Whoopsie, Whoopie

This post ties in with yesterday's when I wrote about Presidential dignity.  It goes even further than how the candidates present themselves, but also how the media refers to them and their families. The question is, I guess, if a candidate behaves with the dignity the office deserves, will the media react with the respect also deserved?  So far respect is sorely lacking.

Case in point was Lawrence O'Donnell bragging about calling Mitt Romney a liar and challenging Tagg Romney to fisticuffs following a remark made in jest after the last debate about wanting to punch Obama for calling his Dad a liar.

Ohhh, big man O'Donnell.  You chastising Tagg for his trust fund and the privileged life he has lead.   What do you make sir?  I'd wager at least a couple of million or more. Wouldn't all the 'middle class' workers you shill for like to make as much? I'm getting tired of all these TV commentaters complaining about the wealthy while most of them are right up there themselves.  How hypocritical can you get?

Then there was Whoopie grilling Ann Romney of The View over Mitt not serving in Viet Nam.  He was serving his mission.  And the fact none of her sons served in the military.  And wasn't it against their religion.  It isn't.  And wouldn't it be hard to face the parents of fallen service men because there is no blood of war on the hands of her men.

Never mind that while governor of Massachusetts Mitt attended the funeral of every fallen service man that came home.  How many has Obama attended?  How many times has he gone to the airbase when they've arrived?

I don't see where such confrontational dialog serves any purpose.  If it's to make who you're referring to feel uncomfortable, I'm sure you've succeeded.  If it's to make you look witty and clever, it hasn't.  It makes you look small minded and nasty.  It is anything but enlightening unless it's about yourself.  It's demeaning, yes, to yourself.  Was that your intent?  If so then you did succeed.

By the way, Bill Clinton didn't serve in the military. How many funerals did he attend?

When Obama went to Andrews to meet the plane bringing back our men from Benghazi, Pat Smith, mother of dead Seal Sean, said this about her encounter with the President.

...She also said she cried on Barack Obama's shoulder. He hugged her and "looked away".

I wouldn't be too hasty to give Obama an A in compassion.  Oh, by the way.  He didn't serve in the military either.

Presidential Dignity

The President is to appear tonight with Jon Stewart.  Mitt Romney refused to appear on the View.  One is being criticized, the other not.

This is another of my generational observations.  There was a time when our Presidents were men of dignity and class.  They weren't people we'd have a beer with or would necessarily feel our pain.  They were men of accomplishment and vision and patriotism who cared about our country as a whole and it's place in the world.  They were people we admired.  They weren't like us.  They were far more able.  At least that is the image they projected. And the one we wanted to see.

It has changed.  Now we seem them out campaigning in shirt sleeves and blue jeans.  We see them trying to look comfortable doing unseemly things.  They have surrogates who are more interested in destroying the competition's reputations than promoting their own policies.  Both parties are guilty of this though perhaps at differing times.

I personally don't want to see any candidate being questioned by the intellectual heavy weights on the View nor the snarky, foul mouthed likes of Jon Stewart.  To me it demeans what they are trying to accomplish - being elected to the Presidency of the United States.  I certainly don't go to those sources to gain in depth perspective.

When did all this start?  Perhaps with the hero worship of Kennedy.  He was young, good looking and charming.  Especially next to Nixon. Television was just gaining a foothold and became more and more the instrument of change when it came to personality over substance.

The next big change was when the magnetic Bill Clinton snatched victory from a tired, boring George H.W. Bush.  It really slid downhill from there.  The boxers versus briefs episode put the bullet through the heart of dignity.

It continued to disintegrate with 24/7 coverage when every word and nuance was dissected by a media no longer neutral.  The result is what we have today.  Where a mind can't be changed without being disparaged.  Where accomplishments are derided rather than cheered - because they aren't like "us".

I don't know who will win this election, but you need look no farther than the campaigns to see why the world has such a diminished view of us as a world leader. We have become self-centered and mean spirited.  It's not a pretty picture.

How long has it been since you've heard the lyrics to America the Beautiful?  Take a look, refresh your memory.  Do you recognize it?  Or is what we have today the new normal?  If so, what a pity.

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.