Update from the Heartland
No.351
1.9.08 – 7.9.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.351
1.9.08 – 7.9.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
When we act in a partisan way, people respond to us in a partisan manner. Genuine leadership involves inspiring all people – of all backgrounds, experiences, and the vast array of social factor combinations – to support and perform to a common objective. We have been subjected to too many years of parochial partisan political tripe. Continuing down their chosen path of division rather than union will not heal the wounds or yield the strongest republic we can be. Jamming one ideology or another down the throat of every citizen is NOT what this Grand Republic has been about; and, history shows us a republic can only exist when there is broad compromise to achieve a stable, moderate state. Once militancy takes hold, division becomes perpetual. The political parties of any color are so calcified and caught up in their own dogma, they find it virtually impossible to embrace other opinions and seek compromise. The Founders did not envision a republic of polar extremes in constant combat for the hearts and minds of its citizens, but rather a forum of freedom and Liberty where contrasting ideas and concepts can be debated and mutual compromise attained. Our history documents the tragic devastation brought on by the conflict of hardened ideologies. My generation and those behind us have born witness to contemporary calcification. Perhaps it is time for a revolution, or at least a leader who can help us rise above slash-and-burn politics.
The follow-up news items:
-- No sooner had Sarah Palin been announced as the Republican vice-presidential nominee [350], the blogosphere speculation bloomed regarding her youngest son. What was a mother of five doing, running for vice president? What about her infant son? Why was their oldest daughter holding the baby? Was it hers? In an attempt to get ahead of the story, the Palin’s publicly disclosed the pregnancy of their 17-year-old, unmarried daughter. I shall not prolong this topic other than to acknowledge the reality. I condemn politicians, political operatives and the Press who dredge into private family affairs for parochial partisan gain (see opinion above). Choices their oldest daughter made are absolutely no business of ours or the silly season.
-- Hurricane Gustav [350] made landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast in South-central Louisiana Monday morning. Those of us fortunate enough to live on the Great Plains in Kansas felt the outer bands of Gustav on Wednesday morning. The storm did not intensify as Katrina did or do the damage anticipated. The evacuation of the south coast of Louisiana and New Orleans was reported to be the largest such event in history, involving more than two million citizens. Then, we hear foolish people claiming they were disappointed by the lack of serious damage and will not evacuate the next time . . . that is the face of stupid.
-- It is now official for the other guys and the slate for the fall election is complete. Congratulations to Senator John Sidney McCain III of Arizona [90, 326, et al] and Governor Sarah Louise [Heath] Palin of Alaska [350], who are the Republican Party candidates to lead the Executive Branch of the United States of America.
Of all the sentences in all the speeches over the last two weeks, perhaps the one that may mark this election was actually a laugh-line. Palin said, “Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? (pause) Lipstick!” Her delivery was masterful. Now, we must get down to the hardball of a certainty – the next President of the United States of America will be elected on the first Tuesday of this coming November. The real test for both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin will come in the approaching live debates, where there are no written and rehearsed speeches or Teleprompters. They both deliver impressive speeches, but can they truly communicate for connection with citizens in the midst of spirited opposition? Biden and McCain are old hands at public debate, and will be formidable adversaries. Another memorable line from the RNC extravaganza this week came from former presidential candidate, Mayor Rudy Giuliani – “Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy.” Pretty good words, I’d say. However, the real challenge for us common citizens remains, who will deliver the change we need?
OK, so no nibbles on the Planned Parenthood vidclips from last week [350]. With your indulgence and you can always just stop reading, I shall launch off on my argument for better sex education of our children. The Sarah Palin kerfuffle offers up an appropriate opportunity. So, here we go. Contained within the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [PL 105-33], the Abstinence-Only Education block grant program, which included the controversial Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program [308], emphasized abstinence-only sex education in pubic schools. Abstinence-only sex education has been one of many moral projection laws favored by social conservatives, the uber-Right, and fundamentalist Christians. In fact, as more than a few religious fundamentalists of several faiths endorse, I support their advocacy of sex only for church-sanctioned, married, monogamous-‘til-they-die, heterosexual relationships, and even then for procreation-only. Where I go cross-wise with anyone from strict, fundamentalist Christians to avid polygamist Muslims comes when they define for all the rest of us what is moral conduct, or proper private behavior, or what choices in Life are acceptable and which are not. And, I am jacked up to a new level of anger when these preachers who denounce anything but abstinence until married adulthood, concurrently if not directly, condemn our children to fumbling around in awkward exploration or make them vulnerable to being victims of humongous quantities of peer pressure to experience what they see as acceptance, only to find themselves pregnant or an impregnator. Sex is a natural, normal, important and healthy physiological life function. Parents must teach their children what they feel is proper and responsible, and respect the right of other parents. On the inverse, they must not project their bias, beliefs, preferences or wishes on other parents. I would like to think Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson made a conscious, considered decision to bring a new child into this world. However, I suspect [I do not know] that one or both of those young folks figured it would not happen to them, that they could defy biology. I would truly hate to think either one of them did not know how things work. At a personal level, I prefer to have all the facts – good, bad or ugly – and make the best informed decision I can. Our kids were raised with that approach. Now, in all candor and full disclosure, I am NOT saying we taught our children properly about sex, but we did try. I see this foolish, abstinence-only policy as a serious restriction upon the facts to which our children have access. Our task as parents, it seems to me, rests in helping our children understand those facts and to make the best, informed decisions for themselves. I could argue that the facts should be taught in school, and parents should teach their children about relationships and how to make proper decisions regarding the facts they have learned. The Planned Parenthood vidclips may be a bit silly for such a serious topic, but at least they are making an attempt to inform young folks.
A timely, related Op-Ed article for your perusal . . .
“Let’s Talk About Sex”
by Charles M. Blow
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: September 6, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/opinion/06blow.html?th&emc=th
Please note the graphic included in Blow’s Op-Ed column – quite illuminating.
In my continuing effort to understand the law related to the War on Islamic Fascism, I read an oft-cited Supreme Court case – Reid v. Covert [354 U.S. 1 (1957); no. 701]. The ruling prohibited the trial of Americans outside the United States from being tried by military court-martial or tribunal. I asked a former Marine JAG officer and classmate of mine how the case related to current law, policy and procedures for Americans accused of crimes on U.S. military bases, aircraft or ships in foreign countries. I am not at liberty to convey his response, but I would like to share my reply.
My interest in the Covert case comes from the citation of that ruling in several of the detainee cases.
al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2007)] [288]
Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] [340]
al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2008)] [346]
et cetera.
If a crime is committed on a military base, ship or aircraft, located in a foreign country, does not the U.S. retain civil judicial jurisdiction? I understand the local jurisdiction for crimes committed off-base, in-country . . . other than in combat operations. The issue in Covert was a capital crime committed on base by a dependent, American citizen.
The difficulty I continue to wrestle with is the prosecution of crimes committed outside the U.S., yet tried in Federal court, and the reflection upon cases like Mohammad Munaf, John Walker Lindh and their ilk. The established rules of evidence and criminal procedure become extraordinarily difficult to execute in cases occurring outside the U.S. and closer to or contained within combat operations. I understand and appreciate Covert’s finding that criminal trial of American civilians by military court-martial presents significant constitutional concerns. Yet, such judicial ambiguity cannot be a rationale for failure to prosecute. It seems to me as the global community becomes more intimately intertwined, this issue must be reconciled. Not least of which, my motivation . . . handling of American citizens in treasonous activities beyond the border.
My lay reading of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) [PL 106–523] would suggest that certain contractors – those employed by DoD, rather than DoS – are covered, and crimes committed in other countries, not prosecuted by the host nation, are subject to Federal prosecution in the U.S. If correct, why isn’t it happening? Also, is there a separate law covering DoS, CIA, or other agency contractors? Also, MEJA § 3267 (2) appears to close the gap created by Covert; is that correct? However, as we have discussed, we still have considerable ambiguity associated with words like ‘combat,’ ‘battlefield,’ ‘enemy,’ ‘combatant,’ ‘torture,’ and such. MEJA does not help with even the inverse of that issue. I am not aware of any pending legislation to rectify that ambiguity.
My query focus rests upon the fringe of modern combat involving Americans in extra-national organizations in combat or combat support roles against the United States and/or its Allies. Associated with that focus are the related issues of battlefield captives, detention, interrogation and such. The law appears to be in a reactionary mode because existing legislation has not kept up with the mutating battlefield in the War on Islamic Fascism. Abu Graib and Guantánamo may be catalysts for the judicial reaction, but this convulsive action is hardly efficient in support of current warfighting exigencies.
Comments and contributions from Update no.350:
“On a continued note, I really enjoyed your open letter. I don’t know if the law will ever be changed living in Kansas but all we can do as civilians is speak our minds. I would be interested to know if you get any serious responses from anyone or will it be a canned response letter.
“What are you thought on the DNC speeches, especially Barack? What are your thoughts on McCain’s choice? We can all read between the lines with his choice but I will be curious to find out whether it works on the American public or not.”
My reply:
I doubt the law will change in Kansas, either; but, I had to try. I’ll let you know if anything turns up as a result. There is always hope.
Barack, et al . . . pretty good; great show. He is always good with the speeches – an important attribute for a President, and a refreshing change from the suffering of the last 8 years. As I wrote in last week’s Update, McCain’s selection of Palin is really ballsy, typical for him – an “all-in” gamble – a very political selection. He’s going after a chunk of Hillary’s followers. I’m not too partial to Palin’s social politics. I selected for the war last time, and my choice has pained me relentlessly. The key factor for me this time will most likely be Supreme Court nominations. I believe McCain is pandering to the social conservatives, the uber-Right and fundamentalist Christians to get elected; and, his selection of Palin contributes to that effort. I believe, but now I must hope, that he will moderate back toward the center once elected. My apprehension rests in trusting him to make that move . . . a ‘trust me’ position with which I have no assurances whatsoever; and, I cannot suffer another 4 years like that last eight. So, for me, anything is possible at this point . . . even Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.
Another contribution:
“Let's hope the Dems stick to that cease-fire promise. I'm still floored by the comments of Michael Moore and the Fowler guy, the former DNC head, saying there must be a God since Gustav is hitting the USA at the same time the GOP convention is taking place. Is their hatred of Republicans so all-consuming that the suffering of so many people doesn't bother them. They can say they were joking all they want, but I still find comments like that insensitive and disgusting.”
My response:
Hadn’t heard those comments directly, but actually not surprising. Some folks are so blindly and rabidly politically parochial; they see nothing other than their narrow electoral ambitions. As you well know, some folks in both parties have NO class whatsoever. I condemn such nonsensical yammering.
A different contribution:
“All I can say is that I am glad the conventions are over. Let’s get down to the debates. First off, Giuliani is a complete ass. What’s up with the snide remarks during his speech. It is so juvenile and it made him look like more of dick that he already is. But the Repubs there played right along and cheered him through. Palin did ok but she also had some snide remarks. But then McCain speaks last night and takes the opposite approach and actually praises Obama at one point. So is this good cop, bad cop. What the F. Oh yeah, and was McCain in the military? I almost forgot. Oh, he went to Vietnam. Holy shit, I haven’t heard that story before, why don’t you tell it to me....AGAIN! Obviously I am not criticizing him for serving our country but is that what they are going to cling to? And hear is an interesting thought I had last night. How many Vietnam Vets do you know who actually like to talk about their experience in Vietnam. Exactly! None. So it’s ok for him to do it?
“And here is my final thought. Unfortunately we have to look at the VP’s this time and being a very important figure because both Presidential Candidates could literally be one breath away from dying once they get into the White House. McCain because he is old (and I am not pulling that card but it is true) and Obama because he is black and some asshole might want to pull an MLK on him. Sad to say but it is true. So my question is, is Palin really ready to lead this nation? I will let you answer that.”
My reply:
Politicians sniping at each other . . . that’s what politicians do. They stretch the truth in their favor and diminish the truth for their opponents. It is one of many tragedies in our political system. Rarely is there a candidate who can rise above the Party rancor. If we look passed the dogmatic rhetoric, both sides are the same coin. Obama has moved left, pandering to the socialists and uber-Left. McCain has had to move right and take up more strident social positions to gain the nomination. What we saw last night was some of the same, but also an attempt to move back to the center and the world of compromise & negotiation. I would respectfully suggest that everything the Republicans did this week diminishing Obama-Biden, the Democrats did last week diminishing McCain-XXX. And, we shall be treated to two more months of this political bullshit. I freely admit my admiration for McCain, largely because he has defied the Party bosses and sought bipartisan deals:
McCain’s interrogation and denouncement of Rumsfeld [127]
McCain’s condemnation of the Federal Elections Commission [146]
McCain-Nelson Compromise on judicial appointments [181]
McCain-Feingold campaign reform [183, 290]
McCain’s anti-torture bill [205]
ad infinitum.
I am watching Sarah Palin, critically. I like her confidence and oratory skills – quite admirable, actually; she impressed me as Obama impressed me four years ago. I need to see her in a free-for-all Press conference with hostile journalists or in an open debate with a worthy adversary. I’m looking forward to the Biden-Palin debate more than I am the Obama-McCain debates. I have not made my judgment, as yet; none of the candidates have won my vote, yet. But, I am impressed with McCain’s “go for broke” gamble on Palin. So far, she has done nothing to disqualify herself. Conversely, I do not buy the ‘Obama is not qualified’ garbage the other side is spewing, either. He made it through the primaries against a formidable and worthy adversary; he is qualified. Where this election will hang for me is their selection criteria for Supreme Court justices. McCain has had to pander to the uber-Right and evangelical Christians to such an extent that he has gone too far right, and as much as I admire John Roberts, Sam Alito and my popular foil Antonin-the-Impaler, we cannot tolerate another federalist, who places the Federal government over the individual and sanctions even deeper intrusion into our private affairs; we have gone miles too far down that erroneous path, so far down that road we may not be able to return to a proper, stable relationship between the State and the free citizen, between public and private.
IMHO, FWIW, the best possible state or choice will be the candidate who tries to make sure all parties are equally pissed off. I liberally condemn all sides and anyone who cannot turn their back on the parochial political party dogma and seek solutions of compromise, and if not mutual support, at least comparable resistance. I want a candidate of the middle, who can go left or right depending on the issue, and refuses to be pushed too far to the Left or Right. I want a candidate who will defend a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and really delivers small, less intrusive government. For the last bunch of decades, all we get is bigger and bigger government with faint tinges of blue or red depending on the wind.
Here’s a revelation . . . Bush 43’s far-Right, big government scares me far worse than the Democrat’s far-Left, big government. If I truly thought McCain was actually Bush III rather than the parochial political drivel from the Democrats, he would not get my vote. Taylor warned me about the PATRIOT Act, but at the time, I believed it was necessary; in fact, I still do, if used properly. However, such power in the hands of a sanctimonious, vengeful government has proven Taylor’s warning to be prophecy.
As we have discussed more than a few times before, idealism is great, like hope, but the realities of the world demand recognition and pragmatism.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
When we act in a partisan way, people respond to us in a partisan manner. Genuine leadership involves inspiring all people – of all backgrounds, experiences, and the vast array of social factor combinations – to support and perform to a common objective. We have been subjected to too many years of parochial partisan political tripe. Continuing down their chosen path of division rather than union will not heal the wounds or yield the strongest republic we can be. Jamming one ideology or another down the throat of every citizen is NOT what this Grand Republic has been about; and, history shows us a republic can only exist when there is broad compromise to achieve a stable, moderate state. Once militancy takes hold, division becomes perpetual. The political parties of any color are so calcified and caught up in their own dogma, they find it virtually impossible to embrace other opinions and seek compromise. The Founders did not envision a republic of polar extremes in constant combat for the hearts and minds of its citizens, but rather a forum of freedom and Liberty where contrasting ideas and concepts can be debated and mutual compromise attained. Our history documents the tragic devastation brought on by the conflict of hardened ideologies. My generation and those behind us have born witness to contemporary calcification. Perhaps it is time for a revolution, or at least a leader who can help us rise above slash-and-burn politics.
The follow-up news items:
-- No sooner had Sarah Palin been announced as the Republican vice-presidential nominee [350], the blogosphere speculation bloomed regarding her youngest son. What was a mother of five doing, running for vice president? What about her infant son? Why was their oldest daughter holding the baby? Was it hers? In an attempt to get ahead of the story, the Palin’s publicly disclosed the pregnancy of their 17-year-old, unmarried daughter. I shall not prolong this topic other than to acknowledge the reality. I condemn politicians, political operatives and the Press who dredge into private family affairs for parochial partisan gain (see opinion above). Choices their oldest daughter made are absolutely no business of ours or the silly season.
-- Hurricane Gustav [350] made landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast in South-central Louisiana Monday morning. Those of us fortunate enough to live on the Great Plains in Kansas felt the outer bands of Gustav on Wednesday morning. The storm did not intensify as Katrina did or do the damage anticipated. The evacuation of the south coast of Louisiana and New Orleans was reported to be the largest such event in history, involving more than two million citizens. Then, we hear foolish people claiming they were disappointed by the lack of serious damage and will not evacuate the next time . . . that is the face of stupid.
-- It is now official for the other guys and the slate for the fall election is complete. Congratulations to Senator John Sidney McCain III of Arizona [90, 326, et al] and Governor Sarah Louise [Heath] Palin of Alaska [350], who are the Republican Party candidates to lead the Executive Branch of the United States of America.
Of all the sentences in all the speeches over the last two weeks, perhaps the one that may mark this election was actually a laugh-line. Palin said, “Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? (pause) Lipstick!” Her delivery was masterful. Now, we must get down to the hardball of a certainty – the next President of the United States of America will be elected on the first Tuesday of this coming November. The real test for both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin will come in the approaching live debates, where there are no written and rehearsed speeches or Teleprompters. They both deliver impressive speeches, but can they truly communicate for connection with citizens in the midst of spirited opposition? Biden and McCain are old hands at public debate, and will be formidable adversaries. Another memorable line from the RNC extravaganza this week came from former presidential candidate, Mayor Rudy Giuliani – “Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy.” Pretty good words, I’d say. However, the real challenge for us common citizens remains, who will deliver the change we need?
OK, so no nibbles on the Planned Parenthood vidclips from last week [350]. With your indulgence and you can always just stop reading, I shall launch off on my argument for better sex education of our children. The Sarah Palin kerfuffle offers up an appropriate opportunity. So, here we go. Contained within the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [PL 105-33], the Abstinence-Only Education block grant program, which included the controversial Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program [308], emphasized abstinence-only sex education in pubic schools. Abstinence-only sex education has been one of many moral projection laws favored by social conservatives, the uber-Right, and fundamentalist Christians. In fact, as more than a few religious fundamentalists of several faiths endorse, I support their advocacy of sex only for church-sanctioned, married, monogamous-‘til-they-die, heterosexual relationships, and even then for procreation-only. Where I go cross-wise with anyone from strict, fundamentalist Christians to avid polygamist Muslims comes when they define for all the rest of us what is moral conduct, or proper private behavior, or what choices in Life are acceptable and which are not. And, I am jacked up to a new level of anger when these preachers who denounce anything but abstinence until married adulthood, concurrently if not directly, condemn our children to fumbling around in awkward exploration or make them vulnerable to being victims of humongous quantities of peer pressure to experience what they see as acceptance, only to find themselves pregnant or an impregnator. Sex is a natural, normal, important and healthy physiological life function. Parents must teach their children what they feel is proper and responsible, and respect the right of other parents. On the inverse, they must not project their bias, beliefs, preferences or wishes on other parents. I would like to think Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson made a conscious, considered decision to bring a new child into this world. However, I suspect [I do not know] that one or both of those young folks figured it would not happen to them, that they could defy biology. I would truly hate to think either one of them did not know how things work. At a personal level, I prefer to have all the facts – good, bad or ugly – and make the best informed decision I can. Our kids were raised with that approach. Now, in all candor and full disclosure, I am NOT saying we taught our children properly about sex, but we did try. I see this foolish, abstinence-only policy as a serious restriction upon the facts to which our children have access. Our task as parents, it seems to me, rests in helping our children understand those facts and to make the best, informed decisions for themselves. I could argue that the facts should be taught in school, and parents should teach their children about relationships and how to make proper decisions regarding the facts they have learned. The Planned Parenthood vidclips may be a bit silly for such a serious topic, but at least they are making an attempt to inform young folks.
A timely, related Op-Ed article for your perusal . . .
“Let’s Talk About Sex”
by Charles M. Blow
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: September 6, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/opinion/06blow.html?th&emc=th
Please note the graphic included in Blow’s Op-Ed column – quite illuminating.
In my continuing effort to understand the law related to the War on Islamic Fascism, I read an oft-cited Supreme Court case – Reid v. Covert [354 U.S. 1 (1957); no. 701]. The ruling prohibited the trial of Americans outside the United States from being tried by military court-martial or tribunal. I asked a former Marine JAG officer and classmate of mine how the case related to current law, policy and procedures for Americans accused of crimes on U.S. military bases, aircraft or ships in foreign countries. I am not at liberty to convey his response, but I would like to share my reply.
My interest in the Covert case comes from the citation of that ruling in several of the detainee cases.
al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2007)] [288]
Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] [340]
al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2008)] [346]
et cetera.
If a crime is committed on a military base, ship or aircraft, located in a foreign country, does not the U.S. retain civil judicial jurisdiction? I understand the local jurisdiction for crimes committed off-base, in-country . . . other than in combat operations. The issue in Covert was a capital crime committed on base by a dependent, American citizen.
The difficulty I continue to wrestle with is the prosecution of crimes committed outside the U.S., yet tried in Federal court, and the reflection upon cases like Mohammad Munaf, John Walker Lindh and their ilk. The established rules of evidence and criminal procedure become extraordinarily difficult to execute in cases occurring outside the U.S. and closer to or contained within combat operations. I understand and appreciate Covert’s finding that criminal trial of American civilians by military court-martial presents significant constitutional concerns. Yet, such judicial ambiguity cannot be a rationale for failure to prosecute. It seems to me as the global community becomes more intimately intertwined, this issue must be reconciled. Not least of which, my motivation . . . handling of American citizens in treasonous activities beyond the border.
My lay reading of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) [PL 106–523] would suggest that certain contractors – those employed by DoD, rather than DoS – are covered, and crimes committed in other countries, not prosecuted by the host nation, are subject to Federal prosecution in the U.S. If correct, why isn’t it happening? Also, is there a separate law covering DoS, CIA, or other agency contractors? Also, MEJA § 3267 (2) appears to close the gap created by Covert; is that correct? However, as we have discussed, we still have considerable ambiguity associated with words like ‘combat,’ ‘battlefield,’ ‘enemy,’ ‘combatant,’ ‘torture,’ and such. MEJA does not help with even the inverse of that issue. I am not aware of any pending legislation to rectify that ambiguity.
My query focus rests upon the fringe of modern combat involving Americans in extra-national organizations in combat or combat support roles against the United States and/or its Allies. Associated with that focus are the related issues of battlefield captives, detention, interrogation and such. The law appears to be in a reactionary mode because existing legislation has not kept up with the mutating battlefield in the War on Islamic Fascism. Abu Graib and Guantánamo may be catalysts for the judicial reaction, but this convulsive action is hardly efficient in support of current warfighting exigencies.
Comments and contributions from Update no.350:
“On a continued note, I really enjoyed your open letter. I don’t know if the law will ever be changed living in Kansas but all we can do as civilians is speak our minds. I would be interested to know if you get any serious responses from anyone or will it be a canned response letter.
“What are you thought on the DNC speeches, especially Barack? What are your thoughts on McCain’s choice? We can all read between the lines with his choice but I will be curious to find out whether it works on the American public or not.”
My reply:
I doubt the law will change in Kansas, either; but, I had to try. I’ll let you know if anything turns up as a result. There is always hope.
Barack, et al . . . pretty good; great show. He is always good with the speeches – an important attribute for a President, and a refreshing change from the suffering of the last 8 years. As I wrote in last week’s Update, McCain’s selection of Palin is really ballsy, typical for him – an “all-in” gamble – a very political selection. He’s going after a chunk of Hillary’s followers. I’m not too partial to Palin’s social politics. I selected for the war last time, and my choice has pained me relentlessly. The key factor for me this time will most likely be Supreme Court nominations. I believe McCain is pandering to the social conservatives, the uber-Right and fundamentalist Christians to get elected; and, his selection of Palin contributes to that effort. I believe, but now I must hope, that he will moderate back toward the center once elected. My apprehension rests in trusting him to make that move . . . a ‘trust me’ position with which I have no assurances whatsoever; and, I cannot suffer another 4 years like that last eight. So, for me, anything is possible at this point . . . even Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.
Another contribution:
“Let's hope the Dems stick to that cease-fire promise. I'm still floored by the comments of Michael Moore and the Fowler guy, the former DNC head, saying there must be a God since Gustav is hitting the USA at the same time the GOP convention is taking place. Is their hatred of Republicans so all-consuming that the suffering of so many people doesn't bother them. They can say they were joking all they want, but I still find comments like that insensitive and disgusting.”
My response:
Hadn’t heard those comments directly, but actually not surprising. Some folks are so blindly and rabidly politically parochial; they see nothing other than their narrow electoral ambitions. As you well know, some folks in both parties have NO class whatsoever. I condemn such nonsensical yammering.
A different contribution:
“All I can say is that I am glad the conventions are over. Let’s get down to the debates. First off, Giuliani is a complete ass. What’s up with the snide remarks during his speech. It is so juvenile and it made him look like more of dick that he already is. But the Repubs there played right along and cheered him through. Palin did ok but she also had some snide remarks. But then McCain speaks last night and takes the opposite approach and actually praises Obama at one point. So is this good cop, bad cop. What the F. Oh yeah, and was McCain in the military? I almost forgot. Oh, he went to Vietnam. Holy shit, I haven’t heard that story before, why don’t you tell it to me....AGAIN! Obviously I am not criticizing him for serving our country but is that what they are going to cling to? And hear is an interesting thought I had last night. How many Vietnam Vets do you know who actually like to talk about their experience in Vietnam. Exactly! None. So it’s ok for him to do it?
“And here is my final thought. Unfortunately we have to look at the VP’s this time and being a very important figure because both Presidential Candidates could literally be one breath away from dying once they get into the White House. McCain because he is old (and I am not pulling that card but it is true) and Obama because he is black and some asshole might want to pull an MLK on him. Sad to say but it is true. So my question is, is Palin really ready to lead this nation? I will let you answer that.”
My reply:
Politicians sniping at each other . . . that’s what politicians do. They stretch the truth in their favor and diminish the truth for their opponents. It is one of many tragedies in our political system. Rarely is there a candidate who can rise above the Party rancor. If we look passed the dogmatic rhetoric, both sides are the same coin. Obama has moved left, pandering to the socialists and uber-Left. McCain has had to move right and take up more strident social positions to gain the nomination. What we saw last night was some of the same, but also an attempt to move back to the center and the world of compromise & negotiation. I would respectfully suggest that everything the Republicans did this week diminishing Obama-Biden, the Democrats did last week diminishing McCain-XXX. And, we shall be treated to two more months of this political bullshit. I freely admit my admiration for McCain, largely because he has defied the Party bosses and sought bipartisan deals:
McCain’s interrogation and denouncement of Rumsfeld [127]
McCain’s condemnation of the Federal Elections Commission [146]
McCain-Nelson Compromise on judicial appointments [181]
McCain-Feingold campaign reform [183, 290]
McCain’s anti-torture bill [205]
ad infinitum.
I am watching Sarah Palin, critically. I like her confidence and oratory skills – quite admirable, actually; she impressed me as Obama impressed me four years ago. I need to see her in a free-for-all Press conference with hostile journalists or in an open debate with a worthy adversary. I’m looking forward to the Biden-Palin debate more than I am the Obama-McCain debates. I have not made my judgment, as yet; none of the candidates have won my vote, yet. But, I am impressed with McCain’s “go for broke” gamble on Palin. So far, she has done nothing to disqualify herself. Conversely, I do not buy the ‘Obama is not qualified’ garbage the other side is spewing, either. He made it through the primaries against a formidable and worthy adversary; he is qualified. Where this election will hang for me is their selection criteria for Supreme Court justices. McCain has had to pander to the uber-Right and evangelical Christians to such an extent that he has gone too far right, and as much as I admire John Roberts, Sam Alito and my popular foil Antonin-the-Impaler, we cannot tolerate another federalist, who places the Federal government over the individual and sanctions even deeper intrusion into our private affairs; we have gone miles too far down that erroneous path, so far down that road we may not be able to return to a proper, stable relationship between the State and the free citizen, between public and private.
IMHO, FWIW, the best possible state or choice will be the candidate who tries to make sure all parties are equally pissed off. I liberally condemn all sides and anyone who cannot turn their back on the parochial political party dogma and seek solutions of compromise, and if not mutual support, at least comparable resistance. I want a candidate of the middle, who can go left or right depending on the issue, and refuses to be pushed too far to the Left or Right. I want a candidate who will defend a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and really delivers small, less intrusive government. For the last bunch of decades, all we get is bigger and bigger government with faint tinges of blue or red depending on the wind.
Here’s a revelation . . . Bush 43’s far-Right, big government scares me far worse than the Democrat’s far-Left, big government. If I truly thought McCain was actually Bush III rather than the parochial political drivel from the Democrats, he would not get my vote. Taylor warned me about the PATRIOT Act, but at the time, I believed it was necessary; in fact, I still do, if used properly. However, such power in the hands of a sanctimonious, vengeful government has proven Taylor’s warning to be prophecy.
As we have discussed more than a few times before, idealism is great, like hope, but the realities of the world demand recognition and pragmatism.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment