While Congress Postures Hillary Earns Her Pay!

The Monday morning papers around here are usually light in weight and substance. I guess reporters don't work week ends on the assumption that news worthy events do not occur. Or else editors figure it's a time to get their money's worth from the wire services.

If that's the case today was their bonus. Oh, there was news all right. Hillary began her first official trip as Madam Secretary with a warning to North Korea that it needs to live up to its commitments to dismantle its nuclear programs. The Pakistani government, an ally of sorts, has cut a deal with the Taliban to allow them to impose Islamic law in the strategic Swat Valley. Think subjugation of women and school burning for starters.

The Venezuelans have over turned term limits which will allow the sane and beneficent Hugo Chavez to run for office for as long as he lives, effectively turning his tenure into a dictatorship. Oil, anyone?

The Iraqis admit there was fraud in their recent elections but not enough to be concerned about. And then there is Israel. Ah yes, the country we be beholden to forever. Our dear and staunch ally of allies! They've now seized 400 plus acres in the West Bank opening the door for more settlements. Despite their promise to the U.S. to refrain from doing so. Think peace gone down the tubes one more time.

I hope Hillary is as good as she thinks she is! Her hands will be full and her wits challenged.

Meanwhile our new President is having to travel the country to drum up support for his programs while the Republicans wave paper and belly ache about pork. For that I would applaud them if they had done something better during the time they had in the leadership. They didn't. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had better remember what happened to them for lack of performance. They were turned out. I feel like I'm on a see saw and can't get off.

One thing both sides need to remember. It took a world war to get us on the road to recovery after the last stifling depression. It seems like our enemies and allies alike know we're bickering within and are taking advantage of it. Is this the mind set? The stimulus to economies that wars bring? If that's the case forget about saving GM and Chrysler. It will be all desert camouflage Jeeps and Hummers.

Just don't bet this time around it will be contained on another continent. I personally don't want to ask, "Where have all the young men gone? Gone for soldiers, every one."

With $3.3 Billion in U.S. Aid Is This The Best Iraq Can Do?

I've spent several of my recent posts lambasting our government and those who run it. It has been an outlet for pent up (or maybe not so pent up) frustration. Then a story comes along that makes me repent, knowing full well this is the best country in the world. Especially for women.

The AP tells us that Iraq's state minister for women's affairs has resigned. Nawal al-Samarraie's task was to improve the lives of women left poor or abandoned by the war. Calling it a "full army of widows", al-Samarraie estimates the number at around three million. This does not include children for whom they are responsible.

Lasting only six months on the job, this gynecologist and mother of five, came into it full of ideas like setting up regional offices and vocational training. But her office and staff of 18 was not a full ministry and had little authority and fewer financial resources. Soon she found herself dipping into her own pocket to try and help.

Making up 65% of the population, many of the most desperate have been successfully recruited as suicide bombers. They have nothing more to lose.

If this doesn't drive home the point that many cultures consider women as nothing more than chattel I don't know what will. Iraq. Into which we are pouring billions of dollars of aid!

We have given Iraq $3.3 billion in aid. Al-Samarraie's budget was cut from $7,500 to $1,500 per month! To care for three million plus citizens of the newly democratic Iraq!

I had concerns about a female President being effective in such a climate. I also have the same concerns about a female Secretary of State. Protocol officers will make sure everything is according to Hoyle for the photo ops, but where it goes from there is any one's guess.

At this point in time, I wish everyone success. Our new President. Our new Secretary of State and those who would help their own like Dr. al-Samarraie. This is one reason why I get so frustrated with our own politicians who seem to have lost sight of country for special interests.

We don't have three plus million war widows - yet. We should not ignore the fact that there are other countries with which we are involved who do. When we are the ones who in large measure created the climate in which this can happen we need be aware there is no gender gap when it comes to bitterness and the corresponding desperate measures. When one has nothing more to lose.

A Peace Initiative Dogwalk Style

You know, I'm really getting tired of these countries who's leaders are scolding us for civilian deaths and wanting our military to kowtow to the dictates of their military. Their militarys which can't get it done for themselves. Whatever "it" is!

The BBC reports Karzai anger at US strike deaths. Sound familiar? Haven't we been hearing the same thing from Iraq? Haven't we been hearing the same demands that our military clear all actions with the Iraqis?

Here's how I see it. Neither really want us there. Karzai is little more than "mayor" of Kabul. The rest of his opium producing paradise is under the rule of the Taliban and war lords. Iraq's al-Maliki is little different. He's been dragging his feet for years because his Shiia interests outweigh those of his country.

Our main target, bin Laden, is in neither country. He's either in the tribal areas of Pakistan or has shaved his beard and is driving a cab in D.C. Who knows.

We get little respect from the Israelis when it comes to working toward peace between themselves and the Palestinians. So what's the point? When we have managed to bring about "democratic" elections the people of those countries have put governments in place that we do not like. Again, what's the point?

How do you effectively fight a war when our guys stand out like beacons because of their armor and uniforms while the opposition fades into civilian crowds because they don't dress for war! They surely do match us in weaponry.

I'm just a bit edgy these days but I'm tired of these governments scolding us when it's our young men and women who are being maimed or slaughtered to keep their sorry selves in power.

War is Hell. Civilians get killed. If they don't want their civilians killed stop the wars! Quit blaming us. If they don't want us there, let's oblige them. I'm sure all our Johnnie's would be more than happy to come marching home.

SOMEone Has GOT To Stop Shooting!

The Israelis are smart all right. The timing of their retaliation against the rocket lobbing of Hamas was designed to take place during the transition of power in the U.S. so no clear cut policy was in place.

Even though Obama has stated time and again there is but one President at a time, it hardly seems so. He's getting all the face time and news conferences yet Bush still holds the office. Therefore it has been a convenience to him to say little about the conflict in Gaza other than to protest the killing of civilians.

I'm not laying all of this on the Israelis. Nor do I blame them for taking advantage of the timing to try to end the attacks once and for all. They are unlikely to succeed.

I do ache for both the Israeli and the Palestinian citizens who are bearing the brunt of the mayhem. Military casualties are either being under reported or both sides are far better than I'd expect. It's the civilians; the women and children who are starving, denied medical attention because of the lack of supplies and facilities and being slaughtered.

I don't envy Hillary Clinton the task she will be facing in a few short days. The war, as one might expect has escalated. Hezbollah, the other "H" word, has raised it's ugly head from Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah. Brothers under the skin. They use similar tactics to keep the citizenry in line. They provide schools and hospitals and the like out of one hand while lobbing missiles into Israel out of the other. Now they've joined forces.

Lebanese militants lobbed three rockets into Israel today. Of course Israel returned fire. Eleven more people were killed in Gaza bringing the total to nearly 700 over thirteen days.

Now what? As much as I'd like to believe diplomacy will work there is no evidence that it has a chance. If it is undertaken at all it seems to do little more than provide breathing space, allowing all side to regroup and strengthen. That Israel, with all it's superior military power, is unable to eliminate it's adversaries, perhaps it's time to let them fight it out to it's ultimate conclusion without our intervention or our money.

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Yes, for those of you who will remind me of all the accords granting Israel the right of a homeland, I understand that. They have it now. They've had our financial support in the billions of dollars. Should we not expect to see some positive results?

It's harsh. I know. But as I sit here listening to all the hype about the new administration and it's hope for change, I'm well aware of where some of those aid dollars could be put to better use. Here. For us.

What's the saying, "Money doesn't buy happiness"? It doesn't buy peace either. Maybe it's time we realize we cannot babysit the rest of the world while our own are wanting!

With Friends Like These...

Hamas lobs missiles into Israel. Israel retaliates with air strikes. People die. If not killed instantly, their deaths can be agonizing. Many are women and children. Why? A dispute over land. Each seems determined to annihilate the other. Nice neighbors.

Here in the 'hood if one neighbor doesn't like another they pretty much ignore one another, knowing full well neither is likely to change. Maybe nations should take a lesson from neighborhoods.

Frankly I'm tired of the whole mid east mess. We cannot negotiate nor legislate that they like one another. The history is too sordid and deep. You'd think we would learn. It's tough to sit back and watch it without your blood boiling no matter where your sympathies lie. Maybe it's time, though, that we do just that.

It's always the Israelis against everyone else yet no one has the guts to stand up and point out their part in the conflicts. In particular the establishment of illegal settlements in the West Bank and cutting off life lines to Gaza. Why is it that they are always the victim and no one else can lay claim?

It concerns me that we pour billions of dollars into Israel because they are such a strong "ally". Yet we turn a blind eye when they blatantly use those dollars in counter productive actions against everyone else in the region. What, exactly, have we received in return for that aid to warrant calling them "ally"?

Everyone else in the region is accused of wanting to drive Israel out of existence. Remember they are the ones threatening military action against Iran and guess who they'll expect to come to their aid? Us. As in U.S. They have a stronger, better armed military than any of it's neighbors. Is it not time to let them fend for themselves? They resist all our efforts for peace talks, they rattle their sabres with great abandon and they are as guilty as their adversaries of killing hundreds and thousands of people who are guilty of nothing more than the unfortunate fate of living in the region.

Both sides have their arguments. Neither are totally justified. Neither will compromise.

It's time for it to end. Full stop. A lasting full stop. Or hit them where it hurts the most. In the pocketbook. Oh, and in the spirit of the season, this is hardly what I'd consider the Holy Land. It's more like Dante's Inferno.

American Technology Will Always Win Out!

I've always been of the mind that if you don't understand the culture in which people are raised, or live, you can't truly understand the people. Sometimes catering to that knowledge is all that's needed to open the flood gates of communication.

Take the Pope. It's long been known that he has a penchant for sartorial elegance. After all he wears Prada. That's all fine and (ahem) "dandy". High fashion has been dominated by the European houses for years. Therefore it's quite appropriate.

But technology is a different story! The good old US of A comes to the fore. It would seem the Vatican has approved utilizing technology to bring the book of daily prayers right onto iPhones! True, an Italian priest who is technically savvy along with an Italian web designer came up with the concept, but the iTunes technology it was adapted from is as American as, well Apple pie!

Even more intriguing is the prospect of letting professionals rather than politicians undertake professional endeavors! For instance, what does it take to get Afghan chieftains to cooperate with us rather than the Taliban or Al-quada? Politicians seem to think bribing them with money and arms is the best way. Wrong! Especially if said chieftain is elderly and has several nubile young wives. What works best for? The little blue pill! Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reports utilizing Viagra, a Pfizer product, can bring a chieftain around to our side quite quickly.

Pretty smart of our experienced operatives, don't you think? Even the brand makes a difference. If they used Cialis, there would be a huge additional expense. Especially for a chieftain with multiple wives! Where would they get all those bath tubs? Not to mention the water needed to fill them!

"Crap" Game

There has been much written about the reading Obama has done, studying past administrations, and what he has learned about successful governing. Engaging the opposition in a meaningful way seems to lead to success. I hope his roll of the dice with former opponent Hillary Clinton doesn't "crap" out. It would seem he has promised her everything but the kitchen sink and that too may also be in the mix. I hope there is more behind his choice than appeasing Hillery supporters.

Among the things promised to get her "yes" is direct access to him and being allowed to select her own staff. There are some ingredients that seem to be missing, however. Where will she stand in relation to Joe Biden, chosen for his foreign policy expertise, and the yet unnamed National Security advisor? She's not used to standing in line nor taking orders.

Speaking of Joe Biden for a minute, where is he? He hasn't been making headlines since his dinner with the Cheney's at the Vice President's residence. Is he already secured in the infamous "undisclosed location"? How does he feel about the choice of Hillary?

Okay. Hillary is smart, able and disciplined but her foreign policy experience is no more weighty than Obama's. I'm a little leery of on the job training when dealing with a multitude of nations that don't much care for us. Obama seems satisfied that Bill will toe the line. He's far more trusting than I would be. He's far more trusting, too, that Hillary won't use the very visible position as a platform to unseat him if his first term is shaky. I worry about that because I don't see a Tiger changing its stripes and it has always been about the Clinton's - together and individually.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned during all the hype, is that the biggest problem spots with which she will have to deal are country's that do not have a very high regard for women. I'm not sure a woman in the position of Secretary of State is the most prudent choice the President-elect could have made.

Of course Hillary is throwing the dice too. The expectations for her in this position are as high as those for Obama as President. Should she be less than successful her political career could be over.

It is a huge gamble for both - and for the country. If neither does as well as we would like, we're all going to be in trouble. As is our nature, we'll throw the bums out. Just like this year. Then we'll be looking at the Republicans again. Huckabee has already stated his interest in running again and of course Sarah Palin is still talking turkey.

Now that's a roll of the dice I can do without!

Bill And Hill - A "Two For" Again?

I'm beginning to worry about myself. I think I may actually have morphed into a full fledged political junkie. I'm finding the post election intrigue absolutely fascinating.

The Washington Post , among many other sources, has reported that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State. I doubt that she'd take it if offered because two women have already held the position, but the idea of it is rife with possibilities.

Especially if Bill should become the Special Envoy to the Mid East. Add to the mix Tony Blair who holds the same position for the European Union! What a power play.

Just think, Bill would be able to truthfully say he has the Secretary of State's ear. Hillary would be able to say she has the Special Envoy's ear. They both, of course would have the President's ear. And remember Tony and Bill got along famously before he went on to become Bush's "poodle"! Think of the "bad cop, good cop" scenarios that could play out! If this duo and Blair couldn't bring all those pesky factions into line, they could sure confuse the bejabbers out of them!

It could be economical too. They could share a plane! Ah, the Clintons. The world is their stage. I wonder how many curtain calls they have left!

National Security Questions Unasked

National security questions seemed few and far between during the campaign. Other than whether one was or was not suited to be commander-in-chief and when and how to end the Iraqi war, I heard little about domestic issues. This seems strange to me because the over kill in airport security has contributed a great deal to the demise of our economy.

I resist flying at all cost. I'm a white knuckle flier to begin with. Pair that with the anxiety of the personal scrutiny by total strangers, not being able to complain when it goes over board, the chance prescriptions and other valuables may disappear from luggage and not being able to take even essential grooming supplies with you has made the experience one I can do without.

Now the TSA is testing the see everything x-ray machines at airports. I believe they are already being tested in Phoenix. Bet McCain doesn't have to go through them. Oops. He has access to Cindy's company jet. Oh well.

Why has no one ever asked the candidates if they intend to retain these oppressive security tactics? Have enough potential terrorists been deterred to justify the cost to the economy? Airlines are dying. So are hotels and resorts that are destinations and in turn the retailers that cater to the tourist. We're not flying within our own country and foreign visitors are opting for other choices for the same reasons.

"Out there" a ray of hope shines. Germany has said they will not join in the practice. While already used in some European countries with the blessing of the European Commission, EU lawmakers have put forth a resolution criticizing them saying they are equivalent to "a virtual strip search" raising serious human rights concerns.

If there is a country in the free world that understands the downside of war, terror and human rights abuses it would be Germany.

Is anyone in the TSA paying attention? Are the candidates?

Separation Of Church And State? Up Yours!

So says Christian ministers from 22 states who plan to endorse candidates and give political sermons this coming Sunday. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times , Reverend Wiley S. Drake of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, CA, went so far as to say this, "I'm going to talk about the unbiblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him." Says who? And just who are you?

And we wonder what has happened to the moral leadership in our country! Here we are agonizing about the collapse of our financial institutions because of greed from the unqualified buyer to the greedy lender and are wondering how this could happen! How un-American! Well, when the clergy bands together to defy a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups, why shouldn't anyone or everyone who has an ax to grind thumb their nose at the law? Let chaos reign as long as it suits my purpose!

Let's look at this from the top down. Part of the reason this country exists is so people can worship as they choose. Worship their deity; not have their political views dictated to them under fear of divine damnation.

The Bible has been dissected and translated and interpreted by so many for their own ideology over the centuries, if it is looked at as anything more than a template for right and wrong, good and evil, you're not thinking for yourselves.

How about that? Have we become such sheep that we think this act by these preachers is right? Are we so lazy that we need them to dictate how we think and who we should choose to lead us? Do we hold these men, and that is all they are, men, to be so all knowing? Do we not suspect they just might have a teeny weeny agenda of their own?

The current administration has already stripped us of many Constitutional rights. Now we have clergy trying to strip us of more. The world is watching this election along with the struggles we're having as a nation. What they see is racism, gender bias, greed, manipulation - a Congress that can not get beyond the self interest of it's individual members and a segment of the religious community thumbing its nose at the very institution that allows it to exist. And the people. The voters. We, the sheep.

Is it any wonder why we are defied when we try to force our way of life upon others? We don't have to look at what has happened to them when we have failed. All we have to do is look at ourselves. What we've become. And what we haven't.

The World Wants Obama; Why Don't We?

There was an interesting article in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal called The Triumph of Culture Over Politics by Lee Siegal. It explains how the meaning of culture (here we go again, redefining words) has morphed from how my generation would define it to it's more popular usage today. My generation would look at great music, art and theater as "culture". Today it's the "culture" of the Christian Conservatives or the "culture" of small town America.

Reading it reminded me of why I was so enthused about Ronald Reagan's run for the White House after four years of Jimmy Carter. At the time I felt the "home spun" President, who's wife wore the same off the rack gown she wore to his Gubernatorial inagural ball to his Presidential inaugural ball, was a bit too folksy. The Reagans brought back class. I'll admit that sounds extremely...shall I say "elitist"? And it was. There were far more important issues to be considered. It was not, however, a totally invalid thought.

In thinking how the rest of the world views us, impressions do count. Why do you suppose tens of thousands of people turned out to see Obama on his recent overseas swing? A large part had to do with the persona of the man. The image of what they, the world, has of what our leader should be like. His grace; yes, his worldliness.

I've had enough of the good old boy types who give unexpected and unwanted neck massages to the Chancellor of Germany and gets the attention of the British Prime Minister by calling, "Yo, Blair!" with a mouthful of food.

This same type of good old down home behavior also seems to be part of Sarah Palin's appeal. All the hockey mom as pitbull with lipstick and the moose shooting schtick that is so appealing to the media, and certainly a portion of the electorate, does not impress me in the least.

The McCain campaign let her out on her own yesterday. She didn't have a news anchor to brashly address as "Charlie", but she did have a husband she introduced as "Alaska's First Dude". First Dude??

It may have played well in Reno but how does it play in the rest of the world? Wait! Is that a collective groan? Is that laughter I'm hearing? I'm not sure, but it is definitely not applause.

Meanwhile, Back In Iraq...

In our world of Presidential politics, we have John McCain speaking in platitudes about how all his "experience", like being a prisoner of war for five years in lieu of being in combat, has better prepared him for the role of commander-in-chief than the thoughtful Barack Obama. He has bragged incessantly that he had proposed the "surge" strategy long before it was adopted and in essence is taking credit for its success.

Right. Now that the Georgian/Russian situation is rambling on to who knows what conclusion and our ally, if a somewhat shaky one, Musharraf of Pakistan has been sent packing, it's time to return to the scenes of yesteryear! The war in Iraq!

Yep. It's still going on, so I decided to revisit the "surge" strategy to see if it's still holding. An AP article gave me a good start. First, though, we need to remember the reason for the surge. It was to quell the violence enough so the government had time to make some headway on goals we had set for them, including rebuilding their military to the point they can begin standing on their own.

We found this was easier said than done so we embarked on what I always felt was an ill conceived strategy. The Sunni portion of the population were getting tired of al-Quida, the out of country mischief makers, interrupting their efforts to regain their place from the Shiia who control the government. So they joined forces with the U.S. to defeat al-Quida Iraq. For a price; some $200 million total! We paid them and trained them and armed them. We made them mercenaries and because we were, essentially the highest bidder, they did our bidding. Not for just the money, mind you. As in any good drama, they had an ulterior motive. Get rid of al-Quida so they could get back to trying to vanquish the Shiia. They succeeded, to a point. Al-Quida Iraq has been pretty well decimated.

But, uh oh! A glitch! Now the Shiia are flexing their muscles against the Sunni fighters, our allies in the surge. They want no part of the Sunnis regaining any sort of foothold. One Shiia official said, "The continuation of the Awakening Councils as they are now is unacceptable."

From the opposing side, this,"We fought the Americans for four years and we fought al-Quida too. We are an experienced armed group. We are fully capable of bringing the house down." "An experienced armed group." Yep $200 million worht!

And from the American side, our guys in the middle, this, "It has put money in the local economy and reduced attacks on coalition forces. You can see where the money is going - an irrigation pump here, a renovated house there."

Do we need a reality check or what? They are lucky if they have electricity in Baghdad four hours a day!

The Sunni tribesmen who joined with U.S. forces were named the Awakening Councils. Yeah. They were wide awake to the multitude of benefits they might derive.

This is what the "surge" has wrought. We have helped rearm a contingent of the population bent on destroying those currently holding the cards. We are right smack dab in the middle. Does a re"surge"nt possibility of civil war ring a bell?

If this is the measure of success of which McCain boasts of being the mastermind, I'll take my chances with a more thoughtful Obama in a New York minute!

Should This Administration Be Taken Seriously?

The answer is a resounding but qualified "yes"! It should be taken seriously by us! Mostly because a lot of the rest of the world does not.

Let's see why. We have a President who has given up golf for the duration of the war in Iraq out of respect for those who serve, those who have died, and the families who wait in anguish on a daily basis.

Now there is a widening affront by Russia on an independent neighbor. Pictured is our President at the Olympics having a fine old time. Before this photo was taken and before Putin left for the front, Bush, according to the AP , is said to have voiced his concerns about the aggression by the Russians on an American ally. Yep. Putin headed home to oversee the military action. Bush stayed at the Olympics and played.

You may feel my thinking to be a bit harsh. After all, what could Bush do? Well, if it had been Israel would he have stayed?

The article quotes Bush as saying, "I was very firm with Vladimir Putin..."

Meanwhile Vice President Cheney told the pro-American president of Georgia that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered..."

Just what is the under manned Georgian army to do? Even the troops pulled out of Iraq will have little impact.

Bush has now ended his Asian trip and is headed home while calling the violence unnacceptable. The Russians have widened the war by bombarding another region of Georgia that has a population of Russian loyalists. Understand the Russians aren't nearly as concerned with these two rebellious regions as they are intent on destroying the independent nation of Georgia.

George is talking. Cheney is threatening. Is anybody listening?

It's Over! Maliki Says So!

So where are the headlines?? In the Coeur'd Alene Press a two inch squib squeezed between an ad for the Schweitzer Bluegrass Festival and above another for an Internet service on page A12 is a two inch column headlined Iraqi PM: Government has defeated terrorism. Wow! I'd think it deserved more than that!

Everyone from the International Herald Tribune to just about every broadcast outlet and blog news aggregator I can think of had this news. It's of huge importance. It means we can leave! They've done it. They've been telling us for quite sometime that we are not wanted nor needed.

The implications for the upcoming Presidential election are monumental. Who do you go with? One who would extend our military presence to infinity or one who would begin an orderly withdrawal of our troops?

Oh, if it were only that simple. Never-the-less, don't miss the point of what Maliki is saying - again. We're not wanted. They can deal with it - in their own way and in their own time.

We should know by now force feeding our goals on those who don't share them leads to disaster. The spin on this by the administration should be interesting as will how the candidates will interpret it. Will it be debunked, heeded - or like our local papers have handled it - for the most part ignoring it?

The Globalization Of Our Landmarks

According to the New York Post Abu Dhabi is buying the Chrysler Building. This bit of news got me to thinking whether Homeland Security is on the right track worrying about illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border rather than worrying about who is buying up our landmarks and who happens to have an issue with those buyers.

Japan is a huge player. Japan based entities have interest in, if not outright ownership of, such icons of American culture as Tiffanys, Manhatten's Algonquin hotel and Exxon headquarters in Rockefeller Center, the Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas, even St. Clement Winery in the Napa Valley.

Our friends, the Brits, are in on Almaden wines, Ballpark Franks and French's Mustard not to mention part ownership of the Watergate complex in Washington D.C.

The West Germans are in on Allis Chalmers and Doubleday. Dubai owns New York's Essex Hotel.

We've been stewing for years about foreign automakers not only taking over our markets, but also our manufacturing facilities. We've also been stewing for years about the loss of our jobs to overseas operations that are more economically attuned to the bottom line.

Just think of it as a plus when it comes to keeping the homeland safe. I think the repercussions would be interesting if a bunch of renegade Arabs decided to smack a plane or two into the Chrysler Building!

However, if someone gets ticked off at the Brits or the Japanese would we have to worry about what's in our wine or hot dogs and mustard? We'd be okay with Nestle products because they are Swiss owned and the Swiss don't fight with anyone.

Now I'm wondering - what's going on with our tomatoes?

Preconceived Notions Versus Inner Honesty

Awhile back I participated on a panel about blogging; I wore a pant suit and a lapel pin on my jacket. What does it tell you about me? Absolutely nothing.

It is a lapel pin, never-the-less. Does it mean that I am less than patriotic because it is not a flag? Or that I wish I was Swiss because it's a Saint Bernard? No.

Does it matter that my maiden name is German? Does that make me, or my father, a Nazi sympathizer? Does it mean I'm not one of "us"? Of course not.

Does the fact that I am in my mid sixties, white and female make me an automatic supporter of Hillary? No again.

So why do I find an AP story headlined Racial attitudes pose a challenge for Obama so troublesome? Because not so latent racism is still out there lurking too close to the surface for comfort. It is an issue to be addressed, but more so by ourselves than by Obama.

When voters say things like "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania" or "His middle name bothers me a lot" and "He doesn't wear a flag pin", it seems disingenuous. Why isn't a black man ever going to win Pennsylvania? Give me a reason. A real reason. Prejudice.

Once upon a time we were the nation of immigrants; the great melting pot. Now others do it far better. We still hang onto our "me" mentality. Hillary had to have time to get used to the idea she wouldn't be the nominee. That's how the media framed it. It was all about her. In truth, it was not her mindset. She was still fighting for the nomination and probably is still trying to figure out how to pull it off.

We need to get outside of ourselves, our preconceived fears and our lame rationales. We need to judge our potential leaders on their actual strength of character and ideas rather than our imaginings of stereotypes. We do those who would serve, no matter their gender, religion or race, a disservice; we do ourselves a greater one. Great potential is being wasted.

If we can't get beyond what has bubbled to the surface during this primary season, the world will no longer watch with anticipation for the return of our greatness; they'll turn away, get on with their own business and leave us wondering why.

CNN Delivers Thanks To GPS

Fereed Zakaria's Global Public Square. I was stretched out on the couch this morning waiting for a pain pill to kick in when this program came on. Somewhat weary of the usual Sunday morning line up of talking heads and the question of the day about what Hillary will do next, I decided I would give this new program a look.

I'm glad I did. Too much is being made about the banalities of our presidential campaign while too little is being examined as to what the world sees and expects from the new President and, as a whole, what the issues will be that will be confronting him over and above the war.

I first became familiar with India born Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, as a frequent and popular guest on, of all things, the Daily Show. He is now hosting his own Sunday morning show on CNN. Today's panel included Irshad Manji, Ugandan born and Canadian raised, author and commentator perhaps best known for her book The Trouble With Islam Today. Christian Amanpour, London born to a British mother and Iranian father, a CNN correspondent. Former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky and former Mexican Foreign Minister, Jorge Castaneda. What a great selection for the outlining and discussion of global issues! Not an American born in the group. Very savvy!

Last week the special guest was Tony Blair, today it was Henry Kissinger and upcoming will be Salman Rushdie, among others.

This will be must see TV for me as the election nears. I will watch with interest to see what foreign nationals consider the issues to be, how well the candidates grasp them and whether or not their thinking is in sync. It is a refreshing bit of programming. The timing could not be better. The panelists come from different parts of the world and hold a variety of positions; they have differing agendas and widely diverse viewpoints on some things yet not on others. It is enlightening to say the least.

Most heartening, however, is they seem to have one thing in common. They seek peace for their peoples and they expect the United States to be, once again, the major player in the process.

Let's dare to hope.

Flag Pins And Patriots

The talking heads were at it again last night. It would seem Obama was making a speech to a veterans' group and there on his lapel, as obvious as it could be, was an American Flag lapel pin. Was he pandering to the veterans? Has he finally seen the light? Now. Can we put that topic to rest?

No. Rather than digging into his ideas about how he plans to extricate us from the war, or the points of his health care plan versus Hillary's or what he will do in reality about gas and food prices, all they could talk about was that he was wearing a flag pin. Never mind that neither McCain nor Hillary sport one; it seems to be huge issue with Obama.

So let's look at just what a patriot is.

patriot |ˈpātrēət|
noun
1 a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

By that criteria one would have to look at both Clinton and McCain. Is it a show of patriotism to knowingly and deliberately tear down a fellow candidate for the sake of winning? Is that vigorous support of country or self?

Is it patriotic to ignore corruption at the highest levels of Iraqi politics because it might prove embarrassing as reported in an AP article in this morning's Spokesman Review ?

This story got barely a mention on the news compared to the non-stop discussion of Obama's lapel pin. It is an important story, a not unexpected story and a disturbing story; especially now that there is a groundswell to get Rice on the McCain ticket to balance what presumptive candidate Obama may do.

Come on, talking heads, get with the program. You remind me of a bunch of high school gossips wondering "does she or doesn't she"?

We have huge issues facing us. We deserve better from those who's job it is to inform us. Tonight is the West Virginia primary. The win is expected to go to Hillary. What we'll hear is how wining this small, poor and mostly under informed segment of the population should propel her to the nomination.

What we should hear is why. What we should hear is why this particular demographic should outweigh everyone else who has and has yet to vote. What we should hear is why she appeals to this demographic and he does not since there is so little difference in their policies. If it's a race issue let's hear it. Front and center.

But we won't. We'll hear about her debt to herself. We'll hear how she deserves to wait to exit in her own good time. All that stuff of substance we really need to know.

Patriotism. All in good time.

Why Don't People Vote? Why Should They?

I wrote a post a few days ago, on an entirely different issue, about how I'm not too old to learn. It still holds true, especially regarding all things politic.

Many of us have been fuming for months now over the lack of substance, detail about the positions the candidates supposedly hold on issues important to the voters. Little stuff like the war and the economy and gas prices and health care. What are they going to do and more importantly, how are they going to pay for any of their ideas? Oh, yes, the plans are grandiose. Pay for them? Cut waste. Right. Been there. Heard that.

This morning's Couer d'Alene Press had an excellent editorial - Insist politicians share specifics . It told of how orchestrated obfuscation is within political campaigns. Project Vote Smart canvasses candidates to get their views on issues in an attempt to inform voters. The response to their queries is less than enthusiastic.

When party leaders tell candidates to purposely avoid specifics in preference to pushing values, they should be drummed out of the corp. Mike Wessler of Project Vote Smart had this to say about one unnamed campaign, "It's not our job to educate, it's our job to win."

In listening to all the petty bickering that's driving the campaigns at this point, it's easy to believe this is not only the philosophy but also the prevailing strategy.

As Vince Lombardi once said, " Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." So be it for at least some of the candidates. But what about we voters?

Just what is it we're voting for anyway?

Dancing With (the) Stars - All Four Of Them

I listened, along with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, to the pontificating Senators during yesterday's hearings. I paid just enough attention to realize that more was not being revealed than was.

Though the language differed, there was a thread that prevailed throughout. Every time there was an actual question rather than an accolade, we were told, mostly by Crocker, that it is a complex situation.

Obama asked what we need to know.  ... if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.

If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.

That's it.  What is the administration's definition of success?

What seems quite clear from what was not said is that we also have no exit strategy. I don't think either the General nor the Ambassador was lying. You can't lie if you have no truth.

Yet today, the General did an about face before the House on whether or not the fiasco in Basra was due to bad planning on the part of the Iraqi forces.  I'd feel much better about the whole process had he not done so.  But then, I guess we need to look at the definition of "bad planning" as the administration would have it.

I can only ask why it is bad strategy to end the war and leave the region to a fate of it's own making when there is no definition of success and therefore no way to plan a strategy to achieve it?

Remember the dance-a-thons of old? One by one the contestants would collapse from exhaustion. The last contestants standing won.   In our case, will it be exhausted funds, personnel and public opinion? I doubt we will be the last contestant standing. It will be one or another of the Shiia sects or the Sunni.

It's time to face reality: noun - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.