Update from the Heartland
No.404
7.9.09 – 13.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.404
7.9.09 – 13.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
We moved this week from Andover to West Wichita. Jeanne finally has her idyllic lake view, and we are just a few miles from the kids and grandkids – a hectic couple of months, and we are not settled yet. We had a nice family gathering Sunday night (minus the out-of-town-ers) to celebrate the move and our new home. Our enduring realtor, who facilitated the sale, brought over a very nice lasagna meal we all enjoyed. Thank you, Peggy.
The follow-up news items:
-- The Montana State Supreme Court heard oral arguments, a week ago Wednesday (2.September), in the case of Baxter v. Montana [No. DA 09-0051 (2009)] – a Death with Dignity case, and the appeal of Baxter v. Montana [Cause No. ADV-2007-787 (2008)] [366]. Based on the content of the court’s decision, the case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given all this political distraction about “death panels” [400] and the subject at hand, the Supremes might feel the urge to render their opinion, although they have already validated Oregon’s Death with Dignity law in Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006); no. 04-623] [215]. This issue remains a long way from being decided. All of my state legislators have ignored my appeal for a comparable Kansas state law. I am preparing an updated request based on new information since my original letter [349A]. The struggle continues. I just hope this task is not left to our children or grandchildren to settle.
-- In a rather odd but appropriate trial, British terrorists and liquid bomb conspirators, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 28, Assad Sarwar, 29, and Tanvir Hussain, 28, were convicted – again – of plotting to execute mass murder by exploding improvised liquid explosives on numerous trans-Atlantic, commercial flights. [244, 352] They were sentenced to 30+ years to life as a quest of the British People and Her Majesty’s Prison Service. These are the bad guys that caused the liquid carry-on ban for airline travelers. Their explosive of choice was HexaMethylene Triperoxide Diamine (HMTD), which they could crudely produce with high concentration hydrogen peroxide (30-70%) and citric acid (e.g., Tang). I trust our British cousins will take very good care of these bad guys, and hopefully, they will never see the light of day again.
I was not able to watch the President’s address to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. I had to read his speech afterward. I am fairly certain his delivery was exemplary and inspiring as usual. The message remains controversial and strikes at the very heart of the government’s purpose and more importantly pervasiveness. I believe we can all recognize the issues. What we are haggling over is the solution(s). I think we could even agree upon many elements of the President’s proposal, if it was not for our inherent distrust of government. How much more access to our private lives and our most intimate of personal affairs are we going to give the government; and worse, what collateral use will the government find for information obtained in support of this program(s). The last administration proved unworthy of powerful surveillance tools intended to aid the War on Islamic Fascism, but used to discredit political opponents. I have serious worries intertwined with an awareness of need. That aside, regrettably, the message was overshadowed by Representative Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson, Sr., of South Carolina, who shouted out “You lie!” during the President’s speech. It seems his passion exceeded his propriety and sense of civility. Such are the time in which we live.
Since we are in our feel good mood, the administration decided give prisoners of war held by the military at Bagram Air Base access to judicial remedy for challenges to their continued confinement. Oh my, my, I feel better already. Don’t you! This new mood could be quite seductive and invigorating. Oh, I know, why don’t we free up convicted murderers, robbers and rapists, then we could feel really good about ourselves – our generosity, our magnanimity, our forgiveness. Can you detect a twinge of sarcasm in my words?
News from the economic front:
--Chicago-based Corus Bank became the first major bank to fail as a result of deteriorating construction and commercial real-estate loans in the current recession, and the second largest bank to fail this year, as Federal regulators seized the banks assets and deposits. Apparently, MB Financial will assume the viable assets, leaving the Feds with US$1.5B to US$2.4B in losses and bad debt.
-- The Obama administration responded to a U.S. International Trade Commission finding that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has been dumping passenger and light truck tires in the United States, by slapping steep tariffs on tires from the PRC. Of course, the PRC will respond in kind. So begins a trade tête-à-tête.
-- California money manager and founder of Private Equity Management Group Inc. (PEMGroup), Danny Pang, 42, [383, 385, 393], died in his Newport Beach home. The cause of death was not immediately known; however, given Pang’s financial and legal troubles, I suspect suicide. He was arrested last May, by the FBI on fraud and money laundering charges.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Blago's chief fundraiser Christopher Kelly, 51, apparently overdosed on the eve of pleading guilty to Federal corruption charges and presumably turning state’s evidence against Blago. I think as the police often do, coincidences are rarely that.
Comments and contributions from Update no.403:
From the blog:
“I probably represent the ‘uber-left’ to which you occasionally refer. I would remind all and sundry that Democrats have won elections not just for President but for a majority of the seats in both houses of Congress. It’s past time for conservatives to give up claiming majority support.
“Seriously off topic: I'd like to ask your Bible-supporting opponent to read his own Bible more closely. Moral correctness must be a choice; it cannot be compelled. On top of that he or she should ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’”
My reply to the blog:
I rarely use labels specifically. Whether you choose to embrace the uber-Left moniker is your choice entirely – not mine! I think every politically astute citizen is quite aware that Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. I would be quite happy to toss the whole bloody lot out – Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals – I can find very few politicians who are capable of rising above self-serving, parochial, party interests . . . to do what is best for this Grand Republic.
I will print your challenge to the other contributor . . . that person’s choice to engage. I certainly agree with you . . . morals are a very private, personal matter, and cannot be compelled. IMHO, attempts to dictate moral values are the antithesis of freedom.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I'm sure everyone who would participate in this discussion is indeed aware that the Democrats control Congress and the Presidency. My point is that many of those whose views are no longer in the ascendancy find it convenient to ignore that fact and operate instead from the lie or delusion that they are a majority, which has been dis-proven by the elections.”
. . . and my follow-up:
Point noted!
From my perspective, as an avowed and proud, non-partisan independent, I see virtually the exact same conduct, simply with the shoe on the other foot. The rabid Bush-bashers of the last administration are now the “can’t we all just get along” idealists and defenders. Conversely, the last regime’s defenders appear to be incapable of seeing anything positive in the current administration. Such mindless, radically polarized, political-party parochialism really sets me off like a rocket. To me, it is the very same crap, just different labels. The uber-Right is just as wrong as the uber-Left – just different colors of the same excrement. Someone observed the other day that someday the moderates and independents, who are truly the majority, will reassert themselves and end this highly corrosive nonsense. Neither of the two predominant political parties are worthy of support; they both spend our tax dollars on their peculiar largesse and most definitely not for the public good . . . thus, my ranting comment last week. I truly believe President Obama is seeking the moderate, middle-ground compromise for much-needed health care reform; it is truly regrettable that more folks are not trying to help him find the acceptable compromise position . . . and that criticism goes to both extremes.
Another contribution:
“I think there are a few things that deserve comments ... Not sure the ranting lately has been ‘chicken little’ fatalistic type ranting ... as much as it is a concern or downright fear that Obama is going to royally screw everything up for a huge number of people who find their health plans to work well for them. Obama does lean toward socialistic tendencies ... his speech to the schools was toned down from the one he originally was going to give ... until many people informed of the content objected (requests for children to write down what they could do to help the president etc .. rather than what the speech resulted in - a basic ‘DO GOOD IN SCHOOL’ speech which is all it should have been for children that age ) ...
“If anyone has bothered to go to the democrat website they will see content providing their people responses and talking points for dealing with the opposition. The responses I have received from one die-hard Democrat I know who has worked on Democratic campaigns etc has been very canned and one-lined as if she reads and recites from this site verbatim. This is why it was feared that Obama would try to do the same with the children. Putting information in their little minds that perhaps the parents did not believe in ... and doing so just because he is the President. The opposing public is just voicing their concerns in assurance this presidency doesn't become any sort of tyranny ... if the public did NOT voice opinion, the complacency would be taken as passive acquiescence … and Obama would believe his ideas were accepted.
“Webster’s Dictionary defines tyranny as follows: 1 : oppressive power ‘Every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson;’ especially: oppressive power exerted by government
“His health plan ideas have shifted from week to week as a result of opposition ... just as you state ... ‘Is he advocating and pushing for socialist-type programs like universal, state-sponsored, health care? Yes, there is no question of the socialist bent to some of these ...’ ... He definitely is appealing to the masses of uninsured and under-insured, rightfully so ... and these people need help in emergency situations ... but if they are able to work, then reduced cost medical care should only be available on a long term basis to those who work and their families. If someone is unemployed but looking for employment (with records that prove this) they should be able to seek assistance for coverage of emergency medical costs as well as the currently existing financial aid during their unemployment.
“It should not be a REQUIREMENT to have health insurance for everyone, as Obama has proposed … with the costs of the subsidizing of insurance companies coming from the public income taxes. In NON emergency situations, unemployed people should have to apply for their healthcare so that the costs do not run rampant. It should not come easy to them or there will be a lot of abuse to the system, as there has been to many other government run systems. Such as food stamps ... how many times have you heard stories of people in line at grocery stores viewing those with stamps spending on non essential items ? The stamps should be restricted to certain essential items only ... the basics ... bread, milk, produce, grains etc.
“As you stated ... ‘In essence, I am in favor of the government helping those who seek help as long as such assistance does not allow the State to further intrude upon our private lives. I want to help, but I want the government to withdraw from the private domain ...’
“Exactly ... for those who do not feel the need for assistance as they are satisfied with their current insurance coverage, they should not have to be dragged into this nightmare of bureaucratic information collection (in the form of requiring each and every person to PROVE they have insurance each year ... providing the dollar data on what coverage they have received over the year on their tax forms??? ... what ?? ) ... We do not need yet another area of our lives for the government to monitor and regulate and TAX. Is it bad enough that Obama has talked about taking away the mortgage interest deductions ... and has been encouraging people to instead RENT their homes ... that perhaps home ownership should not be an American Dream anymore??? Is he so intent on the word CHANGE (and the notoriety it might bring him if he can accomplish it) that he is trying to change EVERYTHING sacred to us?
“So far I am not happy with Obama ... I have tried to keep an open mind to him ... I always thought he would be alot of TALK, which he does well ... but some of the public wanted CHANGE ... CHANGE ... oh everloving change ... if you can't accept change you are just OLD ... but what if the change is only going to require MORE change ... and MORE financially draining change after THAT?? His key to maintaining any considerable amount of popularity is to take his CHANGE ideas a bit more slowly ... plan them out better ... hire people that can come up with solutions that will make the MAJORITY happy yet help the minority in need. Hopefully some good people are in place to do that (Kathleen Sebelius ? et al) ... the recent ‘Czar’ Van Jones release incident was an example of someone who may have had good ideas but spoke in forked tongue ... his past video tapes I witnessed on FOX spoke of WHITE environmentalists and the results of their efforts ... Generalizing unfavorable events with the cause being WHITE environmentalists ... he could have said PRIOR environmentalists working on programs that affect the black/brown public ... but labeling them as WHITE ... very racial .. this in addition to Jones' prior Communist affiliation and his involvement with the petition accusing the Republican government of involvement with 911. Very radical.”
My response:
Presidents have addressed appropriate messages to school children for many administrations – both Republican and Democrat. All this brouhaha over President Obama’s version is such blatant political partisanship; however, that is not the part that ticks me off the most. To me, the reaction represents yet another failure of American parenting. Just like so many sensitive topics – drugs, evolution, sex, religion, et cetera – we tend to seek insulation of our children from life, rather than teach them and prepare them for stable, productive adulthood and citizenship. So, we seek to censure the President rather than help our children evaluate ideas, opinions, suggestions, and thoughts. How does such conduct help our children become engaged, informed citizens? Freedom is about contrasting ideas, arguments, and debate. Trying to pretend the President is some sort of subversive is NOT helpful to anyone . . . others perhaps – the President’s political opponents. Such criticism of the President’s motives and message are NOT conducive to the furtherance of democracy.
The other element of this corrosive political environment that bothers me at the most basic level is the lack of any reason or logic in so much of our political rancor. Just as the uber-Left could find nothing positive in George W. Bush, now the uber-Right is doing precisely the same thing with Barack Obama – tit-for-tat, now don’t we all feel better. Then, we add the equally foolish accusations of racism in our political intercourse. This is not democracy; this is political fascism. Do not debate ideas; blindly adhere to a dictated political ideology; mindlessly insult and beat down the other side. I was critical of W. and there were certainly main things he did that angered me. Likewise, I have been and will be critical of Barack. No one gets a free pass, regardless of their political ideology.
Is Barack espousing socialist ideas? Yes! Is that any surprise? He said as much during the debilitating campaign. He’s a big government guy. He is also an American citizen (despite what the “birth’ers” claim) who was elected POTUS . . . that’s not just for the believers, but the non-believers as well. He is not trying to destroy this Grand Republic. He is trying to soften the sharp edges that have been honed up in recent years. I do not see his efforts in the health care reform debate the same way as some others. He has encouraged Congress to develop approaches to resolving health care issues. Congress has done what Congress should do – develop ideas. There is NO final bill – just a bunch of ideas. So, instead of debating the ideas, we want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of us are happy with our health care plans. Others of us cannot afford, or do not want health care insurance. Yet, today, we all pay for those who cannot pay. They go to emergency rooms, suck up precious capacity, and the costs are put into the overhead costs that get attached to every health care dollar spent, like bad debt at a bank. The “fine” idea was just one idea in an attempt to induce compliance, to reduce non-covered people, and reduce overhead costs. I am not in favor of being forced to do anything, but there is always the issue of the public good. Add in our litigious society . . . we created an environment where doctors are “forced” into defensive medical decisions and exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums that also get put into the overhead costs and every health care dollar spent. The bottom line is, we pay for it all anyway, one way or another. So, I am all in favor of some governmental involvement to help us find some reasonable, moderate compromise to the issues that infect our system. Yet, the government is not and cannot be the answer. I believe the President is trying to find that compromise position. Let us not forget that the government has been involved in health care for a long time – the military, Mediaid / Medicare, NIH, FDA, etc. Thus, I suggest . . . let us rein in our faux-anger and focus on helping the President and Congress find solutions to very real problems . . . and we haven’t even returned to Social Security, yet.
Unfortunately, as we witnessed, so much of our public political intercourse is about winning, dominating the dialogue, and not about a vigorous debate of ideas. We have a representative who insults the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress, and who is hailed as a hero by some. We seem to have forgotten how to argue. Instead, too many folks simply seek to beat the opposition into submission. I freely and openly proclaim my ignorance. I need to hear other opinions – other views. Sure, I have opinions. Yet, it is vigorous debate that modifies, alters, and adjusts my opinion. We should all be suspicious and highly critical of anyone who attempts to dominate or quash debate, no matter what view(s) they espouse. That is one of many reasons Freedom of Speech is so precious. We all need all ideas out in the open, for proper public debate – not just the ideas offered up by one group or another. The same is true for our children; they need to know about life – the good, the bad, and the ugly – so, they can learn how to decide and deal with life. Shielding them from life only invites their curiosity, and then becomes a genuine threat. I do not advocate protecting children from ideas, but rather preparing them to consider and decide.
A different contribution:
“I will try to make a few comments on some things here. Short ones though.
“1. CIA is our primary intell gathering force. To see it cut down in it's ability to perform it's stated mission by introducing, in any way, politics and righteous grumbling by any of our leaders is sad indeed. If that is to be the case then do away with the CIA, and let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee the American people will be sorry if they let that happen----and likely sooner than later. War is war, be it against a Standing Army or against a Shadowy Army, and intel is vital to the prosecution of it. I agree with VP Cheney! But if you kill your prisoner trying to get intell you lose any hope of getting any, so I draw the line before that. But, maybe unlike some, I draw it not much before that. What we need are highly trained interrogators who can tell when a prisoner is likely to still have important info and is still holding out-----and when you have gotten all from him of any real use.
“On legalizing drugs as you propose, I disagree, though I see your point and in some ways it may have some merit. But I think in the long run it is better to fight the drug lords, and let the prices stay high. Let those who decide to follow those paths to personal destruction be allowed to do so, but perhaps without us taking care of them when they overdose. You're on your own buddy. Good luck. Or how about when the government seizes a nice haul, it sell it off at a reduced price rather than destroy it. I'm being facetious on that last a bit.
“I agree about turning opaqueness into transparency where the rights, and the responsibilities, of the people to run their government---not the government running the people is concerned. Without transparency how can the public know who to vote for who will try to keep things trasparent? Though I recognize the need for intel stuff and the techniques used to obtain it DO need to be kept from John Q Public---in his own ultimate interest.”
My response:
War is war, indeed; and, it is the ugliest part of humanity. We can fight it there or here. The bad guys kept striking us, moving closer and closer, and getting bigger and bigger, until their “check move” on 11.September.2001. We lacked vital intelligence, and we got burned. Intelligence is critical to any viable national defense or even waging war successfully. Making the CIA a political football to be kicked back and forth may not be quite suicidal, but it is equivalent to blinding yourself in the middle of a fight. We are not talking about killing a prisoner trying to get information. We are not even talking about injuring a prisoner. We are debating whether a prisoner might be injured during interrogation. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) are an inducement to divulge what a prisoner knows. As we are learning, of the thousands of captured battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism, 98 bad guys entered the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (DIP), and of those, only 30 were subjected to EITs. The application of EITs was hardly as rampant as some folks want us to believe. There were abuses; at least one battlefield captive died in detention. Abuses should be handled like any other sensitive national security issue – acknowledgment of the event without discussing any details in public. If a grievous mistake or overzealousness is present, then the culprits should be prosecuted and punished, while protecting national security means & methods. I draw the line at permanent injury, which of course includes death. The challenge for intelligence interrogation is inducement for a recalcitrant High Value Detainee (HVD), which of course is illegal for criminal interrogations; thus, information gained during the former cannot be used for prosecution. As noted in the 7.May.2004, CIA OIG report, the Agency sought as much distance as they could from interrogations, largely as a consequence of the 1978 Church Committee, in my humble opinion. As a result in 2001, the United States did not have an intelligence interrogation capability. You are spot on. Intelligence interrogation should be a standard, maintained, practiced HumInt tool, just like technical tools of satellite imagery or electronic surveillance.
I recognize that a lot of citizens disagree with my proposed legalization / regulation of psychotropic substances. We have been fighting the drug lords for 35 years – so, how is that going for us? It seems to me, as long as the vast profits of smuggling are flowing, there will be a constant, never ending stream of “drug lords” interested in all that money. Money is just too powerful. How can folks who wish to partake of controlled substances do so when they cannot find a reasonable, legal supply? As I’ve said, I have zero interest in redemption, rehabilitation or even punishment of users; I’m quite comfortable with folks who choose to destroy themselves regardless of their substance of choice – food, tobacco, alcohol, glue, heroin, meth, doesn’t matter – their choice. I just want to minimize the collateral damage. I don’t think the government should retail-sell the impound stuff (after prosecution); but, I’d favor the government selling it to a processor to ensure standard purity and dosage. If we do not legalize / regulate the stuff, how do provide supply . . . other than the government idea, which is in the correct direction . . . just not far enough in my humble opinion.
Governmental transparency depends upon a politically neutral, aggressive Press. When the Press leans into a political bias, we lose a measure of transparency.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
We moved this week from Andover to West Wichita. Jeanne finally has her idyllic lake view, and we are just a few miles from the kids and grandkids – a hectic couple of months, and we are not settled yet. We had a nice family gathering Sunday night (minus the out-of-town-ers) to celebrate the move and our new home. Our enduring realtor, who facilitated the sale, brought over a very nice lasagna meal we all enjoyed. Thank you, Peggy.
The follow-up news items:
-- The Montana State Supreme Court heard oral arguments, a week ago Wednesday (2.September), in the case of Baxter v. Montana [No. DA 09-0051 (2009)] – a Death with Dignity case, and the appeal of Baxter v. Montana [Cause No. ADV-2007-787 (2008)] [366]. Based on the content of the court’s decision, the case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given all this political distraction about “death panels” [400] and the subject at hand, the Supremes might feel the urge to render their opinion, although they have already validated Oregon’s Death with Dignity law in Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006); no. 04-623] [215]. This issue remains a long way from being decided. All of my state legislators have ignored my appeal for a comparable Kansas state law. I am preparing an updated request based on new information since my original letter [349A]. The struggle continues. I just hope this task is not left to our children or grandchildren to settle.
-- In a rather odd but appropriate trial, British terrorists and liquid bomb conspirators, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 28, Assad Sarwar, 29, and Tanvir Hussain, 28, were convicted – again – of plotting to execute mass murder by exploding improvised liquid explosives on numerous trans-Atlantic, commercial flights. [244, 352] They were sentenced to 30+ years to life as a quest of the British People and Her Majesty’s Prison Service. These are the bad guys that caused the liquid carry-on ban for airline travelers. Their explosive of choice was HexaMethylene Triperoxide Diamine (HMTD), which they could crudely produce with high concentration hydrogen peroxide (30-70%) and citric acid (e.g., Tang). I trust our British cousins will take very good care of these bad guys, and hopefully, they will never see the light of day again.
I was not able to watch the President’s address to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. I had to read his speech afterward. I am fairly certain his delivery was exemplary and inspiring as usual. The message remains controversial and strikes at the very heart of the government’s purpose and more importantly pervasiveness. I believe we can all recognize the issues. What we are haggling over is the solution(s). I think we could even agree upon many elements of the President’s proposal, if it was not for our inherent distrust of government. How much more access to our private lives and our most intimate of personal affairs are we going to give the government; and worse, what collateral use will the government find for information obtained in support of this program(s). The last administration proved unworthy of powerful surveillance tools intended to aid the War on Islamic Fascism, but used to discredit political opponents. I have serious worries intertwined with an awareness of need. That aside, regrettably, the message was overshadowed by Representative Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson, Sr., of South Carolina, who shouted out “You lie!” during the President’s speech. It seems his passion exceeded his propriety and sense of civility. Such are the time in which we live.
Since we are in our feel good mood, the administration decided give prisoners of war held by the military at Bagram Air Base access to judicial remedy for challenges to their continued confinement. Oh my, my, I feel better already. Don’t you! This new mood could be quite seductive and invigorating. Oh, I know, why don’t we free up convicted murderers, robbers and rapists, then we could feel really good about ourselves – our generosity, our magnanimity, our forgiveness. Can you detect a twinge of sarcasm in my words?
News from the economic front:
--Chicago-based Corus Bank became the first major bank to fail as a result of deteriorating construction and commercial real-estate loans in the current recession, and the second largest bank to fail this year, as Federal regulators seized the banks assets and deposits. Apparently, MB Financial will assume the viable assets, leaving the Feds with US$1.5B to US$2.4B in losses and bad debt.
-- The Obama administration responded to a U.S. International Trade Commission finding that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has been dumping passenger and light truck tires in the United States, by slapping steep tariffs on tires from the PRC. Of course, the PRC will respond in kind. So begins a trade tête-à-tête.
-- California money manager and founder of Private Equity Management Group Inc. (PEMGroup), Danny Pang, 42, [383, 385, 393], died in his Newport Beach home. The cause of death was not immediately known; however, given Pang’s financial and legal troubles, I suspect suicide. He was arrested last May, by the FBI on fraud and money laundering charges.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Blago's chief fundraiser Christopher Kelly, 51, apparently overdosed on the eve of pleading guilty to Federal corruption charges and presumably turning state’s evidence against Blago. I think as the police often do, coincidences are rarely that.
Comments and contributions from Update no.403:
From the blog:
“I probably represent the ‘uber-left’ to which you occasionally refer. I would remind all and sundry that Democrats have won elections not just for President but for a majority of the seats in both houses of Congress. It’s past time for conservatives to give up claiming majority support.
“Seriously off topic: I'd like to ask your Bible-supporting opponent to read his own Bible more closely. Moral correctness must be a choice; it cannot be compelled. On top of that he or she should ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’”
My reply to the blog:
I rarely use labels specifically. Whether you choose to embrace the uber-Left moniker is your choice entirely – not mine! I think every politically astute citizen is quite aware that Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. I would be quite happy to toss the whole bloody lot out – Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals – I can find very few politicians who are capable of rising above self-serving, parochial, party interests . . . to do what is best for this Grand Republic.
I will print your challenge to the other contributor . . . that person’s choice to engage. I certainly agree with you . . . morals are a very private, personal matter, and cannot be compelled. IMHO, attempts to dictate moral values are the antithesis of freedom.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I'm sure everyone who would participate in this discussion is indeed aware that the Democrats control Congress and the Presidency. My point is that many of those whose views are no longer in the ascendancy find it convenient to ignore that fact and operate instead from the lie or delusion that they are a majority, which has been dis-proven by the elections.”
. . . and my follow-up:
Point noted!
From my perspective, as an avowed and proud, non-partisan independent, I see virtually the exact same conduct, simply with the shoe on the other foot. The rabid Bush-bashers of the last administration are now the “can’t we all just get along” idealists and defenders. Conversely, the last regime’s defenders appear to be incapable of seeing anything positive in the current administration. Such mindless, radically polarized, political-party parochialism really sets me off like a rocket. To me, it is the very same crap, just different labels. The uber-Right is just as wrong as the uber-Left – just different colors of the same excrement. Someone observed the other day that someday the moderates and independents, who are truly the majority, will reassert themselves and end this highly corrosive nonsense. Neither of the two predominant political parties are worthy of support; they both spend our tax dollars on their peculiar largesse and most definitely not for the public good . . . thus, my ranting comment last week. I truly believe President Obama is seeking the moderate, middle-ground compromise for much-needed health care reform; it is truly regrettable that more folks are not trying to help him find the acceptable compromise position . . . and that criticism goes to both extremes.
Another contribution:
“I think there are a few things that deserve comments ... Not sure the ranting lately has been ‘chicken little’ fatalistic type ranting ... as much as it is a concern or downright fear that Obama is going to royally screw everything up for a huge number of people who find their health plans to work well for them. Obama does lean toward socialistic tendencies ... his speech to the schools was toned down from the one he originally was going to give ... until many people informed of the content objected (requests for children to write down what they could do to help the president etc .. rather than what the speech resulted in - a basic ‘DO GOOD IN SCHOOL’ speech which is all it should have been for children that age ) ...
“If anyone has bothered to go to the democrat website they will see content providing their people responses and talking points for dealing with the opposition. The responses I have received from one die-hard Democrat I know who has worked on Democratic campaigns etc has been very canned and one-lined as if she reads and recites from this site verbatim. This is why it was feared that Obama would try to do the same with the children. Putting information in their little minds that perhaps the parents did not believe in ... and doing so just because he is the President. The opposing public is just voicing their concerns in assurance this presidency doesn't become any sort of tyranny ... if the public did NOT voice opinion, the complacency would be taken as passive acquiescence … and Obama would believe his ideas were accepted.
“Webster’s Dictionary defines tyranny as follows: 1 : oppressive power ‘Every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson;’ especially: oppressive power exerted by government
“His health plan ideas have shifted from week to week as a result of opposition ... just as you state ... ‘Is he advocating and pushing for socialist-type programs like universal, state-sponsored, health care? Yes, there is no question of the socialist bent to some of these ...’ ... He definitely is appealing to the masses of uninsured and under-insured, rightfully so ... and these people need help in emergency situations ... but if they are able to work, then reduced cost medical care should only be available on a long term basis to those who work and their families. If someone is unemployed but looking for employment (with records that prove this) they should be able to seek assistance for coverage of emergency medical costs as well as the currently existing financial aid during their unemployment.
“It should not be a REQUIREMENT to have health insurance for everyone, as Obama has proposed … with the costs of the subsidizing of insurance companies coming from the public income taxes. In NON emergency situations, unemployed people should have to apply for their healthcare so that the costs do not run rampant. It should not come easy to them or there will be a lot of abuse to the system, as there has been to many other government run systems. Such as food stamps ... how many times have you heard stories of people in line at grocery stores viewing those with stamps spending on non essential items ? The stamps should be restricted to certain essential items only ... the basics ... bread, milk, produce, grains etc.
“As you stated ... ‘In essence, I am in favor of the government helping those who seek help as long as such assistance does not allow the State to further intrude upon our private lives. I want to help, but I want the government to withdraw from the private domain ...’
“Exactly ... for those who do not feel the need for assistance as they are satisfied with their current insurance coverage, they should not have to be dragged into this nightmare of bureaucratic information collection (in the form of requiring each and every person to PROVE they have insurance each year ... providing the dollar data on what coverage they have received over the year on their tax forms??? ... what ?? ) ... We do not need yet another area of our lives for the government to monitor and regulate and TAX. Is it bad enough that Obama has talked about taking away the mortgage interest deductions ... and has been encouraging people to instead RENT their homes ... that perhaps home ownership should not be an American Dream anymore??? Is he so intent on the word CHANGE (and the notoriety it might bring him if he can accomplish it) that he is trying to change EVERYTHING sacred to us?
“So far I am not happy with Obama ... I have tried to keep an open mind to him ... I always thought he would be alot of TALK, which he does well ... but some of the public wanted CHANGE ... CHANGE ... oh everloving change ... if you can't accept change you are just OLD ... but what if the change is only going to require MORE change ... and MORE financially draining change after THAT?? His key to maintaining any considerable amount of popularity is to take his CHANGE ideas a bit more slowly ... plan them out better ... hire people that can come up with solutions that will make the MAJORITY happy yet help the minority in need. Hopefully some good people are in place to do that (Kathleen Sebelius ? et al) ... the recent ‘Czar’ Van Jones release incident was an example of someone who may have had good ideas but spoke in forked tongue ... his past video tapes I witnessed on FOX spoke of WHITE environmentalists and the results of their efforts ... Generalizing unfavorable events with the cause being WHITE environmentalists ... he could have said PRIOR environmentalists working on programs that affect the black/brown public ... but labeling them as WHITE ... very racial .. this in addition to Jones' prior Communist affiliation and his involvement with the petition accusing the Republican government of involvement with 911. Very radical.”
My response:
Presidents have addressed appropriate messages to school children for many administrations – both Republican and Democrat. All this brouhaha over President Obama’s version is such blatant political partisanship; however, that is not the part that ticks me off the most. To me, the reaction represents yet another failure of American parenting. Just like so many sensitive topics – drugs, evolution, sex, religion, et cetera – we tend to seek insulation of our children from life, rather than teach them and prepare them for stable, productive adulthood and citizenship. So, we seek to censure the President rather than help our children evaluate ideas, opinions, suggestions, and thoughts. How does such conduct help our children become engaged, informed citizens? Freedom is about contrasting ideas, arguments, and debate. Trying to pretend the President is some sort of subversive is NOT helpful to anyone . . . others perhaps – the President’s political opponents. Such criticism of the President’s motives and message are NOT conducive to the furtherance of democracy.
The other element of this corrosive political environment that bothers me at the most basic level is the lack of any reason or logic in so much of our political rancor. Just as the uber-Left could find nothing positive in George W. Bush, now the uber-Right is doing precisely the same thing with Barack Obama – tit-for-tat, now don’t we all feel better. Then, we add the equally foolish accusations of racism in our political intercourse. This is not democracy; this is political fascism. Do not debate ideas; blindly adhere to a dictated political ideology; mindlessly insult and beat down the other side. I was critical of W. and there were certainly main things he did that angered me. Likewise, I have been and will be critical of Barack. No one gets a free pass, regardless of their political ideology.
Is Barack espousing socialist ideas? Yes! Is that any surprise? He said as much during the debilitating campaign. He’s a big government guy. He is also an American citizen (despite what the “birth’ers” claim) who was elected POTUS . . . that’s not just for the believers, but the non-believers as well. He is not trying to destroy this Grand Republic. He is trying to soften the sharp edges that have been honed up in recent years. I do not see his efforts in the health care reform debate the same way as some others. He has encouraged Congress to develop approaches to resolving health care issues. Congress has done what Congress should do – develop ideas. There is NO final bill – just a bunch of ideas. So, instead of debating the ideas, we want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of us are happy with our health care plans. Others of us cannot afford, or do not want health care insurance. Yet, today, we all pay for those who cannot pay. They go to emergency rooms, suck up precious capacity, and the costs are put into the overhead costs that get attached to every health care dollar spent, like bad debt at a bank. The “fine” idea was just one idea in an attempt to induce compliance, to reduce non-covered people, and reduce overhead costs. I am not in favor of being forced to do anything, but there is always the issue of the public good. Add in our litigious society . . . we created an environment where doctors are “forced” into defensive medical decisions and exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums that also get put into the overhead costs and every health care dollar spent. The bottom line is, we pay for it all anyway, one way or another. So, I am all in favor of some governmental involvement to help us find some reasonable, moderate compromise to the issues that infect our system. Yet, the government is not and cannot be the answer. I believe the President is trying to find that compromise position. Let us not forget that the government has been involved in health care for a long time – the military, Mediaid / Medicare, NIH, FDA, etc. Thus, I suggest . . . let us rein in our faux-anger and focus on helping the President and Congress find solutions to very real problems . . . and we haven’t even returned to Social Security, yet.
Unfortunately, as we witnessed, so much of our public political intercourse is about winning, dominating the dialogue, and not about a vigorous debate of ideas. We have a representative who insults the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress, and who is hailed as a hero by some. We seem to have forgotten how to argue. Instead, too many folks simply seek to beat the opposition into submission. I freely and openly proclaim my ignorance. I need to hear other opinions – other views. Sure, I have opinions. Yet, it is vigorous debate that modifies, alters, and adjusts my opinion. We should all be suspicious and highly critical of anyone who attempts to dominate or quash debate, no matter what view(s) they espouse. That is one of many reasons Freedom of Speech is so precious. We all need all ideas out in the open, for proper public debate – not just the ideas offered up by one group or another. The same is true for our children; they need to know about life – the good, the bad, and the ugly – so, they can learn how to decide and deal with life. Shielding them from life only invites their curiosity, and then becomes a genuine threat. I do not advocate protecting children from ideas, but rather preparing them to consider and decide.
A different contribution:
“I will try to make a few comments on some things here. Short ones though.
“1. CIA is our primary intell gathering force. To see it cut down in it's ability to perform it's stated mission by introducing, in any way, politics and righteous grumbling by any of our leaders is sad indeed. If that is to be the case then do away with the CIA, and let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee the American people will be sorry if they let that happen----and likely sooner than later. War is war, be it against a Standing Army or against a Shadowy Army, and intel is vital to the prosecution of it. I agree with VP Cheney! But if you kill your prisoner trying to get intell you lose any hope of getting any, so I draw the line before that. But, maybe unlike some, I draw it not much before that. What we need are highly trained interrogators who can tell when a prisoner is likely to still have important info and is still holding out-----and when you have gotten all from him of any real use.
“On legalizing drugs as you propose, I disagree, though I see your point and in some ways it may have some merit. But I think in the long run it is better to fight the drug lords, and let the prices stay high. Let those who decide to follow those paths to personal destruction be allowed to do so, but perhaps without us taking care of them when they overdose. You're on your own buddy. Good luck. Or how about when the government seizes a nice haul, it sell it off at a reduced price rather than destroy it. I'm being facetious on that last a bit.
“I agree about turning opaqueness into transparency where the rights, and the responsibilities, of the people to run their government---not the government running the people is concerned. Without transparency how can the public know who to vote for who will try to keep things trasparent? Though I recognize the need for intel stuff and the techniques used to obtain it DO need to be kept from John Q Public---in his own ultimate interest.”
My response:
War is war, indeed; and, it is the ugliest part of humanity. We can fight it there or here. The bad guys kept striking us, moving closer and closer, and getting bigger and bigger, until their “check move” on 11.September.2001. We lacked vital intelligence, and we got burned. Intelligence is critical to any viable national defense or even waging war successfully. Making the CIA a political football to be kicked back and forth may not be quite suicidal, but it is equivalent to blinding yourself in the middle of a fight. We are not talking about killing a prisoner trying to get information. We are not even talking about injuring a prisoner. We are debating whether a prisoner might be injured during interrogation. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) are an inducement to divulge what a prisoner knows. As we are learning, of the thousands of captured battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism, 98 bad guys entered the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (DIP), and of those, only 30 were subjected to EITs. The application of EITs was hardly as rampant as some folks want us to believe. There were abuses; at least one battlefield captive died in detention. Abuses should be handled like any other sensitive national security issue – acknowledgment of the event without discussing any details in public. If a grievous mistake or overzealousness is present, then the culprits should be prosecuted and punished, while protecting national security means & methods. I draw the line at permanent injury, which of course includes death. The challenge for intelligence interrogation is inducement for a recalcitrant High Value Detainee (HVD), which of course is illegal for criminal interrogations; thus, information gained during the former cannot be used for prosecution. As noted in the 7.May.2004, CIA OIG report, the Agency sought as much distance as they could from interrogations, largely as a consequence of the 1978 Church Committee, in my humble opinion. As a result in 2001, the United States did not have an intelligence interrogation capability. You are spot on. Intelligence interrogation should be a standard, maintained, practiced HumInt tool, just like technical tools of satellite imagery or electronic surveillance.
I recognize that a lot of citizens disagree with my proposed legalization / regulation of psychotropic substances. We have been fighting the drug lords for 35 years – so, how is that going for us? It seems to me, as long as the vast profits of smuggling are flowing, there will be a constant, never ending stream of “drug lords” interested in all that money. Money is just too powerful. How can folks who wish to partake of controlled substances do so when they cannot find a reasonable, legal supply? As I’ve said, I have zero interest in redemption, rehabilitation or even punishment of users; I’m quite comfortable with folks who choose to destroy themselves regardless of their substance of choice – food, tobacco, alcohol, glue, heroin, meth, doesn’t matter – their choice. I just want to minimize the collateral damage. I don’t think the government should retail-sell the impound stuff (after prosecution); but, I’d favor the government selling it to a processor to ensure standard purity and dosage. If we do not legalize / regulate the stuff, how do provide supply . . . other than the government idea, which is in the correct direction . . . just not far enough in my humble opinion.
Governmental transparency depends upon a politically neutral, aggressive Press. When the Press leans into a political bias, we lose a measure of transparency.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment