Diversity - Here We Go Again

We find the strangest things to agonize over.  Now that the President is fleshing out his Cabinet for his second term, it would appear that some are upset over the lack of - well, diversity.

Charlie Rangel thinks his lack of appointing women and minorities is embarrassing.  So far only four of the vacancies have had nominations to fill them.  Treasury, State, Defense and the CIA.  Only one was a woman.  Hillary.  The other are men to be replaced by men.  Granted Jackson from EPA and Solis from Labor, both women, are leaving.  Their replacements have yet to be named. If they are men, so what?

Forget for the moment that such positions are not usually filled with the best and the brightest but rather those who the President is confident will side with his way of thinking and carry out his wishes.     It would be difficult to get blind loyalty and diversity in one fell swoop.  Unfortunately for us.

I had hoped diversity was on it's way out.  Especially in government.  We have it in school admissions and the job market.  The result has often been a person has been denied because he or she wasn't the correct color or gender to meet the criteria of so called balance.  Government is the last place we need to be fighting this battle.

Melissa Harris Perry, an NBC commentator, has a  somewhat different view. She doesn't think gender or race necessarily represents diversity.  Her cases in point are that Clarence Thomas, as a Supreme Court Judge, doesn't represent the way the black community interprets issues.  Of course he's not on the court to represent just the black community and the fact that his thinking is far more encompassing is in large part why he's there.

She says much the same of Michele Bachmann were she President. Being a woman doesn't necessarily mean she is representative of that group.  Nor should she be if she were President.

This to me is more to the point.  The President might be better served if he surrounded himself with the best rather than the most simpatico, no matter their race or gender.  This isn't a criticism reserved for President Obama.  It has been the universal way of forming Cabinets and choosing advisors for decades and I doubt I'll live to see it changed.

Are there women who could do the job as well or better than those chosen.  In some cases, absolutely. In others, no. Is it because men have had more opportunity than women or minorities?  Well, that's why all this diversity stuff started in the first place isn't it.  But the opportunities are coming.  More women and minorities are pursuing careers once thought off limits.  Their numbers will grow as attitudes change, not with false premises.

It wouldn't bother me one bit if every staff member in the White House was a man if he was the best available for a particular assignment.  It wouldn't bother me a bit if more than a token Democrat or Republican were chosen if he was the best for the job. I always felt Hillary was wrong for Secretary of State when the most pressing of issues were initiating in patriarchal cultures where women are more tolerated than treasured.

It will take a far more secure and independent minded leader than those we now have for that to happen.  A leader who has convictions, the courage of them but also the wisdom to admit that he or she might not always be right, that other thinking and opinions may hold more validity and be willing and able to 'evolve' for something other than political expediency. Maybe for the good of the country?

We aren't there yet.  Insisting on diversity won't get us there any sooner.

Guns - Put A Cork In It

If we weren't in a perfect storm I wonder if all the non-stop hype about the evil of guns and their owners would be getting the press they are.  Perfect storm?  The still open wounds from the Connecticut tragedy added to the preliminary hearing on the Aurora, CO theater shooter. Add to that the continuing headlines about how gun sales have soared and carry permit application lines are out the door.

Of course you have to include the anger or despair you feel when you're making maybe $25,000 as a bank teller  and the CEO of JP Morgan Chase is getting $4.1 million in salary Plus a 4.5 million bonus plus $17 million in stock.

I  think I understand a lot of it and it has little to do with the shootings.  It has to do with one more right being threatened by government and the inequity paired with hypocrisy that we're supposed to ascribe to without question.  The threat of an executive order from a dictatorial President doesn't help.  By human nature we behave like children thinking we're being treated unfairly so we dig in even deeper.

It has far more to do with the human condition than it does with guns.  Then too, what about those guns?  I live in the West where guns are a part of life far removed from street gangs. They're used for hunting, and yes I agree, one doesn't need an AK47 to hunt.  Never-the-less I'm looking at numbers more than calibers or rounds.

Hub was raised in Montana; he hunted.  His Dad was in law enforcement and they lived two doors away from the state penitentiary.  They had guns. Hub found early on he had no taste for killing so he no longer hunts but we still have guns dating from way back then.  How many others do?  Many, many.  They're in collections, they hang over fire places, they're just there. Often rarely if ever used.  But don't you high and mighty suits in Washington dare try to take them away.  They're ours.  Fair and square for whatever reason.

We will always have the unbalanced who will find their way to weaponry no matter what.  I think the hype about "guns" is adding to the problem rather than helping to resolve it.  But then we do tend to over react rather than think things through.

It's the imagery.  It's horrible and heart breaking but it is essential to keep it in perspective before it turns into an even larger tragedy when masses of gun owners decide to fight for their rights.  It might not happen.  It probably won't but think what a flash mob could do if pushed.

Every one is on pins and needles these days, nerves are strained, tempers quick.  It would be prudent to cool the rhetoric to something other than self righteous threats. If you want a war on guns go after the gangs in cities like Chicago  where they are picking off people one at a time yet get no where near the press because of their race, their economic circumstances and the fact that while the total numbers for a month might be as high as Connecticut or Colorado, it's piecemeal.

And it has nothing to do with the locals who hunt to put food on their table in an economically depressed area.  They're good people.  Who have guns for a reason. They need them and they use them responsibly.

Haggle Over Hagel

The Republicans seem to be having a fine time waving their red capes in front of the Democratic bulls.  The problem is the bulls keep winning and the Republicans keep getting gored.

That's why a headline on Politico caught my attention. GOP sees payback in Hagel pick.  Now there's an example of child's play if ever I've seen one.

I have mixed feelings over the selection of Mr. Hagel just as I do with Kerry for State and Brennan for CIA. Every one seems warm and fuzzy over Kerry.  Senatorial courtesy we're told.  The difference between Kerry and Hagel?  Hagel isn't well liked and it would seem Kerry is.

I hope the hearings focus on policy and how these men will continue implementing it.  After all it is the President's purview whether or not I agree with it.  To turn it into a witch hunt as payback for past disagreements will make those partaking in it appear petty.

I don't think the credentials of any of these three is any better or worse than many others serving in the Cabinet. If either, I'd probably lean toward better.  That's a positive.  They don't appear to be merely political payback.  Obama knows, likes and most importantly trusts Hagel and Brennan.  Kerry wasn't his first choice for State but being Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he comes in with a depth of knowledge and personal relationships with most of those with whom he will be working.  That too is a positive.

I differ with the President on many aspects of his foreign policy but it is what it is.  If it has any chance of being successful or at least maintaining the status quo, he needs that trusted leadership doing his bidding.  So do we.

The time for celebrity appointments is past. The world is far too dangerous a place any more. I don't know how Hillary as Secretary of State will rate when all is said and done but suffice it to say that a "name" doesn't necessarily equate with success.

What I do understand is that none of these men have much appetite for war.  That again, is a positive.  Where they stand on readiness as a deterrent is more of an issue but that's not my call.

What I don't want to see is "payback" in the hearings.  An attempt to denigrate a nominee for so called sins of the past.  I daresay there won't be one on the panel of questioners that hasn't changed his or her stand on an issue for political expediency.  After all, the President himself has "evolved" in many areas of policy.

Let's have hearings that are informative.  If the men are ill suited for the positions for which they've been nominated then don't vote for them.  Personal agendas against a nominee will only make this President dig his heels in deeper and we've been seeing of late how good at it he is.

Leave the red capes home.  Conduct yourselves like grown ups with your major concern being your country. If the bull deserves to, let him live. Being gored in the name of payback could be excruciatingly painful!  For all of us.

Out With The Old, In With The New

It has been said the United States Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. That's out.  You can't deliberate an issue if it isn't presented.  That's in.

Washington's game of 'survival of the fittest' has had the rules changed.  I was thinking it was age related but then decided that was wrong.  Neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi are exactly spring chickens.  Neither is Mitch McConnell. What it boils down to is the ability to change with the times.  The Democrats have mastered it.  The Republicans have failed miserably and don't seem to get it.

We have a President who was unprepared for the job and has yet to develop what we elderly seem to think are the necessary skills.  So much for our not adapting!  He has instead decided to ignore those niceties and do what suits his own skill set best.  He doesn't know how to negotiate and as long as he's able to bully the opposition into bending to his will he feels the effort to learn would be wasted. So far it has worked wonderfully well for him.

I'm beginning to get it.  Within the Tea Party most members, Obama's age group rather than mine, share the skill of bullying.  So do those who support them.  Compromise?  How old school! Thus the fracture within the Republican Party.

So what are they to do with the next round of fiscal talks?  I know what I'd like to see.  I'd like the House to write their own legislation laying out the trade offs between cutting spending, more taxes and raising the debt ceiling.  No new taxes without a complete tax code overhaul.  They offered closing the loopholes.  Obama said no so that's it.  You want them closed now?  Tax code overhaul. Write it up, send it to the Senate and broadcast that you've done it and the details at the top of your lungs.

Debt ceiling?  This is what we will raise it to and this is what will be cut to make it at least cost neutral. Period.  Write it up.  Send it to the Senate and broadcast it to the people at the top of your lungs.  If the Tea Party continues to defect let it be known the consequences of doing so.  At the top of your lungs. No matter they are fellow Republicans. One of you is wrong and the one who will be deemed wrong is the quiet one.

That's the new way of doing things.  In your face and none too polite to boot. It's not the way I was taught to do things, but it's how they are done today.  I was fairly young when I realized my Mother was uncomfortable with confrontation.  I'm not particularly proud of it but I did learn how to manipulate that bit of knowledge to my advantage on more than one occasion.

The Democrats have done just that to the Republicans.  They are uncomfortable taking a hard nosed stand on anything.  So the Democrats take full advantage of it and win and win and win.  They are anything but likable when they take this stance.  They do, however, get things done their way.

The Republicans haven't learned how to counter.  Fight apples with apples, not oranges.  Because fight you must. Deliberations and compromise are the old way.  Not that it wouldn't still work but trying when the deck is stacked against you is the real waste of energy.

Maybe it is time for new leadership.  It's time to place people in those position that have scrapped for advancement rather than those who have gone along to get along hoping the promotions would come by that virtue alone.  Those who can take on the sacred cows and win.

Nope.  Being 'nice' and 'sensible' no longer cuts it. Israel knows that having our finger poked in their eye means they're on their own.  Obama knows that Chuck Hagel isn't the most popular choice for Secretary of Defense. The end?  Israel will do what it feels it must.  Obama will do what he wants no matter the wisdom of it. It's how things are these days. We either adapt and make the best of the hand we dealt ourselves or retire to the rocking chair with a good book.

Books.  They are so old school!

There's Nothing Left That's Sacred Except The Suspicious In Airports

I've just been reading about the President extending FISA for an additional five years.  You know, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allowing the clandestine gathering of information on just about everyone for just about any reason without a search warrent.

It's making me think about how little privacy we still have.  Consider social media where anything posted is 'out there'.  Anyone with any computer savvy can access it.  There is controversy now as to whether or not employers can demand an employees or prospective employee's pass word. Of course, one doesn't have to participate.

There are traffic cams posted all around cities.  Stores are swept with surveillence cameras.  Drones are being used as stealthy harbingers of death be one guilty or not. OR to see if cattle are laying waste too close to a water source.  The aim of course is to get the bad guys but all too often innocents also get hit. Hopefully when it comes to the cows they just move the herd, but one never knows. This is all pretty sophisticated gadgetry used behind the scenes purportedly to search out the enemy.

Have you ever wondered how many data bases might contain your name for having posted blogs such as mine or having tweeted something that triggers some code word  that make us suspects of some nefarious doing?  Those data bases must be huge considering how many eyes are upon us.

With all this sophisticated capability it brings to mind another pet peeve of mine.  Airport security where we're subjected to incredible intrusions of privacy.  Sure, sure.  No one has to fly.  Unless you have to!

I don't any more.  I'm not even sure if I can, though I don't know that I'm on any list as being suspicious.  I'd have a tough time of it.  I'd no doubt have too much shampoo or hair spray in my bag. I might forget to discard my bottle of water. I'm loathe to have strangers put their hands anywhere on my person.  I don't even want to think about full body scanners. Yet we all endure it because it's supposedly keeping us safe.

I have to ask, however, if we have all this ability to listen in on phone calls and monitor social media, isn't everything that needs to be known known without having to be pawed at the airport?  If it isn't quite that good yet, well, okay.  But if we can profile anyone any where in the world with our sophisticated methodology, why can't we profile those we profile in other places at the airport and leave the rest of us alone?

If it's okay to do all this behind the scenes, it should be perfectly okay to do it in a public venue.  We should alredy know if a person has something to hide.  After all, no fly lists come from somewhere.  I'd like to know why anyone who doesn't fit a profile has to be subjected to what amounts to mass profiling and those who do fit a profile are given a pass.

One would think the eyes have it but maybe they don't and maybe that's the problem. It should certainly raises doubt about selecting a bad guy from a deck of cards and sending a drone after him in a game of 'hit of the day'. What happens when one of those bad guys isn't one at all and they hit one of us? How could that happen?  Well, maybe the bad guy is wandering barely noticed through an airport while one of us tweeted an ill timed 'code' word.