McCain’s much ado about nothing

I can only wonder if Senator McCain has ever taken an unbiased look at history?  Rev. Wright equated the U.S. Marine Corp to the Roman Legionnaires.  He explained himself very well I thought when he came before the National Press Club.  That the U.S. had become like Rome in having an imperial agenda.  And like Rome, would it also be destined to fall from being eaten away from within?  This is something to think about.

We have two on-going wars.  General David Petraeus is trying to tell us that we need to start rattling sabers at Iran because, why Iran is shipping all these weapons across the border to kill our forces.  Well now, on the home front, we have escalating home foreclosures, credit card companies are seeing escalating defaults on payments, because of Middle Eastern instability gas and diesel prices have gone through the roof, the infrastructure is crumbling, we import foreign labor or outsource jobs, food prices are going through the roof.  We also have a massive deficit that it is certain will burden the great grandkids.  We can’t afford another war.  No matter how great this nation is, it can’t keep up dreams of “empire building” for ever, before it starts to collapse from within.  Believe it or not, we are indeed in danger of collapsing from within.

Was Rev. Wright disparaging the U.S. Marines who had himself (said anyway) that he had served in the U.S. Military?  Actually, I didn’t hear that.  But, for how long can you field military personnel and equipment around the world when you are running on a credit card and demonstrate no interest in living within a budget.  Either you will have to pay for these wars through taxes; or you make the people “sacrifice” another way, by taking from them the basic necessities for survival.  Rome collapsed, I shouldn’t doubt, in large part because it’s government was no longer taking proper care of its people.  The rest, of what brought about Rome’s downfall, was inviting not so loyal foreigners to build up its legions.

For any man who’d aspire to become president, “taking offense” at what a pastor says, or a protester says, or even what a fellow candidate for the same office says; is saying bluntly that he doesn’t believe in what Democracy stands for.  The right of that pastor to mouth off something that sounds offensive.  The right of the protester to be wrong by what he says, what he stands for, what he waves as a sign in his fist. the right of a fellow candidate to speak his mind, right or wrong, without having to worry about his words being used against him.  McCain spent many a year with the “Roman Legions” serving this country and defending the U.S. Constitution.  So did I.  As a member of the U.S. Army.  The branch of the “Roman Legions” that I was with, we were stationed in Germany, and prepared to defend the west and her values against the Soviet menace.  That includes Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his calling this military veteran a member of the Roman Legions.  Why would I take offense?  I am not prepared to.  For me, the U.S. Constitution matters more than “taking offense” at what a nutty guy says.  If it gives me the right to publish this blog, then yes, he has the right to say some truly cuckoo things about the U.S. Military.  A bow to Roger Moore who governed Rhode Island during the colonial period.

So, McCain, if you can’t stand dealing with disagreeable people, don’t even run for office.  After all, as a presumptive president, they are still part of the vast fabric of this nation.  And they have a right to their dissent because of what the U.S. Constitution guarantees them.

The silly season in GOP politics

Newsweek cover story
that Kurtz of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” pointed out to on his Sunday, 27 April 2008 broadcast.

This is this week’s on-line edition of Newsweek. The link takes you to the front page. The article is itself 4 pages long and a comment section as well. What I find so remarkable, is that the GOP choose to make fun of Senator Obama’s remarks about the cost of Aragula at a “Whole Foods” grocery store. I am certain that he was trying to make the point of the high cost of foods of any sort. Because Aragula happened to be the example he used, the GOP had a field day making jokes about Obama and his supposed “elitism.” Be very careful here.

Aragula is a salad staple that you can find in most seed catalogs. For Aragula to appear in a “Whole Foods” grocery store means that it is being commercially grown on a farm somewhere. You are likely to find Aragula on a store shelf or even at a Farmer’s Market booth. The “beer swilling crowd” depicted on the front page of Newsweek probably put Aragula seeds in the ground and then proceeded to market it to “Whole Foods.”

While Senator McCain was pointing to his salad and laughing about the “high cost” of his salad, was he aware that Aragula probably makes up a percentage of the salad at his table? If the chef in question decides to add Mesclun mix to spice the salad up, that is what he could end up serving as the “house salad” or “salad of the day” to the Senator. Which puts the GOP where, exactly? Ignorant.

I can only suggest to the GOP that they start talking to home gardeners, farmers, those who operate road-side stands and Farmers’ Markets before they disparage a useful member of the salad family and a presidential candidate who makes comments about it.

Hillary’s political problem

Even Robert Scheer has some negatives for Senator Clinton (column writer at Creators Syndicate) when it comes to her proposed foreign policies and can she “out tough” any of the guys in the joint on who’s population she would obliterate first. Precisely, Iran and that gvt’s nuclear ambitions. And whether Iran, in a hypothetical situation, would actually launch a nuclear attack on this nation. That is, the hypothetical situation of whether Iran would launch a nuclear attack. As it is, in the heat of the Democratic presidential nomination race; we again have “intel” that Iran has indeed helped kill our our U.S. Soldiers, Marines, etc. but of course, without a bit of proof. But on the basis of intel claims, would the current President, GW launch something against Iran? Or, how about Syria, where we now have “intel” that shows us Syria’s proposed nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the Israel gvt sending in their military forces to bomb it. You would have thought that there wouldn’t be much left to determine that the facility was indeed being used for nuclear purposes, so where did the intel about the proposed site come from, anyway? Under the circumstances, are we trying to build up a rationale for attacking Syria or Iran?

That much I could agree with Scheer as far as foreign policy under the current administration. Even though I can disagree with him about our bombing of Japan. We were winning a war, and we had to let the Japanese gvt know that we meant what we said when it came to using the strongest weapons available to us. So yes, we did bomb the daylights out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What we haven’t been doing as far as the Middle East goes, Iraq in particular, or for that matter, Afghanistan; is being willing to teach the same lessons to those we deem to be our sworn enemies. Why is that? Rather than play around at war, as GW had done for years and years and years, go in with the intent to win and having done so, negotiate for peace from the strong position of the victor. That is what had made the U.S. generally successful at their wartime agendas, until Vietnam, until now.

Now as to Senator Clinton’s domestic politics; she and Senator Obama went at it yesterday in Indiana over the high price of fuel. Obama discussed the culture in Washington and in particular Clinton and McCain who’s “experience” didn’t change the suffering of the consumer at the pump. Where Obama is concerned, that might be quite a stretch. Worries about our imported fuel supply because of Middle Eastern stability caused in large part by our playing with war as a consequence of GW foreign policy. And the lack of intelligence in dealing with potentially other hostile nations in the Middle East with whom we are currently not at war with. That is, the lack of diplomatic intelligence. Include in this an increase in world-wide demand for oil and speculators down at Wall Street; and yes, the “free market” is taking the American consumer for a very rough ride. Dick Cheney’s energy policies that basically subsidize Big Oil at the expense of the American taxpayer, is the only aspect of domestic energy policies that our leadership in Washington, D.C. might have shown some willingness to control. She says that he voted for such taxpayer subsidies to the energy industries. And that she voted against it. So? Was her “no vote” instrumental in stopping such subsidies going to the energy companies? No. Then why bring it up? Of far more importance, was Congress allowing to lapse (owing to partisan bickering) alternative energy subsidies.

She won in Pennsylvania by appealing to the dark side of the voters’ souls. The worst devils of their nature. CNN had of course ignored that part when covering the primary in Pennsylvania last Tuesday. And simply whacked away at Obama for failing to close the deal and failing to deliver the white, blue collar, male voter. In part, it was because she painted Obama as this “elitist” who grew up harder than she ever did. Add to that all other attacks she engaged in, inclusive of passing around photos of Obama dressed in Kenyan tribal clothing… everything designed to scare the voters silly at the idea of voting for that “alien other” Barack Hussein Obama. Apparently, they could buy into it. As Scheer was to write, all the things that was done to her husband, yet Senator Clinton was prepared to do the same thing to her Democratic opponent. My argument is, we already saw 8 years of this from GW, enough. The Dems should at least offer something better. If she wants to be president she should offer something better. Which to date, she really hasn’t done at all.

In Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, they are making considerable use of alternative energy sources. Indeed, they are becoming the new technology hub of creating and even exporting what is called “Green technology.”  Everything from nuclear power to solar panels.  Pittsburg is becoming a domestic source for high-skilled good paying jobs.  Indeed, Pittsburg is a city to look to as a hub of high tech jobs that could begin to wean us away from the use of fossil fuels.  While Clinton was campaigning in Pennsylvania, did she discuss at length what Pittsburg was in fact doing as a model for the rest of the nation?  Or was she too busy quaffing Crown Royal and chasing it with mugs of beer just to prove what to those blue collar voters?  When going on the rant against Obama in Indiana, was she aware that the federal gvt, of which she is a part, seemed more prepared to assist the fossil fuel industry than people who truly have 21st century energy technology in the blueprints and even further are taking it to new technological heights?  We already know where Obama as would be president stands on green technology.  And all that Clinton could snipe about was how she voted at the time.  Big deal!  Fossil fuels have a shelf life, green technology conceivably does not.  Shouldn’t we be subsidizing this nation’s future and as Obama properly put it, to quit funding “both sides of the war on terror.”

The silly season in GOP ads

The GOP have decided that regardless of what Senator McCain wants, they will run Rev. Wright ads that have nothing to do with most Democrats running in selected districts in various states. They will run anti-Obama ads that target local Democrats in most states. Why? Because Senator Clinton gave them the go-ahead of course, according to one GOP strategist on the night of the Pennsylvania primary. Okay. So we can now fault Senator Clinton if she gains the nomination by hook and by crook only to force heavy losses on the Democrats because of her bitter fight with her fellow Senator Barack Obama.

Or we can go so far as to question exactly why the GOP want to trash Senator Obama and at a time when it hasn’t yet been decided that he will be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency. For the Democrats, the primaries aren’t over until June. Why the GOP want to do the bidding of Senator Clinton in trying to destroy a rival. Why they want to do the bidding of the news media itself into playing into the sensationalist angle. Here is a little warning for the GOP. Rev. Wright is hardly the only “nut case” found throughout the American society. In fact I find myself dealing with them rather directly when I post to message boards and blog sites. They often condemn American society. They are highly critical of the American government. They express hatred of American culture. And guess what, the GOP wants these guys to vote for them. So, to run such ads against the request of Senator McCain is to call into question the GOP’s own credibility when it comes to the partisan warfare that has paralyzed this nation for over a decade. You can’t find, GOP ad makers, a better discussion than Rev. Wright? You play the “scary black face” for all it is worth with a likelihood that you will turn off minorities? And that is with no regard to Senator McCain going to Selma, Alabama and trying to get African-Americans to vote for him instead. You may as well associate that “scary black face” with Senator McCain himself.

So a word of warning, those ads are destined not to assist you so early in the campaign.  And if you don’t want to abide by McCain’s position, those ads will only hurt him as well.  Using a “scary black man” against an African-American and trying to turn him as well into yet another “scary black man” is racism, pure and simple.

GOP, they still don’t understand the mechanisms of a big tent philosophy.

Kathleen Parker editorial

We all know where Kathleen Parker stands on abortion; obviously she is opposed to the procedure. Following the visit of Pope Benedict the 16th to America, of course Ms. Parker had to discuss his visit and even further discuss his messages about the church doctrine in opposition to that medical procedure. It is fine by me if the church wishes to oppose abortion. However, when using such “uplifting and enlightened messages” as life begins at conception, it really only means one thing. Instead of the church directing its doctrine to the faithful within its own congregation, parish or whatever; the church prefers to demand from government that women have no choice but to make babies. No matter what the religion of the woman or if she has none at all. She must by church decree dictating through government legislation make babies. That is quite a separation from the Paulian doctrine that Christian women bear children for their own salvation. Salvation no longer enters into the argument unless the church is hell bent on “saving the nation from itself” through the offices of government.

So, when the sperm commingles with the egg as Ms. Parker argues, “life begins at conception.” According to the bible however, life began when God created it and provided males and females of various species so that they could continue their species. Or not, if they opposed God through their sins of not having the faith he wanted them to have. If they did not build alters to him, if they worship other Gods instead of him, if they lived as they chose instead of how he commanded, life need not continue at all. Especially according to Old Testament scripture. Life continued as plainly described in scripture, only on the condition that man is righteous.

Well, government legislation that furthers church or Papal decree does not make men more righteous than they already are! No more than God could force men to be righteous even though he could and did severely punish them for their moral lacks. Nor does government legislation force people to worship at one church as opposed to another. But what it does do is to say that the government is prepared to obey the decrees of a specific church and pass those decrees or doctrines of that church onto the people by force of law. That is not a democratic argument nor does it have constitutional support. There are some things that government should not do, including allowing one faith to intrude into the private matters of other faiths and dictate how people should believe. That is exactly why the founding fathers very specifically said that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Isn’t the abortion argument only the establishing of religion? By making a church doctrine the law of the land, prohibiting the free exercise of other beliefs?

Bush jargon obscures war debate

I wonder when it was that DeWayne Wickham finally got around to calling a turkey, a turkey when it came to GW, Iraq and why we haven’t left yet for all that we accomplished there. And finally took it upon himself to state candidly that GW’s doublespeak and other obvious propaganda was never anything else. What Mr. Wickham did not bother to do was to yell at the GOP for falling in line with GW to thwart putting a halt to our occupation of Iraq after we had:

• Put an end to the Butcher of Baghdad.
• Established democratic institutions.
• Were the principle partners in the primary draft of the Iraqi constitution.
• Made it possible for the Iraqi people to vote for the government of their choice. We did what we expected to do and were very successful at it.
• So when civil war broke out between the various religious factions, why did we stay and attempt to moderate it?

Apparently, GW not only doesn’t know the first thing about handling a war, he also doesn’t understand what it would take to create the conditions for peace, IE diplomatic measures.  And after we put GW back in office to clean up the mess of his first administration; it was also as though we gave him a second chance at the cookie jar or the keys to the safe and told him “not to touch now” but of course he did.  GW isn’t about to clean up the mess of his first and second term.  And yeah, like he said, he plans to hand off the problems he created to his successor.  The Democrats, didn’t have the political cajonés necessary to defeat a president that the GOP were falling all over themselves to defend.  Or to reset the political agenda that the GOP were prepared on a partisan level to thwart.  Wickham could direct his attention to the real culprits here, and didn’t bother.

Freedom of religion for the individual, but

Charles Haynes is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. He writes and gets his editorials republished in the Spokesman-Review. His latest appearing on the 15th of April discussed at length various schools “over-reacting” to kids who insist on making crosses as an art project or even as a drawing project. While I can have some sympathies for Mr. Haynes views that not even kids should be denied full first amendment freedoms inclusive of religious expression; I frankly wonder if Mr. Haynes has ever considered that religion as a freedom of expression in the public schools is really about the politics of the religious radical parents who are going to use their kids as a wedge issue against the public schools, teachers and administrations. They do. Because the teacher in the art class wouldn’t allow little Joey an opportunity to submit a drawing of a cross on the hill, I can (as the parent) take Joey out of that school and demand a tax voucher for a private or religious school or even demand that Joey can be home schooled, as a punishment to the public schools for daring to tell Joey what he can not do in a class room.

Has Mr. Haynes ever considered that the public school is in fact a branch of government? It is funded by all taxpayers regardless of religion. It is controlled by state administrators elected by the people. No teacher or principle has as their job description:

• Priest
• Pastor
• Reverend
• Rabbi
• Imam
• Wiccan priestess
• Druid of any of the three philosophical branches

So why are they called upon to do the jobs that only any of the above have the authority to do? No government run public school to the best of my knowledge has an alter. Of course various universities that had been in operation for hundreds of years do have chapels. But these are places set aside for the student’s use and it would be totally inconsistent with first amendment freedoms to either coerce a student to attend a chapel or deny him access if he doesn’t believe as other students do. But a government run public school is not and was never designed to be a surrogate church.

That same student could make his cross in an art project for his church. Joey could draw a cross on the hill depicting the death of Christ in a church-run art competition. But that is not what the parents are after. They want little Joey to be a political battering ram against the public educational institutions. I’m well aware of how Haynes likes to be fair here. But it is an attempt at “fairness” without taking all facts into consideration.

It is Sunday evening, do you know where your politician is?

Watching a bit of local news, and a small town in Ponderay County in Washington State lost its main road in and out of town from a massive flood that first dammed up a culvert under the roadway before washing the road out completely. Going from there to NBC Nightly News for Sunday evening, one of the first issues that the news cast brought out was Senator Clinton trying to keep the fires lit under some ill-chosen words by Senator Barack Obama. At least if it helps her win the primary in Pennsylvania. But, unlike CNN on Friday afternoon, the NBC news crew reminded the viewers of Clinton’s political problems and the dangers of over-reaching. This is April, and voters are likely to forget by November. In other news, Kootenai County homeowners are going to face a ha-huge tax hike because of some snafus in tax accounting software bought in 2006 by the county. Right, it took them over a year, 2006 to 2008 before they decided to collect on the homeowners to the tune of millions of dollars. Given how unaffordable life is getting to be you can be sure there will be a revolt at the polls when Idaho’s primary comes on the 27th of May.

Now as to Clinton and what I deem to be her pathetic attempts to be one of them; Pennsylvanian. Yes, no doubt her father was a working stiff who grew up in that state. No doubt that he was a blue collar worker. But, Hillary Clinton first became a lawyer, and as a lawyer became influential in child advocacy. As a lawyer, worked in the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas. She married a man who would soon be governor and then president. She herself became a Senator who now wishes to be president. Given her millions in wealth, Senator Clinton has long since abandoned those “small town” roots. And if she were a daughter of a man today that after 25 years of manufacturing jobs lost to the state of Pennsylvania, would she have the same good luck now as she did some 40 years ago? Manufacturing jobs that paid good money so that dad could put his kid, young Hillary into college. College that was far more affordable then on his wages than today. Kind of hard for Clinton to bridge the gap of time, wouldn’t you think between the time when her father had it very good and now when the manufacturing base in Pennsylvania has simply disappeared.

It is 73° here in Kootenai County Idaho with warnings of overnight thunderstorms before the weather drops at least 30° cooler. For North Idaho, winter has taken its slow and sweet time leaving the state. But at long last, we may just begin to see rain and not a snow-covered landscape as happened just last week at the end of March.

What did Obama say that was wrong?

I find it particularly amazing that Senator Barack Obama could attend a closed fund-raising, speak his mind and get reamed a week later by Senator Hillary Clinton: who’s own campaign hit the rocks because of Mark Penn and then her husband, Bill.  Anything to deflect attention off of her own political troubles, right?  For myself, I certainly saw what Obama said as CNN republished his remarks that originally got blogged by a sometimes contributor to the Obama campaign on Huffington’s Post.  I also fail to find what the uproar was all about.  On other blogs I discussed this at length.  I took note of the bitterness and anger that people feel about this country right now as well as re-publishing a letter that most certainly expressed anger through political attacks on public education.  What did Obama say that was wrong?  If the U.S. of A. that Senator Clinton walks in where people are content and being contented see their religion as a positive than a negative.  Who through their beliefs want a better future for their children.  Then a letter appearing on the above link shouldn’t even  have been written. But it has been.  A particular tragedy isn’t it, to use one’s faith as a battering ram against what one doesn’t like about this country, the society, our current culture and education?  So, I just have to  wonder whom Senator Clinton had been speaking to for “faith” to be positive?