Obama has a unique opportunity here to fix health care and finally move us away from this dysfunctional system.
By leveraging the impending collapse of the domestic automobile industry into a message that the burdens of caring for its employees is one of the reasons American companies are finding it hard to complete in the global market place.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Will Alberto Gonzales Be Awarded Medal of Freedom?
If past behavior is any indicator of how performance is viewed by the Bush Gang, it looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be getting an award any day now.
Perhaps the most telling things about the unfolding story is the view it gives us into the current machinations of those at the top of the Republican party.
1. The utter disdain for checks and balances built into our republic.
2. The politicizing of any aspect of government for the purpose of holding and attaining power.
3. Disregard for the rule of law where it conflicts with the first two points.
At first there seemed to be a general stupefied reaction to Bush's continued support for Gonzales. How could Bush see his performance before Congress as evidence of a strong and capable leader of the Justice Department? After all, he appeared to have delegated serious personnel issues, new little to nothing or couldn't recall the details of the firings. And yet, there was Bush praising him, even going so far as to say he thought even more highly of him.
O.K. Bush is famously disconnected from reality. Maybe he didn't actually hear what was said. Or worse had it filtered through advisors only telling him what he wanted to hear.
Which brings me to Thursdays' repeat performance. More obfuscation and faulty memory, but with a slight difference. This time Gonzales didn't sound defensive or combative. What was I missing? So it clicked. This was exactly the kind of performance Bush had wanted all along. Say nothing. Lie if you have to, since nothing can be proven, and in the end Bush can fire any of the US attorneys he wants to. So all they really have to do is ride the storm out. Other than the obvious political calculations at play of wanting to avoid a confrontation with a Democratic Congress if he fired Gonzales and had to go through another confirmation, there is the lack of respect for our system of government or even a more basic concern of governing well. It simply comes down to protecting the unlimited power of this particular Executive.
But all this was exactly the point - the unabashed use of government to support an ideological agenda. And not the standard conservative one we might be led to believe of small government, or even limited government intrusion into our lives, but the use of government to give friends and contributors access to the levers of power.
More than any other lesson we can take away from their style of governing is this. The examples come in almost every initiative, law , and action. With 9/11 having become the ultimate stick for bludgeoning those who would oppose them.
From health care, to the environment, to FEMA, to the Justice Department, to the selling of this war. All have have for rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Does this show the hand of Rove or the personality of Bush, or a marriage of both? Perhaps it's all just a cynical ploy to destroy what faith the American people have left in the power of government for positive accomplishments.
Whatever it is, the damage will be a long time being undone. It took Clinton about six years to undo the damage from the previous twelve years of Republican governing. This ditch Bush has driven us into will not be nearly so easily extricated from.
Perhaps the most telling things about the unfolding story is the view it gives us into the current machinations of those at the top of the Republican party.
1. The utter disdain for checks and balances built into our republic.
2. The politicizing of any aspect of government for the purpose of holding and attaining power.
3. Disregard for the rule of law where it conflicts with the first two points.
At first there seemed to be a general stupefied reaction to Bush's continued support for Gonzales. How could Bush see his performance before Congress as evidence of a strong and capable leader of the Justice Department? After all, he appeared to have delegated serious personnel issues, new little to nothing or couldn't recall the details of the firings. And yet, there was Bush praising him, even going so far as to say he thought even more highly of him.
O.K. Bush is famously disconnected from reality. Maybe he didn't actually hear what was said. Or worse had it filtered through advisors only telling him what he wanted to hear.
Which brings me to Thursdays' repeat performance. More obfuscation and faulty memory, but with a slight difference. This time Gonzales didn't sound defensive or combative. What was I missing? So it clicked. This was exactly the kind of performance Bush had wanted all along. Say nothing. Lie if you have to, since nothing can be proven, and in the end Bush can fire any of the US attorneys he wants to. So all they really have to do is ride the storm out. Other than the obvious political calculations at play of wanting to avoid a confrontation with a Democratic Congress if he fired Gonzales and had to go through another confirmation, there is the lack of respect for our system of government or even a more basic concern of governing well. It simply comes down to protecting the unlimited power of this particular Executive.
But all this was exactly the point - the unabashed use of government to support an ideological agenda. And not the standard conservative one we might be led to believe of small government, or even limited government intrusion into our lives, but the use of government to give friends and contributors access to the levers of power.
More than any other lesson we can take away from their style of governing is this. The examples come in almost every initiative, law , and action. With 9/11 having become the ultimate stick for bludgeoning those who would oppose them.
From health care, to the environment, to FEMA, to the Justice Department, to the selling of this war. All have have for rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Does this show the hand of Rove or the personality of Bush, or a marriage of both? Perhaps it's all just a cynical ploy to destroy what faith the American people have left in the power of government for positive accomplishments.
Whatever it is, the damage will be a long time being undone. It took Clinton about six years to undo the damage from the previous twelve years of Republican governing. This ditch Bush has driven us into will not be nearly so easily extricated from.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Yeltsin Did It!
Today fate finally caught up with Boris Yeltsin. From all the obituaries and opinions he seems to have been an unlikely man to have earned this place in history. And yet as we have seen since 9/11, a single day and act can define a man thereafter.
And so Mr Yeltsin's moment on the tank did so for him. But he did turn out to be more than just the sum of that day defying the Bolsheviks' last gasp.
And this brings me to the most interesting thing from the various obits and stories on radio and TV. He seems to be credited with bringing and end to the Soviet Union more than any other. Gorbachev gets a mention for opening the door, but Yeltsin seems to be the one to have actually brought and end to the Communist Party, the Cold War, and let the former Soviet satellites go free.
Perhaps memories are faulty. Perhaps folks are just being generous in remembering the dead. Most certainly he was a character with his share of flaws, but he did make an enormous difference in history.
So where is the mention of Ronald Reagan? Aren't the Republicans always bleating about he did all these things single handed.
Opps another GOP myth up in smoke.
And so Mr Yeltsin's moment on the tank did so for him. But he did turn out to be more than just the sum of that day defying the Bolsheviks' last gasp.
And this brings me to the most interesting thing from the various obits and stories on radio and TV. He seems to be credited with bringing and end to the Soviet Union more than any other. Gorbachev gets a mention for opening the door, but Yeltsin seems to be the one to have actually brought and end to the Communist Party, the Cold War, and let the former Soviet satellites go free.
Perhaps memories are faulty. Perhaps folks are just being generous in remembering the dead. Most certainly he was a character with his share of flaws, but he did make an enormous difference in history.
So where is the mention of Ronald Reagan? Aren't the Republicans always bleating about he did all these things single handed.
Opps another GOP myth up in smoke.
Happiness is a Warm Gun for What?
Adding one's comments to the already substantial set on this past week's event at Virginia Tech probably wont help much, but I will do it anyway.
Like many others i just wanted the basic facts at first, how did it happen, why did he do it, how many died?
As in so many of the tragedies before it there are no easy answers.
Young and old. Futures yet to be realized and lives full of memories. All taken so senselessly by someone with something missing. Was it an accident of a missing heart, someone himself a victim of bad chemistry, a head full of ghosts.
And now we are left with grieving families, children from their families an old man from his wife and children.
And then there are the guns. So easily obtained, so easily loaded, so easily discharged.
I grew up around firearms with hunters and NRA instructors. From my early teens I used many types of guns. Shotguns, rifles, and even a few handguns. Mostly we spent time at the rifle range learning gun safety and marksmanship from our Boy Scout master who also happened to be a lifetime NRA instructor. Usually a soft-spoken, easy going man, but on the rifle range he was strict and harsh. A boy caught carelessly pointing his gun anywhere but downrange received a verbal thrashing and was done for the day. Safety was drilled into us with no compromises. We enjoyed shooting whether it was paper targets or clay pigeons. My friend Billy who grew up around guns as well was a great shot and I wasn't too bad myself. Supposedly his father had a Luger he'd found while in the Army during WWII, although we never saw it.
And it wasn't just target practice, we hunted as well. Duck hunting and deer mostly, sometimes bear. Each season some kids took a fews days off with their fathers. Trophy hunting wasn't their way, we cleaned, butchered, and ate what was caught. And oddly through this we also learned respect for our environment, you only took what you needed and appreciated the bounty provided.
That's the way it was, guns weren't a source of romance for us, a fetish with a hidden agenda, ever so carelessly aimed at our friends, families, and neighbors. They were tools, useful and yes enjoyable, but potentially dangerous and always respected. The consequences of a mistake were not to be imagined.
So when I say that our guns laws much change, I would have you understand my experience.
Yes, I am a liberal and yes I know the role firearms have in American culture. But what this right has transformed into is peculiar in it's ferocity. What is it that makes this particular tool (and weapon) so loved and feared? The second Amendment to the Constitution gives it protection, but the original purpose seems perverted like so many good intentions.
Men defend the right, but ignore it's full intention (What ever happened to that "well regulated militia" part?) finding something else. Does it some from fear? Is it the "other among us they would use them against? How many are aware that it is one of the top ten causes of death in the US? We would eradicate a disease with such power if it were within our grasp, but not this. It's inviolate. Enshrined. Too many use it to prove their manhood, "hunting" animals flushed for their hunger to prove masculinity. Not spending the day in a cold wet blind or freezing in a tree stand. Is it so hard to wonder why they need to prove something in such a pathetic manner? And then there are handguns, no good for hunting game. Only useful for shooting others.
What is it they defend? The right to kill?
Like many others i just wanted the basic facts at first, how did it happen, why did he do it, how many died?
As in so many of the tragedies before it there are no easy answers.
Young and old. Futures yet to be realized and lives full of memories. All taken so senselessly by someone with something missing. Was it an accident of a missing heart, someone himself a victim of bad chemistry, a head full of ghosts.
And now we are left with grieving families, children from their families an old man from his wife and children.
And then there are the guns. So easily obtained, so easily loaded, so easily discharged.
I grew up around firearms with hunters and NRA instructors. From my early teens I used many types of guns. Shotguns, rifles, and even a few handguns. Mostly we spent time at the rifle range learning gun safety and marksmanship from our Boy Scout master who also happened to be a lifetime NRA instructor. Usually a soft-spoken, easy going man, but on the rifle range he was strict and harsh. A boy caught carelessly pointing his gun anywhere but downrange received a verbal thrashing and was done for the day. Safety was drilled into us with no compromises. We enjoyed shooting whether it was paper targets or clay pigeons. My friend Billy who grew up around guns as well was a great shot and I wasn't too bad myself. Supposedly his father had a Luger he'd found while in the Army during WWII, although we never saw it.
And it wasn't just target practice, we hunted as well. Duck hunting and deer mostly, sometimes bear. Each season some kids took a fews days off with their fathers. Trophy hunting wasn't their way, we cleaned, butchered, and ate what was caught. And oddly through this we also learned respect for our environment, you only took what you needed and appreciated the bounty provided.
That's the way it was, guns weren't a source of romance for us, a fetish with a hidden agenda, ever so carelessly aimed at our friends, families, and neighbors. They were tools, useful and yes enjoyable, but potentially dangerous and always respected. The consequences of a mistake were not to be imagined.
So when I say that our guns laws much change, I would have you understand my experience.
Yes, I am a liberal and yes I know the role firearms have in American culture. But what this right has transformed into is peculiar in it's ferocity. What is it that makes this particular tool (and weapon) so loved and feared? The second Amendment to the Constitution gives it protection, but the original purpose seems perverted like so many good intentions.
Men defend the right, but ignore it's full intention (What ever happened to that "well regulated militia" part?) finding something else. Does it some from fear? Is it the "other among us they would use them against? How many are aware that it is one of the top ten causes of death in the US? We would eradicate a disease with such power if it were within our grasp, but not this. It's inviolate. Enshrined. Too many use it to prove their manhood, "hunting" animals flushed for their hunger to prove masculinity. Not spending the day in a cold wet blind or freezing in a tree stand. Is it so hard to wonder why they need to prove something in such a pathetic manner? And then there are handguns, no good for hunting game. Only useful for shooting others.
What is it they defend? The right to kill?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)