Misdirected Anger

The deaths of 16 Afghan villagers was a tragedy.  That it allegedly occurred at the hands of an American soldier is unfortunate. 

Sad things happen in war, and military doctors and judge advocate office investigators will sort through the reasons why. 

Still, the disturbing backlash of violence now being blamed upon this isolated act is every bit as tragic.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Israel, Lebanon, Kenya, France,Turkey, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and the United States, terrorist violence has repeatedly been used as a political weapon.  

It moves well beyond the limits of "by any means necessary" to the senseless slaughter of innocents.  Victimizing  civilian populations for political gain is a strategy worthy of universal condemnation.  

NATO and the United States have had successes building alliances with locals willing to hunt down killers who use terror as tools of death and fear. Collateral damage should not be an acceptable means of bringing about change.

The vocal indignation registered by those led would rule Afghanistan is meaningless. They have had years to step and and take control of their country, but corruption and graft have kept them from reaching that goal. Silk robes and posturing politics do not represent power to a people still waiting for basic services.

If the American soldier allegedly involved turns out to be responsible for the killings, he will face justice before a U.S. military tribunal. International security forces maintain the right to discipline their own.

Once the Afghans can handle the security of their own cities, villages and their entire country, they will have the right to subject foreign nationals to justice in their own courts.  For now, that is not only impossible, it is out out of the question.

Universal condemnation of terrorism, and no quarter for those who would target the powerless represents a course that leads toward a more peaceful world.To not negotiate with terrorists is no longer enough.

The threat they represent is ample enough to warrant pre-emptive actions.  It is  why the drones of the United States are armed and continue to strike when intelligence warrants a deserving target. It is a foreign policy approach that is paying dividends. Others in the world should adopt that approach. 

Too Many Witnesses

Have you noticed that the only presidential candidate really talking about making the nation better is the incumbent?

While there is an awful lot of nonstop campaigning for the Republican nomination going on, the men seeking the nod all like to blather on and on about "taking our country back," or "returning the nation to what the founding fathers intended," or in some way or another "restoring the freedoms we have lost."

But, really, there are too many witnesses who know firsthand about the shortcomings of the past to want that as a future for their children and grandchildren. I am not talking about slavery, sweat shops or child labor.

Those are all documented historic facts reflecting conditions in the United States that were sanctioned as official policy for decades or centuries. Yet, most of the victims of those systems are gone.

I'm talking about protective covenants in housing; glass ceilings and discrimination in hiring, promotions and other personnel matters, funding inequities in education and health care; discretionary law enforcement in cases of rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence and other crimes; racial profiling, lending and finance and the provision of basic services for socially, physically, or economically disadvantaged populations.
 
There are still millions of people alive who can speak first-hand of such injustices.

The founding fathers had the wisdom to ensure that an independent judiciary would have the final say on all constitutional matters.  Federal judges, and by extension, the Supreme Court have the right and the obligation to periodically reexamine laws and issues to determine whether, based upon reason and the times, certain aspects of American life warrant institutional review, revocation or change.

The problem is that freedom and equality have not always meant the same thing in this country. I've written before about property rights, voting rights, and human rights. People are entitled to all of these things whether they agree with you politically, morally, socially or not.

Religious freedom is not just for Christians, Jews and Muslims, it's also for Buddhists, Wiccans and Satanists.  Local standards and majority customs cannot define who can participate nor can any group force any individual to keep their own beliefs silent in the interests of not offending the majority.

Public education is not just for the gifted, the average and the able-bodied. It is something that is supposed to be universally offered and provided. Yet, more times than not, the courts or advocates have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that some children have access to the programs and services they need.

Women are still fighting for the right to maintain control over when and if they become pregnant, even as some would deny them the choice of whether to become parents.  We are taught that women have the right to say no and expect it to mean no. Now, some politicians are saying "I don't think so." 

Equal access in the job market remains a real challenge for many.  Growing numbers of men and women have learned during the Great Recession that the playing field is not level, and age, race, body type, sexual orientation and other factors can mean the difference between getting or keeping a job, and waiting for calls that never come.

Those who would seek to reign in courts, deregulate business, and limit the rights of the small to challenge the mighty do not offer a free and equal world. Instead they offer an America stripped of many of the protections that have gradually shifted us toward being a nation of greater universal freedoms.

They also promise their would be supporters a future they envision that those who have ever lived with the indignity of exclusion simply cannot allow. If justice is not blind, it is good to have laws and courts to offer her guidance.

 

Political Change

Political change is never easy.  Sometimes there are so-called velvet revolutions where the people in power weigh the risks and simply decide to get out of the way. 

But more times than not, there are demonstrations and protests, followed by riot, terrorist attacks, assassinations and then ultimately, full blown rebellions, revolutions or civil wars.  Add sectarian violence to the mix and you have the chaos that most often brings about significant change. 

A year ago, we had the Arab Spring.  While some longtime leaders fled or accepted house arrest, others fought on, only to face retribution sparked by the anger of their persecuted subjects. 

No one knows how things will play out in Syria.  Bashar Assad is not his father, even if he uses the same tactics.  Whether he can quell a restive population and avoid ouster remains to be seen. 

What other Arab countries are willing to do for the people could influence the outcome, but it could also come down to how many Arab fighters from more than a score of nations opt to join the fray. 
 
In Iran, the Persians in power have their own problems.  Besides a young population weary of the stifling rules of the ayatollahs, there are also outside pressures designed to destabilize the aging regime.The Islamic Revolution was a long time ago, and even still, there are a lot of Iranians inside the country and abroad who wouldn't mind a good dose of western culture. 

In the emirates and kingdoms, there are calls for democracy, women's rights and economic opportunities.  The ruling powerful are rich, but many of the people do not share in the oil and mineral wealth of their countries and are facing high prices and shortages of basic goods. 

When you think about the early years of any nation created or rebuilt following political upheavals the images are the same. Struggle, euphoria, thoughtful efforts at lawmaking, disastisfaction, disillusionment, conflict, destruction, and reconstruction.

In Western Asia, there are nations in varied states of getting there. With so many outcomes now uncertain watchingm waiting and deciding later who to help makes an awful lot of sense.    

One More for the Team

President Obama's reelection campaign will need a lot of volunteers.  

Some will be involved in get-out-the-vote efforts, others will dedicate their time to fundraising. But tens of thousands will be use their talents to support the Truth Team. 

The campaign wants to recruit as many as two million people to pursue a single goal: combatting the misinformation pushed out consistently by the opposition.

"People don't just want tl hear from campaign statements ans ads-- they want to hear from family and friends they trust," said Stephanie Cutler, deputy campaign manager for Obama for America. 

This sounds like the kind of volunteer work I might enjoy.  You sign up online and then start joining the effort to stamp out bull _hit. 

The team will be divided into three parts.  Each unit will have its own Web portal: 

Attackwatch.com will combat basic and over the top nastiness:

KeepGOPHonest.com will challenge Republicans who lie about their records;

And KeepHisWord.com will promote the president's record. 

All of this is necessary because the opposition is willing to say and do anything to win the Whitehouse, retake the Senate and keep control of the House. 

One thing I've learned, over the years, is that you do not edit the president. Once an individual is elected leader of the free world, what he says, everything he says, is a matter of public record.

Honest communicators to not paraphrase, distort or mislead their readers or their audiences with words presidents have not or do not say. When the quotes are available, they simply provide the quotes and let the readers or their audiences form their own conclusions.

Since all sorts of positions, policies and statements are routinely attached to the president and repeated as though they were facts, the need for a Truth Team is obvious.  I think it's a very good idea. I wish them well.

One Busy Tuesday -- It's Election Year

Republican challengers are trying to stake out ground on social issues. Rather than embrace positions that indicate they broadly support individual rights and public policies that offer help and hope to those in need, they have been focusing on singular positions.

The problem with that outlook is that in proclaiming yourself a single issue candidate or even a dual issue candidate you deny the needs and the humanity of  large segments of society.

On a day when hopefuls made headlines railing against the incumbent on birth control and health care coverage, the White House was expressing a willingness to search for compromise.

Also today, a survey commissioned by Planned Parenthood indicated that the majority of voters favor inclusion of contraception in health care coverage.

Meanwhile, the White House announced that it is adding $50 million in funding for Alzheimer's research. That boosts the level of funding to fight a very serious group of diseases and dementia conditions to $500 million this year.

In California, a federal appeals court raised the issue of equal protection in overturning a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. That means the U.S. Supreme Court will wind up deciding the issue.

The irony is that in many ways this is a matter of individual freedom. No state or jurisdiction that has taken up the issue has made attempt to force any religious institution or cleric to sanction such unions. The laws as passed are secular.

Perhaps since some of these opposition candidates consider corporations people, those who want to avoid the issue should simply incorporate and merge. Would that end the discussion?

Finally, the opposition hopefuls have been gleefully going around for months raising grand theft money from big donors for Super PACs that are unfettered by existing election laws. As the millions have flowed in, the down and dirty game of wild west politics has been waged in early primary states.

President Obama and his reelection campaign has now announced that big money donations can go to Super PAC that  will spend its money to combat the other guys. Could this be the elusive level playing field we've been hearing about all these years? If we are to exist in a land without laws, then let the chaos begin.

Gradual Shakeout

We already know the Democratic presidential candidate will run on his record.     

 The Great Recession ended under his watch, and despite congressional gridlock, the nation's economy is slowly turning around.

Whether the incumbent is opposed by Mitt or Newt, we will hear loads of promises about job creation, lower taxes and increased opportunity. The problem with that is neither has a track record of making that happen.

Selling off the assets of floundering companies may create limited profits, but it does not put people back to work.Instead, people with jobs are declared surplus, and the machines they used to run to turn out products are shipped abroad for use in sweat shops.

Deregulation that makes outsourcing easier takes away the incentives for domestic growth as quickly as raising taxes.  Contract workers cost about one-third less than permanent staffers and have none of the protections of employees.

Luckily, private sector job creation  is up, and first time unemployment claims are down. All the negative ads and campaign talking points in the world cannot change reality.

Let's Remember How We Got Here

While Republican hopefuls have been campaigning for months, and conservative pundits have been indoctrinating the impressionable for years, the President of the United States has been cleaning up a world class mess. 

When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the U.S. economy was in pretty good shape. Then we had eight years of leadership straight out of Bizarro World.  Tax cuts and deregulation were the watchwords for better government.

The Sept. 11 attacks occurred, and we justifiably went to Afghanistan.  But somewhere along the line, Iraq became our first priority. Rather than going in to win, the president decided to fight his daddy's war.  That made Iraq a short-term limited conflict.  Even though he declared "Mission Accomplished!"  U.S. troops kept serving and dying there for ten more years.

On housing, President Bush unveiled his Blueprint for the American Dream in 2002.  That initiative led Fannie Mae to pursue a goal of helping six million first time homebuyers, including about two million minorities purchase homes before 2014.

Then, in love with the free market, the Bush Administration failed to act on what by 2006 was a looming economic course adjustment of worldwide proportions.   The results included massive job losses, the near collapse of the banking system and stalled manufacturing that prompted the disappearances of a number of great brand names that had been around for most of the last century.

While it all cannot be blamed on George W. Bush, there is no doubt that the economy was a basket case in January of 2009.  We know that TARP and TANF were ideas pushed through to stave off economic Armageddon.

Conservative revisionists may try to put those programs on President Obama, but that is revisionist nonsense.

In the three years President Obama has been in office, most of the TARP money has been paid back, American manufacturing is in the rebound, and private sector jobs are up by more than 3 million in 22 months. We are also out of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and dozens of other top terrorists are dead and the Taliban are ready to talk about peace.

Now we have the 2012 presidential campaign. Vying for the Republican nomination are one man who made millions picking the bones of troubled companies. The other major GOP candidate is made big money lobbying for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and mouthing off for conservative media outlets.  The State of the Union is behind us. The choices are already relatively clear.

At Risk: 75 Years of Progress

The 2012 elections are about the future. There are alternate versions of that future that could well be determined by one national election and 468 House and Senate races. 

People really need to think about what the vision so-called fiscal conservatives have for the nation. They do not see a role for Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, or universal access to health care. They envision a nation where people can do business with whom they choose, have different pricing structures for different types of customers and refuse to serve areas for any reason they choose, even without explaining it.

Some of them speak openly of limiting or even eliminating the rights of victims to turn to the courts for justice and relief when they've been injured through negligence or circumstance. Some would even shift control of federal money, raised through taxes we all pay into the hands of people in the states, and try to limit the ability of federal judges to intervene under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Already, we are hearing candidates label such jurists as "bad judges" because some of their rulings consider Equal Protection central to U.S. laws. They would reduce or eliminate Pell Grants , in favor of loan programs that would turn our children into indentured servants for decades to come. They would privatize Social Security, and look coldly at those whose future security was lost in a system rife with marketplace flaws.

In the age of Super PACs, with unlimited corporate money flowing in to support candidates who would place business ahead of fairness, we have to do more than just focus on the presidency. The prevent defense that's stifled work on Capitol Hill in recent years could be on the beginning. We could see a new "Contract With America" that winds up being a contract on the working man.

Thirty years ago, President Reagan led the charge to turn community block grants over to the states. Now some of those cities that used to receive them contain residential dead zones. They are entire neighborhoods, of abandoned houses, broken glass and decaying streets that rival the brownfields of long-dormant industrial sites we've been dealing with for decades.

Between 1980 and 1997, 27 percent of the nation's public hospitals closed, eliminating 66,000 beds. As Baby Boomers age, Medicare, becomes our problem. Free market healthcare could well jeopardize any retirement we are able to salvage from the Great Recession, and frankly, most of us do not have time to build a financial cushion to protect us from that risk.

Rest, assured, there are many problems, and of course there are limits to what the taxpayers and the nation can afford, but when it comes to programs I know my parents and grandparents depended on and found comfort in, I am just not willing to risk everything on a crapshoot with the profit mongers and speculators.

Who occupies the White House and who does the work on Capitol Hill could well determine if more of that is part of America's vision of the future. Everything from FDR's New Deal to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society is hanging in the balance.


They may say "beating Obama is the most important thing," but believe me, they've got bigger plans than that, and if their vision of "returning to American values" does not include you, then finding that out in 2013 could be a truly costly mistake.

Thinning Field

There is an ideological struggle underway as a back story to the race for the GOP nomination.

On the one-hand, you have very angry voters who have dug in their heels behind a vision of America where the people they disagree with do not matter.

On the other hand, you have Republicans who still perceive themselves as moderates. They control a lot of Grand Old Party money. They control a bunch of Political Action Committee donations, and they like to think they control what happens at the Republican National Committee Convention, especially when there is no incumbent seeking the nomination.


In the past, it was this faction of the party that deep-sixed the presidential aspirations of Pat Robertson and  twice got rid of Patrick Buchanan. They assured the first nomination of Ronald Reagan, brought us the compassionate conservatism of George Herbert Walker Bush, and financed the unsuccessful White House quests of Bob Dole and John McCain.

As the battle for the GOP nomination plays out,  the struggle between the angry wing of the party and its wealthy supporters will produce excellent drama. Some candidates will head out on the stump with varied speeches that seem to ask "who are we gonna hate or blame this week? Others will smile and talk about their electability and having the "best chance of beating Obama."

Neither of those themes offer much in the way of new ideas. As we watch the thinning field, just remember that it took the first 12 years of the 21st century to bring the nation to this point. What has happened in the last three was essentially just a few steps toward righting the mistakes of the previous decade.

Voters may be impatient for change, but life is not a sit-com or a made-for-TV movie. You cannot wrap up huge problems into a tidy solution in the last few minutes of a half-an-hour, or the final scenes of DVD.  That means whatever happens Nov. 6, we will still be in the midst of correcting a floundering course. 

So even if you don't have much interest in the opening act for Campaign 2012, tune in to the game from time to time. It will produce some great one-liners, a few interesting quotes, and hopefully, a lot of insight into what these people really think.

All About Jobs

The first ten years of the 21st Century will be remembered as the Decade of the Deep Hole.

After closing out the Clinton era with surpluses, huge job gains and solid consumer confidence, we hit some big bumps.  Besides two long wars and an unbridaled, irrational spending spree for domestic security, there were policy decisions made to neglect the cities, deregulate business and force the poor to find jobs with limited preparation.  Promises from corporate leaders to create jobs at home never happened.

Many of the offshore jobs they provided collapsed when Americans stopped spending and a worldwide recession took hold.  TARP was suggested and passed as a "Hail Mary" play by leaders who noticed the problems much too late.

The remnants of the 20th Century economy were dashed against the rocks.  Sears, Kmart, Pontiac, Merrill Lynch and dozens of other familiar brands either shrank dramatically or disappeared.

My conservative friends often tell me that government cannot create private sector jobs.  But when you think about it, government contracts in the last decade creates and sustained a whole lot of private sector companies.

It would be simplistic and perhaps unfair to blame the world's problems on Bush 43.  Presidents have power, but they are often at the mercy of world events.  President Obama took charge of a sick economy in a troubled world, but I can say "I am better off now than I was four years ago."  That's one question we won't likely hear asked by the opposition this election cycle.
 
The big issue during Campaign 2012 will be jobs: Getting them and keeping them.

Anyone who openly campaigns by saying they "like to fire people" makes me a little more than nervous.  It says to me that they believe in a world where investors have money and power, and workers and families don't matter.

I am all for change, but I think positive change should create opportunities.  We are now in decade two of the 21st Century.  Most of the TARP money has been paid back, more jobs are being created, and Congress is now in full blown campaign mode.

the one hand, we have a president who inherited the playbook mandated by TARP and made the best of it.  He is working against a recalcitrant Congress to offer leadership during a period of unproductive gridlock.

On the other hand you have six guys who have yet to outline any really better ideas.  Besides the guy who sees value in job elimination, there's the primary architect of 1990s welfare reform that never seemed to accomplish his stated goals.

There's another guy who wants to talk about welfare as those it is a "black thing," there's a guy from Utah who appears to be running because he looks presidential. And then there are my friends from Texas.

One has always been a little quirky but when he starts appealing to more than the fringe it stops being a laughing matter.  The other is a governor who doesn't seem to know the difference between a good job in the oil patch and spatula flipping at Whataburger. I think the difference is probably about 35 grand a year.

Let the campaign continue. America is watching, and some Americans are waiting for jobs.

Anal Anger

I urge you to tune in for 15 minutes to the conservative diatribes, character assassinations and spin control orbiting little nuggets of the news. It will give you a reality check and may explain why the most anal, nasty, raisin-hearted individuals you cross paths with always seem angry.

For 1158 days, a cast of assorted characters has been incessantly wailing away at Barack Obama.  They rant about his birth certificate, insult his wife and then apologize, and completely ignore the reality of his lineage.

I won’t say that it is a 24/7 thing. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would suggest that they take a Sabbath off from time to time.  But for nearly 243,000 hours there have been numerous angry people ranting about the current president and Democrats and independents who disagree with their outlook. 

Someone you work with, or someone you know has been buying into this crap day after day, week after week, and ingesting it hours at a time. They have been hearing from angry voices railing against what they believe is a seditious and conspiratorial threat against everything they hold sacred.

They have been spoon fed and force fed terms like “Utopiast,” “radical left-wing liberal,” “redistributors of wealth,” and other assorted labels that essentially mean “they disagree with us.”

Many of these people have accepted a constant diet of this for upwards of three years. It began when President Obama won election in 2008 and has intensified since then. I have been listening the last few days, and I can say without any doubt that there is not a bare space open and ready to receive a less strident perspective.

There are no comparable voices from a more moderate outlook. Perhaps it is because nobody can sound that angry day after day after day.  It is easy to imagine hearing this for so long and having your body lock up from the adrenaline rush. 

The results are either the most intense headache, or a feeling of fullness so extreme it makes you grind your teeth.

Now think about it? In your life, whether it is at work, or in your personal life, is there someone you know who has just bought into all the partisan labels? Are they so negative that they mutter and parrot all the claims that any American president is so dead-set on destroying the country that they would make it a matter of his national policy?

For them, it’s far too late for a chill pill. They may not even respond to a good laxative. Some of them have not had any ideological relief in nearly four years. They are locked up and bloated with impacted outlooks.

Let’s hope they go soon. If they don’t and things do not go their way Nov. 6, they may well explode. Then, we may ask the remnants of the Tea Party to clean up the mess.