When The World Laughs At You Instead Of With You

I've been writing this blog for too many years now.  Somewhere along the way I found myself interested in politics.  I gave up on local politics because I have to live in this community and voicing my opinion would make life even more unpleasant than it is.

I moved on to the national and world scene because I care.  It has become a way to sort things out in my own mind.  I've tried to keep my center right leanings balanced but find I can no longer do so.  I am deeply disappointed in what we have become and in the people we have elected.

That the President of this country would purposely put our economy, our security and people's livelihoods at risk to make a political point is unconscionable. The sequester is the prime example of how this country has run completely amok.  All civility has disappeared. As has all reason.  The President tells us it's going to hurt.  Yes.  It is but not for the reasons he'd have us believe.  I have lost what little respect I've had left for him and wonder if we shall ever recover.

If the ploy to scare us had some finesse to it I might even begrudgingly admire the effort.  But the stupidity of releasing illegals from incarceration because suddenly we are no longer being able to afford it then blaming an underling is one example.  No more air traffic controllers, teachers, police and fire and on and on.  Please.  Please quit insulting my intelligence.

To find a good belly laugh these days we have to go elsewhere.  Like Egypt where our shiny new Secretary of State, John Kerry, is holding court. Can you believe he actually told the Egyptian government and their opposition they need to overcome their differences to create "a sense of political and economic viability" if the country is to survive as a democracy?

He urged them to compromise for the good of their country!  Can you believe it?  They must be rolling in the aisles after that one.  Heaven help them if they look at us as an example of how they should go about doing it.  How clueless are we?

Not only have we begun tuning out our own government and media puppets, other parts of the world are following suit.

The Embassy invited eleven government and opposition movers and shakers to meet Mr. Kerry. The purpose was for them to come to agreement on economic reforms rather than boycotting parliamentary elections in April.  Six showed up.  Three of those six left the gathering still intending to boycott.  So much for our influence.

We're being sent a message whether or not we recognize it.  When Dennis Rodman is the one American who has personally met with Kim Jung Un of North Korea, perhaps it's a hint of the esteem we have lost.

Don't you dare to write North Korea off because young Jung Un is every bit as odd as his father.  Do remember they have nukes.

The Media Giveth, The Media Taketh Away

When the media is doing it's job administrations often have adversarial relationships with them.  That hasn't been true of the Obama administration; the media gave him the Presidency twice.

For those of us wondering if they would ever get back to doing their job, seeing a crack in the relationship is encouraging.

Let's look at the current flap over Bob Woodward being threatened by a White House official.  Now that the e-mails are out there the debate is about interpretation.  The issue however isn't the perceived threat as much as a pattern of hostility that seems to be developing toward the press in general.  You see, Bob Woodward isn't the first to have complained about threats veiled or not.   Ron Fournier, in a piece for the National Journal claims to have sent a White House source packing for similar reasons and Lanny Davis, a more staunch Democrat would be hard to find, reports he too has been subject to such bluster.

The White House operatives may be over playing their hand once again.  Though many today may not remember Bob Woodward from his Watergate days, many of us do.  He and fellow reporter Carl Bernstein, with the help of a source know as Deep Throat, were responsible for the demise of the Nixon administration.  Of course the arrogance of that administration also had a hand in it.  A lesson could to be learned.

But Woodward.  By blowing him off as did David Plouffe by saying, "He's getting old" is insulting a media icon and one of the most tenacious and thorough reporters ever to have put ink to paper. One thing about the press, they tend to be loyal to their own.

So what happens now?  Maybe, just maybe they'll get together and decide these whippersnappers in the White House need to be taught a lesson and actually start asking some pertinent questions. Follow Woodward's lead. Talk about the exaggerations of the sequester.  Heck, go all the way back to Benghazi and ask the questions that would have been timely before the election!

Of course teaching the White House a lesson is doing it for all the wrong reasons.  They should do it because it's their job.  The President once told them in an exchange he remembers how the people depend on them.  I imagine that was followed by a wink and the after thought that it applies only when we're told what the administration wants us to be told.

Whatever the reason, there is now a wedge in that once solid love affair.  Ironic, isn't it, that this really began to come to light with a different kind of wedge?  Like a sand wedge.  In a golf game.  That the press wasn't allowed to witness. Now they know how we, their consumers, feel on a daily basis! If they dislike it as much as we do, they can do something more than threaten. They can ask and act.  I hope they do.

Gay Rights And The Conservatives

Are the Christian Conservatives becoming a dying breed?  They who made gay marriage an issue during the last election cycle? Because of their being so out spoken, the anti-gay label stuck with the Republicans.  Oh, sure, many tried to nuance it by saying they were for civil unions but not gay marriage. One man and one woman and all that.

I've always wondered why the gays weren't satisfied with that if the benefits were equal except for the term 'marriage'.  But they weren't.  Perhaps because the benefits were inconsistent from state to state just as is gay marriage.

Some states have legalized it. Others have not. You can join the military but not the Boy Scouts.  If the Republicans had won I'd probably not be writing this.  But they didn't and the Democrats have stolen the march on them  largely thanks to the President himself 'evolving' on how he feels about it.

Amazing how losing an election can bring about change.  According to Politico some 80 Republican leaders have now signed a pro-gay marriage brief.  Some pretty heavy hitters too.  George W. and Laura Bush, of course Mary Cheney, David Frum, David Stockman, Christie Whitman and Meg Whitman  along with dozens of others from administrations past.

Wow.  Where have they been?  Which brings about another question.  How many of them really believe gays have a constitutional right to marry?  How many of them have put their signature on the brief only because the time has come when it's politically expedient to do so?  who knows?

I'm sure the gays don't care about the reasoning as long as they've done so.  Now the Supreme Court has to enter into the fray.  It won't be pretty.  Depend on a backlash from the staunchly anti-gay groups and more ugliness from the Westboro Baptist Church types.

I for one will be glad when the issue is resolved one way or another.  I don't see anything positive from having the rules regarding marriage vary from state to state. If a religious organization doesn't want to recognize such a marriage that should be their right, but as for the legality of it, why shouldn't it be uniform?

When it is resolved the gays will go on living their lives as they so choose.  So will the rest of us. The behavior is a part of the person and no amount of preaching nor posturing will change it. What some think needs to be 'cured' is another's normal.  If we'd spend more time caring about how we conduct our own behavior and less about others perhaps we too would 'evolve' into a more civil society.  In other words, what happens behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors.  It works.

Karzai Is At It Again!

The headline grabbing exploits of Hamid Karzai against his saving grace, the U.S. military, are as predictable as our economy is not.  Of course a good chunk of it has gone to support those exploits.  So what now?

He has given our special forces two weeks to abandon Wardak,  a hotbed of Taliban activity. More alleged misconduct but this time it's not what we've done directly, but what the Afghans we've been training have done. You know, the usual torture and murder against the locals. Talk about a stretch!

I have long been suspicious of his reasons for cozying up to the Taliban. There are so many possibilities. He's term limited and will be out of office sometime in April 2014.  Or will he?  Maybe he wants to challenge the constitution. Certainly not unheard of in that part of the world.

Maybe he's trying to assure safe passage out of the country so he can enjoy the millions he has stashed who knows where. A remote possibility might be to change his allegiance to the Taliban in order to regain office at some point.  Who knows.

It could even be because a woman, Fawzia Koofi, has declared she will run for the presidency.  In Afghanistan? Yep. After a long and difficult road to gain her current stature she has managed to become an MP and has as her platform the support of women's rights and oppression of corruption.  She is one brave woman and I'd like to think she is strong enough to have put some actual fear into those who would oppose her.

So back to why Karzai is systematically rendering us impotent.  The militias we are training are not all loyal to him.  They are more loyal to the tribal leaders where they dwell.  They are being trained to protect their lives and leaders village by village.  You can be sure both Karzai and the Taliban have a knot in their gut over that one.  Plus the thought of a woman as President certainly doesn't sit well.

They'll be out to destroy her.  The easiest way to do that I would think is to get us out of there.  I give Karzai credit, it's a demanding balancing act.  He needs our money, he just doesn't need us.  Unfortunately for him they are a package deal.

I have no doubt that Obama will keep our withdrawal on schedule since he has no interest in Afghanistan. But Karzai needn't worry.  The money will continue to flow unless Congress get the courage cut it off.  I don't see that happening either.  It's just that the next puppet government will benefit rather than Karzai unless it's a member of his family at which time he will demand payback for making them rich along with himself.

Unless it's Ms. Koofi.  I can hope her cause is not a lost one for it's long overdue. Over here we'd arm her against danger with a whistle; over there perhaps those home grown militias are ready for something more than Karzai and the Taliban have to offer and are willing to defend it.  

Axelrod And Gibbs - Fair Or Biased?

I have been accused of no longer offering anything insightful on this blog.  By a reader of a third party blog who is known only to the administrator and a chosen few.  Certainly not to me but by rumor and I don't put much trust in rumors. Actually I'd be more than happy to do without both.

However, that being said, let me try again. According to The Washington Times both David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, the long time faces of the Obama administration's  election efforts, had found themselves without gainful employment.

MSNBC to the rescue!  They have both been hired to be "independent analysts" for the network. MSNBC could certainly use some.

I can't fault MSNBC for grabbing these two.  After all, FOX has long made it a practice to employ the no longer relevant to shed light on the political morass. Who could do a better job of explaining the inner workings of all things Obama?  They do fall short, however, when it comes to giving a fair and balanced view of the Republican side.  They should be able to prevail, never-the-less, because the entire MSNBC news team falls short in that area. Their motto should be, "No independent thought allowed".

For the sake of that lacking insight, let me suggest we now have two media outlets that represent the extremes of both political entities and they both are adding more demagogues to their rosters.  One thing FOX does do better than MSNBC is to offer up Juan Williams, Alan Colmes and newcomer Dennis Kuchinich, among others, as token liberals.  Does MSNBC front any token conservatives?  They may, but truthfully I don't watch them enough to know.

I do watch all the network news outlets however, and if you weigh the sincerity factor versus the tabloid factor, they are somewhat but only somewhat more difficult to decipher.  As one commentator said last evening, you should be able to listen to a report without being able to tell which party the reporter belongs to.  Those days are long gone.

It all comes back to having to do your own homework.  Search out a variety of sources, weight the pros and cons of the arguments put forth and try to make an intelligent decision.  No easy task.

One thing is for sure.  You can weight the tabloid factor against the hard news factor and have both fluctuate.  As for the entertainment factor,  this week MSNBC wins it hands down. To think these two gentlemen will be anything other than cheerleaders for the President's point of view is laughable.

How's that for insight? Still not good enough?  Tough.