Religious Freedom

Can you believe how our leaders have politicized what I really thought was a constitutional right. Our history tells us that religious freedom was extremely important to our founding fathers. It was sort of a non-negotiable when the good old US of A was struggling for liberation from those oppressive Brits wasn't it. How times change. Today, the prevailing train of thought seems to be...you are free to practice whatever religion you want as long as my religion is ok with it. The tragedy of September 11 was not an attack on the U.S. by Islam any more than Timothy McVeih's act in Oklahoma was a Christian attack on the U.S. OK I know that many believe that McVeih was a self proclaimed atheist, but he did have ties to a religious doctrine known as the Christian Identity. Some scholars make the point that if McVeih was a Christian he could not have carried out such a horrific act. I would counter that if the 9-11 hijackers had been truly devoted Muslims, they could not have carried out the attacks that they perpetrated. Sorry I guess I am getting a little off track. As Americans we are quick to point to our history of tolerance and freedom and yet we want to make the location of a place of worship into a political issue. Muslims have been worshiping in Manhattan for decades. I should not matter the location of the place of worship. Are we going to restrict Islamic service members from practicing their religion at the Pentagon chapel?

As a final comment I will remind you that in June of 1967, Israel attacked the USS Liberty (nine hours after identifying it as a U.S. Navy vessel) in International waters killing 34 American Sailors. Instead of national outrage the result was national coverup with many documents related to the event still classified. Do we control the location of synagogs near Naval facilities? No we don't.

Insanity Politics

The electorate is fed up with politics as usual. I hear it at least 4 times a week. It seems to be the new battle cry. After all, it's the reason that the Democrats won the White House and control the Congress...right?...or...is it the reason Mr. Brown went to Washington (Sen Scott Brown)?...or it is the reason ...uh...well you get the picture. If you were to stop people on the street anywhere in America and ask them if the political system is broke my guess is a large majority would say yes. If you ask them how to fix it, you will begin to see the problem. Most of those who offered a solution would repeat party sound bites. And that, my friends, is insanity. We've all heard the definition of insanity, it's "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". So how do we change politics enough to stop the insanity? I will admit that I don't have the answer, but I did have a "duh" moment this week, and no I wasn't in a Holiday Inn Express. Here's my question...

...When did the political process begin to revolve more around the party than the person?...

We...the people that is, only think about politics and government before elections, and when "government" does something we don't agree with; like rearrange the school districts, or widen the road in front of our property, or raise taxes, etc. I live in Florida, and the recent theater surrounding Governor Crist's announcement that he would run for Senate as a no party candidate has been eye opening. There was a lot of speculation about how many of his large donors would ask that contributions returned. And most of his campaign staff resigned of course. So that tells me that the donors weren't supporting Mr. Crist because the believed in the man and were confident in his ability to represent Florida in the Senate...no, they were supporting the Republican party. Likewise the campaign leadership. I may be naive but there is something wrong with that in my book. To quote Howard Troxler, an editorial writer for the St. Pete Times, "everybody likes to talk ideology, but what usually decides an election are mechanics, strategy and money." Think about that for a minute. Does that sound like what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution? I for one don't think so.

So how do we stop the insanity? To get any real change we are going to have to find a way to decrease the power and the influence of the party. We, the people, need to listen the political hopefuls and they in turn must listen to the people. No elected official is ever going to make all of the people happy so instead of pretending to be something they are not, to appeal the the largest number of voters, we need politicians with convictions and the moral courage to stick to them. We need politicians who are not professional politicians, but are leaders. We need politicians who are willing to go for the hard right instead of the popular wrong. I could go on but you get the picture? Do I think this is going to happen? No. It might happen occasionally at the local level, and I mean very local. Above the local level, I don't think there is an incentive to change that dramatically. Without the total collapse of the current system where the party and the loyal party minions control money and media we are going to continue the insanity...and while I can't change it, I can at least talk about it and dream...this is America after all.

Over the TOP!!

Senator Jim Bunning is at it again. Using the power of his position for petty self-serving purposes. I am generally a calm person and as a true independent I care about issues and the country more than I care about a political party..I know, call me weird. Anyway, the esteemed Mr. Bunning is holding up Presidential nominations again, not out of character as this seems to be a hobby. I know this is a common way for large egos to express themselves but at what cost? The latest power play by Mr. Bunning is the most outrageous political ploy I think I have ever heard of. SEN Bunning is holding up the the nominations of two officials from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Punke, picked to be U.S. ambassador and permanent representative to the World Trade Organization in Geneva, and Islam Siddiqui, nominated to be USTR’s chief agricultural negotiator. His reason...the USTR hasn’t done enough to defend Bunning’s home state against a Canadian antismoking law that “unfairly discriminates against Kentucky-grown tobacco.” In other words, he is penalizing the United States because he wants Canada to stop encouraging people not to smoke. I could go on a long time about the philosophical issues with this line of thought but instead I will simply ask the obvious...IS HE INSANE?

Playing Politics With Health Care

As we all prepare to enjoy our holiday season this year "our" Congress is playing politics with our health care. The Senate took up a version of the bill and we are told that the fact that they addressed several amendments is positive. Perhaps, but what did it cost us to get here? and what will it cost us (the people) to get a bill to the presidents desk. Congress hasn't yet passed the defense appropriations bill to fund the military that we are asking to do so much because the health care bill is more politically important. Now I agree that health care reform is important, after all, I'm not a spring chicken anymore but I am not so sure that things are going in my favor. There are almost six health care lobbyists for every member of Congress and they all have an agenda. The health care industry has spent more than $263 million to make sure members of Congress know what they think. The insurance industry has spent more than that in an attempt to convince both Congress and consumers that premiums are going to increase dramatically. I appreciate the fact that they are willing to spend money to make sure we don't have to pay them too much in the future...riiight. Now Madame Pelosi seems ready to drop the public option in order to get a bill passed. Am I missing something? Wasn't the public option a cornerstone of the Democratic view of a better health care world for us all? Whatever happens, it is pretty clear to me that the final bill will be a compromise that could have been reached many months ago...but of course that would have meant fewer months of having an issue that provides press coverage for members who are already posturing for the mid term elections. And our soldiers fight on.

Politics

I continue to be astounded by the damage that partisan politics can do to our country. As Congress has worked for months to get the political football called health care into the end zone, the work of approving the various spending bills that keep the Government working has languished. As has become the norm we are approaching Thanksgiving withoutout having some of the key funding bills in place. It seems to me that the efforts of one party to discredit the other and gain the "upper hand" in the next election comes at the expense of what is good for the country. Unfortunately I don't have a solution. I'm pretty certain that we will not move past our current two party system anytime soon and am not even sure that such a change would be any better.

With the exception of a few military leaders and perhaps a couple of think tanks, there is no real substantive effort to develop a goal and accompanying strategy for Afghanistan...why? Well it's politics silly. You have one group of people who will point to the mistakes of the former administration in believing the "we won" - no effort to decide what the ultimate goal is and perform an analysis of alternatives to determine how to get there. Then there are the new folks in power who seem to be paralyzed by the spector of making a "wrong" decision and damaging their power base, and finally there are those who are so patriotioc that they give little thought to the multiple complex factors that influence what happens. these are for the most part good people with good intentions. And therin lies the problem. The intention. It seems that there is no National intention or purpose. Actions are being carefully crafted to meet multiple intentions:

• Don't mess up


• Leave a positive legacy


• Rattle someones cage


• Appear strong


• Get re-elected


• Get in the press

What is your intention?

A New Low for Divisive Poison Politics

I'm not sure how many of you watched the Presidents speech to Congress last night but if you did you saw a public demonstration of how divisive U.S. politics have become. Of course I am referring to the outburst by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina's 2d district. When I was a younger man, members of Congress discussed their differences over a drink, public debates centered on fundamental differences in beliefs about the role of government. Opponents agreed to disagree and worked hard to convince voters that their philosophy was the best hope for the stability of the country. We were all proud of our President, whether we voted for him or not, because he represented America. Even those who might have been aware of a Presidents shortcomings did not openly discuss them. Over time, politics became less gentlemanly with attack ads, name calling, and heated (and occasionally unprofessional) debate. Still for the most part the seasoned political operators refrained from making a spectacle of themselves. If you didn't agree with what the President said in a joint session of Congress you just didn't clap. You registered your disagreement publicly by remaining stoic and unimpressed even when those across the aisle stood and clapped. In the early 1990s the protocol changed. Bill Clinton was heckled by republicans during at least three of his State of The Union addresses, first in 1993 when he cited CBO statistics on the deficit. George Bush was booed by democrats in 2005 when he claimed that Social Security would be "exhausted and bankrupt" in 2042. Last night Mr Wilson moved to a new low when he shouted "You lie!" in response to President Obama's statement that health reform would not insure illegal immigrants. I'm not sure what Mr. Wilson was thinking that drove him to his irrational outburst but it was pretty sad. Since the PolitiFact organization has determined that Mr. Wilson was dead wrong I can only assume that he thought it would show strength??? to the voters back home, or he has fallen victim the the mindless argument that all Democrats are evil. Whatever the reason, I am sorry it happened. I fro one prefer the days of the thoughtful respectful politician. You can review the PolitiFact opinion at their website.

The Kabuki Dance

The more I listen to the political debate (if you can call it that) the more confused I become. When did it become a problem for our President to reach out and talk to us? And by us I mean any of the various group we might use to describe ourselves, like military members, unions, congress, educators, or students. Yes the President, who was elected by all of "us", is going to speak to our children. Wait you say, I didn't vote for him. True perhaps but if you are an American citizen the system used to elect him is yours. We are a democracy! In theory we work together in support of whoever is elected for the betterment of the collective. In U.S. politics if two people or more run for an office someone is going to lose. Unfortunately losing can bring out the worst in people. If it were our children, most of us (I hope) would feel a bit embarrassed and try to discourage the spiteful, vindictive lashing out behavior that would cause us to characterize someone as a sore loser. And yet almost every time I read or watch political commentary I get an overwhelming urge to throw a yellow flag and yell UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT at the top of my lungs. We have lost sight of the healthy, thoughtful political debate that makes many people from other countries look up to us. The recent debate over the Presidents health care proposal seemed to focus more on who proposed it than on what it would mean for America and her citizens. Constructive debate from either side of the isle might have moved us toward a "win-win" solution incorporating the best parts of multiple proposals, and yet there was little of what I would characterize as constructive debate.

Back to the issue at hand. The President wants to talk to our children. I have read the text of the speech and there is no language there to insight our kids to rise up against us. In fact I didn't find anything that I don't think 98% of parents would agree with, and yet there is an uproar of opposition. Is there fear that a man that we do not like because of political party might say something to our children that we agree with? Why was there no concern when either of the President's Bush spoke to schoolchildren, or President's Clinton or Reagan? Oh my gosh I have it ... what if our children actually listen to and are inspired by the Democratic ne'r-do-well. Ouch, they might decide to pay attention, focus on their education and think they can do something important in life. Outlandish! This will never do ... we should protest, call him names like "Hitler wanna be" or something. We could preach hate and ask our parishioners to pray for the death of the president as Pastor Steven Anderson is said to have done from the pulpit of his Tempe Arizona church. Of course he is also someone who could not manage an intelligent answer to even simple questions. Evidently he agrees with nothing the President says just because "I hate Obama".

Ok I'll pull my tongue out of my cheek and get back to reality. I am really tired of those who would "lead" through polarizing a group against the President rather than by promoting respectful, constructive dialogue in the finest tradition of our democracy. I had a boss once who had a knack for seeing through the drama when it was used to hide a lack of substance. he referred to it as a Kabuki dance. Kabuki is a wonderful form of Japanese theater involving of song and dance dramatic stories and lots of makeup. My boss described a Kabuki Dance as "a glorious presentation full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

I, for one, prefer substance over drama.