Lately it seems that politics is dominated by a "not enough" syndrome. If you partly do something, it's not enough, or too late, or weak. Issues are picked at. Problems are indicated. And at the end, no one is happy. When did progress become so complicated?
Recently, I posted my thoughts on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan (which I still object to, but understand). It has been fascinating to me that lately, no one is pleased AT ALL! A recent CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/rel18b.pdf) suggests that there is general support for the war. Inside the numbers, the opinion of moral justification to the war today (63%) is growing closer to that of 2003 (73%) after treading in the 40%'s for so long.
Yet, seemingly nobody in congress (recall, the people that we elect) are happy. Republicans are upset about a timetable, and Democrats are upset about the surge and not keeping the campaign promise (as a note: his campaign promise was actually about Iraq). It has long been considered by both parties that Afghanistan (not Iraq) was the real threat. But now, the whole thing stinks to everybody. Funny...
It seems that the objection by Democrats is more focused to contested re-election and seeing more images of war and (seemingly) neglected campaign promises to bring troops home. Meanwhile, Republicans understand that it is their job to not approve of anything Mr. Obama does (playing to the extremity Conservative base, that is growing everyday). At the end, there is no real solution to the schism that is growing in Washington. And more and more, representatives are growing more biased to play to re-elections and likely voters, not necessarily the true percentages.
It begs the question: if America agrees with the president, then why doesn't Congress?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
No... REALLY!
George Constanza, the fictional character from the popular show "Seinfield" once said "It's not a lie if you believe it." As of now, I have a feeling that the folks that decided that they should show up (allegedly uninvited) to a state dinner have embraced that quote. In this case, perhaps the best defense actually is "No, we really were invited. For REAL!" And against such, there is little defense. Especially if you have lost the invite, or it was stolen, or your dog ate it. Common sense would suggest that they wanted to crash this party for publicity. The bigger problem is that they were actually able to crash is! Let's not forget that massive problem.
If nothing else the Salahis are giving new hope to every third grader who can't produce their math homework. No, no, Mrs. Jones, by dog really did eat it! I promise!
At the same time, they gave new hope to somebody that might want to get close enough to our global leaders to cause some harm. I'm sure that future heads of state that are invited guests of the White House will need a bit more assurance of their safety.
If nothing else the Salahis are giving new hope to every third grader who can't produce their math homework. No, no, Mrs. Jones, by dog really did eat it! I promise!
At the same time, they gave new hope to somebody that might want to get close enough to our global leaders to cause some harm. I'm sure that future heads of state that are invited guests of the White House will need a bit more assurance of their safety.
The Audacity of War...
War is unpopular. Vengeance, however, is not. Interestingly, vengeance only lasts as long as you are actually mad at somebody. We first, seemingly, went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq out of vengeance. We need to get those who hurt us. But the irony is that the cost of all of that is hurting us more.
Think of it almost like a domestically-sponsored terrorism inflicted by foreign militants. This war has burdened us with a substantial human and monetary price tag that has additionally helped lubricate the fall of many sectors of our own society. And now, news from Mr. Obama suggests that this price tag will only go up. I wonder how much more the costs will rise.
In my humble opinion, we've done this enough. The lives of thousands of Americans and "coalition forces" members, and billions of dollars suddenly don't seem worthy of the cost for the capture of a few men. (Recall, the objective of the Bush-era was focused on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Now the objective is on the Taliban. An organization that seems as complicated to put together as a 5000 piece puzzle of a cloudless sky. I don't know what this will accomplish, more than confusion.
It seems that (under Bush) vengeance, then confusion led to a common sense "cut-and-run" outcry from the public with the election of Mr. Obama. But now, we're drifting towards confusion again. I understand that keeping the Taliban under-wraps is best for America, but how long are we to go on keeping them under wraps? The conflict with the Middle East will perpetuate for some time, it seems. And now, I simply don't understand why...
Think of it almost like a domestically-sponsored terrorism inflicted by foreign militants. This war has burdened us with a substantial human and monetary price tag that has additionally helped lubricate the fall of many sectors of our own society. And now, news from Mr. Obama suggests that this price tag will only go up. I wonder how much more the costs will rise.
In my humble opinion, we've done this enough. The lives of thousands of Americans and "coalition forces" members, and billions of dollars suddenly don't seem worthy of the cost for the capture of a few men. (Recall, the objective of the Bush-era was focused on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Now the objective is on the Taliban. An organization that seems as complicated to put together as a 5000 piece puzzle of a cloudless sky. I don't know what this will accomplish, more than confusion.
It seems that (under Bush) vengeance, then confusion led to a common sense "cut-and-run" outcry from the public with the election of Mr. Obama. But now, we're drifting towards confusion again. I understand that keeping the Taliban under-wraps is best for America, but how long are we to go on keeping them under wraps? The conflict with the Middle East will perpetuate for some time, it seems. And now, I simply don't understand why...
Friday, November 27, 2009
Now that IS interesting... kinda.
I don't really care to think much about entertainment-related stories. But this one was interesting to me. Apparently, there's a guy named Adam Lambert who was supposed to be on a cable morning news show, but was dropped after he kissed a guy on live TV... dropped for Chris Brown who admitted to physically abusing a fellow artist and girlfriend. And the outrage has begun.
It is fascinating that this network would make a (VERY OBVIOUSLY) controversial decision to bring on Brown (of all people) for Lambert. But not surprising in the least. I tend to be "suspicious guy" when it comes to networks doing controversial things, simply because I know there's a guy in a suit somewhere thinking "...ratings-advertisers-money...". But generally, I think we often condone what is illegal versus what some consider amoral. Illegal acts are often accompanied with sincere apology, tears, interviews, change, and a very understanding and accepting public. Because, in theory, they are no longer committing the illegal act.
But Lambert is still gay, and still kissing guys. And if you find that amoral, then you're likely not going to want to see him throwing it in your face (so to speak). But Chris Brown's "road to redemption" can be played from many angles. Regardless of what I feel, it's not my network, not my show. And if I'm upset I can still choose to not watch... or I can watch and then complain that it happened. No doubt, there is a group of guys in suits hoping I do the latter and consider buying a Jeep during the commercial breaks. I guarantee you that articles of outrage, public statements, and the like may as well come with Network promos and logos. Not watching and often not caring is the most powerful voice of anger.
It is fascinating that this network would make a (VERY OBVIOUSLY) controversial decision to bring on Brown (of all people) for Lambert. But not surprising in the least. I tend to be "suspicious guy" when it comes to networks doing controversial things, simply because I know there's a guy in a suit somewhere thinking "...ratings-advertisers-money...". But generally, I think we often condone what is illegal versus what some consider amoral. Illegal acts are often accompanied with sincere apology, tears, interviews, change, and a very understanding and accepting public. Because, in theory, they are no longer committing the illegal act.
But Lambert is still gay, and still kissing guys. And if you find that amoral, then you're likely not going to want to see him throwing it in your face (so to speak). But Chris Brown's "road to redemption" can be played from many angles. Regardless of what I feel, it's not my network, not my show. And if I'm upset I can still choose to not watch... or I can watch and then complain that it happened. No doubt, there is a group of guys in suits hoping I do the latter and consider buying a Jeep during the commercial breaks. I guarantee you that articles of outrage, public statements, and the like may as well come with Network promos and logos. Not watching and often not caring is the most powerful voice of anger.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
An evening out...
A lot has been made (positive and negative) about the White House state dinner recently. It was a big event that happened amid a catastrophic domestic economy, overseas wars, and the like. All of this is very true. People have suggested that this should not have happened amid such circumstances. Well...
-State dinners are not domestic affairs, they are for bridging/celebrating international relationships
-One might suggest that India is a little bit worse off than the US economically, and we might be doing good will in helping them and building a stronger tie
-Probably no state dinner goes without the sincere objection by the public for dressing up fancifully and eating food that's way better than left-over pork chops.
At the end of the day, there have always been issues that cause us to (rightly) question the pomp and circumstance of such an occasion. But it is a traditional occasion that has yielded "good feelings" for the involved countries for a very long time. One can criticize the expense, but don't stop there... criticize that all Presidents have lived in a big fancy house, with attendants, fly on their own plane, have a chef, amid other things that will add up to much more than one nice dinner with a few hundred friends. While homeless veterans live in squalor a mile away.
This is not unique to President Obama, it is an aspect of our (and every) society.
It is my hope that we ALL do more to alleviate that.
-State dinners are not domestic affairs, they are for bridging/celebrating international relationships
-One might suggest that India is a little bit worse off than the US economically, and we might be doing good will in helping them and building a stronger tie
-Probably no state dinner goes without the sincere objection by the public for dressing up fancifully and eating food that's way better than left-over pork chops.
At the end of the day, there have always been issues that cause us to (rightly) question the pomp and circumstance of such an occasion. But it is a traditional occasion that has yielded "good feelings" for the involved countries for a very long time. One can criticize the expense, but don't stop there... criticize that all Presidents have lived in a big fancy house, with attendants, fly on their own plane, have a chef, amid other things that will add up to much more than one nice dinner with a few hundred friends. While homeless veterans live in squalor a mile away.
This is not unique to President Obama, it is an aspect of our (and every) society.
It is my hope that we ALL do more to alleviate that.
Really???
Lately, it bothers me personally that people can get away with saying things that have no logical basis. There was once a time when people thought before they spoke. Checked to be sure things were right before "going there". That day has tragically come and gone. I will write about such instances here.
I offer my opinion on things people say. That's it. Nothing grandiose. Nothing "liberal". Nothing "conservative". This is just a plea to ask yourself when you read or see extremely biased things, just think... really?
I offer my opinion on things people say. That's it. Nothing grandiose. Nothing "liberal". Nothing "conservative". This is just a plea to ask yourself when you read or see extremely biased things, just think... really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)