Hillary, It Makes A Lot Of DIfference

Hillary Rodham Clinton's testimony today was political theater at it's best.  Or worst depending on how you perceive political theater.

I always get antsy watching those doing the questioning because they inevitably give a full fledged speech in the process.

The answers were the important thing however.  Or the lack of them.  We don't have any more  answers than we had before.

I learned a few things though.  One is that Hillary,  for one taking full responsibility, was remarkably disengaged.  Two, that bad decision making and management are not grounds for dismissal at the State Department.

Now I realize State is a huge bureaucracy and being on top of everything isn't an easy task.  It also makes me wonder if Mrs. Clinton had stayed more at her desk than in her plane she'd not have worked herself into a state of exhaustion and would have had a better handle on what was going on.  Especially around the anniversary of 9/11.

There was so much contradiction of information that had come out before it makes me wonder if anyone to this day has a clue as to what happened.  We know they don't know for sure who is responsible and that no one has been held accountable.  That she was disengaged from much of the following investigations surprises me considering it was her ambassador, as in a State employee, that was murdered among others. I would have demanded to be kept in the loop.

I'm not going to go into the testimony line by line with the purpose of discrediting Hillary.  She has done a pretty good job of that herself and she will soon be out of office.

What matters, though, other than an explanation that is feasible for the families of the dead, is how dysfunctional the department seems to be and what that means for our country as a new Secretary takes over.

We know the President has no interest in foreign policy.  We don't have one.  We know our allies are beginning to understand we will not have their back.  So do our enemies.  Without the threat of a strong America willing to keep a lid on things, I expect they will act with impunity. I expect there will be little other than war spreading across northern Africa while continuing in the middle east.

Those directly affected will do the best they can with what support they can muster from elsewhere.  I expect at sometime the terrorists within our own country will stage another attack.  Will those who've been left to fight their own battles offer any aid? Will they have totally exhausted any asset they might otherwise offer?  Or will they say "Where were you when we needed you?"

I keep emphasizing the dangers of not engaging with the rest of the world.  I don't mean pacifying.  I don't mean boots on the ground either. There is a difference and there are other ways.

I have my doubts about how successful the President's domestic agenda is going to be.  People are already uncomfortable with the tax burdens that are beginning to take hold. His view on foreign issues is out of sight out of mind. Will they be out of mind for the rest of the country?

Should the world suddenly turn peaceful and we see the end of all war I'll be shouting his praises to the sky.  I don't think I need to save my voice.

Four years from now, we're looking at the top two Democrat presidential pretenders to be a questionably successful former Secretary of State and a Vice President who couldn't define diplomacy if his life depended on it.

This is a situation to be taken one day at a time.  Looking at the big picture is too overwhelming.

To Thine Own Self Be True - Unless You're President

Well, here we go.  Term 2.  Unless you're a die hard liberal there was nothing encouraging in yesterday's inaugural speech nor do I expect anything in the upcoming State of the Union.

As usual I'm trying to understand.  Let me say I have no doubt what so ever that the President believes he is right about what does and does not ail our country and how or how not to fix it. Any one who disagrees is wrong. To make sure they understand that he bullies them or is contemptuous or dismissive of them.  Even if he were divinely right he certainly hasn't chosen a Divine way to show it.

But he's not and he's not willing to go there.  He won.  Well, yes, he did.  He won election to be the President of the United States, not merely the Democratic party.  And his win was by no means unanimous.

Many people of my generation have a problem with his style.  What ever happened to common courtesy?  What ever happened to  listening to other points of view?  He isn't alone with those issues.  Take the Tea Party types within the Republican Party who will not budge from a stand.  They are just as much to blame for stalemate, but no more so than the President and the Democrats.

I look at the leadership outside the White House and it too puzzles me for most are closer to my age than they are that of the President's.  Why won't Harry Reid bring Republican legislation to the floor of the Senate?  Why is Nancy Pelosi holding House minority leadership?  Why is Joe Biden allowed to even open his mouth?  Are they really that like the younger in your face set?  Or is it just misplaced party loyalty run amok? Most in my generation were taught better manners and had a modicum of reason. Of course we were actually taught manners and taught, period.

Those who are 'tweens' like Boehner are caught between the old school and the new and haven't yet figured out a way to bring them together. I do hope they do.

I believe a president is elected to lead the country where the people want it to go, not where he alone wants. I believe the people want us to be the leader of the free world and stand by our allies, not charge them to help in the most minuscule of ways if at all.  I believe the country wants our money to be spent wisely, not on personal whims.  I believe the people want both sides of the aisle to discuss our common problems in a civilized manner and determine solutions that take the best ideas from each and form reasonable legislation.  That's called negotiating and compromise.  Words that have languished of late.

I believe the people want the president to have more concern for them than special interest groups.  I believe they want him to acknowledge we do have a spending problem and that no amount of taxation is going to cure it.

 I do not believe the people want the President to turn our nation into his vision without our consent.  Do we understand that is exactly what he is and wants to continue doing?

We CAN Come Together

Of all the things that could unite this country against an over zealous government I wish it were something other than guns.  I also wish it hadn't taken another life altering tragedy for it to happen.

That being said, there is something to be learned both by the people and those who govern us.  It's that given the right motivation the people will forget party affiliation, color, creed and gender to band together to protect what they perceive is a violation of their rights.

Rallies occurred across the country yesterday in support of our second amendment rights. We here at home had 1000 people turn out in one location alone.  I'm not surprised.  This is gun country. But why the passion?  Hunting?  Okay.  Sport shooting?  Okay.  But it's more than that.

I've come to the conclusion that it's because guns are tangible.  You can touch them, hold them, admire the craftsmanship that goes into them.  You can't do that with budgets and debt ceilings and fiscal cliffs and repressive regulations.  You hear of them, in passing, and don't pay much attention until they hit your pocket book and you feel that hit. How easy was it to buy that house you couldn't afford?  It didn't hurt until you could no longer pay the mortgage.  By then it was too late.  But the gun.  It's yours, in your home and you own it outright.  Gun rights are collective.  Budgetary and regulatory concerns are one off. A home foreclosure.  A family trying to build on what the government deems is suddenly a wet land.  There is no ground swell of support for the aggrieved.

I understand that guns are near and dear to our hearts because of that.  As for all the other stuff that hits the fan with too much regularity but we ignore anyway, we've elected representatives to go to Washington and tend to it for us.  The fact that they don't escapes us because we're just too busy dealing with our lives to pay attention. Until it's too late.

If the Republicans were smart they'd figure out a way to make all governmental abuses and over regulation tangible. Another example is Hurricane Sandy.  It too brought the people together.  It too was a life altering tragedy.  It too generated the wrath of the people for the government's refusal to address the financial needs in a timely manner.  It hit collectively, not piece meal.  The problem is it was a regional problem.  Guns are everywhere.

We get hung up on too much of little consequence.  If the President is really a U.S. citizen.  That Romney is a Mormon.  That a football player is so dysfunctional he had an online relationship with a non-existent girl.

I lay the blame for a lot of our problems on us.  We need to pay far more attention than we do. As a whole we have all the power we need to keep our government in check.  But we have to pay attention.

But we don't and won't until the next time something tangible is threatened.  What might that be?  Something that will affect us across the board?  It could be gas or food prices.  It could be jobs.  It could be, heaven forbid, another terrorist attack on the continental U.S.

Should that happen, we may well be glad we have an affinity for guns and the ability along with the right to protect ourselves.

When Good Cops Are The Bad Guys

When a good cop is considered the bad guy there is definitely something wrong with our society.

I'll preface this by admitting that ever since I was a little kid I've been intimidated by  police.  It's the image.  Uniforms, badges, guns and more leather accessories than a street girl in Amsterdam.  At the time they seemed huge and menacing.  I'm not sure where it came from but it still lingers.  I steer clear of them.  Sort of.  I really don't know any.

The image isn't helped by the number of 'bad cops' who have gotten lots of press in neighboring Spokane.  Everything from an off duty deputy flashing a barista to video of cops beating and restraining a mentally impaired man in such a way it led to his death.

It has been a great place to be a bad cop. The prosecutor wouldn't prosecute and the union wouldn't let them be fired. The city now has a new top cop and I wish him well.  He's going to need it.

The county, lucky for them, has a sheriff who is really one of the good guys.  I'll forgive him for looking just like the stereotype that scares me. He at least tries to fire the renegades but the arbitrators more often than not win the battle for them. Thank you police union!

So what to do?  Get some of our upstanding, for the good of the people pols to sponsor legislation to prevent arbitration from overturning a top cops decision on a bad cop. Having at one time been a union president he will admit to the desirability of them.  But now the shoe is one the other foot and he is getting the short end of the process. Welcome to our world.

Every sheriff in the state has signed on to the proposed legislation yet not one legislator has stepped up to the plate.  They are either intimidated by the union or need their endorsements and money for their own political ambitions.  Thanks a lot legislators.

Unfortunately this is not just a local problem.  Far too many officers have multiple infractions and still get reinstated.  Is this how police states get started?  The authorities scratch one anothers backs leaving the public unsure what sort of protection is available to them?  Is their police department corruption free or not?  Are they safe from their own police?

It's a worrisome situation.  Were there more images of good cops like the NYPD officer who bought the boots for a homeless man on a freezing cold night rather than the video of cops whaling away on a confused innocent.

We need to support the good guys.  With the way the government is manipulating our laws and Constitution for their own ends, enforcement agencies may be our last line of defense when they refuse to enforce laws or dictates that are not constitutional. I'd hate to see it come to that but there are rumblings with this gun safety fiasco.

An act of good faith might be for the Washington legislature, with spanking new members and a new governor, to take up the proposed legislation from the good guy.  He's not the villain. I don't like to think of any of us as being victims but we are just as is he.  Of politicians.  Again.

The Benefit Of Multiple Sources

When I write a post I usually always use more than one source.  Even if it's just setting forth an opinion, it will have been formed from several sources.

The point is ideas can be improved upon by considering multiple points of view rather than just one. Our government, including the President, might benefit by doing the same.

Today I read Dan Henniger's column suggesting it would be wise if the Republicans had a spokesperson for both the House and Senate a la Jay Carney for the President.  I've though this for some time.  Mainly because both Boehner and McConnell are every bit as boring as Pelosi and Reid and none of them use their own bully pulpit well.

Jay Carney too is as dull as most of my kitchen knives.  Most White House press secretaries are.  The best in recent memory was the late Tony Snow.  Never-the-less, Carney has a daily briefing and whatever the administration wants said gets said.  If the Republicans could conjure up a couple of charismatic types who know how to work a crowd and held regular press briefings maybe they too could get said what they want said.

Moving on to another column, the Financial Times Lucy Kellaway was addressing how a bank's supposedly child friendly Facebook page was anything but.  As I read her examples I realized the bank was talking much the same way politicians do.  Beyond understanding for the average reader let alone a child.

In other words, use words and phrases that are understandable and succinct.  That eliminates all elected officials.  It shouldn't be an elected official anyway.  Too much bias.  It needs to be someone articulate and obedient to leadership.  That assumes there is leadership.  In other words, such and such is the party line.   When any member of the House or Senate is questioned refer them to the spokesperson. Free lancing is not allowed.

The spokesperson will then lay out policy and position in terms a ten year old can understand. To me it would beat seeing the same tired old faces on every talk fest known to man droning on about how bad the opposition is and how wonderful their own concept is.

Just crisp facts, such as the party can muster.  Same song, same verse in daily briefings until the media has to pay attention.

What do you think?  A sensible solution by joining hands across the sea.  The colonies Dan Henniger and the Red Coats Lucy Kellaway. How Revolutionary is that?