The Inequity Of Finally Voting

Fast forward to November 6.  We've listened to the debates, we've read all the analysis and hopefully sorted out all the misinformation. Now it's time to vote.

There has been a lot of controversy about how we should go about this.  Frankly, if the Federal Government wants to do something for the people, they should come up with a voting procedure applicable to the nation, implement it and enforce it.  It is, however, no easy matter.

A lot of the controversy revolves around voter identification.  One fear is it might lead to a national identification card.  Actually I have no problem with that if it would also serve as a national driver's license among other things.  But I digress.  With the over abundance of illegals in the country siphoning off our tax dollars and abusing what should be citizen only privileges, it is suspected that many also vote.  In some states they are actually allowed to vote in local elections.  I don't agree with that practice, voting should be for legal citizens only.  How do we accomplish that without a concrete form of identification and at what stage must it be produced? At registration would seem to be the most reasonable but then when you actually vote would be an added safeguard.

There is a wide range of voter I.D. laws across the country. Everything from photo to none at all. To go even further, it's not even consistent within many states as to how you register, vote absentee or in person. What sense does it make to have to show I.D. when you vote in person but not have to when you mail in your ballot or when you register?

The video shows not only how easy if is to register in Minnesota, but how utterly without concern the election workers seem to be. One worker admitted any fraud discovered would be after the fact and caveated that after all they are not the police.

A lot of states have only mail in voting.  Others resist the method for fear it will lead to fraud.  I wonder what safeguards are in place for those states that have it?  Even for those who don't, but where one can still vote absentee by merely asking for a ballot by mail certainly aren't immune from shenanigans.

Considering all the time, money and effort that is poured into the campaigns,  all the voter has to put up with and sift through to make an informed decision, I'd like to think that whoever ultimately wins does so in a fair election process.

We worry about it so much with emerging nations that we often send observers to make sure everything is fair and square.  Why don't we do the same here?  Or is this when we say, "Do as we say, not as we do"?

.

Wishful Thinking Doesn't Cut It

Of course Hillary Clinton has taken responsibility for the recent deaths in Libya due to inadequate security at the consulate.  It falls under the domain of the State Department of which she is the head.

This is no great brave action on her part - taking one for the team. But you can expect she and Bill have extracted a pound of flesh in the process of finally owning up.

The question of what the President knew and when still hasn't been answered.  No one who knows the inner workings of the White House believes for one minute that the President didn't know the truth about what happened within 24 hours at most.  Not one.  If by some stretch of credibility he really didn't know,  someone didn't do their job.  Quite possibly him.

More worrisome than that is the floundering now going on about what to do when the culprits are located. Some realities must be faced.  One, terrorism, be it the Taliban or al Qaeda, is alive and well.  Two, Islam extremists hate us and will do all within their power to destroy us.  Three.  They don't care a whit about President Obama what's more love him.

The question seems to be if retaliation is worth the risk.  The thinking is it would only draw attention to what is a growing threat rather than one contained.  It could deter efforts to build a counter terrorism (I though terrorism was on its heels) network in the region.

This isn't even a matter of leading from behind.  It's a matter of denying reality.  If we give them a pass it won't deter them, it will embolden them.  It's been shown time and time again.

Four Americans have been killed in a planned terrorist attack.  We've been threatened that if we retaliate they will multiply attacks tenfold.  No one in the region is standing with us in indignation because the region is rife with the terrorists.

They are not going to go away.  They are one step ahead of us all over the region.  Taking out one man did not dissemble an ideology.  Wishful thinking doesn't trump truth.

When those responsible are identified and located they should be eliminated.  If they are going to kill ours, we will kill them.  That will at least get their attention.  This is what they know and view as strength.  People who are willing to blow themselves up and attempt to murder 14 year old girls, regardless of which club they belong to,  because of differences of opinion are not going to bow to coddling.

They kill.  They understand killing.  We should accommodate them.

Michael Vick - A Step Too Far

I've become pretty jaded over my lifetime and little shocks or surprises me, but I must admit that the news that Michael Vick has a new dog did just that.

It seems he tweeted a picture of his daughter and happened to catch the corner of a Milk Bone box in it.  Then the picture was replaced without the box.  That in itself makes me queasy.  He tried to hide the truth.

Legally he has every right to have a dog now that his parole for the horrendous abuse he was instrumental in inflicting on the dogs in his dog fighting ring has ended.

He claims that what he had done in the past in no way molded who he is today.  I'm no psychologist but I don't buy it.  Every experience you have in life molds who you are.  He claims it's for his kids so they can learn to love and respect animals.  Fine.  You leave and let the kids have the dog.

A lot of his fighting dogs were taken in by Best Friends Animal Society for care and rehabilitation.  Many are still there with severe personality problems. Many had to be euthanized because of their injuries. Somehow all the court mandated work for the Humane Society is supposed to negate all this.  Tell that to the dogs who fight for their lives even now.

I'm sorry, no.  Michael Vick has had more breaks than most would ever get because of his prowess on the football field.  He has regained his wealth.  He has regained his adoring fans - at least as long as his skills last.  That's more than enough.  Way more.

I live in an area of the country where attitudes toward animals is mixed.  Most love their dogs every bit as much as I loved ours.  Others think of them as no more than possessions to be used for whatever sport their owner decides - from hunting to fighting. Too much fighting.  Too much neglect.

There is always the argument that an animal's life is not as valuable as a human.  Unless you're making heaps of money on the fights.  But the animal has no say.  It's a cliche as old as time, I know, but also undeniably true.

If a human can be executed for taking another's life or sentenced to life in prison people applaud.  The creep got what he deserved.  If a sex offender or a child molester has to register so people know of their proximity, people cheer.   That gives them the edge on keeping themselves and their children safe.

So it should be for those who abuse animals.  Perhaps a better lesson for his kids would be to work along side their Dad with the Humane Society.  You don't always get what you want and it isn't always your fault.  This time it was Dads.

I have no objection to second chances but the caveat is it should be deserved.  Mr. Vick has had a multitude of second chances pan out to his benefit.  The one he doesn't deserve is to ever have a living breathing animal living under the same roof.  Nor does that animal.

The Best Moment Of The Debate - Any Debate

The best moment of any political debate, it seems, is when the debaters come on stage and shake hands.  If only our national politics were really that civil.

Actually, the debate was pretty much as I expected.  When Biden was acting like the Vice President rather than Al Gore he came across as knowledgeable, in command of his stance and a man to be respected.

Paul Ryan, too comported himself well.  More than Mr. Biden actually.  It is no fault of his that he appeared to be the younger, less experienced of the two. He was. That he held his own is commendable.  While he may not have signed sealed and delivered the election to the Republicans, he didn't do them any harm either.

The polls will tell, I suppose, if the persistent mugging and laughter from Biden will be something that resonates in the long run.  I don't expect that it will any more than I expect the debate to be remembered past next Tuesday.  It's merely a chance to see if the men seem capable of stepping into the Presidency should it ever be necessary.  Sarah Palin could not pass that test even with the constraints placed on Biden so for that reason if no other, it's important. 

The conservative side said Biden was condescending and somewhat maniacal in his behavior.  I would agree it was often over the top, sometimes inappropriate and uncalled for.  That's the key.  This was a debate between two men vying for the Vice Presidency.  It should have been no laughing matter.  The topics at hand are dead serious and when he behaved in that manner he was impressive.

He didn't have to act like he was doing a stand up routine at a comedy club to challenge or answer a point from Ryan.  I'm sorry he felt he did because it took away from his over all effectiveness.

 After all the hype from both sides subsides I expect it will be judged anticlimactic for all the pre-debate hype and expectations.  Both accomplished the minimum necessary to keep their tickets viable.

I rather like the mood that's anticipated by a hand shake over the mood that immediately prevails.  When it gets silly I tune out.  If they can be civil enough to shake hands they should be civil enough to discuss the matters at hand.  It can get heated. How can it not when opinions are so diverse?  But to try to dominate with extemporaneous outbursts be they vocal or facial does more to turn people off than turn them your way.

Infallibility At What Cost?

I've been puzzling for several days as to why the President is keeping with the narrative about the You Tube video being the cause of the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Nearly everyone has come to agree that the attack was an act of terror and the video had nothing to do with it.  Only those involved in the campaign seem to be forwarding the President's view.

Former U.N. Ambassador offered up the idea that the President so believes the elimination of bin Laden has al Qaeda on the run he refuses to consider any alternative.  Terrorism no longer exists as it once did.  Security levels in Libya were exactly what they should have been. He has made the middle east and the world safer.

Hub offers up another theory.  His campaign people have convinced him if he admits to what now seems to be the truth he'll be accused by the Republicans of being a flip flopper.

There may be some truth to that theory.  It's the more political of the two.  I'm more worried about the other, however.  He's showing me he thinks he's infallible.  Only his opinion is the correct one no matter what the facts may be.  He's also showing me he's delusional and that is potentially dangerous.

If everything that's said about the President has even a grain of truth it could become problematic.  If he's detached, if he's lazy, if he really can't be bothered with his security briefings and if he really believes he has conquered terrorism and what's now going on in the world is just a bump in his road there could be more severe problems ahead.

I understand party faithful on both sides of the aisle never wanting to see the forest for the trees.  They'll never change no matter what the circumstances.  It concerns me though, when it's the President.  The whole of politics goes to the art of governing.  Some leaders are dictatorial, some are willing to compromise but none should ever close their mind to the idea the truth may not be exactly the way they want to see it.

Those in his inner circle who perpetuate the myth so as not to displease him are doing neither him nor the country a favor. The truth may be an inconvenient one, but to insist on  trying to reframe it makes me question the motivation.

Is it the flip flop angle?  Possibly.  The battle is tight and not getting any easier.  Or has he deluded himself to the point the delusion to him is the truth? If that is the case he scares me.

Far more than his policies or the direction he's taken the country or the state it is in.  It scares me because the rest of the world sees this too, especially those who would do us continued harm.

What might he delude himself about next?  Our very existence could depend on what that might be and who would use it to their own advantage.