Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Just had a conversation with a well meaning but totally Tea Party deluded colleague, and was treated to many of the lies and mischaracterizations that are the favorite tropes of these idiots, among them "Obama rules by fiat. Obama the Emperor. He's signed more Executive Orders than any other President" Apparently this woman cannot read. Executive Orders are a matter of record. To date, President Obama has signed 188. Some context: George W. Bush signed 291. Clinton signed 364 and Reagan 388. Last we all checked, 291, 364 and 381 are all higher numbers than 188, which of course means President O has not signed the most Executive Orders in our history, not by a long shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Mubarak's swan song
So Mubarak has left Egypt, and conservative friends are happy to take this opportunity for yet another unfounded swipe at our current President. Man, the vitriol this man is subject to! Their concern stems from the time Obama went to Egypt to speak and apparently requested that the Islamic Brotherhood be allowed to be in the audience, and the perceived stupidity of this action. He is castigated in the name of 'political correctness' -- never mind that this same 'political correctness' has given insane creationist claims a moment's exposure on the national stage or that this same 'political correctness' vouchsafes a certain amount of moderation in Liberals' tone when addressing issues that divide us from conservative table thumpers. Needless to say, no such restraint is returned in kind. No civil tongues in their civil discourse.
Ummm, err… so Obama is so all powerful that his request for the presence of the Islamic Brotherhood launched Egypt's revolution? We sent money for guns to Saddam Hussein. What more direct support of a regime is that?. They bought guns and tanks from us, remember? They shot us with our own bullets, remember? Attendance at a speech pales in comparison, does it not? And who's to say that Obama was not fully aware of the Islamic Brotherhood's tendencies? Perhaps he was pulling a 'know thine enemy', figuring that the devil you do see is better than the one you ignore. Nothing expresses like repression.
It is inaccurate to characterize our financial support of Egypt as responsible for the current political unrest. We gave tons of money to Egypt when it was led by Mubarak; we have yet to give a dime to that country under whatever the new leadership will be. If the Mubarak-era money ‘lifted all boats’ by supporting those who planned the revolt as it fed and clothed everyone in the country, then yes, our $$ went toward shit. But we could also say that the money that found its way into Mubarak’s pocket went toward shit. Any money can be used any way, and some of it always ends up supporting people whose ideas we abhor. The point of the cash in this scenario was to buy us access to oil and military bases, and perhaps even to attempt to alleviate the suffering of the average Egyptian. We would send money to the governments of North Korea or the Sudan if it suited our purposes. We abdicated any meaningful response to human rights abuses long ago.
Many hypocrites revile Obama for his conciliatory tone with the Islamic Brotherhood as if the President were acting on a whim. We are all so sure, in our armchairs beside the fire, that we would know exactly what to do in this situation and would do it with conviction and total success. We, of course, are stupid. We cannot afford to be naive enough to believe that appeasement is either a) always avoidable or b) ineffective. And for heaven's sake can we all stop pretending this course of action was invented by the current President?! Hey, dudes -- remember Neville Chamberlain? We did business with Mubarak, despite human rights abuses, because his secular government was a relative haven in an increasingly radicalized Mid-East. So we all know this from reading the latest news -- but in one second we undergo a complete amnesiac transformation and decide that our country, in the person of Barak Obama has developed a policy of appeasement dating from about 3 hours ago, in his attitude toward the Muslim Brotherhood.
What so many Americans are too stupid to see is that to appease Egypt is to appease the American public. Imagine the clamor if Obama alienated the Moslem Brotherhood, on principle. Our contract would be revoked immediately - no more strategic military position, and a drastically reduced supply of the resource on which we have become so dependent we literally could not function without it. In light of the fact that we have done next to nothing to wean ourselves from oil, we are ridiculous to imagine that we can risk access to it by shaking our fists at our suppliers. We've seen what that yields -- higher oil prices. Strident objections to Egypt's government, whatever the regime, could cut off the supply chain entirely, radically and instantaneously crippling the American way of life, in turn destabilizing the economy to the point of collapse, resulting in chaos.
Yes, the Moslem Brotherhood is terrifyingbut to characterize Obama as a lone appeaser to an abhorrent regime in a world of staunch politial heroes is moronic. He is dealing with the same political factions and human rights abusers whom other world leaders, including our Presidents, have appeased at various points in history. This is situation normal, people. Your complaints are blatant anti-Obama agenda. Obama is required to walk the tightrope between alienation and cooperation with Egypt just as he and other Presidents have had to do with, say, North Korea or China. North Korea could bomb us out of the water and China owns us. So, they can starve and imprison their citizens with impunity. Not a peep from a dependant U.S. Thanks oil barons and finance boys; thanks greedy energy wasters; thanks spendthrifts. You pretend you are not part of the problem, and that is true -- you are the whole problem.
Ummm, err… so Obama is so all powerful that his request for the presence of the Islamic Brotherhood launched Egypt's revolution? We sent money for guns to Saddam Hussein. What more direct support of a regime is that?. They bought guns and tanks from us, remember? They shot us with our own bullets, remember? Attendance at a speech pales in comparison, does it not? And who's to say that Obama was not fully aware of the Islamic Brotherhood's tendencies? Perhaps he was pulling a 'know thine enemy', figuring that the devil you do see is better than the one you ignore. Nothing expresses like repression.
It is inaccurate to characterize our financial support of Egypt as responsible for the current political unrest. We gave tons of money to Egypt when it was led by Mubarak; we have yet to give a dime to that country under whatever the new leadership will be. If the Mubarak-era money ‘lifted all boats’ by supporting those who planned the revolt as it fed and clothed everyone in the country, then yes, our $$ went toward shit. But we could also say that the money that found its way into Mubarak’s pocket went toward shit. Any money can be used any way, and some of it always ends up supporting people whose ideas we abhor. The point of the cash in this scenario was to buy us access to oil and military bases, and perhaps even to attempt to alleviate the suffering of the average Egyptian. We would send money to the governments of North Korea or the Sudan if it suited our purposes. We abdicated any meaningful response to human rights abuses long ago.
Many hypocrites revile Obama for his conciliatory tone with the Islamic Brotherhood as if the President were acting on a whim. We are all so sure, in our armchairs beside the fire, that we would know exactly what to do in this situation and would do it with conviction and total success. We, of course, are stupid. We cannot afford to be naive enough to believe that appeasement is either a) always avoidable or b) ineffective. And for heaven's sake can we all stop pretending this course of action was invented by the current President?! Hey, dudes -- remember Neville Chamberlain? We did business with Mubarak, despite human rights abuses, because his secular government was a relative haven in an increasingly radicalized Mid-East. So we all know this from reading the latest news -- but in one second we undergo a complete amnesiac transformation and decide that our country, in the person of Barak Obama has developed a policy of appeasement dating from about 3 hours ago, in his attitude toward the Muslim Brotherhood.
What so many Americans are too stupid to see is that to appease Egypt is to appease the American public. Imagine the clamor if Obama alienated the Moslem Brotherhood, on principle. Our contract would be revoked immediately - no more strategic military position, and a drastically reduced supply of the resource on which we have become so dependent we literally could not function without it. In light of the fact that we have done next to nothing to wean ourselves from oil, we are ridiculous to imagine that we can risk access to it by shaking our fists at our suppliers. We've seen what that yields -- higher oil prices. Strident objections to Egypt's government, whatever the regime, could cut off the supply chain entirely, radically and instantaneously crippling the American way of life, in turn destabilizing the economy to the point of collapse, resulting in chaos.
Yes, the Moslem Brotherhood is terrifyingbut to characterize Obama as a lone appeaser to an abhorrent regime in a world of staunch politial heroes is moronic. He is dealing with the same political factions and human rights abusers whom other world leaders, including our Presidents, have appeased at various points in history. This is situation normal, people. Your complaints are blatant anti-Obama agenda. Obama is required to walk the tightrope between alienation and cooperation with Egypt just as he and other Presidents have had to do with, say, North Korea or China. North Korea could bomb us out of the water and China owns us. So, they can starve and imprison their citizens with impunity. Not a peep from a dependant U.S. Thanks oil barons and finance boys; thanks greedy energy wasters; thanks spendthrifts. You pretend you are not part of the problem, and that is true -- you are the whole problem.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
No-one likes a military leader with a confidence problem.
The moral of the McChrystal story is you shouldn’t open our mouth within earshot of a reporter. The fact that the General knew he was complaining to a reporter makes his lapse in judgment ever more egregious. Yes, military leaders have the right to their own opinions, but not to their unhindered expression. Sad but true. For a general to let off steam pubicly is to invite unrest among those lower down the military food chain, disrupting his command. He must lead by example. For McChrystal to let fly as he did cost him his job because he forgot that basic rule. In deriding members of the Administration and questioning his mission in Afghanistan, McChrystal undermined the authority of the office of the President, and President Obama was perfectly justified in removing him.
And yet some have grabbed McChrytal's lack of confidence in the government's plan for the war in Afghanistan as an opportunity to push their political agenda, denigrating our President as unfit to act as Commander-in-Chief on the basis that he never served active duty. You know, “it takes one to know one.” What a load of utter horse shit. Many Presidents have had to lead in wartime -- whether they started such wars or, as in Obama's case, inherited them from a previous Administration -- without benefit of first-hand battlefield experience; Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, come to mind -- so an argument that such an individual is of necessity incapable of commanding effectively is specious. Frankly, I think Lincoln and FDR did a pretty good job, but what do I know. It is ignorant and short-sighted to dismiss Obama’s potential military acumen out of hand. We don't yet know the answer to that question.
Americans want to believe a President has it all at his finger tips; that he is perfect and all-knowing, and possessed of magical powers. Newsflash! Presidents are human, not gods. They cannot be all things to all people, no matter how much we want that to be the case. Americans have to get over themselves and realize that we elect fallible individuals with their own unique sets of talents, and both respect them for their skills and powers of discernment and resist the urge to annihilate them when they need to rely more on others' advice for a complete understanding of a situation. That's why we have a cabinet, and a host of national advisors and committee leaders. No-one governs alone.
At the root of our recalcitrance lies the fact that, though many vehemently deny it, our attitude toward government is paternalistic. We love to vaunt ourselves as a group of individuals, ultimately responsible for ourselves, but in truth we are more likely to expect the other guy to pick up our slack. Let the government take care of it, but woe betide any perceived failures. Government should intuit all of our wishes and then grant them, one by one. Yes, Teabags, this means you, too. Blah, Blah, individual and blah, blah big government - bull -- you aren't interested in small government, just in having a government of whatever size it takes to cater to your peculiarities. “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare” indeed.
And yet some have grabbed McChrytal's lack of confidence in the government's plan for the war in Afghanistan as an opportunity to push their political agenda, denigrating our President as unfit to act as Commander-in-Chief on the basis that he never served active duty. You know, “it takes one to know one.” What a load of utter horse shit. Many Presidents have had to lead in wartime -- whether they started such wars or, as in Obama's case, inherited them from a previous Administration -- without benefit of first-hand battlefield experience; Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, come to mind -- so an argument that such an individual is of necessity incapable of commanding effectively is specious. Frankly, I think Lincoln and FDR did a pretty good job, but what do I know. It is ignorant and short-sighted to dismiss Obama’s potential military acumen out of hand. We don't yet know the answer to that question.
Americans want to believe a President has it all at his finger tips; that he is perfect and all-knowing, and possessed of magical powers. Newsflash! Presidents are human, not gods. They cannot be all things to all people, no matter how much we want that to be the case. Americans have to get over themselves and realize that we elect fallible individuals with their own unique sets of talents, and both respect them for their skills and powers of discernment and resist the urge to annihilate them when they need to rely more on others' advice for a complete understanding of a situation. That's why we have a cabinet, and a host of national advisors and committee leaders. No-one governs alone.
At the root of our recalcitrance lies the fact that, though many vehemently deny it, our attitude toward government is paternalistic. We love to vaunt ourselves as a group of individuals, ultimately responsible for ourselves, but in truth we are more likely to expect the other guy to pick up our slack. Let the government take care of it, but woe betide any perceived failures. Government should intuit all of our wishes and then grant them, one by one. Yes, Teabags, this means you, too. Blah, Blah, individual and blah, blah big government - bull -- you aren't interested in small government, just in having a government of whatever size it takes to cater to your peculiarities. “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare” indeed.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Arizona's Goin' Rogue
So we all have heard about SB 1070 - the law Arizona has just passed, permitting law enforcement officers to challenge any individual at any time, demanding proof of identity.
To quote the New York Times: "The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."
Many support this law as at least some form of response to the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border in search of employment. (When they find it, it often involves working for very low wages cleaning the houses and mowing the lawns of 'real' Americans who are very happy to underpay someone to make themselves look pretty.)
I say this law is not the way to stem the tide. I say this law is dangerous.
Police states start somewhere, usually with a broadly worded law permitting law enforcement officers to demand that any citizen at any time to prove his identity. Such laws beg exploitation and can devastate a community. The direct objects of the law, i.e. Hispanics, are up in arms about the inevitable racial profiling and discrimination this law enables. However, let's not be naive. It will not be just Hispanics (or swarthy folk of other nations) who will face constant fear that at any time they might be pulled over. Who's to say that the police will stop there? Any of us is vulnerable to inconvenience at best, and harassment or false accusation at worst.
This law gives any individual policeman unwarranted authority over the populace. How can we be sure they will be capable of resisting the temptation to exploit their powers -- to harass people, punish irritating neighbors, extort goods and services, deny people access to facilities, or stalk individual objects of their desire? How can we adequately protect the populace against a 'rogue' cop who willfully accuses someone of having the ‘wrong’ papers, or insufficient i.d.? Who will supervise the police and ensure that they follow procedure and only demand i.d. for 'just cause?'
What will be the mechanism by which proof of citizenship will be accepted or denied? Will the policeman’s word be sufficient cause for legal action? What is the fate of the accused -- will they immediately be dragged off to jail and prosecuted? Immediately deported? What will be their recourse to defend themselves and prove their legitimacy? Will they have to go to court? If so, who pays? And what is the fate of the accused while they await their day in court? Will they be allowed to work?
This is loophole city, people. It is dangerously broad, giving a group of men and women (with guns!) the right to run roughshod over the community. We are all at risk with this law, as is the very idea of what it means to live freely.
There are legitimate issues with regard to illegal immigration which need careful attention. This law does not properly address them.
To quote the New York Times: "The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."
Many support this law as at least some form of response to the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border in search of employment. (When they find it, it often involves working for very low wages cleaning the houses and mowing the lawns of 'real' Americans who are very happy to underpay someone to make themselves look pretty.)
I say this law is not the way to stem the tide. I say this law is dangerous.
Police states start somewhere, usually with a broadly worded law permitting law enforcement officers to demand that any citizen at any time to prove his identity. Such laws beg exploitation and can devastate a community. The direct objects of the law, i.e. Hispanics, are up in arms about the inevitable racial profiling and discrimination this law enables. However, let's not be naive. It will not be just Hispanics (or swarthy folk of other nations) who will face constant fear that at any time they might be pulled over. Who's to say that the police will stop there? Any of us is vulnerable to inconvenience at best, and harassment or false accusation at worst.
This law gives any individual policeman unwarranted authority over the populace. How can we be sure they will be capable of resisting the temptation to exploit their powers -- to harass people, punish irritating neighbors, extort goods and services, deny people access to facilities, or stalk individual objects of their desire? How can we adequately protect the populace against a 'rogue' cop who willfully accuses someone of having the ‘wrong’ papers, or insufficient i.d.? Who will supervise the police and ensure that they follow procedure and only demand i.d. for 'just cause?'
What will be the mechanism by which proof of citizenship will be accepted or denied? Will the policeman’s word be sufficient cause for legal action? What is the fate of the accused -- will they immediately be dragged off to jail and prosecuted? Immediately deported? What will be their recourse to defend themselves and prove their legitimacy? Will they have to go to court? If so, who pays? And what is the fate of the accused while they await their day in court? Will they be allowed to work?
This is loophole city, people. It is dangerously broad, giving a group of men and women (with guns!) the right to run roughshod over the community. We are all at risk with this law, as is the very idea of what it means to live freely.
There are legitimate issues with regard to illegal immigration which need careful attention. This law does not properly address them.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)