Why is the Tea Party the Worst AND Best Thing To Happen To Obama?

Anticlimactic as this statement is by now, I think the worst AND best thing to ever happen to or for President Obama is... THE TEA PARTY! Hear me out.  Look it up and it appears to have formed almost in direct response to Obama's election as of early 2009.  A year later, it proved a pain for Obama because it almost singularly robbed Obama's Democrats and even a few "mainstream" Republicans of their seats in the House.  After a while, however, it became pretty clear to everyone but Tea Party members and supporters that whatever the so-called "Republican" House had to actually offer would never see the light of day as long as Obama and his ilk controlled the other two branches, so it reduced their tactics to sometimes comical, yet expensive sideshows (like Ted Cruz's fight to repeal Obamacare during the government shutdown last year) and made them little more than obstructionists.  Nevertheless, despite obscenely low approval ratings, Obama's re-election and no change in the Senate's balance of power after 2012, the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party is STILL in charge in Congress!

This is bad for Obama (and fellow Republican Speaker John Boehner, interestingly enough) because it puts everything he does under even more and incredibly intense scrutiny, but there's a reason why it might also have guaranteed him a second term.   I don't think people re-elected Obama because they all enthusiastically embrace all of his notions about changing America and so forth - although there have been documented, fundamental shifts in certain attitudes towards government's role in the economy and healthcare and so forth across the board. Yet, neither do I think these Tea Party people are being voted into and kept in Congress as part of a fluke or because people think they might actually get the upper-hand.

For better or worse, a majority of Americans probably do not vote - certainly not in midterm elections and not even in Presidential ones - and of those that do, the mob mentality pretty much rules.  Two mobs face off (bear with me here) and whichever one looks like it has a better chance of winning and of not messing things up even more is the one most likely to get the most votes. Since most people are wary of politicians, in general - regardless of their political persuasions otherwise - most voters, particularly the swing voters, are not looking for who is "good" but, rather, who is WORSE. When those few and far between that aren't going to just blindly vote the same way over and over again find who is or, rather, looks worse, they then vote the other way. It must come down to which side gets the most converts on which issues nowadays because I find it hard to believe that one party has so much more of America's confidence than the other, particularly when rhetoric and some policy proposition is so extreme.  It may look that way sometimes, but the left has ALWAYS controlled the popular media in America (one of the earliest TV interviews EVER features Eleanor Roosevelt criticizing then-Senator Nixon over his prosecution of Alger Hiss) while the right has long had footholds in the business and, more recently, the religious communities. Which American subculture you belong or are closest to - Hollywood or Wall Street, to put it more directly - likely decides who you think most represents America at its core, past, present and future, regardless of actual facts and political statistics (many of which are skewed for roughly the same reasons).

Obama got re-elected because everyone was scared to death that Romney would start a war with Iran and/or North Korea and sever just about every proverbial purse string connected to social programs, etc., and that just wasn't acceptable while unemployment numbers are still so high and, again, those fundamental shifts were/are still occurring.  More than that, he's the one that came up with the original form of the Affordable Care Act in the first place (or, rather, the Heritage Foundation came up with it for him), a bill that one side rejects while the other supports ONLY as a fantasy stepping stone towards socialized medicine - and since personality matters in elections, nobody was going to vote for someone that wealthy and seemingly "out of touch" and void of recognizable personality when coming out of a major recession. At the same time, I don't think it was hard to predict in 2012 that, should Obama be re-elected, not only was he likely to step up his more personal agenda, but his supporters would demand it.  Sure enough, practically his entire second inaugural speech is about Obama's vision of America and the way he'd leave it after his second term; about civil rights in the future coming in the form of increased government enforcement of fairness and equality laws as well as a stance of pro-immigration and what would become a foreign policy dedicated to ensuring that America move closer to and promote, in his words, "global norms." Socially, economically, etc., and it's no secret that up until they found out Obama's drones were spying on everyone, much of the rest of the world heartily celebrated Obama's initial election because his ideas about healthcare, for example, have been almost identical to much of Europe's.

So why is the Tea Party faction still in control of the House of Representatives - THE legislative and arguably most powerful branch of the government, itself - when it has held approval ratings in the teens and below since before 2012? Besides the obvious stench of decay emanating from what used to be a more stable and dignified Republican Party, the Tea Party faction is perfect for keeping Obama in check because even if they don't make any actual gains, they are effective at limiting Obama's gains whenever he appears to be getting too full of himself.  It has nothing to do with policy, at least not from them.

American voters nowadays may be riled up, but they're not idiots.  They know that both sides have wandered off the reservation, politically speaking, but it is for that very reason that - given the choice - they want the so-called "fringe" segment of the Republican Party to keep what is now the entire Democratic Party behind Obama in check... even if, generally speaking, they actually like Obama more. Liking someone and trusting them, though - NOT the same things. ;)

What Is The REAL Value And Agenda Behind The Discrediting Of "Creationism?"

A lot of people nowadays use the "big bang theory," age of the Earth and evolution in general to not only explain the Earth's origins, but to pointedly discredit anyone that dares believe in a god - particularly, it seems, the Christian God (because so many critics tend to start with Christianity and rarely go much further in their criticisms of other beliefs in deities).  While people like Isaac Newton were both scientists and people of faith, the whole concept of any real reconciliation of science and faith nowadays is painted as being borderline preposterous, stemming from the ignorance and delusions of uneducated and superstitious people.

But here's a question: The big bang theory is, broadly speaking, the expansion of the universe from something akin to a spec which involves the combining of elements to create more familiar matter.  Where did that spec and those elements come from?  Why, I wonder, is it more "ignorant" to believe in a god that, in whatever way over however many years, CREATED a vast universe that functions independently (i.e., evolution) and naturally formed the Earth, than it is to believe that all these elements and this expansion just... existed and began its processes, for no reason whatsoever? If you're going to say, "Oh, well, we're just criticizing those that take the Bible too literally," then you still throw off the whole argument.    You can say, "Well, faith and religion are just ancient psychological tools meant to be grown out-of and replaced with fact, originally used to make sense of the world and provide some structure for early man." To some extent, that's probably true as it makes a lot of sense, except that the only practical benefit in doing away with spiritual and religious faith in a deity at all is to get out from under that god's and religion's restrictive tenets. After all, rules are made to be broken, so they say, and how much easier could it be to break a rule than it is after you've just decided for yourself that the rule is obsolete (mostly because you want it to be), serves no practical purpose and is, in itself, immoral because of its inherent intolerance?

Answer this: Do you want EVERY impulse and human behavior to be... tolerated? Where is the line drawn and why?  For example, since everyone is going to die, anyway, why is murder wrong? Say someone comes and murders a friend or relative.  They can't be brought back, so why not just tolerate it and let the killer go?  What is "justice?"  Like faith and the rules of religion, why do we need it? And even for those that do tend to take most Scripture literally, there is at least an awareness that it is full of metaphors, shadows, parables and so forth. I can't speak for other faiths and religions, but much of Jesus' teachings are in the forms of stories and parables whose meanings were never in the literal.  The Bible with which most are familiar cites the Earth as having been created in seven days, yet later admits that a day unto the Lord is as a thousand years.  Or more? There's a lot of "scripture" that isn't even in the Bible that most know and abide by, at least in the Western hemisphere.  The point where the time frame and mode of the Earth's creation is concerned is that nobody knows and nobody really needs to know - at least, not in the definitive sense.  Understanding nature is one thing, and that is useful, but knowing for certain its origins and where it came from is something else altogether.

Frankly, I don't think it has anything to do with actual science. It seems to  change very little to believe that the Earth is 4 to 6 billion years old instead of just 10,000 in that there aren't many practical applications of either theory that haven't already at least begun to be explored and put into practice.  I think it has to do with the fact that religion (and not just Christianity or even Islam) has for so long been used to excuse so many atrocities and so much hate that science and the battle to discredit creationism is just the latest tool in some people's attempt to systematically rid the world of any semblance of organized religion whatsoever. If you can't guilt the "ignorant" religious people into seeing that they have too much influence or power and hurt too many people with their seemingly arbitrary rules about homosexuality and abortion and other things, then, well... get them on the facts.  Get them on their belief in things that cannot be proven and for which many say there is solid evidence that contradicts said beliefs.  Okay, but there's still just one problem: FAITH, BY DEFINITION, IS A BELIEF IN THAT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF!

And religion?  Does anyone with half a brain actually believe that there has to be a god at the center of an actual religion?  In the earliest heyday of Star Wars, there were people that made a serious attempt at getting the Jedi... lifestyle or... whatever... recognized as a legitimate "religion."  They almost pulled it off, and what's at the center of that: The Force?  Even in Star Wars mythology (which is what many consider it in a modern sense), the anthropomorphism of the Force as midichlorians only exists in one or two of the films and is largely rejected.  Otherwise, that's about as close as the myth gets to identifying the Force as any one or group of entities.

The subtle hypocrisy in trying to discredit creationists is that, in doing so, you're engaging in a form of intolerance that is not so dissimilar to that intolerance which many would attribute to religious believers and simultaneously condemn. Whether you're seeking to silence anyone teaching evolution or anyone promoting religious dogma in public and trying to merge it with public policy, you're trying to silence someone.  You are actively discriminating against a point of view and, by extension, anyone that holds it, and the very fact that you could be threatened by a perspective which you claim to be so preposterous and ludicrous does, in itself, I think, say something about the weakness of your own crusade if not your overall argument.  Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, especially where the origins of the Earth are concerned IF they even think it's of any personal or practical relevance.  What I think critics of creationism tend to fail to consider is that even the validity of their theories on evolution and of the big bang theory, itself, still does not rule out the existence or even involvement of a higher power.  If anything, the universe, itself, becomes that higher power because you are always going to be stymied by that ultimate question: Where did the spec and the elements come from that had to combine and expand to execute the "big bang" and form the universe as we know it today?  

JULY 4TH INDEPENDENCE DAY - Enjoy It While You Can! And BE GRATEFUL!

Something tells me that July 4th will not be a holiday much longer.  The alleged desire for more "globalization," particularly while President Obama and his ilk rule the proverbial roost, portends a day in which almost any form of national pride will be looked upon as naive and, ultimately, immoral.  I don't argue with people that talk about America's mistakes, at least in terms of what those mistakes are.  America is an experiment and as with most experiments, it has had more than its share of explosions and injuries that could have been prevented.  What was done to the Native Americans, for example, seems almost totally inexcusable.  What I see many of America's accusers fail to acknowledge, however, is that - like slavery - the abuse of the Native Americans began LONG before America was actually a single nation and, technically, was perpetrated mostly by the English, French and Spanish.  However, the nation of the United States does bear its share of responsibility in that particular tragedy for what was done by people like President Andrew Jackson, who I think oversaw the displacement of the Cherokee in the Trail of Tears.  There are also things like certain dubious motives for America's participation in overseas wars and other conflicts, particularly the Vietnam conflict (never officially declared a war by Congress) and, most recently, Iraq.  However, it strikes me that this was all made possible when, in the first years of the 20th century, presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and, later, Woodrow Wilson - one a Republican-turned-Bull Moose Independent, the other a Democrat that first tried to help form a version of the United Nations - began to think that America needed a more significant presence and a reputation of its own in world affairs. People can judge any way they wish, but it's a FACT that America became instrumental in winning two World Wars for its allies overseas and, in particular, for beating back the threat of the Nazis, who might otherwise have taken over most if not all of Western Europe and created a scenario which might have eventually threatened the United States, as well.  America didn't do it alone, but the war began in 1938, three years before America's involvement began, and the Nazi war machine was going strong at that time (Japan is a slightly different matter).

The fundamental reason I'm in favor of holidays like July 4th is that it reminds people to be GRATEFUL for something, and in the case of America, one of those things is the freedom to air such a long litany of complaints without excessive fear of reprisal from the State.  Unless I'm mistaken, China now forbids ANY celebration or recognition of the anniversary of the protests in Tienanmen Square,  Russia is slowly reverting back to its Soviet era habits of harassing and trying to occupy and possess its neighbors, such as the Ukraine and Georgia, which poses an indirect threat to Western Europe in part because that region relies a lot on things like natural gas from the East.  One can call America hypocritical and, at times, warlike, but in the end, I think it's done more significant good than harm to most of its citizens. After all, people are still coming here from all over the world, and do you see boatloads of Mexicans and South Americans headed for Cuba?  No.  They trek hundreds of miles sometimes on foot to reach the border of AMERICA - and you can argue that it's the more obvious and convenient choice, but by how much?

Speaking only for myself, I've seen nothing to suggest that I would have lived past my first week or two of life had I been born anywhere else, and the homeopathic or alternative medicine of the Far East would NOT have saved me from the conditions which required surgery and technology to correct.  The healthcare systems in some other countries may be cheaper, more accessible and even efficient to a degree, but from what I've heard, they're not all so flexible as to be able to devote enough time and attention to saving a single patient's life.  That's why I'm opposed to socialized medicine HERE (not everywhere) because no matter how well it is alleged to work in other nations, most of those nations deal with smaller, less diverse populations, and in the end, we're still talking about wholesale healthcare: First come, first serve and nothing done that isn't first approved for payment by the state.  My family has been in the healthcare business for 40 years and I've been in and out of hospitals as a patient my whole life.  So far, I've not heard ANYONE - not doctors, nurses or anyone actually working in the field - voluntarily say a single good thing about the Affordable Care Act or the prospect of socialized medicine.  Just recently, my father went to the emergency room, where a doctor talked a little about how he feared the Affordable Care Act's limitations in the near future on what they could do due to insurance restrictions meant to make it all less expensive.  Recently diagnosed with cancer, my father was even offered FREE CARE by an oncologist at Baptist (he can only really afford the VA, which is technically free but not very efficient or reliable and knew about his lung tumors a full year without saying anything), but was unable to get, the oncologist said, because the law prohibited any doctor from treating patients for free so long as they have Medicare, which my father does now that he's 65.      

I'm sure there are people that could come up with a thesis' worth of statistics and incident reports with which to argue against what I've just written, particularly when it comes to the above paragraph, but this whole blog boils down to the following: If you want to live in a place or a nation that doesn't have its share of sins and still have America's level of freedom and relatively low taxes, your best bet is probably to develop independent space travel so you can fly to a similar world whose population hasn't had time to make as many mistakes. People associate patriotism with nationalism, and nationalism with the warmongering attitudes of the Nazis and the former Soviet Union, who goose-stepped through history on the backs of their beleaguered and sometimes neglected citizenry and all over any and everyone they could find.  Almost every serious accusation leveled against America having to do with mistakes made since the end of the second World War comes back to similar behavior and, most notably, the "military industrial complex" first warned about, ironically, by Republican President and former general Dwight Eisenhower upon leaving office in 1960.

Yes, it is an unfortunate fact that nations like America have sometimes relied, whether intentionally or unintentionally, upon war and conflict to boost economies and world standing. However, this, at least, is not solely a flaw of the Americas.  Rome was born, lived and died on the fruits of war and of conquest. War was made just to keep Rome alive, as it needed territory and populations to conquer, rule over and tax to maintain its own opulence. Similar things could be said of the Spanish and of the English thereafter  The difference with the United States, I believe, is the freedom to acknowledge these imperfections and to at least try to avoid letting them get the better of us in the future.  They may be facts of U.S. history, but they need not be facts of our future just because we continue to be a nation unto ourselves.  As far as nationalism and national pride is concerned, I see it as being more about gratitude than anything else, with gratitude being a far healthier and more productive attitude than the nurturing of feelings of victimization and apocalyptic despair. Some may claim that this requires the convenient forgetting of America's "atrocities," but I disagree.  If anything, we can remember those atrocities and be GRATEFUL that, as a nation, we learned and/or are learning from those mistakes instead of letting them get us down. I also disagree with anyone that believes it to require a lot of naivete.  Does one have to believe themselves perfect and flawless in order to have self-esteem and to want to live?  If so, then I think we would all be suicidal - at least everyone of at least average intelligence.

If you're an American, living in America, then be GRATEFUL for that - if for no other reason than the fact that you have the freedom to complain if you wish!  If, of course, that's what you get off on, and believe me, I would understand.  A lot of people that come down the hardest on America claim also to be "humanist," but what is more human than being able to be as flawed as America allegedly is, yet still be able to learn from the past, stand up and march into the future with adjusted attitudes and new approaches?  Many are criticized for believing that America is the greatest nation on Earth, but frankly, I hope that everyone - no matter where they live - can have the luxury of believing that about their nation. The fact that the world is divided into nations does NOT, in my opinion, mean that we cannot work together.  All it means is that we acknowledge our differences, both voluntary and otherwise, and celebrate them while still having respect and getting along as best as possible.  The fact that we have differences also does not mean that they cannot be set aside to achieve common goals. I don't think humanity NEEDS one world order just to be able to work together.  To me, that's a defeatist way of looking at things because it says that we're so fundamentally divided, so flawed and relatively helpless that we need a super-strong, centralized power with global reach to affect change that can benefit everyone.  Yeah, that may seem to be the case once in a while, but does it have to be?  I don't think so.  If it's an example of anything, America is an example of how humans can do just about anything when they want to, and regardless of their differences considering that America is a nation built by immigrants from around the world. If you need a reason to celebrate July 4th and be grateful for America, then I can think of none better.

American Politics and Policies NEED Flexibility Again

I listened today to Rush Limbaugh saying that Democrats had tricked Republicans into believing that they need to accept and embrace more Democrat-like policies and ideas or else face extreme irrelevance for the foreseeable future. Thus, the divisions within the party.  Part of me agrees.  Another part, though, knows for a FACT that people who can't get elected also can't very well affect policy or stem the tide of unwanted change.  He also cited an allegedly liberal reporter that claims Democrats have what used to be the Republican edge because they now possess and exude OPTIMISM in the future which, for them, means optimism that more and more in American society are coming around to their way of seeing things and will accept their policies and ideas.  That's probably true, but this is America, so the question is... for how long?  I think Rush is right in that it IS a purely political tactic that has hurt Republicans by making a few of them second-guess their own conservatism.  That said, the effectiveness of that tactic suggests that there may be some truth there, as well - that, for better or worse, something's gotta give.  The fact that NOTHING appears on the verge of giving at the moment, on either side, is a large part of why I think the political atmosphere in America is, to so many, so poisoned at the moment.  

It doesn't look particularly new, but BOTH parties act more sincerely than ever, I believe, as if they know the CORRECT path for America, and that, I believe, is what is poisoning the pot, so to speak.  Why?  Because what both parties seem to refuse to see or acknowledge is that the experiment that is and always has been the United States is and has always been predicated upon the idea that there has never and will never be ONLY ONE, CORRECT PATH! It's the very essence of the "democracy" in our republic.  Unfortunately, both parties have abandoned a level of flexibility that I think has kept the American "experiment" afloat for most of its almost 250 years of formalized existence.  Sure, the goal in politics here as much as anywhere else has, on the surface, been solely to WIN and to advance one agenda over another, influencing policy for the long haul.  However, until recently, we've had enough Presidents and actual leaders in Washington with enough knowledge and experience to know the difference between campaign rhetoric and actual policy - the difference between what it takes to win an election versus what it takes to actually serve the best interests of Americans based on the needs of the moment as opposed to the needs of the party and/or its ideals.

Right now, I'm infuriated by the fact that I cannot see myself confidently voting for ANYONE between now and 2016.  Period.  Since Obama was elected (on a platform of unification, ironically), what had been a relatively slow swing further left and right for each of the parties suddenly went into overdrive. The ongoing rhetoric for which his voters seem to love him is increasingly and inherently skewed, contradictory and downright WRONG.  For example, he told a group of West Point cadets that he believed in American exceptionalism, but also that America should "affirm... international norms." (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/28-2)  Dictionary.com defines exceptionalism as: "exceptionalism. a theory that a nation, region, or political system is exceptional and does not conform to the norm." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exceptionalism) The Democrats used their short-lived majority in Congress to pass a convoluted form of healthcare reform that was not only designed initially by a conservative think tank, but was only ever used effectively as a political tool in one state. Many if not most Democrats only continue to support it (despite their assertions that it has actually STRENGTHENED insurance companies) because they hope that it is still a stepping stone towards socialized medicine.  Bin Laden is dead, and that's great, but in terms of foreign policy, the Iraq war ended ONLY because our military was denied immunity in cases of civilian deaths and collateral damage and, since then, AlQuaida's destabilization has almost completely undone any "progress" made there since Hussein's capture and execution.  Incidences of gun violence have skyrocketed and some of the first truly successful attacks by Islam-inspired terrorists, such as the Boston Marathon Bombings and the Benghazi incident, have occurred under the watch of a President that thinks the best way of protecting America is to flaunt its faults and weaknesses to ally and enemy, alike, and whose big mouth and incompetent new Secretary of State has indirectly led to the PROTECTION of a Syrian dictator by an emboldened Russian President that used one of our own newspapers to mock us (and Obama) and has since engaged in pro-Communist rhetoric and the military invasion of its neighbors such as the Ukraine.  Yes, under Obama, Russia seems to once again be our enemy FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A QUARTER CENTURY!  But here's what's almost as bad, if not worse.

The Republican Party has split in half and almost totally de-evolved into a horde of ideologues that can't keep their mouths shut long enough to accomplish anything good. Obama is a lame duck president, but as of, oh... three years ago... the Republicans' best bet, assuming they're right about the alleged disaster of where Obama is leading us, has been and would be to take a step back, LET OBAMA DO HIS JOB and then, if it really is the disaster they think it will be, they could actually have the FACTS at their disposal with which to prove it to voters. Instead, the Tea Party, which originally claimed to ONLY be about responsible fiscal policy, has roped in social conservatives, as well, and grown just big enough to where they can unseat more "mainstream" Republicans like Eric Cantor, yet - because of the division it has caused - does not have enough support to either regain a majority in the Senate, put a Republican in the White House or really strengthen the party's abysmally low-rated majority in Congress. The Tea Party has scared what few truly educated, experienced and level-headed Republicans we still have away from even wanting to run for office in this toxic political environment and replaced them with well-dressed Gomer Pyle-types (male AND female) that seem to think that having consistently worked a job, raised a family and maybe held the position of city councilman or town dog catcher somehow qualifies them to hold public office at the federal level.  It would be funny if it were not so pathetic, and don't get me started on the useless and potentially expensive government shutdown, presumably to affect a repeal of "Obamacare" which is NOT going to happen any time soon, if ever.

I remain a Republican for only a few reasons, and yes, their optimism is one of them.  No country is totally innocent and, so, of course, America has made mistakes; but as an experiment that seeks to give people a CHOICE of government by allowing and balancing an array of political, fiscal and social ideas and policies, it has (through various means, some of which have admittedly been morally ambiguous) attracted as many or more immigrants as just about any other nation on Earth, given them an environment in which to prosper and, since World War 2 at least, taken a place and exerted a level of influence on the world stage that has been virtually unrivaled since the time of the Roman Empire.  Only NOW is that threatened, I believe, by a focus on needy, confused, obstructionist and short-sighted politics... on BOTH SIDES.  Like sociopaths, the Democrats have seized on the air of confusion and helplessness that has griped Middle-America since the worst days of the Great Recession and USED it to gain power and advance a slightly more extreme version of their agenda, offering "social justice" as well as both social and economic "equality" through policies that simultaneously and systematically limit certain choices in people's personal lives, sap power from the private sector and INSULT their own minority and "poor" voters through things such as fighting the requirement of photo ID's at voting booths (because minorities and the poor simply CANNOT be expected to be able to acquire and/or remember such an easily attainable item).  The Republicans, meanwhile, have become almost wholly tone deaf when it comes to the kind of politics needed to win elections nowadays and have gone on the extreme defensive, claiming loyalty and what amounts to abstract OWNERSHIP of personal liberty, economic freedoms and ideals which, in fact, have been threatened more or less since the days of George Washington.  

But, as I tried to imply earlier, that's the beauty of America.  It has its ideals and its core values and, yet, treating them like playing cards, it knows when to hold 'em and knows when to fold 'em.  At least, it used to. The Roosevelts - Republican AND Democrat - exemplified this. Teddy, a Republican, outlawed monopolies, implemented restrictions and regulations on the banks and dragged the U.S. kicking and screaming into world affairs.  Franklin Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to justify a 360 degree turn away from the isolationist rhetoric he knew all along to be wrong in order to go to the aid of Europe in the second World War.  Eisenhower, a general and Republican President, spent money to build America's interstate highway system and warned AGAINST the very military industrial complex of which he was arguably a part.  Nixon opened trade with China and went against his party's grain in allowing the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Fiscally conservative Reagan out-bluffed and outspent the Soviet Union with "Star Wars" to help end the Cold War and Bush, Sr., went against his campaign slogan to raise taxes when necessary. Flexibility used to be an acknowledged, embraced and tolerated element of American politics as well as policy.  Now, though, it's been replaced by two sets of almost equally dangerous extremes.   

ABOUT OBAMA'S DEFENSE OF THE POLICIES OF HIS WHICH HE SAYS ARE SO "IN LINE" WITH MUCH OF AMERICANS' THINKING

I just found this article about Obama's latest attempt to defend his policies, particularly his foreign policy, and to reassert how popular they are with a majority of Americans.  It's here:  http://news.yahoo.com/obama-us-must-lead-globally-show-restraint-142911123--politics.html  First and foremost, though, I have to wonder why a President that is already into the second year of his last term in office feels the need to so vehemently defend a set of policies that he also believes are already popular with a majority of Americans, but I digress.  I'm going to start by examining individual quotes from Obama and the article.

1.) "Obama cast the bloody civil war in Syria as more of counter terrorism challenge than a humanitarian crisis."

So... there's a difference? I guess it's not a matter of IF thousands of people are being killed by their government, but HOW it is being done. Or is it something else?

2.) "One plan being considered by the White House is a project to train and equip members of the Free Syrian Army on tactics, including counterterrorism."

Yes, because that has worked out SO WELL in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frankly, I agree with Obama's statement that the U.S. should not rush to intervene militarily in every conflict around the world.  That said, you shouldn't publicly threaten something that everyone knows you don't want to and most likely will not do.  That, however, is exactly what Obama did when he gave Syria's government the ultimatum on chemical weapons and the treatment of its people and then failed to adequately enforce that ultimatum when the due date came and went, giving people like Russian President Vladimir Putin - who everyone knows is ex-KGB and who has never had a truly comfortable relationship with the United States - an opportunity to not only intervene and protect the Assad dictatorship in which Russia seems to have some stake in preserving (which is what is being done by the treaty Putin helped design, making it virtually impossible to enforce by banning U.S. and/or western military intervention), but to also and very publicly make Obama and the United States look foolish in the eyes of the very global community that Obama thinks he's leading with things like the letter of Putin's that was published in the Washington Post, I think, not long thereafter.

On that note...

3.) "He [Obama] challenged skeptics who see that approach as a sign of weakness and argued instead that it instead highlights America's ability to lead on the world stage."  

In fact, Obama isn't "leading" anyone anywhere else around the world.  Rather, he admires the European Union and other nations and seeks to lead America to that particular well, not the other way around.  The idea that America should maintain its exceptional-ism, yet still preserve global "norms" is inherently contradictory.  By definition, you CANNOT be exceptional and still be entirely normal.  It doesn't work that way.  Either America is a contender and a competitor or it is not.

Oh, and by the way, even if Obama's policies are or were more in line with the interests and the thinking of the majority of Americans, that doesn't make them either good or effective.  After all, a majority of Americans favored going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan in the days after 9/11, giving Bush an approval rating in the 80's before doing anything more than talking and forcing the Democratic minority in the House and Senate to go along with something they would later protest vehemently.  Look how that turned out.  Despite everyone's short term memories, Americans also enjoyed Bush's big tax cuts for EVERYONE, allowing just about as many in the middle class as in the upper to squander their money on homes and other things they couldn't afford (artificially driving up housing prices until nobody could afford anything) and going into untold amounts of debt because everyone just assumed they'd be able to pay it off later.  Look how that turned out.

Granted, the Obama administration oversaw the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden, and that's great.  However, since Obama came into office, we've also seen some of the first truly SUCCESSFUL Islam-motivated terrorist attacks on our soil (Boston Marathon Bombings) and/or on our officials (embassy in Libya) since 9/11 and managed to make a budding enemy out of Russia, one of the largest and most well-armed nations on earth, AGAIN... even as we sit back and watch its leader, emboldened in part by Obama's reckless speechifying and posturing, lead his country with the widespread approval of the Russian people in what many believe to be an inexorable trek back to Communism and a policy of invading and overpowering its neighbors.  Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if Russia went back to being Communist and teamed up with, say... China, also a Communist nation (more or less) that practically owns the United States economy. Given that Europe has pretty much been able to do absolutely NOTHING to prevent or to mitigate this, tell me how and why America's adherence to "global norms" is a good thing?

Whether right or wrong, it sounds to many, including me, like Obama is and/or wants to make America every bit as weak and ineffectual as the rest of the world.  If so, then so far, he seems to be succeeding.  

THE CONFUSED AND CHAOTIC MESSAGE OF AMERICAN TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY

LINK: PETITION AFTER A 22 YEAR-OLD'S PROTEST ON YOUTUBE CONVINCES KATY PERRY TO SELF-CENSOR FOR MUSLIMS

Tonight, I saw the above story about Katy Perry's self-censorship of a new music video because of an online petition stemming from if not started by the protests of a 22 year-old Muslim that demanded the video be removed from YouTube because a piece of jewelry worn by Perry as part of an ancient Egyptian costume is blasphemous to Allah.  Granted, this is the result of a petition that led to the artist's voluntary compliance with its demand(s), but I am still angered because of the way this represents what I see as the current chaos and hypocrisy that surrounds our ongoing and ever increasing efforts to become more "tolerant," multicultural and diverse. Does nobody see what's going on here?  This doesn't strike me as a sincere protest from an honest victim of anything.  It's yet another ridiculous incident which pushes buttons and uses modern-day Americans' desperate need to feel more "tolerant" and "multicultural" to actually make us look like petty, immature fools.

Culturally, America has all but lost its identity in its struggle to fully understand and comply with the text and spirit of its own Constitution and Bill of Rights.  As the Patty Hearst of nations, at least in the West, its collective case of Stockholm Syndrome has made it fearful and beholden in cases like this to the very people and culture that effectively launched one of if not the most devastating attacks on American soil by a foreign enemy in September of 2001 - and which has continued to make and attempt attacks both successful and failed. We're still a nation in which, statistically, Christianity holds sway, and why not? By itself, that fact says nothing about the tolerance of the average, individual American for others, and no matter what their personal preferences, beliefs or social affiliations, most Christians in America of any race or income bracket are law-abiding citizens that, at most, seek only to live and work in peace, secure in the same rights that are afforded to others and which have historically been theirs all along.  In a time when so many are calling for America to be more like the "rest of the world," I also think it's noteworthy to point out that many nations still identify largely if not entirely with specific religions and denominations therein: India to Hindu beliefs and Buddhism, Pakistan to Islam, Russia and Greece to Christian Orthodoxy, Italy and much

of the Latin World to Catholicism, etc., etc.  And while I'm not an expert, I have read a few articles, seen ARGO and a few foreign policy documentaries, so I am aware of a string of particularly noteworthy foreign policy blunders in the Middle East during the mid-to-late 20th century in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.  Some would love explain if not outright justify the current trend of Islamic terrorism on America by blaming it for the crimes and neglects of certain Middle Eastern dictators and religious leaders behind which the American government put its support - likely for economic reasons - but by now, it's nothing more than a pathetic smokescreen that only exists because our spineless government lets it exist without much protest. 

Most leaders in the Middle East appear to have had Islam to at least partially back up, protect and reinforce their claims to power. They have used the religion's tenets and taken them to the extreme in order to solidify and often abuse that power over a populous that can't seem to decide whether or not it wants to potentially give up the prospect of 72 virgins in order to buck any number of corrupt and, on the surface, theocratic dictatorships.  The Arab Spring was heralded three years ago in places like Egypt, where it arguably began, but Egypt overthrew the dictator Mubarak - who kept his country on good terms with the U.S., yet had a bad human rights record - only to hold elections in which they replaced him with the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt's people almost immediately threw out before the military swooped in to run things until someone new is elected. Iran has a new leader, yet talks over their nukes only ever seem to protect the status-quo, and outside the Muslim world, the European Union has seen mostly economic threats to its effectiveness and legitimacy while Russia flirts with its Cold War ways under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.  That ex-KGB thug used Obama's own empty promises about Syria and the Assad regime to make an even greater fool out of an American President before basically forcing America to comply with the effective protection of Syrian Dictator Assad's abusive, genocidal regime just so long as it doesn't have chemical weapons. It was accomplished with Putin's demand that any agreement with Syria over said chemical weapons forbid the use of a military effort to enforce it - especially an American or European military effort - effectively rendering said agreement almost entirely unenforceable in my opinion.

Is this the 'rest of the world" that America is supposed to be more like?  Because if so, then I might just call for a return to isolationism - economy be damned.  The way I see it, this story is just an extension of those kinds of attitudes nowadays in America. Where Islam, in particular, is concerned, understand that in instances such as this, Americans are going out of their way to avoid offending a cultural and religious group whose citizens of America stay almost wholly silent and inactive while the rest of America lives under the constant threat that one or more of them here or overseas might turn terrorist and not only kill us, but - as seems to happen nowadays - actually force America under the microscope and into becoming the big defendant by subjecting the country to scrutiny over the way in which it handles said terrorists. Meanwhile, we have a strong and growing anti-bullying movement going on which, on principle, I support - yet, interestingly enough, a majority of those appearing in commercials for the movement, whether celebrity or otherwise, seem to be members of a "minority," non-White ethnic group.  Should I behave like that 22 year-old Muslim and start angrily accusing the anti-bullying movement of what is euphemistically called "reverse racism" by basically implying that most, if not all bullies, racists and homophobes are white and, more specifically, white males? From where I'm sitting, if I did that, I would at least have some empirical evidence to suggest some such true motivation whereas, in Perry's case, we're talking about a pop star with virtually no public stance on current events to speak of that basically admits to having just picked the jewelry because it looked good and she wanted to use it to entertain.  Period.

    

In its heart of hearts, I don't think the world at large really cares how tolerant or progressive America is except and perhaps only when it affects the way its people are treated as immigrants to America.  I doubt the world cares how it all reflects on America's leadership status since so many seem to resent the very fact that America remains such a powerful world leader.  After all, so much of the world is still behaving in fairly intolerant ways not only towards Americans and Christians (and even Jews in America's ally Israel - again), but towards their neighbors in general, regardless of culture or ethnicity. There seems to be a strengthening anger and resentment - whether directly connected or not - towards and surrounding the fact that, as dominated by "white" corporate, Judeo-Christian culture as it allegedly remains, America is sill so influential and powerful, culturally and militarily, despite its growing list of obvious inner turmoils. In fact, this is something that has been steadily building since as far back as the end of the second World War, but it has taken on a whole new air of legitimacy, I think, with the advent of multimedia and especially the Internet.  So many different people now stand a more equal chance of being seen, heard, believed and generally represented for their viewpoints because of the World Wide Web.

In the past, the medium was the message because only a few people really controlled one or two dominant mediums, which were used to convey news and ideas, and those people generally exploited those mediums to get their own basic messages across sometimes.  First, it was the press or, more specifically, the newspaper, which managed to exponentially increase its circulation and influence with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the electrical presses and the motorized vehicles used to put out more papers in more places, more often, in less time and with more up-to-date reporting.  In the first half of the 20th century, most major newspapers were controlled by only a handful of people and conglomerates, with William Randolph Hearst's being one of if not the most significant up until the 1950's. More local and privately-owned papers would take their cues from the big guys. Then, there was television, a more expensive and more corporately controlled medium which was really an extension of radio and, to at least some degree, of Hollywood, itself.  The networks and news programs were headed up by editors and managers with strong, admirable beliefs about a free and honest press for "the people" and simultaneously similar beliefs to the predominantly liberal Hollywood establishment (even while it was being censored and under scrutiny by more conservative elements). Still, those were the two major mediums for public opinion that remained fairly separated and, for the most part, carved America up into a much, much smaller handful of groups and different political and ideological perspectives. That lasted until and even into the 1980's and early 1990's, when cable television and networks such as CNN began to seriously threaten newspapers as well as traditional network and local television, yet it also foreshadowed the next big leap which has been the Internet and its World Wide Web. 

Now, instead of just a few powerful and influential news outlets remaining largely untouched and uninfluenced by individual readers and viewers, the Internet is affecting an unprecedented merging of the mediums and granting almost totally free and unfettered access to everyone - with both good and bad results. It is the ultimate expression of free speech and yet, hearkening back to Elia Kazan's 1957 film A Face In The Crowd starring the late Andy Griffith as radio and TV personality Lonesome Rhodes, the world of the 21st century is filled with "Lonesome Rhodes" clones, especially in America and along various points on the political and ideological spectrum. Most are fairly innocuous and merely catering to their small crowds of followers. Yet the consequences of their collective efforts is, for better or worse, the astounding level of divisiveness that we're seeing in America now. It has had the unfortunate and somewhat mind-boggling effect of both empowering and hamstringing so many people at the same time that almost nobody can really lead effectively and make any real progress and, instead, almost everyone looks like a potential obstructionist and ideological villain.

As usual, government is an easy scapegoat for just about any national problem, but now more than ever, most politicians have increasingly little to gain by adopting a steady and reasonable position on the issues which represents a majority of their regions' constituents.  Whether Republican or Democrat, it is no longer as simple as having to represent and appeal to the people of your party.  Now, you have to decide which one or two small, usually fringe groups within your party are the loudest and most likely to vote because if you can't get re-elected, you're really not going to be able to do anything no matter what rhetoric you adopt. It is why we're seeing such different and sometimes radical behavior work for both Democrats and Republicans in DC.  President Obama definitely represents not only the Democratic Party, but arguably a good deal of the political left in America.  Though his actual effectiveness and track record so far on perceptibly partisan issues such as the environment, income inequality and even race relations has been sketchy and criticized by his own people, the strengthening in his second term of his fairly consistent and well-spoken political rhetoric has ensured that whichever way the polls shift from time to time, America on-the-whole remains fairly receptive if not wholly committed to his agenda.  On the flip-side, though, is the Republican Party, which has seen a string of hard losses in the last two or more Presidential and Senatorial elections amidst an unprecedented fracturing of the party between the older, slightly more moderate "mainstream" and the fairly new and often radically conservative Tea Party and other small groups (including some Libertarians).  Yet, despite record low approval ratings, the party continues to hold and is actually expected to continue holding a firm majority's control in the House.   

This is why our wires are so crossed in places like America, even when it comes to our more noble and moral endeavors - endeavors that are becoming increasingly stained by little hypocrisies and inconsistencies, whether real or more opportunistically imagined.  As the country becomes more tolerant of some things, it is becoming less tolerant of other things - even those otherwise good things which used to define us in ways with which, at the very least, most of the world had little or no outward problem. The worst part, though, is how little responsibility we, "the people," take for the very issues of divisiveness, hostility and, yes, intolerance that we claim to protest. Instead, we seem more comfortable blaming politicians and faceless corporations for a phenomena that is an inherent extension of our own cherished democracy. In my experience, some of the same people that will go online and use Christians and Christianity in particular as the embodiment of outdated and narrow-minded superstition - which, they say, all modern and "civilized" peoples must eventually leave behind - will also sign petitions such as this one.  Likewise, they'll defend fairly extensive and exhaustive university curriculum having to do with foreign and/or Eastern religions and lifestyles such as Islam for the sake of "diversity" while using the same old accusations of racism and bigotry to excuse the banning of any and all "conservative," Christian speakers on a campus.  Make no mistake, though - the courses are not merely educational, as they are known to involve the temporary, yet mandatory adoption of religious tradition and lifestyle habits on the part of the students for a grade.  This is how my half-sister was converted to Islam in the late 1980's.  Meanwhile, many public schools are pretty much prohibited nowadays from teaching anything resembling creationism as a valid, alternative perspective on the Earth's origins.  Creationism, of course, is also strongly if not solely associated with Christianity despite applying, as a theory, to any number of religious perspectives around the world regardless of which god is alleged to have done the creating.

As of now, there is a decision to be made which I do not believe the government can make for us.  Especially for Americans, that decision is whether or not our increased tolerance, respect and multiculturalism is genuine and real, applying to everything as fairly and evenly as humanly possible, or whether it's really just a euphemism for the systematic rejection and undoing of certain "uniquely American" traditions and beliefs, and why?  Because America's demographics are changing and, no matter what we say, there is never really going to be room for every religious, political and ideological face in the crowd. If it's the former, then things like this have to stop - or, at the very least, the press, the government and pretty much anyone online has to stop giving them so much legitimacy through public visibility.  Having acknowledged its mistakes, America needs to act on what it has learned, yet finally put away its collective guilt so that it can continue being the strong, yet inclusive nation to which immigrants around the world have been attracted for centuries.

In conclusion, things like this petition and Katy Perry's response are not representative of progress, but of increasing amounts of wanton self-doubt and of fear. As I implied at the beginning, imagine if every Christian in America reacted that way every time the name of God or Jesus was used in vain in movies and television. There would be no end to the turmoil and petitions, but apparently, we're so screwed up and confused that we have to cater and cow-tow en-mass to the oh, so fragile beliefs and sensibilities of a religious group which is fundamentally intolerant of people of other faiths and, if we're honest, anti-Semitic to the core!  This is why the modern movement for expanded tolerance and diversity is so hypocritical and screwed up - because almost no religion, group or individual as outwardly and universally rigid, quasi-sexist and specifically anti-Semitic as Islam or most sincere Muslims would be tolerated in the mainstream world for very long, let alone patronized in this manner. 

Regarding WOLF OF WALL STREET's Record-Setting Use of the F-Word

Regarding the new movie The Wolf of Wall Street in an article I found on Yahoo!: "According to Wikipedia, the word “f--k” is used 506 times over The Wolf of Wall Street's 180-minute running time."

What I want to know is: Why?  I know the "real world" doesn't resemble a 19th century tea room in Buckingham Palace, but does Hollywood really think that this sort of excessive vulgarity is ALWAYS realistic - or even amusing?  Because, well... I don't... and I've heard plenty of people that used the F-word frequently in their speech.  If nothing else, it comes down to this: Even movies with realistic themes and believable emotions are not necessarily at their most effective while simultaneously being the most "realistic."  As a writer, it occurs to me that such language and other devices have become crutches in the decade since the death of the Hays Code in the late 1960's - excuses for lazy writing, a lack of general creativity or even for just not knowing how to otherwise or as effectively convey an emotional idea.  I've also seen plenty a "hard-R" rated movie praised as Oscar worthy when the only significant elements absent from other, supposedly less worthy, less realistic or even less "artistic" movies are their frequent instances of vulgarity, whether it be language or even sexual explicitness.  Even if you removed morality from the equation, you're still left with whether or not it is always or even usually necessary or effective and, I think, most would, if honest, say, "No."

A few years ago, I noticed that Alfred Hitchcock's original Psycho is actually rated R.  Now, that ratings system didn't actually exist in 1960 and different copies for sale may indicate differently, but at least one copy of the film that I've seen has it bearing an R rating.  This was arguably the first American slasher movie - albeit so much more... beneath the skin, so to speak - and it still generates controversy going beyond the sheer intensity of the inventively disconcerting shower slaying into the sometimes incestuous territory of Norman's sexuality, not to mention the more minor issues of would-be infidelity and whether or not the ends justify the means when Marion ("Mary" in the book) steals the money. While I'm on the subject, I've read Robert Bloch's original and very short novel and can recall hardly any cursing in it whatsoever. Though the movie takes its share of liberties, it pretty much follows the same story line give or take some details, mostly related to Norman's characterization.

Even if I did not have my distaste for the current trend of blaming Wall Street for everyone's financial woes, I now think I'll avoid this movie.  Don't get me wrong: I like Scorsese and I even like Oliver Stone's original movie, Wall Street, but I will not succumb to the idea that I'm missing out on some incredibly enlightening, intellectual or even entertaining cinematic experience by not seeing this movie.  Frankly, at this point, it doesn't even appear to be all that original in terms of its approach to the themes and subject matter.  After all, when was the last time we saw a movie about a GOOD person that worked on Wall Street?  By that, I mean genuinely good, not just some endearingly flawed character that has to ultimately reject his lucrative job to find some proletariat's idea of redemption.

Whatever the perceived realities and opinions related to this issue, for me, excessive vulgarity anywhere - in art or in life - is unnecessary and represents a fundamental lapse in intelligent thought and expression.