|
|
|
JUST WONDERING...
Am I the only one who notices that when President Bush harangues about fundamentalist Islamist terrorists (or Islamofascists, or whatever the preferred term is this week), and describes them as having hijacked a basically peaceful religion for their own agenda of a religiously-based totalitarian state, that he is essentially also describing his own far-right base of fundamentalist Christians?
These are people who want to tell us how to live our personal lives, with whom, and under what circumstances; claim a direct and inherently "right" understanding of God's purpose; believe our laws, particularly those regulating personal behavior, must be based on their understanding of God's principles; and who consider all disagreement with their agenda as not only heretical but also evil and worthy of heinous punishment.
I don't mean to invoke God's wrath, but give me a break! This is supposed to be a country based on individual freedom, specifically founded to refute the notion of a joinder of church and state. Pat Robertson has spoken the truth -- voting against the fundamentalist agenda is voting against God, or at least their view of what God is and wants.
When the President describes our enemies, he should recognize he is also talking about those at home. Unfortunately, he is increasingly one of them.
DEMOCRATS DO BETTER AT "POLITICS" THAN REPUBLICANS
So the story line is "Divisions among the Dems -- can they govern?" The media, ever hungry for a political conflict to cover, has adopted the spin coming from Rove and his echoes in the conservative media . Whatever works to change the subject from the trouncing they took in the election. "People want the Democrats? Fine, let's show them what a mistake they made!"
That's the difference between Dems and Republicans exposed yet again: Republicans do their wrangling behind closed doors, like "gentlemen," and Democrats let it all hang out, yes a "feminine" style.
Personally, I'd rather know what's going on, and watch as people work through the political necessities to get things done. Anyone with a family knows that things don't always go smoothly. There are bumps in the road. We figure out how to get past them, hopefully with an ever-increasing bond among us, and move on to move forward.
Remember the definition of "politics" - whether applied to a business environment or to that realm that has no other business - "Politics is the ability to get things done with people over whom you have no direct authority."
"HAVE YOU FINALLY NO DECENCY?"
In case you haven't read it, there is an editorial column in the San Diego Union-Tribune that, for me, is the last straw. This guy Caldwell was one of the worst in claiming that if Democrats were elected and took power terrorists would jump for joy. Now, like most of the spineless nay-sayers of his ilk, he is turning on a dime and claiming that he was ALWAYS upset at the way Republicans were doing things in Iraq (blatantly not true) and shocked, shocked at the way poor President Bush has been treated by the nastty left. In response, I sent this letter to the Union Trib:
"Good God, have you finally no decency, sir?
"Yes, the voters 'repudiated' the Republicans. But even an apologist partisan can recognize that characterizing the President's concession to loss as 'commendably statesmanlike,' while Nancy Pelosi is diminished n her responding call for 'bipartisan cooperation,' is little more than nothing conceded. Why not assume both are telling the truth? Both lying?
"The President was 'reviled' by Democrats? Where is there any balance by mentioning that the Republicans, specifically including the President, characterized Democrats as unpatriotic and traitorous? Voting for Democrats was said to be akin to voting for terrorism!
""After having been frozen out of any participation in shaping policy by the power-crazed GOP, that the Democrats are willing to talk about cooperation at all is akin to qualification for political sainthood. But then, there's the problem. Democrats keep thinking it is possible to 'play nice' with Republicans.
The GOP believes the end justifies the means. That will not change. Nevertheless, Democrats should not stoop to dividing us against each other, a morally reprehensible political tactic, when what we need now is to move forward together. That would make them no better than the hypocrites who have been in charge.
"Meanwhile, Caldwell should go back for a refresher course at Journalism school, or at the very least get a decency transplant."
GEORGE ALLEN JUST DIDN'T GET IT!
There is almost no ethnic/religious/racist joke that does not offend me -- personallyl
I am Jewish, so anything that comes even remotely close to being anti-Semitic is on the list. My greatest love in life is Hispanic (Mestizo to be exact), so I am sensitive to the stereotypes that denigrate the varied peoples grouped in that category, particularly Mexicans and Indians.
Somewhere in my background, some Polish Cossack got into the Russian village of my ancestors, so Polish jokes are offensive, as are jokes about Russians and peasants. In a former life, I was clearly African-American, and I have black ex-step-children who are like blood to me, so jokes or slurs that impugn that group strike my nerve endings.
I have a daughter-in-law who is Swedish, so the use of phrases like “Yumpin Yimminy!” and jokes about Sven and Greta are offensive. Among my various marriages I have identified as Irish, British, Italian, and I love the French, Greek and South Americans. My husband is Canadian, so I bristle at “Canuck” jokes, especially those of the beer-guzzling and apathetic-pacifist variety – the “Hosers.”
And I am a woman, blonde to boot, and therefore ultra-sensitive to put-downs that target more than half the world’s population.
I just want you to understand that my antennae are way out there for almost any group that is stereotypically depicted as somehow “the other” or “less than.” And that is why I want to let George Allen know that he just doesn’t get it.
People of ethnic or religious groups can “hear” the implications of inherently prejudicial statements when it’s about their identity. It’s the equivalent of the inane, “Some of my best friends are …” But far too many people are just unconscious, not realizing the offensiveness of the “majority privileged” place they come from.
I can best liken the sensitivities of the offended to the reality that the women’s movement uncovered in men an unconsciousness about their presumed power, and reflected the sense that men were “losing” something they were unaware of “having.” In other words, their presumed sense of privilege was challenged, but they were never consciously aware they were coming from a mindset of presumed privilege. Women were trying to take away something men didn’t even know they had -- it was just “normal.”
So it is with George Allen, whose anger at the exposure of his Jewish roots was a reaction of horror and outrage at the suggestion of … of what exactly? That’s my problem – I’m not sure what he was upset about, and therein lies my suspicion.
Is there something inherently wrong with finding out your ancestors were Jewish? Maybe it is the fact that your own identity was for some reason hidden from you? Surely it cannot be that your mother is being maligned or insulted for the reality of her identity? What would be insulting about being Jewish?
Ah, therein lies the rub. Obviously, Allen’s reaction came from some sense that he, or his mother, was being insulted. His identity was being questioned. He was somehow being “accused” of being something “lesser” than what he had presumed himself to be.
Therein lies the true horror of stereotyping, and prejudice, and racism. At its core, it presumes it is the majority, or the “right” kind of person, or “normal.” Anything else is not necessarily “bad,” it’s just inherently “other.”
Poor George just doesn’t get it. But, then again, I’m blonde so what the hell do I know?
Can we talk honestly for a moment?
No one is being honest, and I for one am sick of it.
The President is adamantly calling for "clarification" of the Geneva Convention rules, claiming the CIA cannot do its job of protecting the American people without a clear listing of exactly what "crimes" are prohibited during interrogations of suspected or captured terrorists.
Here's the problem no one is talking about: if you have a list, then anything not contemplated and not on the list is not covered. Period.
Should we have clarity so those in the field know what is and is not legal? Sure. But should we pretend that whatever we list is illegal and everything else if air game? Not if we want to protect our own men and women in uniform.
Once again, this short-term-thinking group of religious zealots (no, I'm not being hyperbolic!) wants to make up the rules as it goes along.
The President, at his hastily-called and vitriolic press conference, actually said, "We didn't ask for this war!" What netherworld is he living in? And how much of our national identity and integrity will we allow to be destroyed before this true-believing incompetent is reined in and brought up short? Sorry, sir, but Iraq WAS of our choosing.
If we're going to be honest, isn't it time to acknowledge that the war in Iraq is not the same as the "war against terrorism"? Hopeless people without power have always resorted to terrorism as a tactic, (and sometimes those with power have used it -- white men with guns wiping out Indian villages comes to mind). Terrorism is a tactic, designed for the explicit purpose of creating fear and havoc, and "civilized" people have ALWAYS fought against terrorism. It's not a "war," it's a human reality.
So a war against a "tactic" is the defining call of our generation? Give me a break. This is a tired exercise in self-justification and self-righteousness borne out of fear and being exploited for political gain.
Can't we at least be honest about it?
AMBITIOUS AND EVIL MEN
I am truly sorry -- I'm sure it's just my memory playing tricks on me.
I seem to recall that Osama Bin Ladin was a sick old man living in a cave. Now he is a brilliant and evil strategic enemy whose own writings the President is using to scare us into supporting Republicans in the endless war on terror.
"Underestimating the words of ambitious and evil men is a terrible mistake," says the President.
Unfortunately I have reached the point where it is the ambitious and evil men setting U.S. foreign policy that I am most concerned about. They are building a future for my grandchildren that I do not believe is either healthy or inevitable.
Let us not underestimate these ambitious and evil men.
COMPARING THE INCOMPARABLE
Comparing the Israeli military with Hezbollah is comparing apples and oranges -- all fruit, but different. It is not comparing apples and shoes.
Israel has what is acknowledged as a precision military fighting force, and although one can argue about whether "collateral damage" (innocent civilian deaths as a result of "Oops!") is acceptable, the Israelis are not being accused of not justifying their targets as, at least, quasi-military.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, even if we acknowledge they do not have near the capability to target their generally innacurate weaponry, is not even suggesting that they target anything related to military. They send inacurate rockets directly into populated areas with no particular military-related justifications.
Comparing the two sides' military is apples and oranges. Comparing the targets of those militaries is apples and shoes. There is no comparability, and no outrage from the Arab world when innocents are indiscriminately killed in Israel.
"War is not healthy for children and other living things." Where is a worldwide movement toward peace when you need it???
SHORT-SIGHTED LEADERSHIP
When it comes to "too little too late" diplomacy, the administration has really missed the boat this time. Instead of calling for a cease-fire in the Middle East, pending United Nations action to secure the area and fulfill the terms of Hezbollah disarmament already decreed by that body, which would have given time for it all to be worked out (time that Israel could still have continued its effort to get rid of Hezbollah), and given the U.S. a little more credibility in the Arab world, Bush and his team keep using the same talking points to no positive effect.
"A sustainable cease-fire," merely means we are turning a blind eye to Israel's plan to spend many more days (or weeks) bombing and killing, however justified (and I think it is).
"A lasting basis for long-term peace," merely means we now want ALL issues resolved so there will NEVER again be the need for this type of reaction, again however justified. That is not only ridiculous in the short term, it is ignorant of history and idealistic to the point of stupid.
"We regret the loss of innocent life," merely means we find "collateral damage" acceptable, if we are not also doing anything to stop the loss of innocent life -- on all sides of the conflict.
In this modern era of war, every faction knows how to use the media to get its position out and showcase its innocent dead. But where was the Arab world's outrage at innocent deaths, and demonstrations in the streets in support of life, when bombs indiscriminately killed Israeli civilians? Either you support protection of innocent life or you don't.
The U.S. needs all the positive spin and appearance of even-handedness it can get. Bush has done well at separating the government of Lebanon from the Hezbollah. But that is not enough. Nor is blind support for Israel.
This problem will not be solved quickly or easily, and having ignored it for so many years has been nothing in which to take pride. We have not played the role we should have these past six years. But today is a new day on which we can start to do things right.
Short-sighted leadership is the specialty of this administration. However, if we want to remain the world's super power, then we have an obligation to act like it. That means thinking long-term, and realizing that every small step forward is a movement in the right direction.
It does not matter if you reach the ultimate goal quickly, or without veering along the way. What is important is that you know where you want to go, honestly inform the electorate so they can vote to support or disclaim that direction, and then take whatever steps and course corrections keep you moving in the right direction. The only thing you can count on is that things will change.
ISN'T EVERYTHING TERRIFIC!
Isn't everything going just dandy?
I warned four years ago that the general tone of belligerence on the part of the U.S. would have repercussions way beyond what we could then imagine. As the world's "superpower," we have the ability to model the type of behavior and the kind of system that will work to move the world forward peacefully. Instead, we have put out an example of arrogance, unilateralism, pre-emption, anger, hostility, and self-righteousness.
What has that brought us? The Middle East is exploding, Iraq is rapidly becoming an intractable failure descending into tribal and sectarian civil war, Afghanistan is regressing to Taliban-led aggression (and let's not even mention the drug crop), North Korea is lobbing missiles, and our defensive/aggressive reaction to terrorism has fueled more of it, not less.
The administration seems incapable of handling more than one serious crisis at a time, playing to base politics and news cycles rather than looking at positive models to influence rather than try to dominate others. You cannot force people to freedom.
Bush was being candidly honest when he called our incursion into Iraq a "crusade," and that is exactly how it is received by most of the Muslim world -- as the kind of sectarian violence they understand and have lived with for thousands of years. We have eliminated Iran's key enemies -- Hussein and the Taliban -- in its bid to dominate the Muslim world, and our inattention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue has enabled Iran to sucker us into a position where they can mobilize Middle East street opinion around anti-Israel and thus anti-U.S. politics.
What can possibly be done to turn this around? Since it is clear the President will not change those most influencing these policies, who remain convinced of the rightness of their position and unwilling to think beyond their fear of being seen as wrong-headed, the first message to be sent to the world should be the American people showing the positive impact of true Democracy by changing leadership in Congress. That would at least say to the world that when policies are wrong, the people have the ability to change them.
Second, we need to demand clarity from the White House of not only of its commitment and how it plans to fight terrorism, but what specific outcomes it plans to use to measure the effectiveness of the policies it is pursuing. Setting benchmarks for specific actions is not "setting a timetable" or "cut and run." It is making clear that our commitments are dependent on the actions of others, a kind of contractual arrangement. Without a clear articulation of what success means step by step, and by when, no one knows by what standards to judge progress toward the defined result or how to meet those benchmarks to gain the rewards. If Iraq, for example, knew by when their infrastructure had to meet certain goals, in return for which they would receive certain monetary or societal benefits, everyone would at least be able to prioritize and evaluate results. Now, no rational plan exists.
Third, both parties need to articulate exactly what FUTURE actions they advocate, short-term and longer-term, rather than continuing to politicize the problems worrying only about the next election. This is not about who did it wrong, or who stands by their earlier decisions and who does not. We can evaluate the past later on. Right now it has to be about what result we want to create, how best to accomplish that result, how to measure whether we are making progress in a timely manner, and transparency of the process to ourselves and to the world.
Watching the news is debilitating and depressing. The sense of helplessness felt by the average person is leading to a sense of hopelessness, disinterest in the process, and perhaps most dangerous of all belligerence as a legitimate reaction to every situation that does not match our own criteria. Road rage is among the personal manifestations; war in the Middle East among the global.
Those who believe that Bush is right about the appropriateness of our pre-emptively "facilitating" democracy around the world should be yelling the loudest right now about the need to model the very behavior we want others to emulate. They should be leading the parade to get people involved in change via the ballot box. They should be spending their hours on talk radio and C-SPAN and in editorial columns making clear that we must live the reality of what we are telling others to live. Instead, they keep defending that which cannot and should not be defended.
If the answer to "Isn't everything terrific?" is a resounding "No!" then it is either in our power to change it or we should discover that now and allow our way of life and our values to crumble and the world descend toward chaos.
Look at what our belligerence hath wrought. That is definitely NOT terrific.
SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
Who'd-a thunk it?
Prices of medicines for chronic conditions are going up considerably faster than general medical costs or inflation.
In street language, what that means is that those pills grandma and grandpa take every day for things like cholesterol, high blood pressure, narrowing of arteries, arthritis, etc., are costing more.
Why? Well, isn't it obvious? The administration has given us the boondoggle Part D prescription coverage, and those are the medicines that people take regularly and therefore cannot do without.
With the plan heavily weighted toward insurance companies, and very compassionate toward drug companies, taxpayers are now paying more for drugs that - based on volume, that "free market" panacea - ought to be costing less. Medicare is not even ALLOWED to negotiate for lower prices.
In the Alice-through-the-looking-glass reality this administration has proven so adept at creating, this must make sense to someone. But it is one more slap at the general tax-paying public, and one more proof that these people are shameless.
Truth is, we are being bombarded with so many contradictions and so much bulls--t, it is hard to know what truth is anymore. There is so much spin, sloganeering, group-tested talking points, and secrecy, no serious debate on issues or conscious consideration of impact is taking place.
Republicans, who supposedly got into office promising fiscal responsibility and stern discipline, are the most profligate spenders - especially if it's pork - we have ever seen. And their largesse is primarily directed as those who already have it made, with almost no regard for those who, in former President Clinton's words, have "palyed by the rules" and need some help.
And Democrats are unable to recognize the opportunity to turn things around even when it has all but been handed to them on a silver platter. Taking the bait of "cut and run," and actually attempting to defend against it instead of laughing it off and refocusing the debate on "competence" is just too self-destructive to believe.
The male-centered Republicans are eschewing responsibility, and the female-principled Democrats cannot figure out how to finesse and win.
Who'd-a thunk it?
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER
A friend recently sent me an email about a trip he took back to an area he used to live in, now heavily populated by immigrants, probably some here illegally, and which has become run down and "seedy." He was so upset at what he saw, so convinced it was because of "those people," and he complained bitterly that we were granting them rights they did not deserve.
I certainly don't agree with his characterization of the area as a "barrio," because I have seen plenty of areas where native-born citizens are doing the same things (when's the last time you were in back-woods Alabama or the outskirts of Fresno or Bakersfield?), nevertheless I can share his sense of sadness upon seeing how much things have changed in a place he remembers differently. However, I also felt compelled to remind him that according to our Constitution, "rights" are guaranteed regardless of the "status" of the person.
All "persons" are guaranteed free speech. It is true that one must be a citizen to vote. Children born on our soil are automatically citizens of our country, a policy constitutionally enshrined because we ARE a nation of immigrants, some of whom end up here NOT by choice. It is also true that one must be a citizen to be afforded certain "benefits" that have been granted by law by Congress. In addition, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to allow non-"legal" children to attend school (public education is guaranteed, regardless of the "status" of parents); emergency medical care is available to anyone in dire need, regardless of how they got here (we don't let people die in the streets or pass on diseases).
My grandparents came here through Ellis Island, were given a name that was not their own based on the whim of an intake officer, lived in a neighborhood where no English was spoken and all signs were in another tongue, never learned to read or write in English (although they were finally able to speak it), and raised bilingual children who then raised a next generation that spoke only English and was totally assimilated. This is a customary pattern that holds true even for those coming here today -- legally or illegally.
I am so tired of people who blame the "illegal" status of others to justify the decline in our commitment to ensure a truly livable existence for everyone, regardless of how they got here. Use the law effectively to protect the borders, and admonish businesses not to hire undocumented workers, but other than that get over it.
When we discriminate, when we allow the disparity in incomes to expand, when we limit opportunities, when we disenfranchise even some native-born citizens, when we shortchange schools based on where they are located, when we care more about symbols than reality -- then what we get is a slide toward a two-class third-world country.
You can move away from it, as my friend did, but you can't escape the responsibility for it. We're all in this together, like it or not.
BUT, SERIOUSLY FOLKS...
They let him out alone again, and then of course had to send someone out to explain what he thought he was saying. Okay, it wasn't just calls coming into the U.S. made by known Al Queda associates that were spied upon. Okay, sometimes calls from within the U.S. that were (maybe) going to Al Queda overseas were picked up. Okay, maybe even some "mining" had to be done to figure out which those calls might be, and maybe, just maybe, we overheard something we shouldn't have, but then we got rid of that info as soon as possible ... well, mostly, anyway.
And can we please finally stop arguing about whether the administration has deliberately conflated 9-11 and Iraq. PLEEE-E-E-EASE! The Justice Dept. letter that responded to criticism of the surveillance program specifically said we are in an "armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States..." What? Iraq attacked us? When? Where was I when that happened?
Oh, yeah, that's right, we needed an "early warning stystem" after the 9-11 attacks, so that's why we had to summarily suspend the Constitutional rights of Americans. But that doesn't really explain why they couldn't tell anyone they were doing that, including after the fact to the Court that allows just that sort of thing. Oh, wait, they did tell some members of Congress, but they then had to also protect that information because it was classified, and if they had publicly complained or said anything then they would be subject to legal consequences. And those who did say something, like Rockefeller, were summarily ignored.
Look up the meaning of the word "rhetoric." and one of its meanings is "insincere or grandiloquent language." How about "tautology," which means "needless repetition ... redundant." Or what about "bullshit"?
"INTERPRETING" THE CONSTITUTION
I thought the whole idea of the Republicans was to prevent "interpreting" the Constitution, and reading anything into it other than what is written. I guess I foolishly believed they meant it when they said the Court is supposed to adhere only to "original intent."
Now, they're claiming "implied" powers. Isn't that what the so-called "liberal judges" did that made them all so mad?
No, wait, let me think about that for a moment. I've studied law. I ought to know better. There are clearly nuances in the original wording that allow for the "assumption" of "implied" powers that are not explicitly "enumerated." We study that in Con Law -- enumerated vs. implied powers.
Whew! For a minute there I thought the President and his legal advisors were playing cute and being hypocritical again. It's reassuring to know they are merely "interpreting" the intent of the Founding Fathers (isn't that supposed to be capitalized?).
But, then, we have to figure out what the Court is supposed to do. And what if the President has to act quickly because of a terrible threat? We do still have that pesky Fourth Amendment.
Oh, Congress thought of that contingency, and passed the FISA Act. They set up this special court to deal with just the kind of situation the President currently faces in a "time of war."
If the President is in too much of a hurry, due to exigent circumstances, he can go ahead and spy on American soil, BUT he has to go back to the special court and get permission after the fact. And Congress made it clear there was NO other way than the FISA Act to accomplish such domestic surveillance, even for terrorists, but that it could be done if necessary to protect the USA. Okay, another crisis averted.
But, wait -- he didn't do that, did he? No, he just issued an "executive order" saying he could do what he wanted because we were attacked on 9/11. He never went back, even after the fact, to get the special court to issue a warrant.
And now he's claiming Congress even "implied" he could do whatever he wanted because they voted to give him "war" powers to fight the bad guys.
Now some perverse members of Congress, even some from his own party, are saying, "Whoa! We didn't do all that! The President may have broken the law!" Damn!
I guess the Court will have to intervene, again, and save his ass. Otherwise, he will have broken the law, an impeachable offense. Well, hopefully somebody can count on the Court to do what courts are supposed to do -- whatever that is, especially now that his appointees will be sitting there.
Hmmm, I admit it -- I'm confused...
DO AS I SAY... NOT AS I DO
When my daughter was very little, I would catch her drinking the remains out of empty soda bottles in the garage (a definite "no-no"), and I would say, "Are you drinking from that bottle?" She would look right at me with her big brown eyes, sincere as a 3-year old can be, and say, "No." That she was holding the bottle didn't matter. Truth did not intrude on her view of reality.
That's what I recalled when I heard Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, respond to Wolf Blitzer. He's still convinced that we have not yet found the evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions? There is no denying that Al Queda had connections to Iraq before the war? The Defense Department had no independent intelligence gathering operation? He has no reason to apologize for being wrong about ANYTHING because the fault was with the intelligence agencies and that's not his area?
For a group that claims to value personal responsibility, this bunch currently in power is shamelessly hypocritical.
Any parent who has tried to teach values and morals to their children knows full well how impossible it is to avoid some contradictions.
You say,"Don't lie," but then they hear you telling someone you're fine when you're not, or calling in sick when you're fine, or that you're glad to see someone when the kids know you didn't want to see that person at all.
You say, "No sex before you're married," but they can count.
You say, "Don't cheat," and they hear you brag about getting the better of someone in a deal, or see you sliding through a yellow light or exceeding the speed limit.
You say, "Be honest," but they see you pocket excess change.
You say, "No swearing," but they're in the next room when you hit your thumb with the hammer.
You shout, "Don't yell!"
The administration is so convinced of its own view of reality; so determined to achieve their ends that they see means as a trivial distraction; so sure that they 're right; so unable to take criticism; so oblivious to the result of their policies on average people; and so arrogant in their self-righteousness.
"Do as I say ... not as I do," is a terrible way to parent. It's an horrific way to govern. | |
