, according to them, it is not “democratic” (it was never designed to be that way) and not everyone’s vote is equal (which is true).

You see, when you vote president in November, you really are not voting for one of the candidates but, in 48 states and the District of Columbia, you really are voting for a slate of “electors” who are pledged to vote for the candidate who gets the plurality of votes in your state. Two states apportion their electors by congressional district with two going to the candidate who receives the plurality of votes in the state.

Note: I said plurality and not majority. There is a major difference. A majority would be 50 percent of the votes cast plus 1, while a plurality merely means the candidate got more than any of the other candidates on the ballot (and remember you will see more than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney among your presidential selection choices when you step into that voting booth. Not that you would know it from what you see and read in the most of the media. The other candidates have been deemed by said gatekeepers of the news to be “unwinnable” and hence not worthy of coverage. Ain’t that a hoot and a self-fulfilling prophecy? Also note that at least one candidate, Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in 47 states and possibly all 50, if the Libertarian Party’s court challenges keeping them off the ballot are successful).

Now, there is a movement afoot to have states agree to allocate all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, but then what would be the point of having states? Note that this is being pushed in states where the Democratic Party has control of the legislatures.

Now, why do we have an “Electoral College”? Surprise, it is a compromise. You see there were those who wanted the president to be elected by popular vote, but enough of the wise people who wrote the constitution were too wary of “the Mob” and the vagaries of popular emotions to go that route. Others wanted the president to be selected by Congress, but then that would leave the president beholden like a prime minister to the congressional faction that elected him, which most likely would be from the Big States to the detriment of the Small States. So, like the Congress, which represents both the states and the people (before popular election of Senators, but they still represent their states at-large), a compromise was struck that each state would get the number of representatives and senators it had in Congress. Since the minimum number is three (two senators and one house member) and the maximum number of House representatives is 435, then some votes carry more weight in terms of popular support than others. Consider that the District of Columbia, which is not a state, also gets three, you can see why the Small States like the current setup.

Now, it was left to the states to decide how to select their “electors” and most choose to do it by allocating all of them to the winner by a plurality in a statewide ballot of qualified voters. Unfortunately, when you do that, sometimes (as in 1876, 1888 and 2000) someone who didn’t win the nationwide popular vote ends up being president. Note that is not unusual for a president to be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, in fact, that really is the norm.

However, there has been one instance, where a president won the popular vote and led in the Electoral College (but did not have a majority and in the Electoral College vote you have to have a majority) but ended up not being president. That’s ok, he got his revenge and was elected four years later and basically revamped how the executive branch was run.

Now, if it was just left to the popular vote, candidates basically could write off most of the states and the nation and focus merely on a few big cities. Sweep those, and you got the popular vote in the bag. But that is not what this country is about. It is a federal republic and not a democracy … despite what academic political scientists and progressives will want you to believe.

So, while the current system, which will remain in effect for the current election, may not be the best way – my vote would be to allocate electors by congressional district with two at-large and staying with the plurality rather demanding a majority (unless you wanted to have runoffs a few weeks later between the top two candidates in those states where nobody got a majority – which would be such a big hassle it is not worth the bother).

What is bothersome about the current spate of complaints is that once again it seems designed to throw the results into question and rather than accept it as it is designed, it seems to want to promote the idea that your vote doesn’t count. It does count.

Each and every vote counts and rather than put the election up in question, let’s support our candidates and quit worrying about what goes on in other states. That is what it means to live in a federal republic and is why we have sovereign states. You don’t like that, then go live somewhere else.

No budget

Fiscal cliff?

Continuing resolution

Ok, I guess it covers it. The federal government is supposed to be operating on a budget that goes into effect on Oct. 1 every year. However, this session of Congress, like the session in 2010 and 2011, didn’t really pass a budget. It passed what is known as a “continuing resolution” which basically is kicking the can down the road, as one politician put it.

Being a product of political grid lock, such resolutions basically permit the government to continue functioning on the basis of previous budget authorization and spending laws. In this case, it seems that while the House did pass a budget (meeting its constitutional responsibility), the Senate as it has done every year since 2009 has found it  politically inexpedient to pass the budget, opting instead to authorize the government’s various agencies to continue spending for the next six months while a compromise is sorted out.

Unfortunately, apparently, the grand compromise from 2011 has to have a “budget” passed and not a continuing resolution or the great sequestration goes into effect.

Not bad politics, if you think about it. It is not like the Senate could not have passed a budget. It could have, and it could have been substantially different than the House-passed version. Then, however, the good senators would have had to have been on “the record” so to speak about what their budget priorities were. Not good.

So, the House has gone on record – and being controlled by Republicans – and that gives the Democrats a good foil to use during this election year … and relieves them of any responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the nation.

Personally, I think it is all porcine scatology. Well, even more than that: It is about “transforming” the country, as President Obama says. I may not approve the way the Obama Administration is going about this transformation, but it is getting a lot of help from the Senate, which is depressing. I also may not approve of the nature of the transformation, but until more people vote against it than for it, I will be in the minority and, therefore, must accept the results. That, folks, is what you do in a democratic republic.

Of course, that course may change … and I hope it does.

A hypothetical situation

I am not going to source this one, like I do, because it is merely speculation on my part and not necessarily based on what I expect or what I think is true (at least I hope not).

As I pointed out in a previous blog, it seems that the Democrats are going to great lengths to level the charge that the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of their supporters. Whether it is attempts to remove illegals, dead people, people in prison, people no longer living in a district (we are a republic, remember) from voter rolls or the whole discourse over how unfair it is to require someone to have a valid photo identification in order to vote, it seems that Democrats are really flogging the voter suppression issue, or at least it seems that way in the online national news media web sites.

Another thing, there is a huge debate on the accuracy of various media polls that are published it seems daily on how much support the Democratic and Republican party candidates have. Conservative sites trumpet how close the race seems, while progressive and what I used to call liberal (apparently the term is passé) sites trumpet how far ahead President Obama is and how seemingly unpopular former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is.

Given this drumbeat, I pose some what-ifs:

What if, despite the polls, Romney wins not only the Electoral College vote, but also the popular vote, by a substantially clear margin?

What if, Romney wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote?

What if, Romney actually wins the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote? (Ok, that is not likely but it could happen)

Given the polarization being advanced by the new media as well as the old media, what is going to happen?

What if, God forbid, there is a Republican surge and the party sweeps a whole bunch of Senate races unexpectedly?

On the flip side:

Will the right really revolt if Obama wins re-election, especially by a sizeable margin?

In either case, will Americans accept the results of Nov. 6 or will they reject them?

That is what is concerning me. It almost seems as if someone wants to have a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make the Mayan calendar “prediction” of the “end time” come true.

I don’t know what will happen in any of the above scenarios. I do know enough, however, to ask questions and seek answers.

I also have considerable hope that all the hyperbole that is being spouted in the new media, internet and traditional media is merely information overload and not really reflective of reality.

I may be wrong, but I have this belief in our ability to face reality and cope with it, however harsh it may be. The next six weeks will be ugly in a political sense in the United States … and maybe throughout the world, the way things are looking. It may get even uglier as Dec. 21 comes (the end of the Mayan Calendar) but I fully expect that this time next year, we will all look back and say:

“WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING BACK THEN?”

Executive orders?

Questions about Obama’s cybersecurity plans – PC World

About a month ago, I raised my own red flag on the issue that is troubling the computer magazine PC World. I need reiterate it again, I suppose.

I know that it may not be politically correct to say so, especially among those who really had a visceral hatred of George W. Bush, but our current president, Barack Obama, scares me every time he starts talking about using executive orders to implement something he can’t get passed by Congress. I would hope that this government by fiat would be upsetting to others as well.

We have seen this administration move much farther abroad than the previous administration in applying its changes to the law by executive rules, regulations and basically fiats on what laws to enforce and on whom they should be enforced. This must be a frightening trend to those of us who celebrate our civil liberties, economic rights and our basic freedoms.

If a president doesn’t need Congress to enact law, then why have a Congress (I know that may sound good, but it really is a bad idea)? This propensity of President Obama to use his executive orders to enact new law in such a broad spectrum of government policy is the reason I find him to a walking disaster area. He seems to be intent on advancing his agenda, regardless of the views of the American people who elect those people to represent them in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Granted, Congress is polarized. Being polarized just reflects the fact that the people are split very badly about what they think are the best policies to advance the nation. When there is no consensus, then inaction often is the best answer, despite what our elites and so-called opinion makers, or our media elites or the president and the political leaderships may think. Ironically, the system was designed for such inaction in the face of polarization.

If it was not for the War of Rebellion that saw the Southern states withdraw from Congress, then the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would never have passed. But the slave-holding states did withdraw, did go into rebellion, did lose that rebellion, and basically lost whatever influence they had to keep the institution and to keep African-Americans in chattel bondage. However, they were able to resurrect apartheid and maintain it for many years until even that was overturned. (Note: It was the Democratic Party that was instrumental in maintaining the Jim Crow legislation and fought the civil rights reforms of the 1960s).

I hope those who go to the polls keep that thought in mind: Do they want to retain such polarization? Do they want to eliminate it? And to which side do they want the country to go? I hope that for a little bit of security that my fellow Americans are not willing to sacrifice even more of their liberty.

Setting dangerous foundations

Reich warns Romney still can be elected
Robert Reich, the secretary of labor under President Clinton, is a prolific proponent of all things progressive and liberal … and he always has been.
Above, Mr. Reich appeals to his fellow followers not to get complacent about the re-election of President Barack Obama. That is good news. No one should be complacent about the election or re-election of any candidate. And everyone should be encouraged to participate in the elections scheduled for Nov. 6. (Although the old slogan “Vote early and vote often” is not such a good idea.)
What bothers me about that article is, whether he means it or not, he sets the foundation for claiming the election is a fraud. That disturbs me considerably.
It is his final point that bothers me so much:
“… the Republican Party will do whatever it can to win -- even if it means disenfranchising certain voters. To date, 11 states have enacted voter identification laws, all designed by Republican legislatures and governors to dampen Democratic turnout.
“The GOP is also encouraging what can only be termed "voter vigilante" groups to "monitor polling stations to prevent fraud" -- which means intimidating minorities who have every right to vote. We can't know at this point how successful these efforts may be but it's a dangerous wildcard. And what about those Diebold voting machines?”
Ok, folks, enough with the conspiracy theories. In the first paragraph, it seems to me that both parties have ample evidence (actually the Democratic Party has a lot more historical evidence, especially in the Southern states) of disenfranchising certain voters, as well as having ineligible voters (especially dead people) vote in elections in numbers of enough to swing elections. So, if one wants to be cynical enough, you could say that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Then, there are those cases where supporters of the Democratic Party have been videotaped intimidating voters at the polls in at least one city.
As for the issue of voter identification: I already am  on record as saying I see absolutely no problem with requiring people to show photo IDs when they vote. It seems that just about everywhere else you go you have to do it.
Now, if it is a problem for some people, that is where the party can and should intervene (it will make a supporter of the voter) to make sure that those people they want to vote have such photo IDs. They are not hard to get and as much as the party spends on advertising and registering voters, it seems to me a small price to pay to make sure that those supporters who can’t afford the pittance that is required, in most states (some are free), to get a state-issued photo ID.
Besides, it is not just “minorities” who would be affected by such a requirement, but that is a good job of putting in the race card.
Lastly, Mr. Reich takes a slam at computerized polling stations, particularly those made by the Diebold corporation. Granted, all computer driven vote counting systems are subject to possible tampering and manipulation, but, unless you have specific proof (not anecdotes or conjecture) that a specific manufacturer has illegally tampered with the vote totals with the machines that it makes, then Mr. Reich is on very dangerous ground. Not only is he libeling the corporation (yes, you can libel a corporation) but he also is attempting to call the validity of the election into question without justification.
There is a major problem with that and it stems partly back to the election of 2000 and the images of election board members examining punch-card ballots in a effort to verify the intent of the voter in each case (remember the issue of the “hanging chads” and the “indented chads”?). It is a Democratic Party mantra that the U.S. Supreme Court, by calling a halt to the Democrats charade, “stole” the election for George W. Bush.
However, what people tend to forget in the narrative of that election is two things:
1. It was the Gore Campaign that took the case to court trying to alter the count before it was even finished – contrary to the law. Court challenges are supposed to come after the count has been canvassed and not before. So, it was not the Bush campaign that was using the court system to overturn the Florida election result, but the Gore campaign.
2. There was a consortium of newspapers, news services and broadcast networks that was able to go back in in 2001 and examined all the ballots and interestingly enough in just about every case, by differing margins, President Bush actually won. That would seem to have vindicated the initial results that had him winning by something like 543 votes.
Granted, Gore won the “popular” nationwide vote, but that is not what counts in our REPUBLIC. You also have to win a majority of the “electoral” votes that are divided among the states by their representation in Congress.
So, what we have here, is Mr. Reich laying the groundwork for his party and its supporters to cry “foul” if their candidate loses a close race … which my dear wife (who is Canadian) predicts it will be, a veritable cliffhanger.
So, my advice to Mr. Reich: On your final point, shut up, because it serves no purpose but to invalidate the election, apparently in sour grapes if your guy loses again.

Yet another example
GOP uses voter ID laws to block college students

Thank God for religious freedom

Pakistan grants bail to girl accused of blasphemy
Iran releases Christian pastor
The Mutawah
There is one thing that most Americans have a great difficulty in understanding and that is living under theocratic rules.
Of course, to your run-of-the-mill progressive, American Christian fundamentalists fit the description, but believe me, they don’t even come close. Fundamentalists in the U.S. of any stripe don’t hold a candle to the real thing that you find in Muslim countries functioning under the auspices of Sharia laws.
For example, the young Christian girl in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for supposedly burning a page from the Quran (the Islamic faith’s version of the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, the holy book). Apparently, it seems, that the equivalent of a priest or rabbi or pastor fibbed and that was what got the child arrested. Due to international pressure, at least the girl was released on bail. That doesn’t mean that the charges can’t go ahead, but it does mean that she gets out of jail to be with her family, hiding somewhere in Pakistan from those Muslim fundamentalists who would like to see her drawn and quartered. And you think American Christian fundamentalists are intolerant.
In the second case, an Iranian who was fulfilling the role of a Christian church minister apparently is not going to be put to death for apostasy by the Iranian regime. It seems that the international attention won another victory and he got off on appeal, which reduced his charges to a lesser crime and he was released in lieu of time served, which was three years in the pokey.
You see, things like that don’t happen in the United States and won’t as long as the law is respected by those who believe and those who don’t believe. It wasn’t always that way, but it is the way it is today and has been for a good long time now … well at least for about a century or so. Yes, we do tend to tolerate differing religious views in the U.S., even though those not currently popular often have a relatively rough time of it. Unfortunately, intolerance also is one of those faults/sins that we will never get rid of … but, more than other places, at least we have a bridle on it.
What we don’t have are mutaween … or as I call them the mutawah. In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween are the enforcers of customs and mores, like what you wear, are you observing prayer time, is your shop not selling unapproved goods like CDs, DVDs and alcoholic beverages. I know my progressive friend out west sees an American version of these religious policemen in everything the religious right/conservatives seem to do, but really, our religious right has nothing on the mutawah. And such enforcers here definitely don’t have the sanction of the government, and despite his fears, I don’t think our government will give such enforcers sanction.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I had a number of encounters with the mutawah. Most were amicable – they didn’t speak much English and my Arabic was limited to about three or four phrases. There was one incident when the business I was visiting suddenly shut all the shutters on the windows to the street and as it continued on with business, the owner explained to me that it was prayer time and rather than shut down the press run he was doing for me, he just closed the shutters so the mutaween wouldn’t see what was going on. I guess my time was worth more than the pressmen’s prayers or the fine he would have faced had he been caught (which he said he was occasionally – he did this often and not just for the infidel American Army NCO who was there – and was ready to pony up the fine).
There was one encounter, which fortunately I missed, where another NCO, who was a friend of mine, literally had to drag a female soldier out of a shopping mall before she got arrested. They were both in civilian clothes and she was wearing the obligatory floor length skirt, but her shirt sleeves only came down to her elbows and she wasn’t wearing something covering her hair. A couple of mutaween decided that she wasn’t observing the local dress code and decided to hassle her about it. Being a proper American who seems to think that the U.S. Constitution applies anywhere in the world, she proceeded to try to make a federal case out of it. Bad idea, young lady. Well, the NCO rode to her rescue, literally dragging her by her arm out of the shopping mall as she was practically screaming about her rights and away from the two officers.
When they got back to the hotel where we were billeted, I got the story and we two NCOs tried our best a) to calm her down and b) explain to her the facts of life that what goes in the US does not always go over in other countries and we have to respect that. We may not agree with it, and definitely don’t have to like it, but we do have to – as we usually put it – SADO. (SADO stands for Salute And Drive On and is what you do when you have to do something someone in authority tells you to do that you disagree with or think is wrong)
When I look around and see a Mormon and a Protestant, backed by two Catholics, running to lead the United States I am amazed (Well, not really, because I am an American who believes in the tolerance of America). It is not something that you will see in very many countries around the world. Well, even in the US, the fact that these candidates even profess their religious preferences raises eyebrows in some progressive quarters that would rather see secular humanists in the job. They have no room for those who see some value in religious faith or the belief in some deity that you can’t see or prove the existence of. To them it, it all opiates for the masses and a bunch of hokum.
Of course, we may come to the obverse of a theocracy, and that is almost as scary as the thought of living in a theocracy.

Big fib

Convention but no Hillary

Why no Hillary

Illegal for Hillary to be there

Hatch Act references

The Hatch Act as Amended

The Hatch Act of 1939

Federal employees limited in partisan political activities

Justice Department explains

Sorry, but an unidentified senior Obama administration official needs to go back and check the law before mouthing off.

It is not “illegal” under the so-called Hatch Act for a secretary of state to attend a political function. As a matter of fact, such high-level political policy-making presidential appointees are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.

For those who are not familiar with the “Hatch Act”, it was initially passed in 1939 to prohibit federal government employees from having to work in the political campaigns of their elected masters. Sounds quite reasonable to me; however, the act was amended in 1993 (and went into effect in 1994) to make it easier for those federal employees to express their political views. Those amendments did not bar the secretaries of state and defense or the attorney general from attending political meetings such as the national conventions.

Now, then-President Clinton delegated the authority to those three (but not others) to put out “rules” and guidelines that limited what political activities could be involved in, but did not explicitly say: The Secretary can not participate. Beep! Wrong answer.

So, despite what the senior Obama administration official was saying, there was no law banning her from the Democratic National Convention … and if there is, I wish someone would show me exactly where it says that a secretary of state is barred from attending such a political convention.

No, folks. This unfortunately is a big fib, being pushed along by the reporter at CNN and others.

Good try, though.

Initial reaction

I watched President Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention and I was impressed. He is a very good speaker and I should hope that he really believes in the things he said.
Having said that, I was left with my doubts. Why would I doubt? There was a dichotomy in his speech that left me wondering, “Does he really believe in what he saying?” because his rhetoric is not consistent, either within his speech or in his actions.
My question is this: Does he really believe in the law? Does he really believe in equality before the law? Does he really believe in contracts?
Unfortunately, both his rhetoric and his actions over the past few years lead me to question whether he really believes in the law, or that it be applied equally to all that come before it.
For example, if he really believed in equality before government, then all would pay the same rate of taxes to the government on the same kinds of income and wealth. That is not the case now. If you think it is, then you would be wrong.
No, we have decided to have a “progressive” system of taxation that increases the rate of your taxes as your income increases. We have decided to encourage certain behaviors by rewarding those who comply with our wishes with exemptions and deductions from their tax burden.
In addition, those who for whatever reason fail to achieve a certain income level, we have exempted them not only from paying federal income taxes, but we have agreed to give them other benefits and subsidies. That is not equality. That is discrimination, no matter how you describe it. Government is not in any way treating all citizens either fairly or equally.
Another example: I have no problem paying for education of young people or law enforcement or fire protection, but it is not the role of the federal government to provide those services.
Another example: This country has a law, called the bankruptcy code, and it applies to private companies – no matter what industry, no matter what size – the same. The president ignored that law because he said he wanted to save jobs. What gave him that right to ignore that law?
You see, I opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit. I thought at the time it was beyond the powers of the federal government to do what it did. I still think that is the case. Granted, it would have been a very serious situation and possibly thousands or millions would have been hurt. Guess what, thousands and millions of people were hurt. But, we would have survived it, just like America did in the Great Depression.
Note, Franklin Roosevelt did not end the Great Depression; World War II ended it. FDR did do some things, most notably restoring the outlook of the American people. It was not what he did that was right, but his positive outlook that was right. You can do wrong things with the right outlook and you will be surprised that things actually turn out better than you expected.
I agree that we should often act as a team, because in synergy there often is greater strength, but it should be a coalition of the willing and not the coerced. If we punish those for doing better than others then we discourage them from doing better.
Then there are contracts. Yes, I think all parties should abide by the articles of their contracts. Yes, often times groups try to shave those articles to their own benefit. That not only is to be expected but will happen, every time, all the time, no matter who is involved.
Yes, I think greed is wrong, but what one person defines as greed others define as righteous reward. Who has the right to define greed because it has to be defined before it can be punished. I am not qualified, and I know no one alive who is qualified to say what greed, or need or enough is.
I understand the rationale that the law should not apply to some people, particularly if they were not responsible for the circumstances they are in, but that is not my decision to make. It is not the federal government’s decision to make. Its job is to apply the laws as equally and equitably as humanly possible. If it doesn’t, then the law no longer reigns and we become a nation of men, governed by men and not by the principles that made this nation what it is and can be.
I don’t know how I am going to vote in November. I really don’t. There is a lot that can happen in the next two months. I do know that the Democrats have not sold me on their view of the world … but then again, neither have the Republicans, for that matter.