Leading From Behind - Fear Or Apathy?

I believe the United States can intervene in international conflicts without putting boots on the ground. Or handing out gobs of money to people who hate us.  Yes, that's a strong term but applicable.

After four and a half years I'm wondering why the President chooses not to do so.  It does Hillary's chances for the Presidency no good that this is the path he's chosen, for the consequences have been on her watch too.  Being a good soldier only goes so far.  It should end when the policy is obviously detrimental to the country.  Choosing to remain in office to me is a sign that one is in agreement with that policy.  Ambition should not trump country.

It has often been said we don't intervene because the winner of the conflict could be an unknown quantity.  So now we have the Muslim Brotherhood ruling Egypt in place of  an imperfect ally but an ally never-the-less.  We pour money and weapons into that country on top of the 18 billion Qatar has already poured in with 3 more billion coming.

Libya is still in shambles and Benghazi still unsolved.  Silence from the White House.  Why?

We know al Qaeda has spread into Mali with some success.  We've let the French handle that one.  Are their national interests in the region so much greater than ours?

The Syrian rebels too have asked for our help.  Nothing. Here come the Islamic radicals. The Islamic State in Iraq and Jabhat al-Nursa have now joined forces with those rebels to push Assad from power.  That leaves the rebels, who have no strong leadership or western support, at the mercy of the radicals.  We know how those situations turn out. It's no matter a question as to whether or not we'll approve.

We can shell out money for fancy White House concerts on what seems a weekly basis, continue to fund hundreds of redundant programs and refuse to examine each individual department's budget to cut out the waste and satisfy the sequester, yet what we cut is our  military, our fleet in the Mediterranean and fund weaponry for our enemies to use against one of the two allies we have left.  And they're iffy! Israel doesn't trust us and Jordan is at risk.

What I don't understand is why this is happening.  Rand Paul and his father before him have been accused of being isolationists, but isn't that what this President is?  At least the younger Paul believes the military should be strong even if seldom used.  This President wants to gut the military and our arsenal, make it easier for illegals to have a path to citizenship than it is to vote and deprive kids from visiting the White House. Why?

Frankly, the man scares me. Slowly and methodically he is changing the country.  I still can't believe we want to go where we're being taken.  Sure, there will be another election but people who tell me they vote for the candidate rather than the party are doing a disservice if they vote for one because there is no other.

Without a 'none of the above' on the ticket, no vote if done in enough numbers could speak volumes.  State that neither candidate is acceptable.

All the what ifs may be for naught however.  Between North Korea and the Islamic radicals we may be entrenched in conflicts currently beyond our comprehension. It doesn't have to be.  Why is it even possible?

For One Brief Shining Moment...

It saddened me to see the hateful celebrations in Great Britain over the death of Margaret Thatcher.  I looked at the age of those shouting with glee and swilling champagne.  They all looked to be in their twenties or early thirties.  My guess few if any were alive, or if they were they were very young, when Mrs. Thatcher was in her heyday. I think a piece of scripture fits the situation best, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

I doubt we'll see the likes of these four individuals again.  They came together at the right moment in time and changed the course of history.  I was there.  I was witness to it.  I listen to the lame questions being asked by our current pundits of people who knew Margaret Thatcher personally and wonder if this is the best we can do this day and age.  It's no wonder we are so poorly informed.  But then we don't demand better.  Is it because we no longer realize there is, or was, better?

You know what made each and every one of them so great?  They cared for the people first. They believed in themselves and they didn't suffer fools kindly.

Since this is Mrs. Thatcher's moment let me address a few thoughts. One, Hillary Clinton, though she once compared herself to the iron lady, is no Margaret Thatcher. In response to that comparison, Mrs. Thatcher said, "She's not in the least like me; I know because I'm not in the least like her!"

Unlike Hillary who until her husband left politics rode his coat tails, Margaret Thatcher is a self made woman who fought for everything she achieved.  I think one of the most telling things about her is she never used gender as an explanation or an excuse for anything.  She didn't even like feminists.

It's a trap many women are falling into that isn't much different than racism. The glass ceiling, unequal pay and in reality the unequal benefits that bring a large part of it about because women insist they can have it all.  She showed what one can do with a good education, drive and ability.  Without all three the odds of any one's success diminishes. Regardless of race or gender.

Who is on the horizon to take their places?  No one currently running for President nor any of the past few since Reagan.  Whether or not you liked his politics, he was a leader.

The Soviets have done nothing but backslide to men of dictatorial persuasion.  Perhaps the most effective Prime Minister since Ms. Thatcher was Tony Blair but he wasn't strong enough to stand on his own when the President decided he didn't need a British lap dog.

The Pope?  I have high hopes for Francis but it's too soon to tell.  He has a lot on his plate within his church without having to worry about the state of the world too.

Can Hillary earn her place?  I don't know.  I have to get beneath her burning ambition to understand what drives it.  Is it merely personal?  Does she just want to be the first female President?  Or is she sitting on yet to be revealed policies that will forward the country to where it once deserved to be. As the leader of the free world populated with the best, the most free, the most able and the most successful people that can be.

I hope she takes a good hard look at the real Mrs. Thatcher and alters the way politicians usually do business in this country.  Don't cave to those who would coddle you.  Don't bow to what you know is wrong or unworkable. And don't worry about your gender. If you have what the people want, the people will elect you. You've a prime example in Margaret Thatcher of what can work and even better, how it was made to work!

The Great Pretender!

Ya know, some people just aren't meant to have pets.  Even when you do everything right, like take them to the vet after you've purchased them at a bazaar.

Many years ago I did just that when we adopted our Louie and Marie from a couple of kids getting rid of some unwanted puppies.  The sign on their box identified them as American Eskimo and German Shepard. The vet got a good laugh out of that and when he was through we decided the most likely mix was Border Collie and Newf.  Never-the-less they were cute puppies.

Imagine, though, having your vet tell you the two $150 pups you just adopted weren't the Toy Poodles you hoped they were, but rather ferrets on steroids with fancy haircuts!

That's what happened to a retiree in Argentina recently. This poor fellow wasn't the only one who was conned either.  A lady had complained she had bought what she thought was a Chihuahua. I don't know.  Look at the neck on the ferret?  How the heck do you disguise that to make it look like a Poodle or a Chihuahua for that matter?  The length of the body?  The length of the legs?

Now I understand wanting a dog so much you might over look the lack of a pedigree.  Many will tell you mutts, rescue dogs, often make the best pets.  Having had both I can't say that's necessarily true, I've had great success with both.

One thing I can tell you for sure.  When I thought I was getting a dog, that's exactly what I got.  I cannot imagine not being suspect if some other critter was made up to look like a particular breed unless Hollywood had a go at it as they did with the Lab who played the Saint Bernard Cujo.  Out of makeup, there was no doubt.  That dog was no Saint in or out of the film.

Maybe a pet is a pet.  I see lots of ferrets in pet stores so I guess they're quite popular though not particularly long lived where a Toy Poodle can live up to 20 years.  On the other hand you can let a Ferret perch on your shoulder or ride in your pocket.  They only weigh about three pounds.

They say the Poodles are sweet, cheerful, perky and lively and love to be around people. Ferrets on the other hand sleep around 18 hours a day, are accident prone, when they need to go there is no holding it. They can exude a musky odor that is made only slightly better by keeping their bedding clean.  After all, they are related to skunks!

Who knows what the duped owners did with their "pets" but from what I've been able to find, being sold a ferret when you thought you were getting a dog really stinks!

They're Out Of The Gate And It's Hillary In The Lead...

Did you notice that as Hillary's term as Secretary of State drew to an end her wardrobe grew more and more bazaar? Let's face it, she doesn't do prints well, and certainly didn't lend any sophistication to her office.  Not that it's all that important to many, but I'm one of the old timers who feel appearance still counts.

Now she's had some rest, has been given a clean bill of health and has hit the speaking circuit.  She's looking good. It has ramped up the speculation game of will she or won't she run.

As Maureen Dowd says, of course she's going to run. As long as she stays healthy she's a shoo in.  Consider the two most prominent people who have stated a desire to run if she doesn't.  Joe Biden and Janet Napolitano.  Me thinks that would guarantee us a Republican president.

I'm not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton mostly because she's a Democrat and I'm not.  Too, she didn't accomplish much as Secretary of State other than run up air miles and busy herself into a state of exhaustion.  Not a good recommendation for one who wishes upon themselves the stresses of the presidency.  Though she could take a page from Obama's book and recreate her time through her term. I don't know that she plays golf however.

That aside, I'm more worried about what kind of Democrat she is and that I do not know.  I don't want to see a continuation of the Obama policies of union supremacy, big government intrusion and international malaise.  She has the remainder of Obama's term to answer my questions.

I hope she doesn't overdo and exhaust herself again before she even gets started.  After all, she isn't getting any younger.  That should be a plus when you look at the likely Republican opposition.  At this point they are all relatively young men who seem to still be wet behind the ears.  Jeb Bush, 60 to her 65, is the closet on the maturity scale. Rand Paul is 50 and the others, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all in their 40s.  We've had youth and vitality in the office for awhile now and I'm more than ready to re-think maturity! Not Joe Biden, 70, maturity though maturity isn't the biggest reason he'd not get my support.  One could surmise, however, that misspeaking as a matter of habit shows something less than maturity.

Three and three quarter years is a long time. We know who's out of the gate, it will be interesting to see who's going full out in the back stretch and who's holding back for the homestretch. Oh yeah, and who has the best trainers and jockeys!

Guns, Background Checks And Faith In Your Government

As the debate over gun control continues it seems the parameters are shrinking.  It would appear there will be no restrictions as to the type of gun one can own, limiting the size of clips is iffy; the only thing that has any chance are more in depth background checks.

Who should, and who should not be allowed to purchase a gun?  The usual suspects are there.  Felons.  The dishonorably discharged from the military.  Guilty of drug abuse.  Guilty of spousal abuse.  The mentally infirm.

In that short list you can see the criteria is not equal.  More definition is needed. Mental issues are the most prominent and the most difficult with which to deal.  Take a good look at Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, Aurora shooter James Holmes and Gabby Giffords shooter Jared Loughner and it's obvious there is a vast void between sanity and the lack thereof.

They all had legally obtained weapons because they did not appear in any data base even though those who knew them well, including those who could have forewarned authorities, knew they all had problems. But on what basis could authorities been informed since none had committed a crime? There is a problematic area unto itself.

I don't blame the data bases nor those who maintain them.  We have laws that disallow mental shortcomings from becoming public record.  It has it's pitfalls to be sure.  The records of these young men all speak for themselves.  But again, no harm no foul.  Do I see the beginnings of a pattern?

Who should decide who should be in those data bases?  The idea of them makes me nervous because of the potential of purposeful misuse.  This is where trust in your government comes in.  I don't have enough to have faith in either their judgement nor of anyone they might appoint because everything is tied to personal gain.  It's a caustic view but those officials have no one but themselves to blame for the fact I have no faith in them.

Just as it its anticipated we will have "death panels" determining health care options especially for seniors, who will these people be and how would they deal with the one size fits all tendency we've seen so far?  The same idea applies to those who will determine a definition for mental stability.  Who will they be and what will the criteria be?  How will privacy issues be handled?

Instead of tackling this issue, Connecticut, Colorado, New York and others pending are passing the easiest legislation and creating a Constitutional mess while they're at it.  I have to agree with the critics who say it won't solve the problem.  It probably won't even slow it down.

I read on a daily basis about shootings in neighboring Spokane.  Not all the shooters would fit the mental instability definition under any circumstance.  What they do have in common are guns and the willingness to use them, bad judgement and probably tempers. How do your break all that down?

Our President loves to create commissions.  Usually as a way to delay having to make a hard decision.  He could, however, create one for the gun problem, staff it with experts from the fields of mental health and criminal behavior other than his cronies and give them the time and freedom to do a decent study.

Then, if it makes sense, implement it. Creating outlandish legislation for the sake of creating legislation doesn't solve anything except to increase, rather than decrease gun sales.  Having Homeland Security buy up all the available ammunition won't do it either. One can always buy the equipment at the local sporting goods store and load their own.

It reminds me a circular firing squad.  Everything gets hit except the cause of the problem.