The headline is the title to an old Alan Parsons Project song, I think.
More to the point, I wouldn't want to be like Bush, and I don't want to vote for anyone who acts like Bush. The presidential campaign, besides starting way too early (Shouldn't all these Senators and members of Congress be doing the job they have rather than campaigning for their next job?), all of the candidates are competing for the job.
I don't want competition in my government. I want those elected to work together to do the right thing for the United States and the world. Sure, they can argue about what the right thing is, but they should all be working toward determining the right policy, the right action, the right whatever. The current candidates are more concerned with their own egos than with the job of being a good president.
Impeach them all!
More later,
Russ
Monday, November 05, 2007
Joe Wilson on HuffingtonPost.com acting like Karl Rove
Former ambassador Joe Wilson supports some ass-covering by senators on HuffingtonPost.com today. Much of what he says makes sense: Use diplomacy to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, military force should be the last resort, the Bush administration can't be trusted, etc.
However, the main thrust of this blog post by Wilson is supporting senators – Clinton and Durbin in particular – for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution and/or signing...
No offense to Wilson's intellect, but no one with even half a brain believes that either the letter or the resolution will even slow Bush down if he wants to send troops to Iran. He is Commander and Chief, and under his theory of the presidency, he doesn't need authorization to commit troops. The ONLY reason any senator supporting the letter and/or the resolution is to be able to say he/she was on record against using military force in Iran. In other words, political ass covering.
Get a clue Wilson. This blog post is so blatantly political it's something I would expect from the Bush administration.
More later,
Russ
However, the main thrust of this blog post by Wilson is supporting senators – Clinton and Durbin in particular – for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution and/or signing...
"a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress."In addition, Wilson takes shots at Obama for criticizing Clinton for supporting the resolution/letter. Of course, Obama says its the wrong approach, not that it's purely political BS.
No offense to Wilson's intellect, but no one with even half a brain believes that either the letter or the resolution will even slow Bush down if he wants to send troops to Iran. He is Commander and Chief, and under his theory of the presidency, he doesn't need authorization to commit troops. The ONLY reason any senator supporting the letter and/or the resolution is to be able to say he/she was on record against using military force in Iran. In other words, political ass covering.
Get a clue Wilson. This blog post is so blatantly political it's something I would expect from the Bush administration.
More later,
Russ
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Lawbreakers: They're everywhere
This Letter to the Editor in today's Washington Post seems to have created mostly agreement among commenters that lawbreaking is bad, even though these "lawbreakers" are trying to work within our democratic system.
The Problem Is Lawbreaking
But why shouldn't illegal aliens break the law and then lobby for amnesty after the fact? President Bush did the same thing with illegal wiretapping. I guess enforcing the law only applies to those who aren't white men in positions of power.
Speaking of white men in positions of power, at least I presume Thompson adviser Phillip Martin is white, being a convicted lawbreaker isn't always a hindrance, at least not in politics.
Thompson Adviser Has Criminal Past
The problem with the coverage, and my snarky reference to the relationship between lawbreaking and politics, is that there is no way to know if Phillip Martin still thinks and acts like a lawbreaker. The story, while not explicitly saying so, seems to presume that past actions are the best predictor of present and future actions. Maybe, but our system of justice accepts punishment as payment to society for criminal activity, and presumes innocence for current accusations of lawbreaking. And as far as the story goes, no current accusations have been leveled.
One more potential problem with the story: Two of the sources quoted are ex-wives of some of the people mentioned in the story. Reliable sources? Hard to say.
One last note. In case it seems otherwise, I am not supporting any current candidate for president, but Fred Thompson is not even under consideration. He is one of the last people I would like to see elected president. Maybe he could play president on TV instead.
More later,
Russ
The Problem Is Lawbreaking
But why shouldn't illegal aliens break the law and then lobby for amnesty after the fact? President Bush did the same thing with illegal wiretapping. I guess enforcing the law only applies to those who aren't white men in positions of power.
Speaking of white men in positions of power, at least I presume Thompson adviser Phillip Martin is white, being a convicted lawbreaker isn't always a hindrance, at least not in politics.
Thompson Adviser Has Criminal Past
The problem with the coverage, and my snarky reference to the relationship between lawbreaking and politics, is that there is no way to know if Phillip Martin still thinks and acts like a lawbreaker. The story, while not explicitly saying so, seems to presume that past actions are the best predictor of present and future actions. Maybe, but our system of justice accepts punishment as payment to society for criminal activity, and presumes innocence for current accusations of lawbreaking. And as far as the story goes, no current accusations have been leveled.
One more potential problem with the story: Two of the sources quoted are ex-wives of some of the people mentioned in the story. Reliable sources? Hard to say.
One last note. In case it seems otherwise, I am not supporting any current candidate for president, but Fred Thompson is not even under consideration. He is one of the last people I would like to see elected president. Maybe he could play president on TV instead.
More later,
Russ
Individual craziness or a more general trend?
NOTICE - THIS POST IS PURELY OPINION AND CONJECTURE BASED ON VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE
This local headline from the Washington Post caught my attention:
Man Doused With Liquid, Set on Fire in NW Bar
The reason I noticed is because of a trend that I have no evidence for... it's just a feeling, but it seems to me that crimes like this - extreme spur of the moment retaliation for a real or imagined slight - are becoming more common.
I think it's frustration at the decline of civilized behavior in general. People seem more likely to react in extreme ways to things that would not have bothered them before. One other example, and I don't have a link for it, is the video of a young man who went to his car to get a gun and shoot another man at a convenience store, apparently because the second man reached over the first's shoulder to get the items already purchased from the convenience store counter. An unfortunate incident all the way around, but particularly so for the young man bent on revenge – the second man was an off-duty police officer and was armed.
I know I often find myself tempted to challenge (shout at) people around me who I perceive as engaging in impolite behavior, thus becoming impolite myself and perpetuating the decline of civilized society. On the other hand, if no one points out the impolite behavior, how will it ever be corrected?
More later,
Russ
This local headline from the Washington Post caught my attention:
Man Doused With Liquid, Set on Fire in NW Bar
The reason I noticed is because of a trend that I have no evidence for... it's just a feeling, but it seems to me that crimes like this - extreme spur of the moment retaliation for a real or imagined slight - are becoming more common.
I think it's frustration at the decline of civilized behavior in general. People seem more likely to react in extreme ways to things that would not have bothered them before. One other example, and I don't have a link for it, is the video of a young man who went to his car to get a gun and shoot another man at a convenience store, apparently because the second man reached over the first's shoulder to get the items already purchased from the convenience store counter. An unfortunate incident all the way around, but particularly so for the young man bent on revenge – the second man was an off-duty police officer and was armed.
I know I often find myself tempted to challenge (shout at) people around me who I perceive as engaging in impolite behavior, thus becoming impolite myself and perpetuating the decline of civilized society. On the other hand, if no one points out the impolite behavior, how will it ever be corrected?
More later,
Russ
American arrogance shows in New York Times headline
This headline appeared in the email "Today's Headlines" from the New York Times today.
Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.
The question in my mind is: If Pakistan is a sovereign nation, isn't any action its government takes based on its own authority? And if that's true, how can any action they take be "defying the U.S."?
The New York Times seems to have bought in to the idea that the United States is the boss of all other countries in the world. Poor headline writing. Shame on the Times.
More later,
Russ
Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.
The question in my mind is: If Pakistan is a sovereign nation, isn't any action its government takes based on its own authority? And if that's true, how can any action they take be "defying the U.S."?
The New York Times seems to have bought in to the idea that the United States is the boss of all other countries in the world. Poor headline writing. Shame on the Times.
More later,
Russ
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Some questions about "Doing the right thing" for America on Health Care
I've always thought that the only reason needed to justify doing the right thing is simply because it IS the right thing. No police watching to see if you do the right thing and arresting you if you don't. No vengeful god or gods threatening you with hell if you don't do the right thing. Not even peer pressure make sure you act like everyone else by — wait for it — doing the right thing. Just do right because it's right.
The concept seems simple, and I'm sure that most people (Americans and non-Americans) would agree that doing right for right's sake, even if that's not the only reason, is a good practice.
However, no one seems to be able to agree on is what those right things are for our multiple problems* here in the United States and around the world. We have no paucity of people telling us what the right thing to do is, but few of them seem to have a good rationale (or any rationale) for why their right thing** is a positive and viable right thing.
As citizens, we are asked to evaluate these right things (proposed policies) to determine which really are right, for whom, and why. Again, as citizens***, we are doing a crappy job, partly because we aren't asking good questions, and partly because we aren't insisting on good answers. Mostly, I would like to know why a particular policy is the right thing to do, and what assumptions (values) support each policy, and how the assumptions and policies are related. Here are some more specific questions I would like answered about the recent SCHIP veto by President Bush:
The concept seems simple, and I'm sure that most people (Americans and non-Americans) would agree that doing right for right's sake, even if that's not the only reason, is a good practice.
However, no one seems to be able to agree on is what those right things are for our multiple problems* here in the United States and around the world. We have no paucity of people telling us what the right thing to do is, but few of them seem to have a good rationale (or any rationale) for why their right thing** is a positive and viable right thing.
As citizens, we are asked to evaluate these right things (proposed policies) to determine which really are right, for whom, and why. Again, as citizens***, we are doing a crappy job, partly because we aren't asking good questions, and partly because we aren't insisting on good answers. Mostly, I would like to know why a particular policy is the right thing to do, and what assumptions (values) support each policy, and how the assumptions and policies are related. Here are some more specific questions I would like answered about the recent SCHIP veto by President Bush:
- Why is $35 billion (a figure I heard on the news, but haven't been able to confirm) too much to spend to provide health insurance to U.S. children through a program that has proved successful?
- If this expansion provides health insurance to some families with the means to afford health insurance, why is that a problem? Isn't providing coverage to everyone who needs it more important than excluding a few who could get by without it?
- If some children are not covered, isn't it likely that at least a few children will die as a result of not expanding the program? How many dead children are an acceptable loss? (Kind of dramatic, but I'd like to know the answer.)
- Why is government health insurance a good/bad idea?
- How is government paid health insurance different from government provided health care, or is it?
- What assumptions about health care, personal responsibility, society's obligations to children, and government spending drive healthcare policy? Why?
- Clearly, a person's income level (or that of a child's parents) influences the quality of health care a person can access. Is this a good thing? Why?
- From a purely economic perspective, wouldn't expanded health insurance coverage mean more discretionary money for consumers to spend and/or save/invest? And wouldn't this be a good thing? If an increase in general consumer spending is not a good thing, why is healthcare spending more valuable to the economy than other types of spending/investing?
More later,
Russ
*Of course, if everyone were doing at least a version of the right thing, our problems might not seem so numerous and so monumental.
**Before we get too far into this I should mention that I have a firm belief that there are multiple right answers to almost every question. For example, even mathematics has more than one right answer to some questions: 2 + 2 = 4 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 AND 2 + 2 = 5 - 1 and so on. In this example, 2 + 2 has an infinite number of right answers. However, that doesn't address the question of what is the best right answer.
***Don't blame the media for everything. Yes, reporters and editors are doing a crappy job, too, but citizens must take ultimate responsibility. Full Disclosure Alert: I have worked as a full-time journalist and currently teach journalism at Vincennes University in Indiana.
*Of course, if everyone were doing at least a version of the right thing, our problems might not seem so numerous and so monumental.
**Before we get too far into this I should mention that I have a firm belief that there are multiple right answers to almost every question. For example, even mathematics has more than one right answer to some questions: 2 + 2 = 4 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 AND 2 + 2 = 5 - 1 and so on. In this example, 2 + 2 has an infinite number of right answers. However, that doesn't address the question of what is the best right answer.
***Don't blame the media for everything. Yes, reporters and editors are doing a crappy job, too, but citizens must take ultimate responsibility. Full Disclosure Alert: I have worked as a full-time journalist and currently teach journalism at Vincennes University in Indiana.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Even "well-informed" Senators don't understand the concept of democracy
"Senator Biden, probably the best-informed member of Congress on Iraq, insists that loose federalism, not partition, is his goal."Well-informed on Iraq, perhaps, but not well-informed about how democracy works. It doesn't matter whether Biden wants to partition Iraq or create a loose federation. What matters is what the Iraqi people decide. Unless the United States annexes Iraq, what Americans want is irrelevant.
This kind of arrogant, ignorant thinking is typical of American politicians – and Americans in general – who seem to believe that the whole world revolves around the United States and that U.S. interests are the only interests that count.
More later,
Russ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)