I'm sick over the apparent nomination and possible election of Donald Trump to the presidency, but today's New York Times article about Trump's treatment of women is a travesty that VALIDATES people's notion about most of the American media being owned and controlled by liberals.
Even if everything in the article is fact, Trump is no Johnny-come-lately. His marriages and divorces are public knowledge, his spat with Fox's Megyn Kelly made headlines for weeks, and his generally aggressive behavior should be no surprise to anyone by now whether they are for or against him. Besides the fact that the GOP's usual objection to abortion and contraception has long since given it a bad name with many female voters, one candidate's history of alleged indiscretions with women should hardly be newsworthy. That Trump is being singled out in this way belies the fact that Bill Clinton, Gary Condit and other Democrats have had similar if not worse histories with women while in office - including John F. Kennedy, whose affairs are notorious now, and even Franklin Roosevelt, who had rendezvous with a number of women while married, including another cousin. Many such indiscretions on the part of those like Clinton and Kennedy, however, have even been turned into endearments of a sort and construed by many Democrats nowadays as nothing more than the political witch-hunting of Christian conservatives... this in spite of the fact that Clinton's impeachment was over the charge of perjury, not his sexual indiscretions, and an instance of perjury to which Clinton all but outright admitted on live television.
That said, none of it would be very noteworthy except that after news of the Washington Post getting ready to put no fewer than 20 reporters to work dissecting Trump's life, this seems to be just one example of the way in which at least two major newpapers now have taken it upon themselves to topple Trump. Candidates get slammed in papers all the time, but this is in the Politics section and includes quotes from a number of interviews, thus making it something more than just some pundit's daily or weekly commentary. Were it about an actual crime Trump had committed, it would be justifiable, as it would be if the New York Times were a more overtly bias publication like Salon or The Weekly Standard. Yet neither the publication nor its article is either of those things. The article isn't even directly relevant to matters of policy because not only has Trump been vague up to now about most of the specifics of his intended policies (except his defense of Planned Parenthood, for which even pro-abortion liberals seem loathe to give him any credit), he hasn't been elected to ANY political office and has thus had no opportunity to influence or initiate any public policy, good or bad. In short, the New York Times and Washington Post appear to be dedicated to the probably futile, yet still excessively libelous treatment of a candidate with a historically high level of support among GOP voters - including, I would think, at least a few of their own readers. Regardless of one's opinions of Trump, these national publications should be better than this, and since Democrats seem to be so obsessed with private sector accountability to the federal government, that government should condemn the very notion of the New York Times publishing articles like this and of the Washington Post even being rumored to be going to such lengths to slam a candidate chosen by "the people." Instead, President Obama is using occasions like a recent commencement speech to more or less do the same thing, albeit without mentioning Trump by name. It cannot even be justified as aid to another Democrat's campaign because I don't think he directly mentioned either Hillary or Bernie... then or on any other occasion that I am aware of.
If the political left, in particular, is serious about taking down Trump, they should know by now that the best way to do that is to shut-up, quit giving this billionaire FREE PUBLICITY, and unite behind one of their own candidates so that he or she will have a better chance of defeating Trump in the November election! If they don't, the not only does the country face a probable Trump presidency, but the Democrats could face the same kind of long-term division in their own ranks that currently threatens to send the GOP on the same path as their Whig predecessors.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Friday, March 25, 2016
After Brussels, There's Only ONE Logical Next Step In Combating Islamic Terrorism
The following AP article about the recent attack in Brussels appeared on the AP today (3/25/2016): http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/US-official-says-at-least-2-American-citizens-killed-in-attack-on-Brussels/id-2418968748694088b3195918603a481b. Here are some things that have been said.
"'We will not be deterred,' Kerry said. 'We will come back with greater resolve - with greater strength - and we will not rest until we have eliminated your nihilistic beliefs and cowardice from the face of the Earth.'" ...says the man that helped the current administration orchestrate a deal granting Iran around $150 million to advance a nuclear "energy" program on the grounds that they don't weaponize it. And the reason Iran can be trusted is... well, I'm still waiting on that.
Then there's this, from another part of the article: "...even when alerted to the presence of suspected radicals in their municipalities, they lacked the power to do anything about it." I don't know why people refuse to see or accept that the ONLY other thing that the U.S. and other nations can do to even potentially be more effective at preventing these kinds of attacks and fighting these terrorists outside of the Middle East amounts to more overt and intensive racial and cultural profiling. Sure, people cite rule of law, the need for evidence, due process, etc., but what it comes down to is, in this case, a misguided desire to protect nations' consciences even if it means not protecting its citizens. If nothing else, Brussels had already been on high alert and been warned about one of the attackers. If they're unable or unwilling to ACT on that warning, then what good is the warning? And as far as the laws go, the article suggests that Brussels' laws are on the verge of being changed already and, in America, our laws are DESIGNED to come, go, change and be changed based on the needs of the citizenry.
Since the early 1970's, at least, when serial killers and rapists, in particular, were being interviewed in American prisons, the GOAL of the FBI, in particular, was to establish PROFILES for these offenders which they could use to identify, if not predict and catch future offenders. Even though those statistics seem to be changing, a profile for the average serial killer in America based on statistics and, by extension, these interviews, said and probably still says that not only do most serial rapists and killers hone in on their own ethnic groups, but tend to be WHITE MALES between their mid 20's and early 40's with a middle or lower-middle class income and either live with a single parent (usually a mother - not saying this because of PSYCHO) or alone. This... profile... these statistics have been so heavily relied upon that I saw a story once about a case in Ohio, in 2002, I think, in which a number of white brunettes, all teachers of a certain age, were being murdered in or around a neighborhood and that TWO were murdered only because the police would not act on tips about an African American suspect, an alleged peeping tom, I think, because that did not conform to the statistics and profile of the "average" serial killer.
These kinds of measures do not represent some MINORITY REPORT scenario. Nobody is talking about arresting anyone based on probability. It's about KNOWING that something has happened, that it is likely to happen again, and who the perpetrator(s) is (are) so that he, she, or they can be apprehended and lives can be spared. What's more, when Kerry starts talking about eliminating their "nihilistic beliefs and cowardice," exactly what is he referring to if not Islam or, at the very least, certain versions of Islam (there are several)? I'm not in favor of even trying to eliminate Islam altogether (assuming it could actually be done - which I don't think it can), but once you've used this kind of rhetoric - and if you want people to see actual credibility in its use - the kind of racial and cultural profiling that would be employed to any extent in trying to prevent future attacks is almost like child's play. I mean, as a so-called "progressive" liberal, does Kerry even hear himself when he uses words like "eliminate?" Right now, the administration is employing a form of profiling in reverse when it does things like criticizing and even suing Arizona and its governor for stances and policies regarding immigration and the treatment of illegal immigrants from Mexico - trying, as I recall, to keep cops from asking HIspanics for their ID when pulled over, or trying to strike down the requirement for voters to show legal ID when voting because poor and non-whites are supposedly more likely to either forget to bring it or to not have it, at all. To me, THAT is profiling, but for different reasons - and not only is it profiling, but it's doing so in a very insulting manner. I'm not going to say that Donald Trump or even most of today's Republicans offer significantly better alternatives, but clearly, the political left that dominates President Obama's Democrat Party nowadays has little or no genuine faith in or respect for the very people they go out of their way to serve.
To end on an even more personal note, when business owners are being fined as criminals for refusing to host or perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples on PRIVATE PROPERTY as part of a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS, I could really care less if a few Arabs and Muslims are offended at the prospect of further profiling to prevent damage done by the "bad apples" in their community which, again, probably hurt them, too. To be clear, I don't recommend or condone people that, say, offer wedding services and then refuse them to gays - like a couple I saw a story about yesterday morning on the 700 Club - because one of the main reasons Jesus was so despised by the Jewish religious establishment of his time was because he associated with the "unclean." The very fact that Jesus did NOT discriminate against "sinners" is a big reason why so many wanted him crucified in the first place. He had lunch with tax collectors, who - in that day - were often corrupt in the pocketing of money collected for the Roman Empire, and one of his most ardent followers was Mary Magdalene, a reformed prostitute! On principle, however, it makes absolutely no sense to take any more or all racial and cultural profiling off the table as a potential and potentially effective tool for law enforcement under the circumstances when government and law enforcement are already doing similar things with other people - whether it's nearly bankrupting people like the couple on the 700 Club by fining them because they won't host gay weddings (they were entrapped by a lesbian on the phone that hung up on them before calling the cops) or allowing the IRS to specifically investigate and/or audit conservative, right-wing people and groups during Obama's time in office.
Just as it makes no sense to refuse the presence of more ground troops to aggressively and potentially more effectively fight ISIS where it really lives and from where it is based, there is nothing to be gained by playing hot potato with what should or should not be done in the fight against terror over principles of morality which are, to some extent, already being broken or betrayed in other respects. And as a white Christian, myself, I must say that if we see a string of serious killings and crimes against blacks or gays in an area dominated by religious conservatives, I would NOT be against law enforcement being open about it and admitting that the most logical place to begin the investigation is in the lives of white Christians and their churches in said community - if only because someone would almost certainly be suspicious if not aware of potential suspects.
Monday, March 21, 2016
RE: Re-Established U.S. Relationship With Cuba - Good or Bad?
I would imagine that a lot of people with my kind of political inclinations are against what the Obama administration is doing to re-establish some kind of a civil relationship with Cuba. I, however, am not entirely against it. Obama is right when he says that U.S. policy has neither forced nor encouraged significant change in Cuba's Communist regime, and as a reasonably firm believer in the potential of capitalism, I fail to understand why ardent capitalists like Republican Congressmen and Senators would not at least want to try to expand international trade in this manner. Clearly, a number of big companies and their presumably "conservative" CEO's are chomping at the bit. If the goal is to sort of shame the Communist regime out of existence, if at all possible, then I, too, believe that the only potentially viable means of doing that is via a democratic and "capitalist" presence in Cuba (for lack of better terms). However large or small, that at least has the potential to not only show Cubans the benefits of democracy and of a regulated form of capitalism, but make them more acutely aware of what they miss and what they've given up in exchange for the "free" healthcare and education which probably comes with a number of logistical problems (which can probably only get worse without this alliance) and a healthy serving of propaganda to go with the reading, writing, and arithmetic.
What concerns me is what may or may not be motivating Cuba in the first place. From the standpoint of somehow encouraging change in Cuban policy, I see nothing to indicate an honestly cooperative or receptive attitude on the part of Raul Castro. Also, this scenario lacks the leverage that the U.S. had over the USSR of not only being able to guarantee mutual destruction via the nukes, but of clearly being the only one able to afford that leverage without forcing quite as many citizens to pay the price in the way of rampant poverty and blatant human rights violations. I frankly feel that this is a means to an end for the Cuban government, and that end is NOT a transition away from Communism or even a more honestly civil relationship with the United States. I suspect that it is a sly means of preserving and perhaps even strengthening Cuba's Communist system. I would imagine they see capitalism and democracy as a sort of big and incredibly stingy bear in the woods. If you can manage to get close to the bear without angering it, the bear might share a lot of honey, but doing so is extremely difficult and if you can't manage it, the bear is going to sit on you and make life miserable. Such was the case under Batista, when "trade" with Cuba took the form of blatant exploitation and corruption, much of which was perpetrated by U.S. based organized crime families that owned and operated hotels and casinos in Cuba. Literally everyone benefited... except for the Cubans. So I'm not at all convinced that Cuba's motivations are similar to Obama's or to that of anyone in the United States in any way, shape, or form. For them, I think this is a modified form of Lenin's strategic retreat - a brief period of cooperation that is going to strengthen the Cuban economy just enough to maybe placate some dissidents and, given Castro's regime is demanding to own 50% of pretty much any new business in the country (or so I've heard), generate enough wealth for the Cuban government to stay in power and, in its opinion, have even more resources with which to keep its own promises.
Even so, I think Congress should give this a chance - if only because any total and abrupt rejection of this course on which Obama has already set both nations (for better or worse) might only increase Cuba's ire towards the U.S. and conceivably convince it to team up with a nation like China, Russia, Iran, or even North Korea to actually BECOME a threat and also have the excuse of U.S. betrayal as justification. In so doing, however, I do think Congress needs to make it clear to Obama and then to Hillary or any other Democrat that might succeed Obama in the Oval office that they will not tolerate a situation in which Cuba is basically rewarded with wealth without having to do more than allow wireless Internet service, shared ownership of U.S. businesses in Cuba, and release four or five dissidents every time Cuba gets a cookie. This kind of thing is why people started saying, "Only Nixon could go to China" - because a Democrat would be seen as pandering to the nation's leftist policies. While I understand WHY Obama is doing what he is, I think he runs the risk of being dangerously presumptuous when it comes to more or less guaranteeing an eventual normalization of relations with the Cuban government and its people. We've gotten along just fine without doing business with Cuba for half of a century, so if this fails, then the U.S. has potentially far more to lose. Now, more than ever, the U.S. cannot afford to be so naive as to accept the morality of it all as the only reason anyone really needs to attempt something like this - and if you don't believe me, I suggest finding and re-watching the Q&A with Obama and Raul Castro that just ended a little while ago.
What concerns me is what may or may not be motivating Cuba in the first place. From the standpoint of somehow encouraging change in Cuban policy, I see nothing to indicate an honestly cooperative or receptive attitude on the part of Raul Castro. Also, this scenario lacks the leverage that the U.S. had over the USSR of not only being able to guarantee mutual destruction via the nukes, but of clearly being the only one able to afford that leverage without forcing quite as many citizens to pay the price in the way of rampant poverty and blatant human rights violations. I frankly feel that this is a means to an end for the Cuban government, and that end is NOT a transition away from Communism or even a more honestly civil relationship with the United States. I suspect that it is a sly means of preserving and perhaps even strengthening Cuba's Communist system. I would imagine they see capitalism and democracy as a sort of big and incredibly stingy bear in the woods. If you can manage to get close to the bear without angering it, the bear might share a lot of honey, but doing so is extremely difficult and if you can't manage it, the bear is going to sit on you and make life miserable. Such was the case under Batista, when "trade" with Cuba took the form of blatant exploitation and corruption, much of which was perpetrated by U.S. based organized crime families that owned and operated hotels and casinos in Cuba. Literally everyone benefited... except for the Cubans. So I'm not at all convinced that Cuba's motivations are similar to Obama's or to that of anyone in the United States in any way, shape, or form. For them, I think this is a modified form of Lenin's strategic retreat - a brief period of cooperation that is going to strengthen the Cuban economy just enough to maybe placate some dissidents and, given Castro's regime is demanding to own 50% of pretty much any new business in the country (or so I've heard), generate enough wealth for the Cuban government to stay in power and, in its opinion, have even more resources with which to keep its own promises.
Even so, I think Congress should give this a chance - if only because any total and abrupt rejection of this course on which Obama has already set both nations (for better or worse) might only increase Cuba's ire towards the U.S. and conceivably convince it to team up with a nation like China, Russia, Iran, or even North Korea to actually BECOME a threat and also have the excuse of U.S. betrayal as justification. In so doing, however, I do think Congress needs to make it clear to Obama and then to Hillary or any other Democrat that might succeed Obama in the Oval office that they will not tolerate a situation in which Cuba is basically rewarded with wealth without having to do more than allow wireless Internet service, shared ownership of U.S. businesses in Cuba, and release four or five dissidents every time Cuba gets a cookie. This kind of thing is why people started saying, "Only Nixon could go to China" - because a Democrat would be seen as pandering to the nation's leftist policies. While I understand WHY Obama is doing what he is, I think he runs the risk of being dangerously presumptuous when it comes to more or less guaranteeing an eventual normalization of relations with the Cuban government and its people. We've gotten along just fine without doing business with Cuba for half of a century, so if this fails, then the U.S. has potentially far more to lose. Now, more than ever, the U.S. cannot afford to be so naive as to accept the morality of it all as the only reason anyone really needs to attempt something like this - and if you don't believe me, I suggest finding and re-watching the Q&A with Obama and Raul Castro that just ended a little while ago.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Jacksonville's Ideological Brawl Over Breasts at MOCA
On public radio this morning, I heard an interview and call-in show about Jacksonville's City Council President Yarborough suggesting that the photo of a nude pregnant woman in the city's leading museum MOCA have some sort of draping over the breasts in order to avoid offending parents that do not wish to have their children exposed to such imagery while otherwise teaching them about art in a museum.
Personally, I disagree with the Council President. I have a lot of conservative, religious preferences, but they are PERSONAL. Regardless of anyone's idea of decency, my religion (as I can only interpret it) teaches me that my values and morals are best upheld by CHOICE, rendering unto "Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." I think most if not all censorship is ultimately counterproductive, particularly when it comes to the human body and sexuality. After all, we want most what we can't have, so if you make something like the female breast extremely taboo under any and all circumstances, sexual or otherwise, odds are that children and adolescents, especially, are going to be that much more focused and interested in seeing what they are told they cannot - and, most likely, sexually objectifying it in the process. Other nations (such as Japan, if I'm not mistaken) are not nearly as strict in these regards yet, as a society, seem to have fewer sex crimes and so forth. Unless I'm mistaken, the museum is a public place, so to me, that means it should at least be ALLOWED to represent as much of society as it wants in order to be relevant to as many as possible. Therefore, if you're offended, simply don't look or don't go. There are, for better or worse, other ways to teach children about art.
Then, there's the other side of this coin - the side in which one caller linked Yarborough to the city's conservative and therefore religious nature and compared his views and alleged intentions to those of ISIS', which is imposing strict Islamic law everywhere it goes. While I see where he's coming from, I wonder if his seemingly tolerant attitude would lead him to protest the suing of a school, a business or anyone else that would be and has been sued in the recent past over public displays of religious symbols within Christmas and/or other holiday displays. Those that sue generally cite separation of church and state, but while I cannot claim to be an expert or have a perfect solution, I think the intention of that clause in our law is way too conveniently and narrowly interpreted by BOTH sides on a regular basis. Personally, I believe it means that religious institutions no longer have the ability to help make or enforce actual laws the way the Catholic Church and the Church of England might have in centuries' past. The ability to lobby and to influence legislators and their legislation, though, is a right given to ALL Americans. It should not be taken away from religious people and institutions or from anyone else precisely BECAUSE the nation is so big and so diverse. After all, individual elections are never going to represent the interests of everyone, no matter how they are funded or how fairly they are conducted. Lobbying, as it were - even if you resent the ease with which the rich and big business seem to do it over those of the so-called "ordinary" citizens - allows segments of the population to be heard even if they are not specifically represented by the results of individual elections. If nothing else, at the end of it all, you're left with the plain and simple fact of life not always seeming fair and not everyone can get exactly what they want or be pleased ALL of the times. Therefore, the most fair thing to do in my opinion is simply to take turns.
In conclusion, while I disagree with Mr. Yarbrough's stance that said photo should somehow be censored, my beef with so-called "progressives" is that, most of the time, their method of promoting tolerance and diversity is actually to suppress or remove that which is perceived by them to cause the most conflict - i.e., inherently religious and/or nationalist iconography and ideas. They often claim to be non-conformist, yet they value solidarity on the issues that mean the most to them and seek to ostracize and diminish anyone that disagrees as somehow being ignorant, regressive, not representative of the "majority" and therefore in need of being rooted out either immediately or systematically. To me, that's neither tolerance nor diversity because you can't tolerate something to which you do not expose yourself and you cannot be "diverse" if you root out of society all elements which you think are divisive, outdated or just plain wrong. What I believe the progressive side is really trying to avoid is not intolerance or mass conformity, but conflict. It's an understandable goal, to be sure, but whether it is over a nude photo or even a cop's actions in Ferguson, Missouri, human nature requires that we MUST allow for conflict in order to fairly work through social issues as well as to allow diversity and therefore BE tolerant. It isn't always pretty or fun, but I do believe it to be a fact. The alternative, which I would endorse, would simply be to promote self-restraint and say, "The fact that someone disagrees with you and does not like you should not necessarily be an excuse for violence or excessive civil unrest."
Like the pans people used to keep under their beds to be emptied later, before modern plumbing - out of sight and out of mind - it is what it is and exists whether you see it or not. Or, in other words (which I hope you'll pardon), "Shit happens." 'Think you're tolerant and pro-diversity? Then get over it. ;)
Personally, I disagree with the Council President. I have a lot of conservative, religious preferences, but they are PERSONAL. Regardless of anyone's idea of decency, my religion (as I can only interpret it) teaches me that my values and morals are best upheld by CHOICE, rendering unto "Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." I think most if not all censorship is ultimately counterproductive, particularly when it comes to the human body and sexuality. After all, we want most what we can't have, so if you make something like the female breast extremely taboo under any and all circumstances, sexual or otherwise, odds are that children and adolescents, especially, are going to be that much more focused and interested in seeing what they are told they cannot - and, most likely, sexually objectifying it in the process. Other nations (such as Japan, if I'm not mistaken) are not nearly as strict in these regards yet, as a society, seem to have fewer sex crimes and so forth. Unless I'm mistaken, the museum is a public place, so to me, that means it should at least be ALLOWED to represent as much of society as it wants in order to be relevant to as many as possible. Therefore, if you're offended, simply don't look or don't go. There are, for better or worse, other ways to teach children about art.
Then, there's the other side of this coin - the side in which one caller linked Yarborough to the city's conservative and therefore religious nature and compared his views and alleged intentions to those of ISIS', which is imposing strict Islamic law everywhere it goes. While I see where he's coming from, I wonder if his seemingly tolerant attitude would lead him to protest the suing of a school, a business or anyone else that would be and has been sued in the recent past over public displays of religious symbols within Christmas and/or other holiday displays. Those that sue generally cite separation of church and state, but while I cannot claim to be an expert or have a perfect solution, I think the intention of that clause in our law is way too conveniently and narrowly interpreted by BOTH sides on a regular basis. Personally, I believe it means that religious institutions no longer have the ability to help make or enforce actual laws the way the Catholic Church and the Church of England might have in centuries' past. The ability to lobby and to influence legislators and their legislation, though, is a right given to ALL Americans. It should not be taken away from religious people and institutions or from anyone else precisely BECAUSE the nation is so big and so diverse. After all, individual elections are never going to represent the interests of everyone, no matter how they are funded or how fairly they are conducted. Lobbying, as it were - even if you resent the ease with which the rich and big business seem to do it over those of the so-called "ordinary" citizens - allows segments of the population to be heard even if they are not specifically represented by the results of individual elections. If nothing else, at the end of it all, you're left with the plain and simple fact of life not always seeming fair and not everyone can get exactly what they want or be pleased ALL of the times. Therefore, the most fair thing to do in my opinion is simply to take turns.
In conclusion, while I disagree with Mr. Yarbrough's stance that said photo should somehow be censored, my beef with so-called "progressives" is that, most of the time, their method of promoting tolerance and diversity is actually to suppress or remove that which is perceived by them to cause the most conflict - i.e., inherently religious and/or nationalist iconography and ideas. They often claim to be non-conformist, yet they value solidarity on the issues that mean the most to them and seek to ostracize and diminish anyone that disagrees as somehow being ignorant, regressive, not representative of the "majority" and therefore in need of being rooted out either immediately or systematically. To me, that's neither tolerance nor diversity because you can't tolerate something to which you do not expose yourself and you cannot be "diverse" if you root out of society all elements which you think are divisive, outdated or just plain wrong. What I believe the progressive side is really trying to avoid is not intolerance or mass conformity, but conflict. It's an understandable goal, to be sure, but whether it is over a nude photo or even a cop's actions in Ferguson, Missouri, human nature requires that we MUST allow for conflict in order to fairly work through social issues as well as to allow diversity and therefore BE tolerant. It isn't always pretty or fun, but I do believe it to be a fact. The alternative, which I would endorse, would simply be to promote self-restraint and say, "The fact that someone disagrees with you and does not like you should not necessarily be an excuse for violence or excessive civil unrest."
Like the pans people used to keep under their beds to be emptied later, before modern plumbing - out of sight and out of mind - it is what it is and exists whether you see it or not. Or, in other words (which I hope you'll pardon), "Shit happens." 'Think you're tolerant and pro-diversity? Then get over it. ;)
Thursday, November 6, 2014
RE: Tuesday's Midterm Vote (or lack thereof) and the Excuses that Keep Us from Meeting Our Government Halfway on Issues We Claim to Care So Much About
In lieu of Tuesday's election, in which only a third of registered voters even bothered to vote, I wanted to make some observations about what our place in is in the political system as American voters versus what it could be. Since I made a promise of sorts not to talk much about these things on my personal Facebook page, I'll do it here instead - yet, I would like to still try to be as UN-partisan as possible so as to reach and make as much sense to as many as I hopefully can.
It is an undeniable fact that whatever politicians say on the campaign trail, they ultimately wind up with campaigns funded almost exclusively by the government and, to a greater extent, wealthy individuals and private corporations. The concern that this prevents policy makers from listening and responding to the needs and desires of most outside of the single digit percentage of wealthy people, groups and businesses is legitimate. However, I do not believe that such action should be taken solely by the federal government, itself.
A lot of this phenomena - which has been an issue to some degree since the turn of the 20th century - is due to industrialization and the expanding size of the nation until as recently as about fifty or sixty years ago, give or take. The structure of the government, size of the nation and the diversity of people to represent based on a number of factors make giving even half of them an informed set of choices at all, with information available on both sides (or more) and on a range of issues, a logistical and financial challenge. Increasingly, candidates have two choices: Stick to public funding and donations out of fairness, yet risk an ever-struggling campaigns that might not reach everyone, limiting votes and keeping them from helping those people, anyway - or rely heavily upon private donors that may expect much in return, leaving little time to adequately represent the majority. Though there are no fully justifiable excuses, it's a tough call to make and a tough balance to strike.
A number of people like to use other nations such as Norway as an example of the kind of government that America should have and, specifically, the way America should conduct its elections and allow for their fair funding and carrying out. What I think too many seem to overlook, though, is that they're not immune to the effects of industrialization, either. Norway, itself, has a government and economy comprised of both capitalist and socialist elements - which seem to work well in the country (whose population, though, is literally 1/60'th the size of the U.S.) - but it also benefits from a number of natural resources and valuable exports, including an oil and gas industry that is about the best there is outside of the Middle East. Americans like to say that the oil industry, for example, has too much control and influence in politics, but I would be surprised if a lot of the tax and other monies used by governments such as Norway's to pay for their campaigns does not come from the taxes and fees collected from the very same industries, which the government must be motivated to keep healthy to continue having that well to tap.
However we may feel about the results and for whatever reasons, I think an important takeaway from Tuesday's midterm elections is that the American public is just not as engaged as it should be in its own governance. Many are disenchanted with both parties and distrusting of the government as it is, as a whole, and I share a lot of those sentiments, but if I may set aside what I see as far too varying definitions of "fairness" for just a moment, I think it is wrong of us as voters to allow something such as who gets to contribute to and influence campaigns and candidates more than others to keep us from exercising our rights not only to vote, but to donate, ourselves. I remember many a time when I received calls from campaign headquarters asking for donations and had to turn them down. At the time, I had good reasons - and since the recession, I'm sure many with those experiences have, as well - but I keep coming back to one undeniable fact: Until something drastic changes, we all still have CHOICES - if not in how much money we make all the time, then in how we manage our money and what we do or do not spend it on.
I see full well that, to some extent, the government should look after the lower and middle classes and make sure they are at least fairly stable because in some ways, the so-called recreational and luxury spending that generally is the first to get cut in tough times is also what keeps a lot of small businesses open and a lot of people employed. Take that away and, well... you get the picture. That said, my grandmother, at 90, hasn't worked more than a little job at a department store and not in at least fifty or sixty years, I don't think. Having been a widow now for almost 30 years (my grandfather was an insurance salesman), she's been wholly dependent upon a combination of inheritance money and money from Social Security, but she also chose to follow the lead of her husband and invest some of that, however much of it she had, and leave it alone to accumulate while also living a frugal lifestyle. Now, she is arguably the wealthiest on that side of my family, and for reasons having NOTHING to do with specific wages, her education or anything. The same is true of my mother's best friend, whose skill in coding saved her family from bankruptcy and whose relatively uneducated late husband's frugality meant that when he died in 2009, the start of the recession, he left her better off than the otherwise successful entrepreneur to which she recently remarried.
What I'm saying is that it's good that we be socially conscious and hold our government accountable, but no matter what party we belong to, it behooves all of us to take a little more responsibility and at least try to think, "Well, if the government isn't going to do anything or do anything yet, what can I do?" Remember Kennedy's 1960 inaugural address and what he said about asking what we could do for our country? I've seen educated people struggling financially, with families to support, still turning down jobs because they thought they deserved better while continuing to spend regularly on the weekends. They'd pay their taxes, for sure, but talk about actually ponying up money to fund a campaign? I just never heard it. Most of us also act like we don't have time for anything... that is, until it comes down to something we really want to do with whomever we really want to do it. Also, who is it that frequently shows up to campaign fundraising dinners and so forth? The idea that only ONE party is in more or less with the super-wealthy is a myth, too, for while the Democrats may not be cozy with Wall Street, they are with Hollywood and most of the audio-visual media, an industry or combination of industries that make up some of the wealthiest, most powerful and most resilient in existence.
Whatever the state of and validity of issues such as income inequality, lack of political compromise, etc., the fact as I see it is that if we're not more willing to make our own sacrifices here and there in order to, say, make more meaningful campaign donations to our candidates of choice so that they can see that we're serious and we count, too, then I'm afraid that the complaints about the wealthiest 1% and their dominance, for example, will continue to ring relatively hollow. While this doesn't mean that NOTHING should be done about these issues on the part of government, it does go to the heart of the fact that the same politicians with which we may currently be upset have come out of and largely been formed by the society that WE have created or allowed to evolve. I've said this before and I'll say it again. If we, as a people, are in any way lazy, corrupted or lacking in sufficient honesty and transparency, then how can we expect the public servants that we raise, educate and elect to be significantly different or better?
It is an undeniable fact that whatever politicians say on the campaign trail, they ultimately wind up with campaigns funded almost exclusively by the government and, to a greater extent, wealthy individuals and private corporations. The concern that this prevents policy makers from listening and responding to the needs and desires of most outside of the single digit percentage of wealthy people, groups and businesses is legitimate. However, I do not believe that such action should be taken solely by the federal government, itself.
A lot of this phenomena - which has been an issue to some degree since the turn of the 20th century - is due to industrialization and the expanding size of the nation until as recently as about fifty or sixty years ago, give or take. The structure of the government, size of the nation and the diversity of people to represent based on a number of factors make giving even half of them an informed set of choices at all, with information available on both sides (or more) and on a range of issues, a logistical and financial challenge. Increasingly, candidates have two choices: Stick to public funding and donations out of fairness, yet risk an ever-struggling campaigns that might not reach everyone, limiting votes and keeping them from helping those people, anyway - or rely heavily upon private donors that may expect much in return, leaving little time to adequately represent the majority. Though there are no fully justifiable excuses, it's a tough call to make and a tough balance to strike.
A number of people like to use other nations such as Norway as an example of the kind of government that America should have and, specifically, the way America should conduct its elections and allow for their fair funding and carrying out. What I think too many seem to overlook, though, is that they're not immune to the effects of industrialization, either. Norway, itself, has a government and economy comprised of both capitalist and socialist elements - which seem to work well in the country (whose population, though, is literally 1/60'th the size of the U.S.) - but it also benefits from a number of natural resources and valuable exports, including an oil and gas industry that is about the best there is outside of the Middle East. Americans like to say that the oil industry, for example, has too much control and influence in politics, but I would be surprised if a lot of the tax and other monies used by governments such as Norway's to pay for their campaigns does not come from the taxes and fees collected from the very same industries, which the government must be motivated to keep healthy to continue having that well to tap.
However we may feel about the results and for whatever reasons, I think an important takeaway from Tuesday's midterm elections is that the American public is just not as engaged as it should be in its own governance. Many are disenchanted with both parties and distrusting of the government as it is, as a whole, and I share a lot of those sentiments, but if I may set aside what I see as far too varying definitions of "fairness" for just a moment, I think it is wrong of us as voters to allow something such as who gets to contribute to and influence campaigns and candidates more than others to keep us from exercising our rights not only to vote, but to donate, ourselves. I remember many a time when I received calls from campaign headquarters asking for donations and had to turn them down. At the time, I had good reasons - and since the recession, I'm sure many with those experiences have, as well - but I keep coming back to one undeniable fact: Until something drastic changes, we all still have CHOICES - if not in how much money we make all the time, then in how we manage our money and what we do or do not spend it on.
I see full well that, to some extent, the government should look after the lower and middle classes and make sure they are at least fairly stable because in some ways, the so-called recreational and luxury spending that generally is the first to get cut in tough times is also what keeps a lot of small businesses open and a lot of people employed. Take that away and, well... you get the picture. That said, my grandmother, at 90, hasn't worked more than a little job at a department store and not in at least fifty or sixty years, I don't think. Having been a widow now for almost 30 years (my grandfather was an insurance salesman), she's been wholly dependent upon a combination of inheritance money and money from Social Security, but she also chose to follow the lead of her husband and invest some of that, however much of it she had, and leave it alone to accumulate while also living a frugal lifestyle. Now, she is arguably the wealthiest on that side of my family, and for reasons having NOTHING to do with specific wages, her education or anything. The same is true of my mother's best friend, whose skill in coding saved her family from bankruptcy and whose relatively uneducated late husband's frugality meant that when he died in 2009, the start of the recession, he left her better off than the otherwise successful entrepreneur to which she recently remarried.
What I'm saying is that it's good that we be socially conscious and hold our government accountable, but no matter what party we belong to, it behooves all of us to take a little more responsibility and at least try to think, "Well, if the government isn't going to do anything or do anything yet, what can I do?" Remember Kennedy's 1960 inaugural address and what he said about asking what we could do for our country? I've seen educated people struggling financially, with families to support, still turning down jobs because they thought they deserved better while continuing to spend regularly on the weekends. They'd pay their taxes, for sure, but talk about actually ponying up money to fund a campaign? I just never heard it. Most of us also act like we don't have time for anything... that is, until it comes down to something we really want to do with whomever we really want to do it. Also, who is it that frequently shows up to campaign fundraising dinners and so forth? The idea that only ONE party is in more or less with the super-wealthy is a myth, too, for while the Democrats may not be cozy with Wall Street, they are with Hollywood and most of the audio-visual media, an industry or combination of industries that make up some of the wealthiest, most powerful and most resilient in existence.
Whatever the state of and validity of issues such as income inequality, lack of political compromise, etc., the fact as I see it is that if we're not more willing to make our own sacrifices here and there in order to, say, make more meaningful campaign donations to our candidates of choice so that they can see that we're serious and we count, too, then I'm afraid that the complaints about the wealthiest 1% and their dominance, for example, will continue to ring relatively hollow. While this doesn't mean that NOTHING should be done about these issues on the part of government, it does go to the heart of the fact that the same politicians with which we may currently be upset have come out of and largely been formed by the society that WE have created or allowed to evolve. I've said this before and I'll say it again. If we, as a people, are in any way lazy, corrupted or lacking in sufficient honesty and transparency, then how can we expect the public servants that we raise, educate and elect to be significantly different or better?
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Affleck Defends Islam on Left-Wing Commentator's Show - Exactly What Is It With Religion and Politics?
Here's the link to Yahoo's article on both the political left's and right's reaction to Ben Affleck, who recently defended Islam when fellow Democrat/Leftist Bill Maher criticized and panned it on his own show. Here's the link to the Yahoo! news article. I almost feel worse for having even read this, especially since I'm tempted to side with Bill Maher, of all people - someone I see as a vulgar, left-wing comic and commentator.
I'm no expert on Islam, itself, but my half-sister has been a convert since her college days over 25 years ago, so I at least have some idea of what a family of Muslims and/or Muslim converts in America might actually be like. Unfortunately, some of the facts of my own family and its ties to Islam would lead you to believe that I am, as the article says, an "Islamaphobe" due to certain, more recent incidents. Nevertheless, I heard a segment on NPR this morning about a Muslim organization coming out to condemn ISIS and believe more now what I always tended to believe, which is that while it would be hypocritical of me to slam or condemn ALL Muslims and forms of Islam, it is at least an assertion made by some Islamic terrorists, themselves, that America is at war not just with terrorists that happen to be Muslim, but with one or more forms of extremist Islam. This would seem to be and be seen by many Muslims, in fact, as a corrupt branch of their ideology used now to justify violence and oppression and, sadly, to perhaps give some meaning to the somewhat bleak lives of increasingly isolated, young, Muslim males not only in the Middle East, but in Europe and America, as well. As for Affleck, I simply cannot help but wonder if he'd be as quick to come to the aid of Christianity in a discussion of right-wing militias, many cults and, most recently, of alleged racism and a sense of almost quasi-Fascist nationalism within the Tea Party, itself made up largely of middle and upper-class Christians (or people that identify themselves as Christians, however truthfully or otherwise).
Then again, those issues and concerns about American conservatism (almost always linked to religion, faith and/or Christianity) - whose general ideas on faith, fiscal responsibility (particularly personal responsibility to lessen the need for more government intervention and control), border control/security and some other things I favor and share - are why I started and am about to cap off the final draft of my latest original script (different story - get it? Ha.). Conflicting, often extreme attitudes on Islam's role in current events and a number of other issues are things that I think people on both the political right AND left need to look at more closely and be a little more honest about among one another. It's getting to the point to where the rhetoric on both sides, particularly among us as voters, is at such a fever pitch that far too many, I believe, might privately just accept some form of benign dictatorship and an end to democracy just to keep the "other side" from gaining and using power. Incidents such as the Michael Brown shooting, ISIS and lingering resentment over the Iraq War and recent recession make this kind of internal turmoil less noticeable and perhaps even less of a legitimate problem on the political left because, for now, it still controls the White House, the Senate and is able to claim a significant role in shaping or at least reacting to public opinion.
Still, I think the same growing internal divides and swaths of disillusionment within the individual parties, for example, are issues that should be addressed by both sides now and could, I think, become of even greater import in the near future - particularly once Obama leaves office and neither side has a clear scapegoat for its troubles anymore, for lack of a better term. Whether some like it or not, religion does play a part and factor into this, and on both sides as there are Christians, at least, and probably even a few Muslims that are both fervently right-wing Republican AND fervently left-wing Democrat. A few years ago, I know that some Christian churches (Southern Baptist, I think) were actively discouraging Democrats from joining and attending. At the same time, I doubt you'll find a lot of Republicans in all-black congregations, some of whom have had very public reverends coming out in condemnation not only of people like George Bush, Republicans and Wall Street, but of America as a whole. Yet, is one more or less Christian than the other? How involved is each side of the same coin in current events and political power struggles, etc?
So what is it with religion and politics? Frankly, I think they've become far too intermingled, but then the downside to organized religion in just about any form has always been that, while definitely useful and beneficial to many, it has also been used to unscrupulously gain and wield power, control and to cover for or even justify numerous wars and other atrocities. All I really know for sure is this: I've encountered people that more than just dislike religion and religious faith. They tend to see it as an outdated, outmoded joke on society - an inherently repressive and prejudicial form of humanity trying to control itself and understand its environment - yet, now and increasingly, a detriment to progress being overtaken by science and rapidly on its way out of both world-favor and ultimately existence in order to make room for a "better," more unified human society. Okay... well, to each their own, but as with other things, I think religion and faith are things to be dismissed at people's own peril. 'Wanna guard against ignorance, for example? I say don't be so quick to dismiss something like religion and religious people simply because you think of it and them as merely temporary obstacles to a future for humanity that is going to either unfold in your ideological favor or cease to exist altogether.
I'm no expert on Islam, itself, but my half-sister has been a convert since her college days over 25 years ago, so I at least have some idea of what a family of Muslims and/or Muslim converts in America might actually be like. Unfortunately, some of the facts of my own family and its ties to Islam would lead you to believe that I am, as the article says, an "Islamaphobe" due to certain, more recent incidents. Nevertheless, I heard a segment on NPR this morning about a Muslim organization coming out to condemn ISIS and believe more now what I always tended to believe, which is that while it would be hypocritical of me to slam or condemn ALL Muslims and forms of Islam, it is at least an assertion made by some Islamic terrorists, themselves, that America is at war not just with terrorists that happen to be Muslim, but with one or more forms of extremist Islam. This would seem to be and be seen by many Muslims, in fact, as a corrupt branch of their ideology used now to justify violence and oppression and, sadly, to perhaps give some meaning to the somewhat bleak lives of increasingly isolated, young, Muslim males not only in the Middle East, but in Europe and America, as well. As for Affleck, I simply cannot help but wonder if he'd be as quick to come to the aid of Christianity in a discussion of right-wing militias, many cults and, most recently, of alleged racism and a sense of almost quasi-Fascist nationalism within the Tea Party, itself made up largely of middle and upper-class Christians (or people that identify themselves as Christians, however truthfully or otherwise).
Then again, those issues and concerns about American conservatism (almost always linked to religion, faith and/or Christianity) - whose general ideas on faith, fiscal responsibility (particularly personal responsibility to lessen the need for more government intervention and control), border control/security and some other things I favor and share - are why I started and am about to cap off the final draft of my latest original script (different story - get it? Ha.). Conflicting, often extreme attitudes on Islam's role in current events and a number of other issues are things that I think people on both the political right AND left need to look at more closely and be a little more honest about among one another. It's getting to the point to where the rhetoric on both sides, particularly among us as voters, is at such a fever pitch that far too many, I believe, might privately just accept some form of benign dictatorship and an end to democracy just to keep the "other side" from gaining and using power. Incidents such as the Michael Brown shooting, ISIS and lingering resentment over the Iraq War and recent recession make this kind of internal turmoil less noticeable and perhaps even less of a legitimate problem on the political left because, for now, it still controls the White House, the Senate and is able to claim a significant role in shaping or at least reacting to public opinion.
Still, I think the same growing internal divides and swaths of disillusionment within the individual parties, for example, are issues that should be addressed by both sides now and could, I think, become of even greater import in the near future - particularly once Obama leaves office and neither side has a clear scapegoat for its troubles anymore, for lack of a better term. Whether some like it or not, religion does play a part and factor into this, and on both sides as there are Christians, at least, and probably even a few Muslims that are both fervently right-wing Republican AND fervently left-wing Democrat. A few years ago, I know that some Christian churches (Southern Baptist, I think) were actively discouraging Democrats from joining and attending. At the same time, I doubt you'll find a lot of Republicans in all-black congregations, some of whom have had very public reverends coming out in condemnation not only of people like George Bush, Republicans and Wall Street, but of America as a whole. Yet, is one more or less Christian than the other? How involved is each side of the same coin in current events and political power struggles, etc?
So what is it with religion and politics? Frankly, I think they've become far too intermingled, but then the downside to organized religion in just about any form has always been that, while definitely useful and beneficial to many, it has also been used to unscrupulously gain and wield power, control and to cover for or even justify numerous wars and other atrocities. All I really know for sure is this: I've encountered people that more than just dislike religion and religious faith. They tend to see it as an outdated, outmoded joke on society - an inherently repressive and prejudicial form of humanity trying to control itself and understand its environment - yet, now and increasingly, a detriment to progress being overtaken by science and rapidly on its way out of both world-favor and ultimately existence in order to make room for a "better," more unified human society. Okay... well, to each their own, but as with other things, I think religion and faith are things to be dismissed at people's own peril. 'Wanna guard against ignorance, for example? I say don't be so quick to dismiss something like religion and religious people simply because you think of it and them as merely temporary obstacles to a future for humanity that is going to either unfold in your ideological favor or cease to exist altogether.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
RE: Iraq/ISIS - If "All Options Are On The Table," Then Obama Needs To Pick One NOW!
When NBC News starts its broadcast as it did tonight with the identification of a record number of "world hot spots" and a report of yet another on-camera beheading of yet another American reporter - whose fate has been known of for weeks - and by what appears to be the same ISIS militant, no less, I don't know how anyone in their right mind can be comfortable with Obama and Kerry's standard mantra nowadays of, "All options are on the table." I don't care how bad an idea the Iraq War was. I don't care what history preceded or led to this situation. I don't care what "right" anyone thinks America has to throw its weight around. I don't care whose feelings could be hurt or whose cultural pride could be stepped upon - Heaven knows enough people are not only willing, but EAGER to sacrifice and offend America's cultural pride in order to make illegal immigrants and potential enemies feel better about themselves.
The fact of the matter is that American citizens - not soldiers, mind you, whose job it is to go in harm's way - but citizens doing what are considered by most to be fairly harmless jobs are being killed, overseas, not just with impunity, but with ADVANCE NOTICE GIVEN while the nation that arguably has one of, if not the biggest, strongest and most capable military and intelligence community on Earth just sits back and does... what? Fly drones around, taking photos and dropping a few bombs here and there? It's not that this kind of thing hasn't happened before that makes me mad because I'm not naive enough to believe that. It is what looks, at least, like a foreign relations and national security policy which actually puts the "respect" of cultural differences and feelings ahead in importance of the actual, physical lives of American citizens. That goes not only for an unwillingness to put ground troops in places like Iraq where, by now, they are so clearly needed (at least temporarily), but also for what seems like an unwillingness to firmly and rationally deal with the unexpected and uninvited influx of South American immigrants, all of whom America cannot possibly take care of or take care of adequately IF, as so many claim, we still have so many economic and unemployment problems of our own and are barely taking care of ourselves, whatever the morality of the scenario(s).
If all options were on the table when it comes to things like Ukraine and Iraq, as they've allegedly been for months now, then why hasn't a better one been implemented? 'Word is that another 300 troops are going to be sent to, um... protect embassies or something. In the meantime, how is that going to stop ISIS from capturing and beheading yet another American or perhaps European citizen? Why, if these embassies are so worthy of ground troops when so much of the rest of the region clearly isn't seen as being so deserving, was not Benghazi better protected two years ago? I know there are people that believe I'm an occasional Fox News/Rush Limbaugh ditto-head, but in fact, most of what admittedly little I know and have heard recently has come from OTHER sources - from interviews and newscasts on public radio and allegedly more moderate news broadcasts. Most of the time, I can't stand Fox News for more than an hour of broadcast (and that's pushing it nowadays), but this idea that dissatisfaction with current foreign and military policy is some kind of alarmist, right-wing extremism is, given what's happening and at the moment, at the very least, categorically and in its own right every bit as biased, narrow-minded and downright STUPID as any other partisan position out there.
Like I said, I don't care how bad the Iraq war was or how "intolerant" or hypocritical it seems to say that America is at war with Islam. Islamic terrorists are no longer even our only or potentially biggest problem. Look, for example, what's been going on with Russia - on the verge of being an enemy of ours yet again for the first time in 25 years! And why? Clearly, these threats don't just materialize overnight, but people like Putin don't generally behave this way unless something - like, say, America's/Obama's foolish ultimatums on Syria which were never really acted upon - indicates that the only or biggest potential obstacle is or might no longer be such an obstacle. In any case, at this point, it isn't a question of how many corporations might or might not get fat government contracts in the Middle East or how many oil companies might be able to profit from conflict in the long-run. America has tried to take just a few baby steps back AWAY from its perceived post as "world police" and look what's happened. How many civilians have to be murdered - executed, with notice given way, way in advance - before LOGIC and DECISIVENESS is put ahead of seemingly useless worrying and moralizing?
The fact of the matter is that American citizens - not soldiers, mind you, whose job it is to go in harm's way - but citizens doing what are considered by most to be fairly harmless jobs are being killed, overseas, not just with impunity, but with ADVANCE NOTICE GIVEN while the nation that arguably has one of, if not the biggest, strongest and most capable military and intelligence community on Earth just sits back and does... what? Fly drones around, taking photos and dropping a few bombs here and there? It's not that this kind of thing hasn't happened before that makes me mad because I'm not naive enough to believe that. It is what looks, at least, like a foreign relations and national security policy which actually puts the "respect" of cultural differences and feelings ahead in importance of the actual, physical lives of American citizens. That goes not only for an unwillingness to put ground troops in places like Iraq where, by now, they are so clearly needed (at least temporarily), but also for what seems like an unwillingness to firmly and rationally deal with the unexpected and uninvited influx of South American immigrants, all of whom America cannot possibly take care of or take care of adequately IF, as so many claim, we still have so many economic and unemployment problems of our own and are barely taking care of ourselves, whatever the morality of the scenario(s).
If all options were on the table when it comes to things like Ukraine and Iraq, as they've allegedly been for months now, then why hasn't a better one been implemented? 'Word is that another 300 troops are going to be sent to, um... protect embassies or something. In the meantime, how is that going to stop ISIS from capturing and beheading yet another American or perhaps European citizen? Why, if these embassies are so worthy of ground troops when so much of the rest of the region clearly isn't seen as being so deserving, was not Benghazi better protected two years ago? I know there are people that believe I'm an occasional Fox News/Rush Limbaugh ditto-head, but in fact, most of what admittedly little I know and have heard recently has come from OTHER sources - from interviews and newscasts on public radio and allegedly more moderate news broadcasts. Most of the time, I can't stand Fox News for more than an hour of broadcast (and that's pushing it nowadays), but this idea that dissatisfaction with current foreign and military policy is some kind of alarmist, right-wing extremism is, given what's happening and at the moment, at the very least, categorically and in its own right every bit as biased, narrow-minded and downright STUPID as any other partisan position out there.
Like I said, I don't care how bad the Iraq war was or how "intolerant" or hypocritical it seems to say that America is at war with Islam. Islamic terrorists are no longer even our only or potentially biggest problem. Look, for example, what's been going on with Russia - on the verge of being an enemy of ours yet again for the first time in 25 years! And why? Clearly, these threats don't just materialize overnight, but people like Putin don't generally behave this way unless something - like, say, America's/Obama's foolish ultimatums on Syria which were never really acted upon - indicates that the only or biggest potential obstacle is or might no longer be such an obstacle. In any case, at this point, it isn't a question of how many corporations might or might not get fat government contracts in the Middle East or how many oil companies might be able to profit from conflict in the long-run. America has tried to take just a few baby steps back AWAY from its perceived post as "world police" and look what's happened. How many civilians have to be murdered - executed, with notice given way, way in advance - before LOGIC and DECISIVENESS is put ahead of seemingly useless worrying and moralizing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)