It is funny how small and unimportant our socio-political differences seem at this time of year. It matters little whether one is a believer in Jesus Christ's divine existence or not. As a philosopher, his message of brotherly love and selflessness serves all of mankind. For myself, being a Christian, the celebration of his birth rejuvenates my optimism that when it is all said and done, humanity will do the right thing. So, now is the time for us take a look at our surroundings and reanalyze our realities. Family and friends are the foundation upon which your personal reality is built. We all need to stop taking ourselves so seriously and expend a little more effort in deepening our relationships with them. Is this often difficult? Of course it is, particularly amongst family members but; this is the very reason why we all need to try harder. There will be plenty of time in the ensuing months to argue in support of or against our socio-political differences.
The severe winter weather pounding the United States has effected almost all of us. I am buried in Bend, Oregon under a foot of snow with more snow coming in off of the Pacific. I've had to chain up my semi eight times in the past two weeks. Yesterday I was driving across the Butte Valley in northern California through heavy snow, when all of a sudden I saw an interesting object in a pasture on the west side of US 97. No, it wasn't Santa Claus or his eight tiny reindeer. It was poor ol' Al Gore, stripped naked, shivering and holding up a large sign which read, "Ok, so I've exaggerated a bit, and the science surrounding global warming is just theory, not fact. Can I please have my clothes back now?" As you can see, for the moment I've stopped taking my socio-political views too seriously. Merry Christmas to one and all!
De Oppresso Liber
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
President-Elect Obama: Who is he?
Regardless of your political philosophy, Senator Obama's victory on the 4th of November was a marvelous event for our republic. The number of people casting ballots this election reassures me that our citizens have not become disenchanted with their civic responsibilities or their interrelationship with our nation's direction. As a conservative, I obviously did not vote for Senator Obama; however, unlike what many on the left have done and continue to do with their attacks on the Bush Administration, I will not disparage him with ad hominum attacks nor pre-judge what I believe he will do or not do once inaugurated. I call on all conservative pundits, columnists, and bloggers to start on a new path of civility in our opposition to an Obama Administration. The Republican Party would do well to stop with all of the finger pointing and the assignment of blame for its loss of the presidency and a further decline in its congressional numbers. The Democrats are now in total control and rather than appearing as a disgruntled mass of opposition, the Republicans need to analyze where their message fell short, develop their party's solution to our nation's ills and sell it to the American public. Americans, by and large, are impatient with complainers and will actively support problem solvers. The Democrats have made this a relatively easy task since their sole theme this past election season was to hang the failures of President Bush around the necks of Senator John McCain and those republican members of Congress seeking reelection.
I traveled all over the country during the final stretch of the presidential election race and I paid attention to televised political advertisements in several states. Almost 100% of those advertisements targeting republican candidates attached the candidates to President Bush's hip pocket and did not highlight the political objectives of the Democratic Party nor its candidates. So, now that they have achieved power, what will their agenda be? Since 2006, the democratically controlled Congress has done nothing. Of course, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid took this path in order to not harm Senator Obama's run for the White House. Now that Senator Obama is the incoming President, they will no longer be able to hide their objectives and I believe that the public is about to receive a rude awakening. More than a few of us are in for a real shocker when it becomes apparent just what "change" means. The recent press release from MoveOn.org reminding the Democrats that it spent $88 million dollars to help elect Senator Obama proves my point.
So, who is Senator Obama? Nobody knows due to the vague outline he has painted of himself. Some say he will be a centrist. His voting record at the state and federal levels doesn't validate this assumption. I guess all of us will have to wait and see. Some amongst us are already fearing an Obama administration. Gun sales have spiked since his election as gun owners fear his administration will seek to infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights. Personally, I have reservations about how he will govern. Leadership is a tenuous and fluid responsibility. President-elect Obama is said to be a cautious man. Leaders often have to counterbalance diametrically opposed attributes. Senator Obama has never shown me just where the fulcrum point is between his cautiousness and decisiveness and this is just one of the many reasons he failed to secure my vote. I fear that his cautiousness on domestic and foreign issues could lead to inaction. His 130 "present" votes while in the state senate of Illinois tend to support this fear. Herein lies the difference between a legislator and an executive. Senator Obama will no longer be able to blend into a mass of legislators and we will all soon see whether or not he will be able to handle the pressure. For the sake of our nation, I wish him well until his policies begin to step on my toes.
De Oppresso Liber
I traveled all over the country during the final stretch of the presidential election race and I paid attention to televised political advertisements in several states. Almost 100% of those advertisements targeting republican candidates attached the candidates to President Bush's hip pocket and did not highlight the political objectives of the Democratic Party nor its candidates. So, now that they have achieved power, what will their agenda be? Since 2006, the democratically controlled Congress has done nothing. Of course, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid took this path in order to not harm Senator Obama's run for the White House. Now that Senator Obama is the incoming President, they will no longer be able to hide their objectives and I believe that the public is about to receive a rude awakening. More than a few of us are in for a real shocker when it becomes apparent just what "change" means. The recent press release from MoveOn.org reminding the Democrats that it spent $88 million dollars to help elect Senator Obama proves my point.
So, who is Senator Obama? Nobody knows due to the vague outline he has painted of himself. Some say he will be a centrist. His voting record at the state and federal levels doesn't validate this assumption. I guess all of us will have to wait and see. Some amongst us are already fearing an Obama administration. Gun sales have spiked since his election as gun owners fear his administration will seek to infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights. Personally, I have reservations about how he will govern. Leadership is a tenuous and fluid responsibility. President-elect Obama is said to be a cautious man. Leaders often have to counterbalance diametrically opposed attributes. Senator Obama has never shown me just where the fulcrum point is between his cautiousness and decisiveness and this is just one of the many reasons he failed to secure my vote. I fear that his cautiousness on domestic and foreign issues could lead to inaction. His 130 "present" votes while in the state senate of Illinois tend to support this fear. Herein lies the difference between a legislator and an executive. Senator Obama will no longer be able to blend into a mass of legislators and we will all soon see whether or not he will be able to handle the pressure. For the sake of our nation, I wish him well until his policies begin to step on my toes.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Barack Obama & Change
John Stossel had an interesting show a couple of weeks ago on 20/20. He titled it, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics". Like many of us, I have grown weary with the interminable length of this presidential election. It looks like Senator Obama will soon become the next President. Even though I disagree with Senator Obama on almost every issue, should he win the election, I will respect his rise to power and accept him as our nation's commander in chief. Unlike many on the left, I will not disparage him or his office however; I do expect to exercise my 1st Amendment right and critically analyze his policies and rebut them in an analytical fashion. I tend to agree with John Stossel's recent thesis which reminded all of us that politicians and political parties come and go and in reality they don't really change us. I do not fear an Obama presidency because the pure beauty and simplicity of our Constitution precludes an individual leader's ability to influence our nation on a grand scale. I hope that I am wrong but, I believe that if elected, Senator Obama will merely be this century's Jimmy Carter.
So, my life will not change unless I want it or, circumstances outside my control force me to change. I will continue to work, enjoy the companionship of my spouse, family and friends. I will spend endless hours enjoying the companionship of my boisterous, 7 month old Boykin Spaniel, Tobey. Memories such as the one we enjoyed this morning lend credence to my contention that we control our destiny. This morning we hunted ducks on a small pond in central Oregon. We got lucky and I harvested a banded Northern Pintail. Tobey made his first marked retrieve over water and it was fabulous. The sun was just breaking the horizon and the air was frigid. Tobey had spent the previous 30 minutes listening to the whistling of unseen duck flights in the dark skies as they cruised the edges of the pond and it was amusing watching his expression as his brain cataloged all of these new experiences. A day spent afield with a loyal canine hunting companion is an experience that only bird dog handlers can understand however; this relationship is symbolic of the true meaning of life. The simple acts of trying to live a good life, work hard, be respectful of others, and striving to be as loyal to your hunting dog as he is to you are representative of what it means to be alive. Presidents will come and go but, I will always remain true to myself.
De Oppresso Liber
So, my life will not change unless I want it or, circumstances outside my control force me to change. I will continue to work, enjoy the companionship of my spouse, family and friends. I will spend endless hours enjoying the companionship of my boisterous, 7 month old Boykin Spaniel, Tobey. Memories such as the one we enjoyed this morning lend credence to my contention that we control our destiny. This morning we hunted ducks on a small pond in central Oregon. We got lucky and I harvested a banded Northern Pintail. Tobey made his first marked retrieve over water and it was fabulous. The sun was just breaking the horizon and the air was frigid. Tobey had spent the previous 30 minutes listening to the whistling of unseen duck flights in the dark skies as they cruised the edges of the pond and it was amusing watching his expression as his brain cataloged all of these new experiences. A day spent afield with a loyal canine hunting companion is an experience that only bird dog handlers can understand however; this relationship is symbolic of the true meaning of life. The simple acts of trying to live a good life, work hard, be respectful of others, and striving to be as loyal to your hunting dog as he is to you are representative of what it means to be alive. Presidents will come and go but, I will always remain true to myself.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, September 14, 2008
McCain or Obama: Who is the Change Agent?
Now that both conventions have come and gone, both candidates are in the final stretch of the race. The idea of change has become the real issue for each party. Both sides are jockeying for this title and it will be left up to the electorate to decide which candidate best exemplifies this political philosophy. The conventions, per usual, reinforced the political platform for both parties. Beneath all of the pomp and circumstance surrounding Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field was a generic reiteration of the Democratic Party's belief in bigger government, increased social programs, and a tentative aversion to the use of force in the Global War on Terror. On the other hand, McCain's acceptance speech followed the Republican Party's belief in lower taxes, smaller government, and the continued use of offensive measures in the prosecution of the War on Terrorism. So, what is the voter to do?
Senator Obama would have us believe that he represents change however; does his record in the Senate provide the voter with many examples of this philosophy of change? Of course, the answer is no. He has only crossed the aisle on a couple of unimportant bills. Where is his active participation on bills dealing with such issues as lobbying reform, taxation, immigration reform, or even, putting his belief on the line vis-a-vis the Iraq war? Lately he has been extolling the American values of self reliance, individual responsibility, and neighborliness. He addressed these values in his acceptance speech in Denver as well as, in his interview on the O'Reilly Factor. Interestingly, personal values such as individual responsibility and self reliance are attributes that don't easily meld into the Democratic Party's platform for bigger government. Generally speaking, larger government with expansive social assistance programs does not provide a fertile landscape for the fulfillment of these values. Obama's use of the term "neighborliness" is interesting. Obama uses the term to veil his desire to redistribute income and provide government "freebies" to what he labels the working poor. Americans are adverse to being forced to do anything and in reality, "neighborliness" is a voluntary act of kindness or assistance provided to your fellow citizens and not government mandated income redistribution or assistance programs.
No matter how much Obama's supporters vociferously deny it, Senator McCain has a verifiable record of bipartisanship on issues relevant to American society. On the issue of immigration, much to the dismay of Republicans, McCain coauthored legislation with Senator Kennedy. Senator Obama ardently opposes the influence of lobbyists in Washington D.C. yet, it is McCain who once again worked with the opposition as he cosponsored campaign finance reform with the McCain/Feingold bill. Senator Obama often speaks about global warming and its effects but, once again it is McCain who has actually addressed this issue with Senator Lieberman. It is quite easy to see that it is McCain, not Obama, who has been the vehicle of bipartisanship in the United States Senate.
McCain is clearly the choice of change this election season. Rather than seeking change in Washington, Senator Obama seeks to change the social fabric in America by acquiring the White House and through the use of executive powers, mandate increased federal programs. If elected, I believe that Senator Obama will return to the policies of the 1990s and prosecute the Global War on Terror as a police action rather than a military operation and its importance within an Obama administration would be greatly reduced. This point is verified by a recent poll which showed that 51% of registered Republicans see the war on terrorism as the number one concern for our nation whilst, only 9% of registered Democrats see the fight against terrorism as our primary foreign policy concern. Senator Obama clearly demonstrated that he doesn't grasp the global nature of this battle against Islamic fundamentalism when he stated in a recent speech that we are currently fighting two wars rather than stating we are fighting on two fronts in a global war. As for me, the choice is clear, Senator McCain clearly eclipses Senator Obama when it comes to who is best prepared to lead America into the next decade.
De Oppresso Liber
Senator Obama would have us believe that he represents change however; does his record in the Senate provide the voter with many examples of this philosophy of change? Of course, the answer is no. He has only crossed the aisle on a couple of unimportant bills. Where is his active participation on bills dealing with such issues as lobbying reform, taxation, immigration reform, or even, putting his belief on the line vis-a-vis the Iraq war? Lately he has been extolling the American values of self reliance, individual responsibility, and neighborliness. He addressed these values in his acceptance speech in Denver as well as, in his interview on the O'Reilly Factor. Interestingly, personal values such as individual responsibility and self reliance are attributes that don't easily meld into the Democratic Party's platform for bigger government. Generally speaking, larger government with expansive social assistance programs does not provide a fertile landscape for the fulfillment of these values. Obama's use of the term "neighborliness" is interesting. Obama uses the term to veil his desire to redistribute income and provide government "freebies" to what he labels the working poor. Americans are adverse to being forced to do anything and in reality, "neighborliness" is a voluntary act of kindness or assistance provided to your fellow citizens and not government mandated income redistribution or assistance programs.
No matter how much Obama's supporters vociferously deny it, Senator McCain has a verifiable record of bipartisanship on issues relevant to American society. On the issue of immigration, much to the dismay of Republicans, McCain coauthored legislation with Senator Kennedy. Senator Obama ardently opposes the influence of lobbyists in Washington D.C. yet, it is McCain who once again worked with the opposition as he cosponsored campaign finance reform with the McCain/Feingold bill. Senator Obama often speaks about global warming and its effects but, once again it is McCain who has actually addressed this issue with Senator Lieberman. It is quite easy to see that it is McCain, not Obama, who has been the vehicle of bipartisanship in the United States Senate.
McCain is clearly the choice of change this election season. Rather than seeking change in Washington, Senator Obama seeks to change the social fabric in America by acquiring the White House and through the use of executive powers, mandate increased federal programs. If elected, I believe that Senator Obama will return to the policies of the 1990s and prosecute the Global War on Terror as a police action rather than a military operation and its importance within an Obama administration would be greatly reduced. This point is verified by a recent poll which showed that 51% of registered Republicans see the war on terrorism as the number one concern for our nation whilst, only 9% of registered Democrats see the fight against terrorism as our primary foreign policy concern. Senator Obama clearly demonstrated that he doesn't grasp the global nature of this battle against Islamic fundamentalism when he stated in a recent speech that we are currently fighting two wars rather than stating we are fighting on two fronts in a global war. As for me, the choice is clear, Senator McCain clearly eclipses Senator Obama when it comes to who is best prepared to lead America into the next decade.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Agent of Change: Obama or McCain?
I have to admit, the theatrics surrounding Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech this past Thursday were impressive. Yes, his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency is truly history making however; as an independent voter, I am under no obligation to see that we make history this November by electing Senator Obama solely to prove to ourselves as a nation, or to the world at large, that the United States has moved beyond the racial hatred of our past. Indeed, I have found it disturbing to hear the murmurings that have begun to surface on the web, as well as oratorically, expounding the view that if his election falls short, we as a nation will have proven that we cannot rise above the racial miasma of our historical past. I am not naive, some amongst us, unable to escape the narrowness of their racial viewpoints, will not vote for Obama but; is it unreasonable to question whether or not the overwhelming black vote for Obama is also somewhat accountable for the possible racial narrowness of their vote? Hopefully, the electorate votes on the issues at hand and on their personal definition of just what "change" means.
I listened to Senator Obama's speech live and then listened to it another two times on the web where I was able to pause his delivery, take notes, and move on. In my opinion, if one subtracts from their consciousness the skill of Obama's oratorical delivery, and then dissects the meaning of his sentence structures, and paragraph themes, it is easy to come to the conclusion that there is really nothing new going on here. It seems to me that Senator Obama seeks to realize the social goals of former President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". The over-arching themes of Obama's speech were big government, big spending, and wealth redistribution. I heard only fleeting comments urging Americans to strive for ideals such as, self-reliance, personal responsibility, or regardless of political views, a humane social code of conduct. I wanted to believe him when he ascribed to a "new" type of political interaction however; after listening to his acceptance speech, as well as his choice of Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate, I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that he is no different from the big government politicians of the 1960s.
Our nation remains philosophically divided. This division of thought is not new. President Andrew Jackson came to Washington with these very divisions simmering throughout the land. East versus West, financial elitism versus manual labor, and urban versus rural life, are just a few of the issues which still separate us. These differences should be celebrated for we are the only nation, with the exception of the Civil War, which peacefully settles these issues every four years. That said, given the desire, it is every citizen's right, if not responsibility, to give voice to his or her opinions on national issues. In doing so, it is paramount that each citizen battles in a civil fashion and utilizes only facts for weaponry.
Senator Obama has marketed himself as an agent of change. According to him, his candidacy represents a new form of politics in America. I beg to differ with him. Senator Joseph Biden came to the Senate in 1973. His voting record is readily available for public purview. According to the website; http://www.ontheissues.org/ Joe Biden is a typical standard bearing liberal democrat. Personally, I like Joe Biden. His in your face attitude is often fun to watch however; we diverge on almost every political issue. He is pro civil rights and yet he is, for all intensive purposes, in opposition to the 2nd Amendment. How can this be? After all, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are all civil rights not extended to governmental restriction. Senator Biden supports almost every social issue contained within the vision of President Johnson's "Great Society". Senator Biden rarely crosses the aisle so I fail to see how, if elected, his views would enlighten President-elect Obama's desire to work in a bipartisan manner. Let no one be deceived, Senator Obama realizes that if elected, he will have an unobstructed path to achieve his social goals. Republicans will be unable to stop him with legislation or override any of his vetoes. By all means, if you want big government, big budgets with earmarks, social restructuring based on the lifestyles of the East and West coasts, then you must vote for the Obama-Biden ticket however; you also need to be honest with yourself. You are not voting for change, you are seeking the total acquisition of political power. Mind you, I'm not complaining, I'm just fatigued with all of the fallacious hype attempting to obscure the real goals of the Democratic Party. All of us should be honest with one another.
The preceding paragraph highlights the reasons why the liberal establishment has had such an acrimonious reaction to Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. They have wasted no time in their attempts to belittle or destroy her. If you doubt me, I ask that you read the piece written on August 31, 2008, by Maureen Dowd of the NY Times. The title of her editorial says it all: "Vice in Go-Go Boots". I find it humorous that the feminist movement as represented by the likes of Maureen Dowd, is so afraid of Sarah Palin. How dare the governor of Alaska be pro-life, mother of 5, pro-gun, republican, and anti big government to boot! Doesn't she realize that feminists have a requisite socio-political template that they must adhere to! Sarah Palin has made a living cleaning up corruption at the state level in the Republican Party. If you doubt my assertions, simply go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin . The democrats have longed planned to run against the personal and fiscal corruption of the republicans in 2008. Sarah Palin's arrival on the scene has thrown a massive monkey wrench into their plans. Palin is the standard bearer of East versus West, financial elitism versus manual labor, small town versus big city, and even though I do not concur with the subliminal meaning of the word, "progressive", progressive versus historically long standing family values. Like her or not, she has changed the landscape of the presidential race. Unlike Obama, it is McCain who has thought outside the box.
At the end of the day, we all vote for the ticket which most closely aligns itself to our personal system of individual and civil values. Voting is an inherently selfish activity and there is nothing wrong with that. All I ask is, don't tread on me and I will attempt to not tread on you. The great thing about our nation is that every four years we get to fight these same battles once again. Unlike some, I know that our ability to argue amongst ourselves at a national level in a peaceful manner, is our greatest strength. Nobody, republican or democrat, will ever get my vote just because they market themselves as a new model. After all, as Senator Obama has himself noted, words matter. As for me, I'll be voting for the ticket which most closely represents the values I hold myself accountable to.
De Oppresso Liber
I listened to Senator Obama's speech live and then listened to it another two times on the web where I was able to pause his delivery, take notes, and move on. In my opinion, if one subtracts from their consciousness the skill of Obama's oratorical delivery, and then dissects the meaning of his sentence structures, and paragraph themes, it is easy to come to the conclusion that there is really nothing new going on here. It seems to me that Senator Obama seeks to realize the social goals of former President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". The over-arching themes of Obama's speech were big government, big spending, and wealth redistribution. I heard only fleeting comments urging Americans to strive for ideals such as, self-reliance, personal responsibility, or regardless of political views, a humane social code of conduct. I wanted to believe him when he ascribed to a "new" type of political interaction however; after listening to his acceptance speech, as well as his choice of Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate, I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that he is no different from the big government politicians of the 1960s.
Our nation remains philosophically divided. This division of thought is not new. President Andrew Jackson came to Washington with these very divisions simmering throughout the land. East versus West, financial elitism versus manual labor, and urban versus rural life, are just a few of the issues which still separate us. These differences should be celebrated for we are the only nation, with the exception of the Civil War, which peacefully settles these issues every four years. That said, given the desire, it is every citizen's right, if not responsibility, to give voice to his or her opinions on national issues. In doing so, it is paramount that each citizen battles in a civil fashion and utilizes only facts for weaponry.
Senator Obama has marketed himself as an agent of change. According to him, his candidacy represents a new form of politics in America. I beg to differ with him. Senator Joseph Biden came to the Senate in 1973. His voting record is readily available for public purview. According to the website; http://www.ontheissues.org/ Joe Biden is a typical standard bearing liberal democrat. Personally, I like Joe Biden. His in your face attitude is often fun to watch however; we diverge on almost every political issue. He is pro civil rights and yet he is, for all intensive purposes, in opposition to the 2nd Amendment. How can this be? After all, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are all civil rights not extended to governmental restriction. Senator Biden supports almost every social issue contained within the vision of President Johnson's "Great Society". Senator Biden rarely crosses the aisle so I fail to see how, if elected, his views would enlighten President-elect Obama's desire to work in a bipartisan manner. Let no one be deceived, Senator Obama realizes that if elected, he will have an unobstructed path to achieve his social goals. Republicans will be unable to stop him with legislation or override any of his vetoes. By all means, if you want big government, big budgets with earmarks, social restructuring based on the lifestyles of the East and West coasts, then you must vote for the Obama-Biden ticket however; you also need to be honest with yourself. You are not voting for change, you are seeking the total acquisition of political power. Mind you, I'm not complaining, I'm just fatigued with all of the fallacious hype attempting to obscure the real goals of the Democratic Party. All of us should be honest with one another.
The preceding paragraph highlights the reasons why the liberal establishment has had such an acrimonious reaction to Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. They have wasted no time in their attempts to belittle or destroy her. If you doubt me, I ask that you read the piece written on August 31, 2008, by Maureen Dowd of the NY Times. The title of her editorial says it all: "Vice in Go-Go Boots". I find it humorous that the feminist movement as represented by the likes of Maureen Dowd, is so afraid of Sarah Palin. How dare the governor of Alaska be pro-life, mother of 5, pro-gun, republican, and anti big government to boot! Doesn't she realize that feminists have a requisite socio-political template that they must adhere to! Sarah Palin has made a living cleaning up corruption at the state level in the Republican Party. If you doubt my assertions, simply go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin . The democrats have longed planned to run against the personal and fiscal corruption of the republicans in 2008. Sarah Palin's arrival on the scene has thrown a massive monkey wrench into their plans. Palin is the standard bearer of East versus West, financial elitism versus manual labor, small town versus big city, and even though I do not concur with the subliminal meaning of the word, "progressive", progressive versus historically long standing family values. Like her or not, she has changed the landscape of the presidential race. Unlike Obama, it is McCain who has thought outside the box.
At the end of the day, we all vote for the ticket which most closely aligns itself to our personal system of individual and civil values. Voting is an inherently selfish activity and there is nothing wrong with that. All I ask is, don't tread on me and I will attempt to not tread on you. The great thing about our nation is that every four years we get to fight these same battles once again. Unlike some, I know that our ability to argue amongst ourselves at a national level in a peaceful manner, is our greatest strength. Nobody, republican or democrat, will ever get my vote just because they market themselves as a new model. After all, as Senator Obama has himself noted, words matter. As for me, I'll be voting for the ticket which most closely represents the values I hold myself accountable to.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Guns versus the Bill of Rights
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision against the District of Columbia’s prohibition of handguns has once again placed gun ownership front and center in an election year. Both sides of this issue have entrenched themselves in preparation for upcoming judicial battles at the local and state levels. Ironically, many of the organizations against unencumbered gun ownership are the very same groups which vociferously attack the Bush Administration for endangering the public’s civil liberties with the passage and use of the Patriot Act. Why? Are these groups ignorant of the meaning behind the Bill of Rights? Do they not understand the historical significance of the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution? I would like to know why they are adamant in their fight for the protection of free speech and what they see as the Patriot Act’s use of illegal search and seizures but, they have no problem with the federal government outlawing the individual’s right to possess firearms? The answer is quite simple. Mass hysteria surrounding the “supposed” high rate of gun violence feeds their agenda and they know that they can only achieve their ends through the passage of laws because they will never be able to pass a federal amendment banning civil possession of firearms.
Americans get killed every year in a number of different manners. Does this country have a higher gun caused annual fatality rate than most other countries? Yes it does however; their statistics are misleading because they never establish the percentage rate of gun caused fatalities against the total population of the United States. For example, if you go to www.blog.healthtalk.com/zimney/firearm-fatalities-the-awful-toll/ (an anti-gun website), you will discover that in 2004 there were 29,569 total firearm fatalities. Of these, 16,750 were suicides, 11,624 were murders, 649 were accidents, and 235 were from unknown reasons. The most recent US census places our current population at 300 million so, awful as any fatality is, 29,569 gun fatalities are infinitesimal when compared to our total population. On the other hand, motor vehicles cause more fatalities each year than firearms and yet; nobody is calling for strict new laws controlling their use. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6195) , there were 43,200 motor vehicle fatalities on our highways in 2005.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You can read the syllabus for yourself at www.supremcourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens hinged upon the meaning of the word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment. The dissenting opinion misses the point of the Bill of Rights. The first 10 Amendments to our constitution are individual rights, and were established by the founders for the protection of the citizen from the state. Thomas Jefferson was a tireless proponent of individual civil liberties. He knew that the individual needed protection from an encroaching governmental entity and he exchanged numerous letters with James Madison discussing these very issues. In 1787, he wrote the following lines to James Madison (www.etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm) : “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences.”
The right to gun ownership is an individual right. Government can control the manner in which guns are sold however; it is nevertheless a natural right to us as Americans. The US Supreme Court got it right in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. V. HELLER. Besides, I’ve always wondered why gun violence is highest where gun ownership is most restricted whilst in our more rural regions where guns are more prevalent, gun violence is almost nonexistent. Maybe those organizations spending endless dollars in their attempts to take away my civil liberty should spend some of their money analyzing the dysfunction of urban life in America.
De Oppresso Liber
Americans get killed every year in a number of different manners. Does this country have a higher gun caused annual fatality rate than most other countries? Yes it does however; their statistics are misleading because they never establish the percentage rate of gun caused fatalities against the total population of the United States. For example, if you go to www.blog.healthtalk.com/zimney/firearm-fatalities-the-awful-toll/ (an anti-gun website), you will discover that in 2004 there were 29,569 total firearm fatalities. Of these, 16,750 were suicides, 11,624 were murders, 649 were accidents, and 235 were from unknown reasons. The most recent US census places our current population at 300 million so, awful as any fatality is, 29,569 gun fatalities are infinitesimal when compared to our total population. On the other hand, motor vehicles cause more fatalities each year than firearms and yet; nobody is calling for strict new laws controlling their use. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6195) , there were 43,200 motor vehicle fatalities on our highways in 2005.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You can read the syllabus for yourself at www.supremcourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens hinged upon the meaning of the word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment. The dissenting opinion misses the point of the Bill of Rights. The first 10 Amendments to our constitution are individual rights, and were established by the founders for the protection of the citizen from the state. Thomas Jefferson was a tireless proponent of individual civil liberties. He knew that the individual needed protection from an encroaching governmental entity and he exchanged numerous letters with James Madison discussing these very issues. In 1787, he wrote the following lines to James Madison (www.etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm) : “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences.”
The right to gun ownership is an individual right. Government can control the manner in which guns are sold however; it is nevertheless a natural right to us as Americans. The US Supreme Court got it right in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. V. HELLER. Besides, I’ve always wondered why gun violence is highest where gun ownership is most restricted whilst in our more rural regions where guns are more prevalent, gun violence is almost nonexistent. Maybe those organizations spending endless dollars in their attempts to take away my civil liberty should spend some of their money analyzing the dysfunction of urban life in America.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Barak Obama: The Next Indecisive President?
The fiasco surrounding the Democratic Party is almost over. Is this the last that we will hear from the Clinton’s? One can only hope for the best. Hillary has gone down fighting and as much as I might hate to admit it, she has exposed Barak Obama’s weaknesses. His weaknesses might not matter since the Republican Party seems unable to develop a message and this may doom John McCain’s bid for the White House. Of course, if we have learned anything this past year, we all know that forecasting this election season is not for the faint of heart or for those who are overly concerned with making inaccurate predictions.
It seems that the cloak of newness has fallen from Barak Obama’s shoulders. It turns out that he is no different than any other politician. Much as he might like to call for change, he is merely the new face for the old guard. He doesn’t cross the aisle very often, if at all, and in case you haven’t noticed it, all of the old league party hacks have thrown in with him. Americans do not pay much attention to politics outside of their own backyard. Voters would do well to learn something of Chicago politics. It is a rough and tumble world reminiscent of Tammany Hall. Why do you think Senator Obama has maintained his relationship with Rev. Wright and William Ayers? He needed them for his rise to political power. I don’t know about you but, I’ve marveled at just how many people he has recently separated himself from. Apparently, his network of close acquaintances has now begun to haunt him. I’m sorry but, you are symbolic of the company you keep. Senator Obama has loads of work to do before he convinces me that he is genuine.
I also fear his inability to make a decision. I do not want another Jimmy Carter presidency. Nobody wants to admit it but, Carter’s failure to address Ayatollah Khomeini is the primary reason that the Persian Gulf is currently in such a turbid state. Naturally, Senator Obama is extremely intelligent however; I fear that his academic prowess is juxtaposed by his lack of real world consciousness. Leaders must make decisions based on correlating all of the facts. There is nothing worse for an organization than the inability of its leader to make sound and timely decisions. Senator Obama has made up his mind for withdrawal from Iraq even though he has not been there for over two years or even spoken with Ambassador Crocker or General Petraeus. How can he have all of the facts to formulate his position? Now, just yesterday, he finally made the decision to leave his church. Of course he didn’t leave voluntarily; this decision was made out of political necessity. I don’t know about you but, exposure for 20 plus years to the race laden philosophy surrounding black liberation theology is more than enough time for me to come to the realization that such a philosophy does not represent the hope for America. So much for Senator Obama’s ability to make timely decisions especially with regards to something so important as an individual’s ethos, social norms and values. Barak Obama is nothing new, for political expediency; he had to separate himself from Trinity United.
We cannot afford to place our hopes on any indecisive political leader, especially in the turbulent times that we now find ourselves immersed. Sound decisions must be made. High fuel costs, exorbitant health care costs and an enemy intent on the destruction of our nation are but a few of the issues that the next president will face. For myself, I am not overly concerned with what party a candidate represents rather; I expect him or her to be able to make the correct decision for the country at crunch time. I will not vote for an indecisive candidate.
De Oppresso Liber
It seems that the cloak of newness has fallen from Barak Obama’s shoulders. It turns out that he is no different than any other politician. Much as he might like to call for change, he is merely the new face for the old guard. He doesn’t cross the aisle very often, if at all, and in case you haven’t noticed it, all of the old league party hacks have thrown in with him. Americans do not pay much attention to politics outside of their own backyard. Voters would do well to learn something of Chicago politics. It is a rough and tumble world reminiscent of Tammany Hall. Why do you think Senator Obama has maintained his relationship with Rev. Wright and William Ayers? He needed them for his rise to political power. I don’t know about you but, I’ve marveled at just how many people he has recently separated himself from. Apparently, his network of close acquaintances has now begun to haunt him. I’m sorry but, you are symbolic of the company you keep. Senator Obama has loads of work to do before he convinces me that he is genuine.
I also fear his inability to make a decision. I do not want another Jimmy Carter presidency. Nobody wants to admit it but, Carter’s failure to address Ayatollah Khomeini is the primary reason that the Persian Gulf is currently in such a turbid state. Naturally, Senator Obama is extremely intelligent however; I fear that his academic prowess is juxtaposed by his lack of real world consciousness. Leaders must make decisions based on correlating all of the facts. There is nothing worse for an organization than the inability of its leader to make sound and timely decisions. Senator Obama has made up his mind for withdrawal from Iraq even though he has not been there for over two years or even spoken with Ambassador Crocker or General Petraeus. How can he have all of the facts to formulate his position? Now, just yesterday, he finally made the decision to leave his church. Of course he didn’t leave voluntarily; this decision was made out of political necessity. I don’t know about you but, exposure for 20 plus years to the race laden philosophy surrounding black liberation theology is more than enough time for me to come to the realization that such a philosophy does not represent the hope for America. So much for Senator Obama’s ability to make timely decisions especially with regards to something so important as an individual’s ethos, social norms and values. Barak Obama is nothing new, for political expediency; he had to separate himself from Trinity United.
We cannot afford to place our hopes on any indecisive political leader, especially in the turbulent times that we now find ourselves immersed. Sound decisions must be made. High fuel costs, exorbitant health care costs and an enemy intent on the destruction of our nation are but a few of the issues that the next president will face. For myself, I am not overly concerned with what party a candidate represents rather; I expect him or her to be able to make the correct decision for the country at crunch time. I will not vote for an indecisive candidate.
De Oppresso Liber
Monday, May 19, 2008
Universal Healthcare: A Wolf in Sheeps Cothing
Universal health care has become the darling child of the Democratic Party. Of course, who doesn’t want free stuff however; is there really anything in life which is truly free? Is our current health care system broken? Are costs skyrocketing beyond control? Are small business owners being slowly strangled by unaffordable health care? Naturally, the answer to all of the previous questions is a resounding YES! The small company I work for has been absorbing ever increasing annual health care costs. I’ve been with this company for almost four years and during this time our deductible has increased from $250 to $2500. Is this the fault of my employer? No, he and his staff are doing everything possible to keep health care costs affordable. So, why is there an unremitting increase in costs? If I knew the answer to that question I would become exorbitantly wealthy. More than likely, it is a conglomeration of causes. Lack of competition across state lines, frivolous lawsuits, endless pharmaceutical marketing, and an aging, unhealthy and an out of shape consumer pool are just some of the likely culprits.
Universal health care will provide substandard care and it will create an unbelievable financial drain on the federal government and the taxpayers. Europe and Canada are over taxed and yet, the health care system in these places is fraught with incompetence. Why do so many of the residents in both of these geographical locales come here for delicate surgical operations? Simple, those procedures are more readily available here. We cannot afford universal health care. Some of you will argue that these are mere conservative and pro capitalist talking points. In order to prove my point, I will now provide you with a quick synopsis of military and veterans’ health care.
The military does attempt to provide quality health care and most often it does however; mistakes are oftentimes made. It would be impossible for me to calculate the number of hours I spent in waiting rooms in different military clinics over a 21 year career. My wife had a wart removed from her hand and they caused her to lose all feeling in that hand for close to a month. She had a hysterectomy and the nursing staff forgot her pain meds. Now that I’m retired I get to enjoy the inefficiencies of the Veterans’ Administration. Initially, it took my congressman to even get me into the system even though I am 60% disabled with two artificial hips. I have gone through 6 primary care physicians over an eight year period. I have to call the main VA hospital in Portland, Oregon in order to make an appointment with my primary care team here in Bend, Oregon. The primary care clinic is a mere 5 miles from my home. It takes upwards of 90 days to get an appointment with the orthopedic clinic to have my artificial hips checked out. I also have to lose an entire day’s work since I must drive to Portland for any orthopedic appointments. I cannot use TRICARE Prime here in central Oregon. Why? Physicians will not accept it because it takes the US government upwards of 90-180 days to make a payment for rendered care. TRICARE is the ‘universal’ health care for retired veterans.
The federal government couldn’t even help New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. How in the world will it ever manage universal health care for 300,000,000 Americans?
Universal health care will provide substandard care and it will create an unbelievable financial drain on the federal government and the taxpayers. Europe and Canada are over taxed and yet, the health care system in these places is fraught with incompetence. Why do so many of the residents in both of these geographical locales come here for delicate surgical operations? Simple, those procedures are more readily available here. We cannot afford universal health care. Some of you will argue that these are mere conservative and pro capitalist talking points. In order to prove my point, I will now provide you with a quick synopsis of military and veterans’ health care.
The military does attempt to provide quality health care and most often it does however; mistakes are oftentimes made. It would be impossible for me to calculate the number of hours I spent in waiting rooms in different military clinics over a 21 year career. My wife had a wart removed from her hand and they caused her to lose all feeling in that hand for close to a month. She had a hysterectomy and the nursing staff forgot her pain meds. Now that I’m retired I get to enjoy the inefficiencies of the Veterans’ Administration. Initially, it took my congressman to even get me into the system even though I am 60% disabled with two artificial hips. I have gone through 6 primary care physicians over an eight year period. I have to call the main VA hospital in Portland, Oregon in order to make an appointment with my primary care team here in Bend, Oregon. The primary care clinic is a mere 5 miles from my home. It takes upwards of 90 days to get an appointment with the orthopedic clinic to have my artificial hips checked out. I also have to lose an entire day’s work since I must drive to Portland for any orthopedic appointments. I cannot use TRICARE Prime here in central Oregon. Why? Physicians will not accept it because it takes the US government upwards of 90-180 days to make a payment for rendered care. TRICARE is the ‘universal’ health care for retired veterans.
The federal government couldn’t even help New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. How in the world will it ever manage universal health care for 300,000,000 Americans?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Barak Obama: Race in America Revisited
Barack Obama’s speech on race in America was illuminating however; are we all not products of our environment? What influence does this environment have on our cultural and social identity? Is Senator Obama a unifying or divisive force to be reckoned with? How does a voter juxtapose the separatist militancy of black liberation theology with our hopes for a color blind society? One now has to wonder if his speeches are empty rhetoric designed to appease just enough of the electorate to ensure his nomination. So, who is this man? How has black liberation theology and his spiritual advisor, Dr. Wright influenced his thought patterns? Does he believe that we are a nation attempting to realize the ideals of the founders or; does he see himself as the surgeon designate, solely responsible for cutting out the malignancy that he sees as our historical past? As with all nations, our nation’s history has plenty of skeletons in its’ closet. The ideal demanded of each generation is that we openly identify our social mistakes, learn from them and, never cease in our attempts to improve our society. Social perfection is realized in our active pursuit of cultural harmony. Human nature will however, preclude our capacity to ever completely realize this goal thus; it is paramount that each individual always strive to practice the Golden Rule when dealing with his fellow man.
I have been studying black liberation theology for the past couple of weeks. Previously, I have written that Americans were mistaken to condemn this theology and I now must readjust my viewpoints. My further reading of Dr. James H. Cone, a preeminent theologian of this belief system has led me to the realization that this theology is bigoted and separatist. As Barak Obama has publicly stated, words do count. Dr. Cone is currently the Charles A. Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York City, His many written works include, A Black Theology of Liberation, My Soul Looks Back, For My People, Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare and, Black Theology: A Documentary History. Americans should not be expected to meekly accept bigotry or separatist philosophies regardless of the skin color of the speaker or author who prescribes to these ideals. The institution of slavery is a scar on our nation’s past however; does this event obligate our black citizenry to maintain a permanent sense of oppression and racial injustice while our white citizens are required to hang their heads in shame due to the activities of their white ancestors? My readings of Dr. Cone have led me to believe that this is the goal of black liberation theology. The ensuing paragraph will prove my point. I ask that you take notice of the use of tense within the paragraph. It is the last paragraph of Chapter 4 in, The Spirituals and the Blues, James H. Cone (1972), Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY 10545.
The reader should have noticed the switch from past to present tense within this paragraph. This grammatical syntax illustrates a theme throughout the written works of Dr. Cone. Reverend Wright, Barak Obama’s spiritual advisor, maintains the same belief system. I would like to believe that Senator Obama does not hold these views however; a spiritual advisor guides you to understanding the very essence of who you are as an individual. Is Senator Obama the great unifier or, is he merely a divisive wolf in sheep’s clothing? Blacks after all, do not hold a patent on oppression. Native Americans and Asians have also been oppressed by the white majority.
White Europeans, and later, white Americans murdered, removed and, enslaved Native Americans by the thousands. During the Pequot War of 1637-1638, Puritans murdered 600-700 members of the Pequot nation in the Mystic Massacre on May 26, 1637. In 1838, over 4,000 Cherokees died during their forced removal from Georgia to present day Oklahoma on what came to be known as, The Trail of Tears. On November 29, 1864, a Colorado militia murdered approximately 150-200 elderly men, women and, children of the Cheyenne and Arapaho nations at the Sand Creek Massacre. The Wounded Creek Massacre on December 29th, 1890 led to the murder of over 300 Lakota by the 7th Cavalry. I could go on and on but, my point is that the Indian nations across our land have moved beyond bitter hatred and have attempted to become part of a unified whole while maintaining cultural pride and reflecting on the travails of their ancestors.
Asian Americans also had a difficult road to travel. They provided a cheap source of labor for our rapidly expanding nation during the late 1800s. Horrific working conditions and bigoted treatment by white coworkers was their daily existence as they toiled in the mines and on the railroad in California. The decade long depression after the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad led to a rise in nativist sentiment in California. Article XIX, section 4 of the California state constitution ratified in 1879 forbade corporations from hiring Chinese and gave cities and counties the authority to expel Chinese and limit where they could live. This section of the constitution was not repealed until 1952. Yet, California now has a thriving Asian populace within its midst.
So, where does all of this lead? Does bigotry, racism, economic and social injustice exist within our land? Of course it does however; the true realization of America is how we deal with it. I feel that divisive and socially separatist jargon, whether in written or verbal form does little to advance our pursuit of racial harmony. Must black liberation theology remain ensnared in the horrific past of black Americans or, can it move beyond racial hyperbole and provide its followers with a positive path towards social unification? As for this voter given his history with this theology, Barak Obama has as yet, left many questions unanswered.
De Oppresso Liber
I have been studying black liberation theology for the past couple of weeks. Previously, I have written that Americans were mistaken to condemn this theology and I now must readjust my viewpoints. My further reading of Dr. James H. Cone, a preeminent theologian of this belief system has led me to the realization that this theology is bigoted and separatist. As Barak Obama has publicly stated, words do count. Dr. Cone is currently the Charles A. Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York City, His many written works include, A Black Theology of Liberation, My Soul Looks Back, For My People, Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare and, Black Theology: A Documentary History. Americans should not be expected to meekly accept bigotry or separatist philosophies regardless of the skin color of the speaker or author who prescribes to these ideals. The institution of slavery is a scar on our nation’s past however; does this event obligate our black citizenry to maintain a permanent sense of oppression and racial injustice while our white citizens are required to hang their heads in shame due to the activities of their white ancestors? My readings of Dr. Cone have led me to believe that this is the goal of black liberation theology. The ensuing paragraph will prove my point. I ask that you take notice of the use of tense within the paragraph. It is the last paragraph of Chapter 4 in, The Spirituals and the Blues, James H. Cone (1972), Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY 10545.
If the spirituals had addressed the ethical behavior of the whites, the slaves
would have been assuming that white people were human and thus had the moral
capability of listening to their protest. Protest assumes community-that
the victim of injustice is a brother, sister, or a friend. There was
nothing in the experience of black slaves in their relation to white people that
could have supported that assumption. Black slaves expected nothing.
White people are, after all, Satan’s representatives on earth and you don’t make
deals with devils. The responsibility of Christians is to strive against
evil.
The reader should have noticed the switch from past to present tense within this paragraph. This grammatical syntax illustrates a theme throughout the written works of Dr. Cone. Reverend Wright, Barak Obama’s spiritual advisor, maintains the same belief system. I would like to believe that Senator Obama does not hold these views however; a spiritual advisor guides you to understanding the very essence of who you are as an individual. Is Senator Obama the great unifier or, is he merely a divisive wolf in sheep’s clothing? Blacks after all, do not hold a patent on oppression. Native Americans and Asians have also been oppressed by the white majority.
White Europeans, and later, white Americans murdered, removed and, enslaved Native Americans by the thousands. During the Pequot War of 1637-1638, Puritans murdered 600-700 members of the Pequot nation in the Mystic Massacre on May 26, 1637. In 1838, over 4,000 Cherokees died during their forced removal from Georgia to present day Oklahoma on what came to be known as, The Trail of Tears. On November 29, 1864, a Colorado militia murdered approximately 150-200 elderly men, women and, children of the Cheyenne and Arapaho nations at the Sand Creek Massacre. The Wounded Creek Massacre on December 29th, 1890 led to the murder of over 300 Lakota by the 7th Cavalry. I could go on and on but, my point is that the Indian nations across our land have moved beyond bitter hatred and have attempted to become part of a unified whole while maintaining cultural pride and reflecting on the travails of their ancestors.
Asian Americans also had a difficult road to travel. They provided a cheap source of labor for our rapidly expanding nation during the late 1800s. Horrific working conditions and bigoted treatment by white coworkers was their daily existence as they toiled in the mines and on the railroad in California. The decade long depression after the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad led to a rise in nativist sentiment in California. Article XIX, section 4 of the California state constitution ratified in 1879 forbade corporations from hiring Chinese and gave cities and counties the authority to expel Chinese and limit where they could live. This section of the constitution was not repealed until 1952. Yet, California now has a thriving Asian populace within its midst.
So, where does all of this lead? Does bigotry, racism, economic and social injustice exist within our land? Of course it does however; the true realization of America is how we deal with it. I feel that divisive and socially separatist jargon, whether in written or verbal form does little to advance our pursuit of racial harmony. Must black liberation theology remain ensnared in the horrific past of black Americans or, can it move beyond racial hyperbole and provide its followers with a positive path towards social unification? As for this voter given his history with this theology, Barak Obama has as yet, left many questions unanswered.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, March 30, 2008
President George W. Bush: The Polarization President?
The battle for the nomination of the Democratic Party continues to dominate the airwaves. Senators’ Clinton and Obama are beginning to make more strident attacks on one another. Ideologues on the left are starting to cannibalize their own littermates. Hillary Clinton has received the brunt of many of these verbal assaults. It seems that this party is beginning to come to terms with just how far to the left the power brokers controlling the party philosophy have drifted. Realistically, one has to wonder if either Clinton or Obama will pay the price this November. Time will tell and much can transpire on the international and domestic theaters before the general election. Expectedly, both of the democratic candidates are now attempting to place their view of President Bush’s legacy around John McCain’s neck. Intelligent as they seem to be, I find Clinton’s and Obama’s attempt to marginalize the campaign of Senator McCain somewhat humorous. After all, legacies are written in an historical context and if I’m not mistaken, we are currently living in the here and now. Why does the Democratic Party and many of its followers so despise President Bush? Do they merely suffer from what some have labeled the “Bush Derangement Syndrome?” Has this polarization within the United States developed over a long period of time or, is it a creation of both political parties and the media?
The Democratic Party and its followers have despised George W. Bush since the election of 2000. After all, if we believe their diatribe, “Bush stole the election!” Is this the case? No, he did not and the answer is beyond reproof. Like him or not, George Bush won the election. If you don’t believe me, read Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. If you don’t like the Constitution then amend it. Al Gore won 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9% of the popular vote. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. Bush carried 30 states while Gore took 20 states and the District of Columbia. Those on the left who think that they represent the political philosophy of the country at large would do well to study the election 2000 map at www.en.wikipedia.or/wiki/United States presidential election 2000. Vice-President Gore won the West Coast, the upper Midwest and, the Northeast. George Bush won the entire swath of the country which many liberals have condescending called “fly over country.” The events surrounding the election of 2000 were not precedent setting. The presidential elections of 1824, 1876 and, 1888 were also settled by the Electoral College. Thus, for many on the left, began the hatred for President Bush.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 changed the direction of the Bush Administration. Suddenly, the executive branch was forced to deal militarily with the terrorist threat. Many liberals refuse to accept the reality of these attacks. Osama Bin Laden didn’t wake up on the 10th of September and say, “Golly, lets attack America!” Islamic fundamentalism has been simmering in the Middle East since Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran in the late ‘70s. Republican and Democrat administrations made minimal efforts to squelch this fire. After all, we are a super power, who would dare attack us? All one can say is, “So much for the superiority of arms against a deep rooted hateful ideology.” Since the attacks on 9/11, we have been militarily active in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seemingly, everyone supports our activities in Afghanistan while the country is evenly divided over Iraq. Those of us who fail to connect our activities in Iraq within the context of our overall struggle against Islamic fundamentalism are suffering from myopia. Many of those opposing our efforts in Iraq state that, “Bush lied!” Many go on to spout such invectives as, “This is an unauthorized and illegal war.” Of course, all of this reckless banter is merely a bunch of uneducated and uninformed hyperbole. Are we in a hotbed in Iraq? You bet but, what good does it do to become ensnared in a mindless game of, “he said – she said?” I have no problem with anyone if they oppose the war in Iraq unless they play the “Bush lied” game. United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 authorized the use of force to remove Sadam Hussein. Some will ask, “What about the WMDs?” I don’t know where they are either however; I worked in Northern Iraq in 1991 and I saw firsthand the effects that Sadam’s use of chemical weapons had on the Kurdish population. When all is said and done, I will not convince anyone who plays the “Bush lied” mantra of their mental error. Others like to label President Bush an idiot. If you ask them why, they will make jokes regarding his less than stellar ability to speak publicly. If you delve further, and try to get those who say this to back up their assertions with psychological data connecting verbal skills to intelligence level in human beings you will more than likely receive either a blank stare or a flustered reassertion of their childish personal insult. These people should read some of the biographies covering the life of our third president. All of these biographies clearly show Thomas Jefferson to have been a poor speaker. Some have stated that these poor verbal skills led to his being assigned to the drafting committee for our Declaration of Independence. Jefferson never delivered an oral State of the Union Address to Congress; he simply sent them a written copy. Now, I am not comparing President George W. Bush to President Thomas Jefferson but; I challenge anyone labeling Bush an idiot simply due to his poor speaking ability to make the same assertion regarding Jefferson’s capabilities as president. Can this “Bush lied” or “Bush is an idiot” philosophy be connected to any other social context? I believe it can.
Our country became enthralled with a sort of laissez-faire attitude during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. Many of us were comfortable with a sort of “if it feels good, do it” mentality. After all, the economy was humming along and everyone was just having a good time. Personally, I believe that many liberals saw his presidency as the realization of the social philosophies grown out of the “flower power” generation. Narcissism became accepted. Scandal after scandal rocked the White House but the Clintons' fought back by claiming to be victims of a vast right wing conspiracy. In my view, the issue was never whether President Clinton had sex with an intern or Hillary’s commodities market profits. I had and continue to have problems with their parsing of words in the English language. Agree with him or not, George W. Bush believes that all of your personal actions have moral and ethical consequences and I’m not sure if Bill and Hillary Clinton are overly concerned with these issues. Are people uncomfortable with looking at themselves in a mirror and conducting some self analysis of their character? Let’s look at a few important definitions of words in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1. Character: The complex of mental and ethical traits making and often individualizing a person, group, or nation.
2. Ethos: The distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.
3. Ethics: The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
4. Embellishing: To heighten the attractiveness of by adding decorative or fanciful details.
5. Lie: To make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.
Some of you might be wondering by now where I am going with all of this. It is my contention that these words are important definitions of who you are as an adult human being. The Clinton’s actions over the years, in my opinion, have exposed serious flaws in their personal character. President Clinton should never have been dragged through the mud by Congress over the Monica Lewinsky debacle however; statements made by him while under oath such as, “It depends on what the definition of is, is.”, offer us an insight into his ethical belief system. Now, his wife wants the presidency. She has become embroiled in a controversial story describing her supposedly harrowing landing at the Tuzla airfield in Bosnia. That was a long sentence which can best be shortened by simply stating, “She has gotten caught making a bold faced lie.” This is not a new aspect of her personality. Supposedly, she was named “Hillary” in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary. Unfortunately for her, this is doubtful since he had not conquered the heights of Mt. Everest until after her birth. According to her, she first became personally exposed to racial hatred while playing on a girls’ soccer team in Junior High. Guess what? There was no soccer team for boys or girls while she was there. She has stated that she learned how to successfully trade commodities futures by reading the Wall Street Journal. Once again, this is a distortion of the truth. The Wall Street Journal was not publishing statistics for the commodities market when she made her exorbitant profits with beef futures. We were led to believe that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks on 9/11. Oh yes, I forgot, Chelsea retracted her mother’s misquote at a later date. Last but not least, the recently released White House records from the 1990s show her to have been a solid First Lady and not a President. So much for the validity regarding her “experience” claims. I believe it is not hard to begin to see a well developed pattern of personal behavior.
Democrats, Independents and, Liberals who despise President Bush would do well to remember that he is not running for reelection this November. You have the right to dislike him all you want however; I believe that you have an obligation to rise above the level of schoolyard insults and support your opposition to him with facts and not heated rhetoric. While you are doing that, I encourage you to hold other politicians accountable for their actions. For me, it is quite simple. The Clintons’ resemble a character in Clint Eastwood’s film, “The Outlaw Josey Wales.” If you have seen the film, you will undoubtedly remember the snake oil salesman in the white suit. Like him, the Clintons’ will say almost anything to get you to buy their product. As for myself, I’m not parting with my hard earned dollar or my vote. Their era is past and it is high time that we start a new chapter on the political scene.
De Oppresso Liber
Monday, March 24, 2008
Iraq Five Years Later
We have now reached the five year anniversary of the war in Iraq. The KIA casualty figure has reached 4,000 and the clamoring for our withdrawal from the theater of operations continues on. So, what do we do? Do we, as Senator McCain has stated, prepare ourselves for a 100 year struggle in the Middle East or, do we take the Democratic candidates view and prepare for troop removal? The answer remains uncertain however; the political posturing by the Congress and all of the candidates has little to do with the reality on the ground in Iraq. Control of the White House has become the short term objective. So, how are we, the public at large, to fully understand the ramifications of any future actions in Iraq? Unfortunately, amidst the cloud of hyperbole and disinformation, it has become increasingly difficult to understand the truth about Iraq.
Most assuredly, we cannot sustain our presence in Iraq in an open ended manner. The wear and tear on equipment, troop fatigue and troop readiness will become more of a factor with our continued force totals in theater. However, nobody has stated publicly when this will become a concern for the military. Politicians have jockeyed for position on this matter but, the Pentagon has not publicly released any fact sheet regarding these issues. I know several individuals who have made three to four tours in Iraq. As a retired Sergeant Major, I am concerned about force readiness, morale, and the operational capability of our equipment.
Politically, things have become more complex. The race for the White House and the Democratic Party’s hopes for maintaining control of the Congress and gaining the presidency have created policy doldrums in Washington D.C. Their fear of further polarization within the electorate has led to limited activity within the Senate and the House of Representatives. The country is seemingly divided over the war in Iraq. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor an end to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most Americans are uncertain about just how our withdrawal should be conducted. Many people like to point to the stubbornness of President Bush and place all of the blame on him for our continued presence in Iraq. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution charges the Congress with the funding and equipping of our military. So, why have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid refused to challenge the President and severely limit or, cut off funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom? The answer is quite simple. They know that the public, mindful of the effect on the local populace that our withdrawal from Saigon all of those years ago had, would never support a repeat of such an action in Iraq. So what political game is now being played? If you think back, Kennedy called Iraq a quagmire, Reid said we had failed and, Clinton told General Petraeus that she would have to “suspend her disbelief” if she were to believe his report on the ground facts at the time he appeared before the Senate. Recently, the surge has been working so the new reality according to some is that this is only possible due to our increased force presence which most of these same people opposed from the start. People need to understand that political posturing from either side of the aisle is pure hogwash. The current objective is the White House meanwhile, our troops valiantly work on despite of the limbo under which they now operate.
Another aspect of our presence in Iraq is the Middle Eastern mindset. I spent a majority of my former career working in Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Turkey and, Egypt. Things don’t happen fast in this region of the world. This is not a criticism of their culture rather; it is a reality of working with such a mindset. We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to spend the time, capital and, blood required to work within such an environment? “Ba bukra” was a common phrase used by government and military officials when I worked in Lebanon. This phrase is best translated as the “day after tomorrow.” Such is life in the Middle East. We approach matters with what I like to call a “fast food” mentality and oftentimes we, as a nation, lack the staying power to see things through. I do not know if this cultural trait has infiltrated the minds of those demanding a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not however; I do know that several of our nation’s foreign policy missteps can be directly attributed to this national cultural fault. Either way, the issue will be solved by November of 2008.
De Oppresso Liber
Most assuredly, we cannot sustain our presence in Iraq in an open ended manner. The wear and tear on equipment, troop fatigue and troop readiness will become more of a factor with our continued force totals in theater. However, nobody has stated publicly when this will become a concern for the military. Politicians have jockeyed for position on this matter but, the Pentagon has not publicly released any fact sheet regarding these issues. I know several individuals who have made three to four tours in Iraq. As a retired Sergeant Major, I am concerned about force readiness, morale, and the operational capability of our equipment.
Politically, things have become more complex. The race for the White House and the Democratic Party’s hopes for maintaining control of the Congress and gaining the presidency have created policy doldrums in Washington D.C. Their fear of further polarization within the electorate has led to limited activity within the Senate and the House of Representatives. The country is seemingly divided over the war in Iraq. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor an end to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most Americans are uncertain about just how our withdrawal should be conducted. Many people like to point to the stubbornness of President Bush and place all of the blame on him for our continued presence in Iraq. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution charges the Congress with the funding and equipping of our military. So, why have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid refused to challenge the President and severely limit or, cut off funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom? The answer is quite simple. They know that the public, mindful of the effect on the local populace that our withdrawal from Saigon all of those years ago had, would never support a repeat of such an action in Iraq. So what political game is now being played? If you think back, Kennedy called Iraq a quagmire, Reid said we had failed and, Clinton told General Petraeus that she would have to “suspend her disbelief” if she were to believe his report on the ground facts at the time he appeared before the Senate. Recently, the surge has been working so the new reality according to some is that this is only possible due to our increased force presence which most of these same people opposed from the start. People need to understand that political posturing from either side of the aisle is pure hogwash. The current objective is the White House meanwhile, our troops valiantly work on despite of the limbo under which they now operate.
Another aspect of our presence in Iraq is the Middle Eastern mindset. I spent a majority of my former career working in Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Turkey and, Egypt. Things don’t happen fast in this region of the world. This is not a criticism of their culture rather; it is a reality of working with such a mindset. We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to spend the time, capital and, blood required to work within such an environment? “Ba bukra” was a common phrase used by government and military officials when I worked in Lebanon. This phrase is best translated as the “day after tomorrow.” Such is life in the Middle East. We approach matters with what I like to call a “fast food” mentality and oftentimes we, as a nation, lack the staying power to see things through. I do not know if this cultural trait has infiltrated the minds of those demanding a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not however; I do know that several of our nation’s foreign policy missteps can be directly attributed to this national cultural fault. Either way, the issue will be solved by November of 2008.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Barack Obama: Race in the 21st Century
Over the past week we all have watched the Clinton and Obama campaigns become ensnared in the turbulent waters surrounding racial tensions in America. Initially, we all watched the Clinton campaign distance itself from Geraldine Ferraro over her supposed racist comments regarding the campaign of Barack Obama. Anyone who knows anything about Geraldine Ferraro knows that she is not a racist. We then moved on to the sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and their impact on the world view of Senator Obama. It seems to me that our country has become racially hypersensitive. On a regular basis, individuals or groups complain that they have been racially slighted by another individual or another group. Some Native Americans claim that sports team names such as the Braves, Indians and, Redskins are racially derogatory in nature. Other groups state that comments on TV shows are out of bounds and inflammatory. A highly intelligent and gifted athlete from Rutgers University believes that the bigoted remarks of Don Imus have marred her for life. Has our racial hypersensitivity reached a point where constructive dialogues between differing groups become almost impossible? Why do we seem to forget that the media is a consumer driven industry and that commentators, radio talk show hosts and news outlets package their product in a way that will increase their market share? Oftentimes, the total truth behind any issue is hidden beneath the foliage of a fast paced world.
So, how has Reverend Wright influenced Barack Obama? In my view, I see him as only one of many influences on the life of Barack Obama. Obviously, Barack Obama is a serious thinker and as with all critical thinkers, he copies and pastes those points of views which most closely correspond to his life experiences and his outlook on the world. It is unfair to compartmentalize any human being into a neat and tidy package for your own benefit. I disagree with many of Barack Obama’s political viewpoints however, his views and his personal history demand more of our respect than the media or many of our fellow citizens are currently giving him especially, during this Easter Season. We also owe more respect to Dr. Wright and should attempt to understand his spiritual point of view and learn more about his form of Christian faith.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was born on September 22, 1941 in Philadelphia, PA. His father was a Baptist minister. He served in the military with the US Marine Corps. He has a Bachelors and Masters degree from Howard University. He earned another Masters degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He has a Ph.D. in Ministry from the United Theological Seminary. He has also been presented with 7 honorary doctorate degrees. He has been a pastor for 36 years with the Trinity United Church of Christ. If he had preached a single sermon per week for 36 years, Reverend Wright would have delivered 1,872 sermons to date. The media has now been presenting the same sound bites from specific sermons which portray Dr. Wright as an intolerant, bigoted and racially separatist preacher. Is this however, a true representation of the man and his spiritual philosophy? I believe that the media has been neglectful in their coverage of Reverend Wright. Barack Obama has titled his autobiography The Audacity of Hope. This title is taken from a sermon given by Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright’s sermon, Audacity to Hope, can be found online at http://www.preachingtodayaudio.com/. This 18 minute sermon provides the listener with another view of Jeremiah Wright. Another of his sermons, Let Me See Again, can be found at http://www.csec.org/. This sermon deals with the spirituality found in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of Luke. Of course these aren’t the only two representations of a different side to Dr. Wright. Rather, they provide us with a quick synopsis into the spiritual depth of Jeremiah Wright. Dr. Wright is a follower and preacher of Black Liberation Theology. What is Black Liberation Theology and how does it fit into American society? Why do some whites fear the tenets of the theology?
Our country has had a long standing fear of an independent black racial identity within American society. Thomas Jefferson believed that freed blacks and whites could never fully integrate. During the Ante-Bellum period, our nation struggled with the issue of slavery. Abolitionists could not all agree on what should be done with a large population of freed blacks. Some called for integration while others, such as the American Colonization Society, desired that the freed slaves be returned to Africa. David Walker (1785-1830) was a prominent abolitionist during this period. Born a free black from slave parents, he demanded an immediate emancipation of all black slaves. His main work titled, Walker’s Appeal, was published in 1829. This publication called for black pride and demanded that all blacks free themselves from the oppression of slavery to include by violent means if necessary. Almost immediately, southern states put a $3,000 bounty on his head and Georgia offered a $10,000 reward for his delivery alive into their hands. Somewhat later, Frederick Douglas (1818-1895) assumed the reins as the preeminent black abolitionist of his time. Unlike Walker, Douglas’s approach was more peaceable in nature. He did not conscribe to use of violence in the pursuit of equality. His greatest work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave, was published in 1845. As with Walker, he described the horrific inequities of slavery and the treatment of free blacks. Both of them castigated the Christian Churches for their failure to condemn slavery. If we move forward in time to the 20th century, we quickly can discern an almost identical similarity between the different philosophical approaches of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Black Liberation Theology rose from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America during the 1950s. This movement hoped to end economic repression in Latin America. They felt that the Catholic Church was ambivalent to the plight of the poor. They hoped for more than the mere removal of economic oppression and actively sought to change government and fought for the establishment of a Marxist form of governance. Unlike this movement, Black Liberation Theology is personal and not Marxist in nature and demands its followers pursue self identity and self reliance.
Black Liberation Theology draws from the life experiences of many prominent Black Americans. Amongst these, David Walker and the great philosopher W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) are of preeminent importance. Both of these men called for a sense of black pride and stressed the importance of the black presence on the American landscape. One of the foremost theologians of this spiritual philosophy is Dr. James Hal Cone. Dr. Cone is the Charles Augustus Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Dr. Cone states that, “Christian Churches have the duty and commitment to oppose social, economic and, political repression.” He goes on to note that “Blacks are the subject of and not mere objects of their history.” He also says that, “Black Christians should not follow a White Church.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ are followers of this theology. Dr. Terry Matthews, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Wake Forest University has an excellent lecture on Black Liberation Theology which can be found online at http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html.
The website for the Trinity United Church of Christ can be found at http://www.tucc.org/. Within this website you will discover many things. The more you delve into their belief system, the more you will discover just how similar they are to the way you view the world particularly if, you are of the Christian faith. Some in the media have taken issue with their Black Value System. In my view, the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As a white man, I find parts of it to be somewhat ethnocentric however; I realize that the black experience in our nation and their view is different from my point of view. If you closely analyze this value system, you will discover that as with other theologies, it draws heavily from personal behavior standards outlined in both the Old and New Testaments.
The American experience is in many ways quite unique. We are no better than any other nation on this earth yet, we are different. It is best to view our nation as a great experiment. Immigrants, whether free or as slaves, have come to our shores from across the globe. It is the personal responsibility of every American to attempt to understand those that are different and to always try to respect each other equally. Only then will we be able to achieve the realization of our nation’s motto: E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many One.”
De Oppresso Liber
So, how has Reverend Wright influenced Barack Obama? In my view, I see him as only one of many influences on the life of Barack Obama. Obviously, Barack Obama is a serious thinker and as with all critical thinkers, he copies and pastes those points of views which most closely correspond to his life experiences and his outlook on the world. It is unfair to compartmentalize any human being into a neat and tidy package for your own benefit. I disagree with many of Barack Obama’s political viewpoints however, his views and his personal history demand more of our respect than the media or many of our fellow citizens are currently giving him especially, during this Easter Season. We also owe more respect to Dr. Wright and should attempt to understand his spiritual point of view and learn more about his form of Christian faith.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was born on September 22, 1941 in Philadelphia, PA. His father was a Baptist minister. He served in the military with the US Marine Corps. He has a Bachelors and Masters degree from Howard University. He earned another Masters degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He has a Ph.D. in Ministry from the United Theological Seminary. He has also been presented with 7 honorary doctorate degrees. He has been a pastor for 36 years with the Trinity United Church of Christ. If he had preached a single sermon per week for 36 years, Reverend Wright would have delivered 1,872 sermons to date. The media has now been presenting the same sound bites from specific sermons which portray Dr. Wright as an intolerant, bigoted and racially separatist preacher. Is this however, a true representation of the man and his spiritual philosophy? I believe that the media has been neglectful in their coverage of Reverend Wright. Barack Obama has titled his autobiography The Audacity of Hope. This title is taken from a sermon given by Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright’s sermon, Audacity to Hope, can be found online at http://www.preachingtodayaudio.com/. This 18 minute sermon provides the listener with another view of Jeremiah Wright. Another of his sermons, Let Me See Again, can be found at http://www.csec.org/. This sermon deals with the spirituality found in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of Luke. Of course these aren’t the only two representations of a different side to Dr. Wright. Rather, they provide us with a quick synopsis into the spiritual depth of Jeremiah Wright. Dr. Wright is a follower and preacher of Black Liberation Theology. What is Black Liberation Theology and how does it fit into American society? Why do some whites fear the tenets of the theology?
Our country has had a long standing fear of an independent black racial identity within American society. Thomas Jefferson believed that freed blacks and whites could never fully integrate. During the Ante-Bellum period, our nation struggled with the issue of slavery. Abolitionists could not all agree on what should be done with a large population of freed blacks. Some called for integration while others, such as the American Colonization Society, desired that the freed slaves be returned to Africa. David Walker (1785-1830) was a prominent abolitionist during this period. Born a free black from slave parents, he demanded an immediate emancipation of all black slaves. His main work titled, Walker’s Appeal, was published in 1829. This publication called for black pride and demanded that all blacks free themselves from the oppression of slavery to include by violent means if necessary. Almost immediately, southern states put a $3,000 bounty on his head and Georgia offered a $10,000 reward for his delivery alive into their hands. Somewhat later, Frederick Douglas (1818-1895) assumed the reins as the preeminent black abolitionist of his time. Unlike Walker, Douglas’s approach was more peaceable in nature. He did not conscribe to use of violence in the pursuit of equality. His greatest work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave, was published in 1845. As with Walker, he described the horrific inequities of slavery and the treatment of free blacks. Both of them castigated the Christian Churches for their failure to condemn slavery. If we move forward in time to the 20th century, we quickly can discern an almost identical similarity between the different philosophical approaches of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Black Liberation Theology rose from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America during the 1950s. This movement hoped to end economic repression in Latin America. They felt that the Catholic Church was ambivalent to the plight of the poor. They hoped for more than the mere removal of economic oppression and actively sought to change government and fought for the establishment of a Marxist form of governance. Unlike this movement, Black Liberation Theology is personal and not Marxist in nature and demands its followers pursue self identity and self reliance.
Black Liberation Theology draws from the life experiences of many prominent Black Americans. Amongst these, David Walker and the great philosopher W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) are of preeminent importance. Both of these men called for a sense of black pride and stressed the importance of the black presence on the American landscape. One of the foremost theologians of this spiritual philosophy is Dr. James Hal Cone. Dr. Cone is the Charles Augustus Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Dr. Cone states that, “Christian Churches have the duty and commitment to oppose social, economic and, political repression.” He goes on to note that “Blacks are the subject of and not mere objects of their history.” He also says that, “Black Christians should not follow a White Church.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ are followers of this theology. Dr. Terry Matthews, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Wake Forest University has an excellent lecture on Black Liberation Theology which can be found online at http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html.
The website for the Trinity United Church of Christ can be found at http://www.tucc.org/. Within this website you will discover many things. The more you delve into their belief system, the more you will discover just how similar they are to the way you view the world particularly if, you are of the Christian faith. Some in the media have taken issue with their Black Value System. In my view, the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As a white man, I find parts of it to be somewhat ethnocentric however; I realize that the black experience in our nation and their view is different from my point of view. If you closely analyze this value system, you will discover that as with other theologies, it draws heavily from personal behavior standards outlined in both the Old and New Testaments.
The American experience is in many ways quite unique. We are no better than any other nation on this earth yet, we are different. It is best to view our nation as a great experiment. Immigrants, whether free or as slaves, have come to our shores from across the globe. It is the personal responsibility of every American to attempt to understand those that are different and to always try to respect each other equally. Only then will we be able to achieve the realization of our nation’s motto: E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many One.”
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Presidential Race 2008
Hillary Clinton has once again resurrected her campaign from the ash heap of defeat and proven the pundits wrong. The Democrats are now amidst the turmoil of a heated primary pitting old party affiliates against the new surge of idealistic techno types, men against women, black against Hispanic and, poor against wealthy whites. After having clinched the Republican Party's delegate count, John McCain will have to search for new and innovative ways to get any sort of media coverage between now and the Democratic Party's convention in August.
Change has been the mantra during this primary season. Senators' Clinton and Obama have both been vying for this distinction even though there is barely a thread of distinction between their respective policy stances. Senator McCain's views on change are a bit more subtle. He believes that our country's direction only requires some minor tweaks. More than likely, his view is more realistic. Anyone who has ever been in a canoe knows that in order to avoid getting wet, you don't make any drastic weight transfers while on the water and this same principle applies to our nation's political reality. If one were to ask the average citizen what change was needed, more than likely they would be greeted by a shrug of the shoulders and a response such as, "I don't know, but we need to change something." Are things wrong with our country? Sure, health care costs are exorbitant and fuel costs continue to skyrocket however; the prescriptions for solving these issues have yet to be written. Where should change come from, the government or the individual?
During my travels around the country I have not noticed any great desire by the American public to conserve petroleum resources. Just this past week while traveling the length of California on I-5, I was regularly passed by cars towing dirt bikes, ATVs, boats and RVs. The highway sprawl of Los Angeles per usual, was chocked full of vehicles with a sole occupant. Gas prices have climbed over $4.00 a gallon in this region. Somewhat comically, I noticed huge billboards along SR-99 reminding kids to avoid obesity by getting outside to play for one hour a day. Hell, when I was a kid you spent more hours outside than in your own house. Sure health care and rising fuel costs are an issue but on an individual level, why not conserve fuel, exercise, eat right and not buy into the proposition that every TV advertisement from a pharmaceutical company offers you something that you really need?
The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and what have they accomplished? If change is today's buzzword then, where have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid been? If health care and fuel costs are putting a stranglehold on our economy then, where are the congressional committees? That's right, they are too busy investigating baseball for steroids use and looking for an opening to blemish the Bush Administration. According to Gallup, this Congress had an approval rating of just 18% between 13-16 August 2007. Are Reid and Pelosi merely treading water until they hopefully gain the White House next January? Of course, the truth is that they are scared. The electorate is evenly split and they are fearful of angering either side. For our part, if we truly want change then we need to set aside our political ideologies just long enough to find some common ground. Change in Washington begins with us and not some new shiny face in the White House.
The three remaining candidates all proclaim to be the agent of some type of change but lets look at their records. A quick study of www.govtrack.us/ provides us with an accurate and impartial record of their careers in the Senate.
Senator Barack Obama has served in the Senate since 2005. He sits on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pension; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veteran's Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting history is exceedingly poor. Since January 6, 2005, he has missed 201 of 1,121 votes for a rating of 18%. Since January 4, 2005 he has sponsored 129 bills. Of these, 120 never left committee and 1 was enacted. He has cosponsored 551 bills during this same period. A quick purview of his most recent bills have no Independent or Republican cosponsors and yet he claims fame for change? His congressional record states otherwise.
Senator Hillary Clinton has served in the Senate since 2001. She sits on the Senate Committees for Armed Services; Environment and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Special Committee on Aging. Relative to her peers, her voting history is poor. Since January 23, 2001 she has missed 175 of 2429 votes for a rating of 7%. She has sponsored 354 bills during her tenure of which, 307 never left committee and 2 were enacted. Unlike Senator Obama, she has crossed the aisle and cosponsored bills with the opposing party. Her pledged ability to provide change is somewhat hobbled by her proven ineffectiveness at getting her legislation passed while in the Senate.
Senator John McCain has served in Congress since 1987. As a Senator, he sits as the ranking member on the Senate Committee for the Armed Services. He is a member of the Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation and; the Committee for Indian Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting record is extremely poor. Since January 22, 1997, he has missed 604 of 3,743 votes for a record of 16%. He has sponsored 403 bills since January 21, 1997. Of these, 263 never left committee and 12 were enacted. During this same period, he has cosponsored 876 bills. A quick glance at his cosponsorship record clearly demonstrates his ability to cross the aisle in order to try to get things done.
In the final analysis, what are we, the electorate to do? Never before has a voter been able to acquire unambiguous data in an independent manner. Don't rely solely on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News or CNN for your research. Get involved; the candidates records are open to all. My early research clearly shows that Senators Clinton and Obamas' claim to change are more hype than reality. On the other hand, John McCain seems to be able to work with others. Why do you think that the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party distrust him? Maybe his record of cosponsored legislation worries them. Even though I might disagree with some of his positions; as a registered Independent, I admire his courage at attempting to deal with issues such as campaign finance reform, immigration and, climate change. Senators' Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy are not names regularly cited amongst conservative voters however; if we truly want Washington D.C. to function effectively, John McCain just might be what the doctor ordered to remedy what ails our country.
Change has been the mantra during this primary season. Senators' Clinton and Obama have both been vying for this distinction even though there is barely a thread of distinction between their respective policy stances. Senator McCain's views on change are a bit more subtle. He believes that our country's direction only requires some minor tweaks. More than likely, his view is more realistic. Anyone who has ever been in a canoe knows that in order to avoid getting wet, you don't make any drastic weight transfers while on the water and this same principle applies to our nation's political reality. If one were to ask the average citizen what change was needed, more than likely they would be greeted by a shrug of the shoulders and a response such as, "I don't know, but we need to change something." Are things wrong with our country? Sure, health care costs are exorbitant and fuel costs continue to skyrocket however; the prescriptions for solving these issues have yet to be written. Where should change come from, the government or the individual?
During my travels around the country I have not noticed any great desire by the American public to conserve petroleum resources. Just this past week while traveling the length of California on I-5, I was regularly passed by cars towing dirt bikes, ATVs, boats and RVs. The highway sprawl of Los Angeles per usual, was chocked full of vehicles with a sole occupant. Gas prices have climbed over $4.00 a gallon in this region. Somewhat comically, I noticed huge billboards along SR-99 reminding kids to avoid obesity by getting outside to play for one hour a day. Hell, when I was a kid you spent more hours outside than in your own house. Sure health care and rising fuel costs are an issue but on an individual level, why not conserve fuel, exercise, eat right and not buy into the proposition that every TV advertisement from a pharmaceutical company offers you something that you really need?
The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and what have they accomplished? If change is today's buzzword then, where have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid been? If health care and fuel costs are putting a stranglehold on our economy then, where are the congressional committees? That's right, they are too busy investigating baseball for steroids use and looking for an opening to blemish the Bush Administration. According to Gallup, this Congress had an approval rating of just 18% between 13-16 August 2007. Are Reid and Pelosi merely treading water until they hopefully gain the White House next January? Of course, the truth is that they are scared. The electorate is evenly split and they are fearful of angering either side. For our part, if we truly want change then we need to set aside our political ideologies just long enough to find some common ground. Change in Washington begins with us and not some new shiny face in the White House.
The three remaining candidates all proclaim to be the agent of some type of change but lets look at their records. A quick study of www.govtrack.us/ provides us with an accurate and impartial record of their careers in the Senate.
Senator Barack Obama has served in the Senate since 2005. He sits on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pension; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veteran's Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting history is exceedingly poor. Since January 6, 2005, he has missed 201 of 1,121 votes for a rating of 18%. Since January 4, 2005 he has sponsored 129 bills. Of these, 120 never left committee and 1 was enacted. He has cosponsored 551 bills during this same period. A quick purview of his most recent bills have no Independent or Republican cosponsors and yet he claims fame for change? His congressional record states otherwise.
Senator Hillary Clinton has served in the Senate since 2001. She sits on the Senate Committees for Armed Services; Environment and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Special Committee on Aging. Relative to her peers, her voting history is poor. Since January 23, 2001 she has missed 175 of 2429 votes for a rating of 7%. She has sponsored 354 bills during her tenure of which, 307 never left committee and 2 were enacted. Unlike Senator Obama, she has crossed the aisle and cosponsored bills with the opposing party. Her pledged ability to provide change is somewhat hobbled by her proven ineffectiveness at getting her legislation passed while in the Senate.
Senator John McCain has served in Congress since 1987. As a Senator, he sits as the ranking member on the Senate Committee for the Armed Services. He is a member of the Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation and; the Committee for Indian Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting record is extremely poor. Since January 22, 1997, he has missed 604 of 3,743 votes for a record of 16%. He has sponsored 403 bills since January 21, 1997. Of these, 263 never left committee and 12 were enacted. During this same period, he has cosponsored 876 bills. A quick glance at his cosponsorship record clearly demonstrates his ability to cross the aisle in order to try to get things done.
In the final analysis, what are we, the electorate to do? Never before has a voter been able to acquire unambiguous data in an independent manner. Don't rely solely on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News or CNN for your research. Get involved; the candidates records are open to all. My early research clearly shows that Senators Clinton and Obamas' claim to change are more hype than reality. On the other hand, John McCain seems to be able to work with others. Why do you think that the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party distrust him? Maybe his record of cosponsored legislation worries them. Even though I might disagree with some of his positions; as a registered Independent, I admire his courage at attempting to deal with issues such as campaign finance reform, immigration and, climate change. Senators' Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy are not names regularly cited amongst conservative voters however; if we truly want Washington D.C. to function effectively, John McCain just might be what the doctor ordered to remedy what ails our country.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Democratic Battleground 2008
Tuesday is quickly approaching and political junkies such as myself are eagerly awaiting the outcome in Texas and Ohio. Polls estimating victory for this or that candidate swirl in the airwaves. Who will come out on top? Of course, nobody knows and the imminent media frenzy surrounding the possible demise of Hillary Clinton has reached a clamorous crescendo. It seems that the media has forgotten their premature forecast of gloom and doom for the Clinton campaign on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. So much for the prescience of political pundits! Will history repeat itself on March 4th?
Ironically, the Clinton machine has been run aground by an unforeseen tide. Both she and her husband have always been able to blame their problems on the vast "right wing conspiracy". Not this time. She is being hounded by her own likeness with the only real difference being that people personally like Senator Obama more than her. While you might object to his political philosophy, he always comes across as the consummate gentleman and an all around nice guy. The camera and microphone are not kind to Senator Clinton. Oftentimes, she encapsulates what people see as a tyrannical, angry and, bullying person. This may or may not be a true image of her persona but, this is what the public sees. Television is her Achilles heel and in today's fast paced world of constant news streams, she cannot escape her fatal weakness. Will this problem lead to the end of her presidential aspirations? We shall all find out this Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton has attempted to convince us that she has garnered the requisite experience necessary to be president over the past 30 plus years. After endless hours of number crunching, I have been unable to come anywhere near 30 years of humble answerable service to her nation. Her only personal achievement in the realm of independent public service is her time in the US Senate. Yes, she was the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States and I am sure that she expended numerous hours of selfless service during both of these tenures however, she was never the "ONE" in charge of the government. As the saying goes, the buck never stopped with her. If I were a career minded, self-established successful woman, I would find Senator Clinton's claims to be extremely insulting. As it is, as a man, I see her attempt to pad her resume in such a fashion as disingenuous. My wife stood by my side throughout my 21 year career in Special Forces however, she could not identify herself as having been a Special Forces operator. Though equal in responsibility, her job description was different than mine. So it goes with Hillary and Bill Clinton. I believe that the American public sees this difference too. In reality, she has only six more years of personal public answerable service than Senator Obama. The "Experience Train" has already departed and she failed to board it.
I've spent the past week working in central Pennsylvania. I was delivering and picking up freight in the environs of Harrisburg. I have to wonder if the Pennsylvanians don't already know the outcome of March 4th. The only campaign posters I saw were for Ron Paul. Of course it might be too early but, hunters abound in Pennsylvania and maybe they sense the scent of a fresh kill in the air and know that post-Tuesday, Hillary Clinton's presidential bid will have met its end.
De Oppresso Liber
Ironically, the Clinton machine has been run aground by an unforeseen tide. Both she and her husband have always been able to blame their problems on the vast "right wing conspiracy". Not this time. She is being hounded by her own likeness with the only real difference being that people personally like Senator Obama more than her. While you might object to his political philosophy, he always comes across as the consummate gentleman and an all around nice guy. The camera and microphone are not kind to Senator Clinton. Oftentimes, she encapsulates what people see as a tyrannical, angry and, bullying person. This may or may not be a true image of her persona but, this is what the public sees. Television is her Achilles heel and in today's fast paced world of constant news streams, she cannot escape her fatal weakness. Will this problem lead to the end of her presidential aspirations? We shall all find out this Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton has attempted to convince us that she has garnered the requisite experience necessary to be president over the past 30 plus years. After endless hours of number crunching, I have been unable to come anywhere near 30 years of humble answerable service to her nation. Her only personal achievement in the realm of independent public service is her time in the US Senate. Yes, she was the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States and I am sure that she expended numerous hours of selfless service during both of these tenures however, she was never the "ONE" in charge of the government. As the saying goes, the buck never stopped with her. If I were a career minded, self-established successful woman, I would find Senator Clinton's claims to be extremely insulting. As it is, as a man, I see her attempt to pad her resume in such a fashion as disingenuous. My wife stood by my side throughout my 21 year career in Special Forces however, she could not identify herself as having been a Special Forces operator. Though equal in responsibility, her job description was different than mine. So it goes with Hillary and Bill Clinton. I believe that the American public sees this difference too. In reality, she has only six more years of personal public answerable service than Senator Obama. The "Experience Train" has already departed and she failed to board it.
I've spent the past week working in central Pennsylvania. I was delivering and picking up freight in the environs of Harrisburg. I have to wonder if the Pennsylvanians don't already know the outcome of March 4th. The only campaign posters I saw were for Ron Paul. Of course it might be too early but, hunters abound in Pennsylvania and maybe they sense the scent of a fresh kill in the air and know that post-Tuesday, Hillary Clinton's presidential bid will have met its end.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, February 17, 2008
John McCain: Ideology and Political Reality
It looks like John McCain will be the Republican Party nominee for the impending race for the White House. His candidacy has created ire within the ranks of staunch conservatives. Their rancor over McCain's supposed lack of conservative values has steadily increased. In particular, conservative talk radio has been relentless in their attacks on him. Ann Coulter's ad hominum attacks have been particularly vicious in nature. She has been working the intellect angle. She has chosen to remind us of McCain's less than stellar academic status at the US Naval Academy. She often goes on to tout the high intelligence level of those conservative commentators in opposition to John McCain. Her satirical attempts to paint McCain as a sort of dunce reek of academic elitism. The true intellect applies academic theory to the realities of the world in which he or she is immersed and modifies it as required to achieve a positive result. I've known several individuals over the years posessed of high intellect who unfortunately lacked the common sense to come in out of the rain. In order to avoid getting soaked, I would advise her to get an umbrella. Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram and, Sean Hannity have also continued with their daily rants against McCain. Are they now preaching to the choir in order to simply maintain an audience or, are their concerns genuine? Only they can know for certain. The equation is quite simple. McCain is closer to conservative values than either Clinton or Obama. If a conservative approach to governance is of paramount concern for you as a voter then, you need to vote for McCain in the general election.
Conservatives need to separate ideology from reality or, much as they might hate to admit it, they will devolve into the identical twin of the rancorous and unrealistic ideology displayed by the far left. Philosophical ideology and political reality have always been in polar opposition to one another. The true art of governance has been the ability of the individual politician to effectively balance the two polar opposites. The American voter is digusted with the political vicissitudes of Washington D.C. I only need a single fact to prove this point. All you need to do is look at the approval rating for the Congress. Why do many conservatives distrust McCain? The answer is simple; he utilizes common sense, looks at the big picture and crosses the political aisle to achieve legislative results which he believes are good for the country. His ability to walk this tightrope angers many staunch conservatives who are unable to scale the high walls of political unreality in which they now found themselves trapped.
John McCain is not the first politician to achieve such a level of accomplishment and conjoined distrust. Our nation suffered through tremendous turmoils throughout the Antebellum Period. Senator Henry Clay Sr. (1777-1852) from Kentucky is considered by many to be one of our greatest senators. Senator Clay was deeply involved with numerous national issues during this period. Throughout the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s our country struggled with states rights, nationalism and, slavery. Together with Senators' Daniel Webster (1782-1852) of Massachusetts and Senator John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) of South Carolina, Senator Clay formed the "Great Triumvirate". These three statesmen helf divurgent political views however; they were able to transcend their differences and develop political solutions to our nation's problems. The battle over slavery loomed large in the halls of Congress and threatened the very existence of the country. Senators' Clay and Webster were paramount to the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This act brought Missouri and Maine into the Union and maintained the status quo of 11 free and 11 slave holding states within the Senate. The Tariff Act of 1828 angered many southern states and led to South Carolina's attempts at nullification of federal law. President Jackson wanted federal troops to impose federal laws on South Carolina however, the cooler minds of Calhoun, Clay and Webster kept the use of arms at bay. Finally, in 1833 Senator Clay was instrumental in getting the tariff rates gradually lowered. Later on, they brokered the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This act was a bitter pill to swallow for the abolitionist movement however, Senator Webster agreed to it in an attempt to hold the Union together. Calhoun died in 1850 and was soon followed by the passing of both Clay and Webster in 1852. As we all know, our country soon experienced the most traumatic event in our short history. Some will argue that the Civil War was inevitable and that these three statesmen's sole achievement was the delay of the inevitable. I disagree with this point of view. The abolition of slavery, not war was inevitable. We will never know for sure but one can argue that through the bilateral use of reason and ideology, statesmen such as Clay, Webster and, Calhoun could have peaceably ended slavery, solved state's rights and compromised on the country's expansion westward. The recalcitrance of political idealogues on both sides of national issues led to the Civil War.
Conservatives should learn from history. Maybe, like Clay, McCain will also fail to reach the White House but he deserves more than being stabbed in the back by staunch conservatives blinded by their intransigent allegiance to a political philosophy.
De Oppresso Liber
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Presidential Politics 2008
Super Tuesday is almost upon us. Much has happened this past week. Giuliani's gamble failed miserably and Edwards has finally realized that he is irrelevant. McCain has arisen from the dust and become the front runner on the Republican side while, Clinton and Obama kiss and make up as they make a bid for the Democratic ticket. Where do all of us voters fit in? Super Tuesday shall reveal much. Independents such as myself, can truly sit back and observe the political calculations of both parties in minute detail. Which side will be able to grab the average voter's attention just long enough to secure their vote? Will voters finally tire of Brittany Spears' dysfunctionality and pay more attention to the real events surrounding their lives? One can only hope!
Conservatives are conducting a bitter battle to claim heritage to the Ronald Reagan legacy. Ironically, their attempts to claim his legacy have clouded over his true strength. Ronald Reagan was more of a centrist than many of them want to admit. His ability to transcend political boundaries caused the electorate to rally around him. True, he was a conservative however; he never allowed himself to become boxed into a corner by constructing impenetrable political paradigms. His ability to think outside the box and make decisions based on the realities at the time was truly dynamic. He inherently knew how to categorize his political battles and draw the populace to his side. I seriously doubt that he would appreciate the current battle waged against John McCain by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity or, Michele Malkin. In his gentle way, he would mildly chide them and remind them to look at the big picture.
Voters who identify themselves as conservatives, regardless of party affiliation, need to identify their priorities. Remember 1992. But for Ross Perot, there would never have been a Clinton presidency. Are we willing to sacrifice current objectives just in order to make a futuristic point? Do you want socialized health care? Do you want expanded governmental programs? Do you want higher taxes? Do you want to retreat from Iraq? Do you not see us in a global struggle against militant Islam? Are you willing to allow a socially liberal president to appoint a socially "progressive" justice to the Supreme Court? If you answered yes to any or all of these questions then you should continue to castigate the candidacy of Senator McCain and not snivel in January 2009 when you finally reap what you have sown. The Democrats fear John McCain. Why? It is really quite simple. He can cross party lines and win the support and vote from centrist voters. Regardless of what the left or right would have you believe, it is the centrists who generally put the presidential candidate into office. Senator McCain is a stalwart advocate for our battle against militant Islam. Nowadays, the media has put our battle against militant Islam on the back burner and warns us of an impending economic calamity. The primary threat to our economy is the collapsing housing market. Everyone knew long ago that the housing market was inflated and that it was just a matter of time until it would collapse. So, why is everybody now surprised by it? The economy is merely going through a period of restructuring and is not, contrary to the media's current opinion, the major threat to our nation. Militant Islam is the threat. McCain towers above both Clinton and Obama in his ability to prosecute a war against this threat.
The Democratic Party debate this past Thursday at the Ford Theater in Los Angeles was illuminative. In my view, the party has not changed its stripes. Senators' Clinton and Obama tripped over themselves trying to be ingratiating to eachother. The audience was comprised of the well to do liberal elite completely consumed with their magnanimous intent to assist the downtrodden. For their part, CNN ran two different styles of debates in the lead up to the Californian primaries. Anderson Cooper conducted a professional debate for the Republican candidacy the previous evening, however; it seemed at times as if the fauning Wolf Blitzer was actually working on the two democratic candidate's election committees. Two political philosophies arose from the mist of magnanimity. These are not new philosophies. They are the same old party foundation of tax and spend. To be sure, these basic beliefs were obscured beneath the veil of dependence that both candidates feel the populace needs from the government. If the Democratic Party represents the minority and the "little" man then, why not have had the debate in Watts? Why conduct it in the opulent Ford Theater? Why were Clinton and Obama voraciously expounding party unity? Simple; the results of the Republican Party primary in Florida struck fear into the Democratic Party. They know that unlike them, John McCain can cross party lines and draw allegiance to his cause. So, what did they do? They avoided the real issues of the day and pounded home the novelty of the first woman or black president. If we follow their lead, we all should vote based on the sole importance attributed to gender or race. Neither the panel nor Wof Blitzer asked pointed follow up questions such as: Okay, you want universal health care. How will you pay for it and ensure quality of care? Okay, you want to leave Iraq. What will you do if all hell breaks loose in Iraq once you've left? Iran proceeds with its weapons grade nuclear program. How will you counter it? Iran invades Iraq once you've retreated. What will you do? As a voter, I would of liked to have heard both candidates reponses to these questions. To be fair, Anderson Cooper also didn't demand much from the Republican candidates during his debate.
All is not bleak during this election season. Unlike other countries, we peacefully endure these girations for presidential power every four years. I only wish that the electorate realized the importance of their vote and paid attention to their individual decisions at the polling booth. This is why I always precede any political conversation with a simple question: Do you vote each and every time? If the answer is no, I politefully inform the individual that if he or she does not feel the obligation to perform their civic duty and vote, then I am under no obligation to enter into any political conversation with them. Go Vote!
De Oppresso Liber
Conservatives are conducting a bitter battle to claim heritage to the Ronald Reagan legacy. Ironically, their attempts to claim his legacy have clouded over his true strength. Ronald Reagan was more of a centrist than many of them want to admit. His ability to transcend political boundaries caused the electorate to rally around him. True, he was a conservative however; he never allowed himself to become boxed into a corner by constructing impenetrable political paradigms. His ability to think outside the box and make decisions based on the realities at the time was truly dynamic. He inherently knew how to categorize his political battles and draw the populace to his side. I seriously doubt that he would appreciate the current battle waged against John McCain by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity or, Michele Malkin. In his gentle way, he would mildly chide them and remind them to look at the big picture.
Voters who identify themselves as conservatives, regardless of party affiliation, need to identify their priorities. Remember 1992. But for Ross Perot, there would never have been a Clinton presidency. Are we willing to sacrifice current objectives just in order to make a futuristic point? Do you want socialized health care? Do you want expanded governmental programs? Do you want higher taxes? Do you want to retreat from Iraq? Do you not see us in a global struggle against militant Islam? Are you willing to allow a socially liberal president to appoint a socially "progressive" justice to the Supreme Court? If you answered yes to any or all of these questions then you should continue to castigate the candidacy of Senator McCain and not snivel in January 2009 when you finally reap what you have sown. The Democrats fear John McCain. Why? It is really quite simple. He can cross party lines and win the support and vote from centrist voters. Regardless of what the left or right would have you believe, it is the centrists who generally put the presidential candidate into office. Senator McCain is a stalwart advocate for our battle against militant Islam. Nowadays, the media has put our battle against militant Islam on the back burner and warns us of an impending economic calamity. The primary threat to our economy is the collapsing housing market. Everyone knew long ago that the housing market was inflated and that it was just a matter of time until it would collapse. So, why is everybody now surprised by it? The economy is merely going through a period of restructuring and is not, contrary to the media's current opinion, the major threat to our nation. Militant Islam is the threat. McCain towers above both Clinton and Obama in his ability to prosecute a war against this threat.
The Democratic Party debate this past Thursday at the Ford Theater in Los Angeles was illuminative. In my view, the party has not changed its stripes. Senators' Clinton and Obama tripped over themselves trying to be ingratiating to eachother. The audience was comprised of the well to do liberal elite completely consumed with their magnanimous intent to assist the downtrodden. For their part, CNN ran two different styles of debates in the lead up to the Californian primaries. Anderson Cooper conducted a professional debate for the Republican candidacy the previous evening, however; it seemed at times as if the fauning Wolf Blitzer was actually working on the two democratic candidate's election committees. Two political philosophies arose from the mist of magnanimity. These are not new philosophies. They are the same old party foundation of tax and spend. To be sure, these basic beliefs were obscured beneath the veil of dependence that both candidates feel the populace needs from the government. If the Democratic Party represents the minority and the "little" man then, why not have had the debate in Watts? Why conduct it in the opulent Ford Theater? Why were Clinton and Obama voraciously expounding party unity? Simple; the results of the Republican Party primary in Florida struck fear into the Democratic Party. They know that unlike them, John McCain can cross party lines and draw allegiance to his cause. So, what did they do? They avoided the real issues of the day and pounded home the novelty of the first woman or black president. If we follow their lead, we all should vote based on the sole importance attributed to gender or race. Neither the panel nor Wof Blitzer asked pointed follow up questions such as: Okay, you want universal health care. How will you pay for it and ensure quality of care? Okay, you want to leave Iraq. What will you do if all hell breaks loose in Iraq once you've left? Iran proceeds with its weapons grade nuclear program. How will you counter it? Iran invades Iraq once you've retreated. What will you do? As a voter, I would of liked to have heard both candidates reponses to these questions. To be fair, Anderson Cooper also didn't demand much from the Republican candidates during his debate.
All is not bleak during this election season. Unlike other countries, we peacefully endure these girations for presidential power every four years. I only wish that the electorate realized the importance of their vote and paid attention to their individual decisions at the polling booth. This is why I always precede any political conversation with a simple question: Do you vote each and every time? If the answer is no, I politefully inform the individual that if he or she does not feel the obligation to perform their civic duty and vote, then I am under no obligation to enter into any political conversation with them. Go Vote!
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Obama versus Clinton: Race in America
Senator Barack Obama's crushing defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton looms large on the political landscape this Sunday morning. What does his victory say about America? Why didn't Senator Clinton display the proper political etiquette and congratulate Senator Obama on his clear and decisive victory in South Carolina? Why is John Edwards continuing his campaign? Lots of questions have arisen from the dusty fallout of the Democratic primary in South Carolina. Is the electorate ready to give former President Bill Clinton a pass and overlook his nuanced attempts to box Senator Obama into a corner and label him as the black presidential candidate?
One would hope that we as Americans would have travelled further down the path established by Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. I understood his message of hope to represent an American aspiration to achieve racial blindness. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party's primary season has devolved into a subliminal fight over racial identity. Yes, black South Carolinians' came out in droves to support Barack Obama. So what! While I may object to many of his political viewpoints, Senator Obama has never portrayed himself as the black candidate. His seventeen minute speech thanking South Carolina's voters was inclusive, not racially exclusive. President Clinton's comparison of Jesse Jackson's South Carolina primary victory all those years ago with Obama's current victory is out of line. Senator Obama, much like most of us, is of mixed ancestry. His mother was white. Is this important? Not one whit! His strength is that he sees himself as an American and I seriously believe that the Clinton campaign should be called to answer for their subliminal use of racial quotes. How dare any campaign or political party use race in the 21st century. The Clinton campaign is making a serious effort to woo Latino voters by playing on the social tensions between blacks and Latinos. Latino voters need to ask themselves this question: Are your best interests truly being taken into consideration by any candidate's campaign if they are willing to subversively utilize race as a means of delineating themselves from their competition?
I believe that it is socially reprehensible for any campaign to play the race card. The people of this great nation are the vital force which cause it to move forward in a positive manner. As a people, we should not allow any candidate to be marginalized in any manner simply because of the color of his or her skin. As an independent, I want the Democrats to explain to me just how they can present themselves as an all inclusive political party and yet tolerate the use of race as a divisive tool during the primaries?
Senator Obama, whether you agree with his views or not, represents all that we as Americans should hope for. His rise to the Senate proves to the world that in America all things are possible. Has our country yet acquired racial harmony? Obviously not. Our strength as a nation lies with the active pursuit of perfection, fully knowing that while we may never achieve it, we are obligated as a people to never give up the chase.
I cannot wait for Super Tuesday. The ensuing days between now and then shall be very interesting. John Edwards needs to do the sensible thing and remove himself from the primaries. He came in a distant third in his home state. His campaign is now nothing more than a distraction from the real battle between Senators' Clinton and Obama. Who knows how it will all shake out but for political junkies like myself, it makes for great entertainment. All I ask is that we move beyond race and deal solely with policy distinctions between candidates.
De Oppresso Liber
One would hope that we as Americans would have travelled further down the path established by Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. I understood his message of hope to represent an American aspiration to achieve racial blindness. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party's primary season has devolved into a subliminal fight over racial identity. Yes, black South Carolinians' came out in droves to support Barack Obama. So what! While I may object to many of his political viewpoints, Senator Obama has never portrayed himself as the black candidate. His seventeen minute speech thanking South Carolina's voters was inclusive, not racially exclusive. President Clinton's comparison of Jesse Jackson's South Carolina primary victory all those years ago with Obama's current victory is out of line. Senator Obama, much like most of us, is of mixed ancestry. His mother was white. Is this important? Not one whit! His strength is that he sees himself as an American and I seriously believe that the Clinton campaign should be called to answer for their subliminal use of racial quotes. How dare any campaign or political party use race in the 21st century. The Clinton campaign is making a serious effort to woo Latino voters by playing on the social tensions between blacks and Latinos. Latino voters need to ask themselves this question: Are your best interests truly being taken into consideration by any candidate's campaign if they are willing to subversively utilize race as a means of delineating themselves from their competition?
I believe that it is socially reprehensible for any campaign to play the race card. The people of this great nation are the vital force which cause it to move forward in a positive manner. As a people, we should not allow any candidate to be marginalized in any manner simply because of the color of his or her skin. As an independent, I want the Democrats to explain to me just how they can present themselves as an all inclusive political party and yet tolerate the use of race as a divisive tool during the primaries?
Senator Obama, whether you agree with his views or not, represents all that we as Americans should hope for. His rise to the Senate proves to the world that in America all things are possible. Has our country yet acquired racial harmony? Obviously not. Our strength as a nation lies with the active pursuit of perfection, fully knowing that while we may never achieve it, we are obligated as a people to never give up the chase.
I cannot wait for Super Tuesday. The ensuing days between now and then shall be very interesting. John Edwards needs to do the sensible thing and remove himself from the primaries. He came in a distant third in his home state. His campaign is now nothing more than a distraction from the real battle between Senators' Clinton and Obama. Who knows how it will all shake out but for political junkies like myself, it makes for great entertainment. All I ask is that we move beyond race and deal solely with policy distinctions between candidates.
De Oppresso Liber
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)