Now I don’t want to sound chauvinistic here, but I have always had an issue with women in places of power. Not because they are women per se, but because they are not men. That inane logic comes from a lifetime of indoctrination by family, friends and role models from childhood thru adulthood. Boys are instilled at a young age with certain “Real men do not…” doctrine. From “…never cry” to “…display fear” or “…stay knocked down”.

Young girls traditionally did not have that type of incessant indoctrination from their role models. They were taught more-or-less what they could do to attract the boys with the aforesaid values. That is changing.

I know my daughter, now 22 years old, struggles with the divide between women still raised under the “male attraction” doctrine and the new breed raised under the “equality” doctrine. This new breed has been around a long time, but their numbers are now increasing at an exponential rate. My wife and her mother are good examples of the generations of self-reliant independent women that could only lead men by influence (making them think it was their idea). The new female political leadership cannot afford to lead by diversion. Most of the mainstream youth of today (those under 30) are willing to give the ‘Laura Croft” kick-ass types their due and are looking for that tough-as-nails female political leader – one that can hold a candle to the likes of Golda Meir (even though most of the under-thirty crowd has not a clue who she was).

Alas, it appears, Sarah Palin is not it.

I was hopeful that Hillary Clinton was that woman until she broke down in an interview and started crying about some election trail hardship and that about did it for me. I still respected the woman, but lost faith in her ability to ‘keep it together’ when the going got tough.

Sarah Palin sounded like a very unpolished (that’s the most favorable word I could think of) politician when she was first brought on the scene by Senator John “I’d do/say anything to get elected” McCain. A man I truly admired (and pretty much still do) but lost me when he selected Palin as his “look-I-got-a-women-too” presidential running mate.

Since Palin came on the scene I have been somewhat critical of her, I admit. But I never had the conviction to come right out and say she was unfit for office. I always had that hesitation and a hope that she would pick up the skills and knowledge she needed to be a competent leader. If the best that the GOP has is Carly Fiorina, there is a definite problem. So I remained hopeful.

In early 2010 Palin started acting more like an eccentric than a ‘woman of the people’. Much had to do with her inability to study the facts of what she talked about and debate those facts with integrity. She simply did not seem to have the I.Q. for it.

This caused a lot of attacks by the intellectual left. Rather than cause her to strike back with some intellectual reasoning of her own, she circled the wagons. And now my prior piece on the “Paradox of Power” seems all too appropriate for Palin.

In a scathing article in Vanity Fair this week, Michael Joseph Gross recounts his lengthy ordeal of following the Palin camp around the country to various Tea Party and other political events. He paints a picture of someone who not only has not the temperament for public office, but is psychologically unfit. She may be one of the scariest right wing political hopefuls since Pat Robertson. However, Robertson was scary from and ideological perspective. Palin is a whole new ball game.

If Gross can be believed, Palin is as close to a psychopath as you can get and still draw millions to listen to you as if you where coherent. The small amount of fame she garnered as McCain’s pick, has gone straight to her head. She has visions of “Queen Palin” sugarplums and she will crush anyone who gets in her way. She requires diva-like pampering and treats staff and aids like subjects before the throne. Her ability to change her bipolar personality from back stage monster to front stage country tough-girl is one of her most scary traits.

The blind-to-all-things-sensible Tea Partiers still flock to her unintelligent oratory. But the popular base of the GOP is scared stiff that she will bring down their house of cards. If enough independents associate her with GOP capabilities they have a big problem.

If they can just keep her from public scrutiny through November….

JB

References & Sources

Gross, M. J. (2010). Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury, Vanity Fair – October 2010 Issue; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010

King, D. (2008). Mining the Headlines: Sarah as “Psychopath”?, Psychology Today; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mining-the-headlines/200809/sarah-psychopath

OTI. (2008). On the Issues: 2008 Presidential Candidates, Sarah Palin; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm

Vozick-Levinson, S. (2010). Sarah Palin stands by made-up word ‘refudiate,’ compares self to Shakespeare, PopWatch, Entertainment; Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/19/sarah-palin-refudiate/

I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this article in the Wall Street Journal by Jonah Lehrer: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html

I usually place my references and sources at the end of a post, but this article is so compelling and affirms so well my observation on the effects of Power, that I wanted everyone to read it first.

Have you read it now? Good.

Here’s my point. No, we were not wrong in voting for a political candidate, or putting our faith in a religious leader, or placing our trust in a business associate… If we were disappointed and felt betrayed by their later actions it is probably because THEY changed.

Success breeds intolerance. It can be a very slow process and barely noticeable as it happens.

It happened to me when I started my own business… and succeeded beyond my hopes. Although on a very small scale compared to the mega-powerful, I nevertheless experienced the Paradox as successes accumulated.

The first indication that this Power Paradox is occurring is when the person in power starts spending more time with those that agree with them than with those who do not. Now, I realize we ALL tend to lean toward like-minded people. But we tolerate, and indeed often seek out, other opinions more than those in the throngs of the Power Paradox. Close associates that had once urged a more conciliatory tone are no longer given as much time to voice their opinions. And new ‘friends’ start to rise to the top. ‘Loyalty’ is translated into ‘my will be done’, rather than allowing a slow and deliberate analysis of solutions.

As time goes on, the feeling that the power holder is above reproach, and their subordinates owe them their daily bread, begins to erode the balanced and measured personality that we all admired when we first found ourselves supporting them.

Often, the person in power knows that they are changing. They know that their tolerance and reason are eroding. But, the ends justify the means as success grows. Philanthropy, in those with the most power, becomes a way for the person to cope with their own selfish goals – a selfless act that will balance the scales of their conscience.

You can tell when a person in power knows they are engaging in ‘wrong minded’ things. They will advertise their philanthropic activities and hide, very effectively, their more underhanded dealings. This proves beyond a doubt that they KNOW they are doing wrong, but the Paradox now has them in a tight grip and they are lost to it.

Take for example the Koch brothers. Jane Mayer writes in an article for the New Yorker magazine “Covert Operations; The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama”, about two very successful brothers that took over their father’s business and built it into one of the most profitable privately held corporations in the world. Worth over $35Billion, Koch Industries has gas, oil, refining and milling operations all over the U.S. and the world. Their under-the-table funding for Tea Party and Libertarian groups is unsurpassed. The reason? Their companies are some of the biggest polluters and environmental diversionists on the planet. While Ms. Mayer’s article alleged a war against ‘Obama’ it is actually a war against liberal democracy. Any policy to the left of absolute dissolution of taxes and government regulations will receive Koch money.

Yet, the Koch brothers give millions to charitable organizations, the arts, medicine,… And they willfully take center stage at nearly all their philanthropic events. However, they stay well hidden in their funding of right wing extremism. Because they KNOW it’s wrong.

The Power Paradox can cause good hearted and god fearing people to evolve into a Jekyll and Hyde existence wherein they try to balance their willful neglect of humanity with their generosity. Of course their generosity is targeted to their ideological equals. You’ll never find the Koch brothers supporting a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.

Lastly, let’s be truthful here. The Power Paradox is equally applied to the left of center politic and such organizations as Greenpeace and the Civil Liberties Union. The necessary balance between democracy and capitalism is lost on many of the ideological left. Policies that create a fundamental welfare state or subordinate religious freedoms are often supported by the extreme left. And they have their secret benefactors as well.

I spent many years working on government projects as a civilian contractor. I’m here to tell you that the great majority of the people that work for the government of the United States are dedicated, patriotic, loyal Americans that thoroughly believe in their work and their country. I get very upset by the left wing anti-establishment types that think the government is a militaristic Orwellian conspiracy.

I guess the point I’m trying to make here, is that “We the People” is the one thing that can bring balance back to government. It can negate the Power Paradox by frequently pumping fresh blood into the political process. If we, as citizens of this fine country, can break with tradition, we can drag down the walls of hate and fear and prudence that have been fabricated by the Power brokers.

I still hold on to hope that Obama can, in the end, remain in office for two full terms.  This hope has less to do with his political ideals than his appeal as an individual. You see, he is the first president in over 50 years to be elected without Power money behind his campaign. In many ways, he is the first president elected by “We the people” in a very long time. The Powerful are very aware of this fact. The danger to the status quo is palpable to them. They are scared stiff. The relentless campaign to paint him as a Marxist Muslim is the complete fabrication of the Powerful.  And they keep their involvement in this assault as quiet as possible, because they know that are doing wrong.

My suggestion to you is to vote for an Independent political candidate. Allegiance to a political party is as detrimental to a free people as dedication to a commercial or special interest – or their money.

“The People” are not Democrats or Republicans… We are Americans. We are not ‘left’ or ‘right’ we are men and women. We are not white, black, Hispanic or Asian. We are of one race.. Human. Let’s start acting like it and take back the democratic process from the Powerful. We alone can remove the money from politics and the politics from policy.

JB

Sources and References

Lehrer, J. (2010). The Power Trip, The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2010. retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html

Mayer, J. (2010). Covert Operations; The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama, New Yorker, August 20, 2010, retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true

Rich, F. (2010). The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party, The New York Times, Aug 28, 2010, retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

So where do I start? The title of this piece might imply that this is a slam against religion or conservatism. But it is not.  Quite the opposite, really.

There is a lot to be proud of in America.  This country’s growth and prosperity are owed to 400 years of immigration.  That immigration is owed to a national value system – unique for its time – which advocates equality and religious freedom for all.  Not to mention the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This country did not implement those values overnight.  Actually, one might say that these values were fought and died for – by civilians of the society – just like national interests were fought and died for by our military.  The American Indian population was nearly exterminated.  Slavery was commonplace – and overcome only at great cost.  Our civil war killed one million brothers and sisters – of all races and religions.  Lynchings, witch trials, racism, organized crime and lawlessness are legacies of an era not yet over.

Only through a system of common law and a staunch idealistic attention to the constitution of our founders did this country make the progress that it has.  It was called progressivism and it played as big a role in our ascension as a culture as capitalism played in our ascension as an economic power.

Today…

The top news of the day – and the American public’s response to it – is troubling.   We are truly going backward and progress is being undone by special interests using media, fear and ignorance as tools to promote power at the expense of innocent men, women and children.   It has been done before – and very successfully I might add – throughout history, to take focus away from the real dangers to society.

I speak of course of such attacks on innocents as a mosque’s location, a newborn baby labeled illegal because of its parent’s ethnicity, or a person’s right to spend the rest of their life with whom they please – in equality with others.  It is the age-old tactic of focusing the fear and uncertainty of the masses on a symptom rather than the problem. Symptoms are much easier to address than root causes.  This is instinctive in those that lead through adversity and fear.  If your fear can be turned into action… they have the power to lead you in any direction they choose.

A small town in the northeastern U.S. announced they were having a ‘party’.  They are having a Quran [a.k.a. Koran] burning.  Roast some dogs, bring the kids.  Wholesome stuff.

Roots of Fear

Islam: The root of the problems in the Muslim world has little to do with faith, belief or the U.S.. Muslims have been killing each other through ignorance and cultural differences for 1000 years.  We were attacked only because we supported what some felt were the wrong Muslim factions, not because they wanted to conquer the U.S.. They haven’t a clue what the U.S. is about; or what our way of life means. There are only those with power and those without; with underling causes too complex for the average American to comprehend; so we simply hate everything Islam.

In many Muslim countries people still live in feudal tribes. Impoverished and ignorant, they are ripe for the picking – and the martyring.  The root cause of the extremist’s capability – as it always is – is the ability to control large populations with fears and distrust of other cultures.  Thus, modifying the root cause will be a long and arduous road.  Our hate will not win the day, only our resolve will prevail.

Immigration: Many parts of Mexico are little more than slums. Drug cartels are making their predecessors in Columbia look like school children.  Half the government employees, from cops to administrators are on the take.  Much of their economy relies on the U.S. for its sustainability.  Its laws and social protections are widely unenforced.  Areas of complete lawlessness are common.

Our attention to the social and political problems in Mexico – the root cause of immigration and migrant worker movement across the border – has been pitifully ineffective.  Walls, laws, jails and deportations will not fix the problem – only hand it off to our children – and theirs.

The Mexican people are, in a very true sense, more ‘American’ that the average white, black or Asian in this country.  Mexican Indians had settled in the American southwest hundreds of years before the first Europeans stepped off their ships.  Mexicans were there waiting for us when we ‘discovered’ Texas, California, Arizona,… et al

The only way to solve this immigration issue with Mexico – is in Mexico. Until that country has a rule of law, a system of social integrity and an economic makeover, we will be punishing the innocents that flee to America for all the right reasons.

And America has a huge part to play in the root cause of boarder insecurity as well. The demand for illicit drugs continues to rise as billions in the ‘war on drugs’ has proven ineffective. Until we decriminalize drug use in this country, the U.S. will continue to fuel the engine of worldwide drug related violence and crime.

Marriage:  There was a study done once (have not been able to find it in print) that polled what a first-time married couple knew about the laws and responsibilities around marriage.  They were asked about such things as survivorship laws, community property laws, social security law, tax law, and so on.  The first-timers scored a dismal 5% when it came to understanding the responsibilities and entitlements in a common marriage.  I found that very interesting.  The two parties to a marriage have only emotion and faith by which they are bound.  No state or federal entity requires that either party understand the legal or social effects of marriage.

This fact lies at the root cause of both a need for same-sex unions and the objections to it.

The same-sex culture knows only too well the discrimination in everything – from insurance to taxes, from property rights to survivor benefits – between heterosexual and homosexual unions.  On the other hand, the ignorance of the heterosexual culture to the social benefits and obligations of marriage causes them to miss the point entirely.  The heterosexual camp’s objections are based on, once again, fear and ignorance of the causes inherent in the movement.  Their fears that homosexual choice will influence their children or destroy our culture have been proven over the years to be the stuff of myth.  Yet they persist in seeing homosexual marriage a matter of morality rather than the matter of equality that it truly is.

There’s more…

As I write this I hear more about oil spills, energy policy, tax policy, gun control, financial reform, tea parties, political parties, hate parties… yada, yada.  Bloggers certainly have a target rich environment these days.  And like all the other sources on the internet, we are free to cloud cause and effect; symptom and problem.

Today’s ‘media’ is stretching the first amendment to its limits. They ‘report’ unfounded and unsearched opinion as fact; fabricate video, photo and empirical evidence; while using the worldwide internet as a dumping ground for all this disinformation.  Engrossed in popularity ratings rather than facts and astute research, we are in danger of losing that which we once were so proud – a free and reliable press. Trust once lost…

If you told me two years ago that I would find some of the most factual and unbiased news available on an Arabic website (Al Jazeera), I’d have laughed at such an incredulous idea. But no more.

It may be that one day the only place to find truth and fact will be on foreign news sites and the blogs.  That’s sad.

JB

References:

Carlstrom, G. (2010). Prayer hall or provocation?, Al Jazeera, retrieved August 14, 2010 from:  http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/08/201081461949162665.html

Dolan, M. (2010). Prop. 8 backers ask for permanent hold on same-sex marriage ruling, Los Angeles Times, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-appeal-20100814,0,7326322.story

Noonan, P. (2010). America Is at Risk of Boiling Over, Wall Street Journal, retrieved August 14, 2010 from:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411713335505250.html

Powell, S. (2010). Border security plan adds 1,000 agents, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7153147.html

Robinson, E. (2010). In the short term, immigration ruling is a gift for the GOP, The Washington Post, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072904903.html

Unknown (2010). First Amendment – Freedom of Speech, Freedom of The Press, Freedom of Religion, Further Readings, Jrank.org, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6909/First-Amendment.html

Unknown (n.d.). US Marriage laws, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/

Werner, E. (2010). Obama makes clear support for ground zero mosque, Associated Press, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYi7bqWuZd_crahzrd7UPoDxvyIAD9HJAU880

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/23/religious-leaders-speak-out-against-international-burn-a-quran-day-2/

]]> http://www.aberantnews.org/?feed=rss2&p=516 0 http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=481 http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=481#comments Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:50:55 +0000 Heteroclite http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=481 When infidelity saves a marriage… When legalizing drugs drastically reduces drug use & violence… When same sex partnerships strengthen the social fabric… When free trade and open dialog turn a communist country into a partner in peace… When sanctions and embargos strengthen your enemy… When manufactured hate of a culture creates enemies that were once [...]

When infidelity saves a marriage… When legalizing drugs drastically reduces drug use & violence… When same sex partnerships strengthen the social fabric… When free trade and open dialog turn a communist country into a partner in peace… When sanctions and embargos strengthen your enemy… When manufactured hate of a culture creates enemies that were once friends…

When time and time again conservative and short sighted solutions fail, why does a society continue to favor them? This is a question that I cannot answer. I am a logical thinker (or so I fancy myself) and I see what is obviously a failed policy or errant attitude in others, but they do not see it. Now, I think I have a clue. It took some soul searching as once I too was illogical and impulsive. I was in the Marine Corps.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. If ever there was a more honored tradition of service and fidelity to a country than the United States Marine Corps, I have never found it. And the saying “Once a Marine, always a Marine” is as applicable to me as any who have served. I am a proud USMC veteran and member of the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR) – a group of motorcyclists that honor the fallen heroes of America’s wars. No, I am not slamming the Marine Corps here, I am drawing an analogy.

One of the first things you are taught as a Marine is that each man or woman in the Corps is an integral part of the whole. No one is privileged when the fighting starts. And more to the point, each Marine is an essential part of the whole. The incompatible action of just one Marine can get a whole platoon killed. To instill these values into you, the Marines break down that ‘independent streak’ everyone comes to boot camp with. They shave your head, give you exactly the same clothing as everyone else. You sleep, eat and work exactly as everyone else. You are not an individual any more – you are a Marine. This may sound draconian to many, but it is necessary. By the time a well trained Marine enters their first battle, each will do exactly what they are told, exactly when they are told to do it. The unit is cohesive and reliable. This keeps many Marines alive when the’ shit hits the fan’.

Of course, coming back to the ‘world’ – being discharged back into polite society – requires a certain ‘adjustment’ that is not trivial, as you might imagine. Back in the real world you cannot rely on others. There is little in the way of fidelity to Corps and cause. The “Group Think” you have learned to be instinctive is no longer valid.

“Group Think” is instilled by immersion in a social clique. Marine boot camp is an extreme example of immersion into a culture. After boot camp and extended training, no Marine will ever leave another behind or fail to give his life for that of another Marine. That’s just the way is is. It’s instinct to think and act as one.

Another form of immersion is religious indoctrination. Another is political indoctrination.

Unlike the Marines, these immersion techniques take a lifetime to take hold. They almost always start with parents or parent figures (grandparents or teachers, for instance), then a natural instinct to stay within the religious or political domain matures as you age. If you do not break out of this cycle as an adolescent you will probably remain in or near it for the rest of your life.

Just as running up a hill advancing into the machine gun fire coming from an ambush seems counter intuitive to one without the training, it is an instinctive reaction to a Marine in battle. This counter-intuitive action will neutralize the threat with the least casualties in the fastest time.

Social Intuition

Intelligently balancing a free and open market with social programs that support our constitutional rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems logical to an independent thinker. It is, however, counter intuitive to those with an indoctrination against whoever proposes such solutions.

Indoctrination to a culture or ideal is a powerful thing. A Marine would never dream of abandoning another Marine. Cops never rat on other cops. Republicans never vote with the democrats. Christians never talk to Muslims… Staying together is an instinctive animal behavior meant to insure survival of genes and cultures.

Some Marines never adjust to civilized society after discharge. A few do, however, and their insights into “Group Think” serve them well. They often make the best business and social leaders.

Alas, there is no ‘discharge’ from religion or politics.

The only ‘can’t win’ scenarios we are taught as youngsters is that you should never argue religion or politics with friends – if you want them to remain friends. This simple warning should tell us something.

JB

More to read:
CATO. (2009). Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, POLICY FORUM, Friday, April 3, 2009; CATO Institute; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

Cook, S. (2010). ‘Sugarbabe’ favors negotiated infidelity; CNN, August 3, 2010, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/03/negotiated.infidelity/index.html

Foreman, T. (23010). Letters to the President #564: ‘The big chill on immigration reform’, ABC News – AC360, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/06/letters-to-the-president-564-the-big-chill-on-immigration-reform/

Mexico. (2010). President considers legalizing drugs, TheStar Online, August 4, 2010, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/8/4/apworld/20100804071030&sec=apworld

Mosque. (2010). A Ground Zero mosque, Boston Herald, Bostonherald.com, August 7, 2010, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1272814&srvc=rss

Bennett, J. (2007).  Another side of the immigration debate, Aberant News, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://www.aberantnews.org/?m=200703

Not a comment to AN, but to an article in the New York Daily News…. [click to enlarge]

You’ve heard about the Arizona “Immigration” law (who hasn’t).  Overall, it’s not a big deal. But there’s one provision hidden in the small print that has everyone concerned.  It allows anyone to SUE the state or local police if they do NOT comply (or appear to comply) with the new law requiring police to check the legal residence status of individuals.  It also restricts the use of ‘racial profiling’

This idiotic juxtaposition of regulations (no profiling – must comply) means the ONLY way to make this law work is to check the residence status of EVERY SINGLE person that is stopped or questioned in any case.

The most conflicting language is that officers MUST check the residency status of any individual that they have “reasonable suspicion” is illegal.  If profiling is not to be used, then the only way to apply the law – so that you do not get sued – is to check EVERYONE.

I don’t know how many of you have ever been to a bar or club that ‘cards’ you at the door, but recent actions and laws have become so restrictive on these club owners, that many now card everyone – even people in their 60s.  That is how they protect their business from frivolous legal attempts at making them the fall guy when someone underage ‘says’ the club served them – even if they did not.  If the club is selective in who they card, there is always a ‘reasonable doubt’ that they missed someone.

Now in Arizona, illegal immigrants are being sought – and the lawyers are chomping at the bit.  The first case brought to court wherein the cop will take the stand and say he/she does not require proof of citizenship for everyone – and bingo – Reasonable Doubt.

As long as politicians come from the ranks of attorneys and political parties, they will think with their heads up their asses.  They simply don’t get it.  Arizona now must require proof of residency; or citizenship; or legal status (e.g. a visa) – for everyone in their state, or passing through their state, if they are truly going to enforce this law without profiling.  Thus, the logic holds, that the state must provide to every resident a method of obtaining such document(s) needed. I don’t know about you, but I have no way of proving I’m a citizen without a Passport.  Less than half the citizen population has passports. And fewer yet carry them wherever they go.

So I’m going to Arizona.  I’m going to go 10MPH over the speed limit and catch me a cop.  My attorney will promptly sue the State of Arizona for not requiring me to provide proof of citizenship (a drivers license is not proof).  However, if they DO ask for proof of citizenship I will sue the State of Arizona for not providing me with any.

My attorney’s name and contact information is available to all who would like to follow suit. Pun intended.

JB

Sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-police-impact.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5je28hmgbQV7AumzArZS7M_OWoF-wD9F7VHS00

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/22/ariz-immigration-bill-may-have-broad-implications/

Rarely does a ‘convention’ that draws 600 people get top billing in the media, but the recent ‘National Tea Party Convention’ has accomplished it. By comparison, the annual Star Trek convention in Las Vegas draws 15,000. The costumes are pretty much on par though.

Billed as a Tea Party Convention for ‘delegates’ of the ‘Party’, speakers included some defunct politicians, lead by Sara Palin; and out-and-out racists, like former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo (Colo.).

Nevertheless, I read a lot of the coverage – especially those that posted comments from the attendees. It appeared to me that there are two distinct types of people that consider themselves Tea Party Patriots.

The first type is genuinely worried about a socialist leaning government. They cannot offer one shred of evidence that this administration is any more ‘left’ of center than any previous Administration. And they often admit most all their concern raises from congressional actions (or the lack thereof) rather than any policy or proclamation from the Obama Administration.

The second type is simply the racist bigots. These are usually the more ‘religious right’ – or should I say ‘religious white’ – wherein Obama’s ethnicity is a specter of evil. They interpret Obama’s election as paramount to handing over this white Judeo-Christian U.S.A to a Black Muslim Marxist bent on the destruction of American ideals.

These two will not be able to spend much more time in bed together, no matter how hard the matchmakers at Fox News and the RNC try to keep them in line until the next election.

The political issues we face today – even the lilt of the 2011 budget – gathered steam entirely in the Republican era from 2000-2008. The ground was cultivated, however, by both parties as early as 1984. But the economic history lesson can wait until another time. The point here is that Obama is not, and has never been, the problem for those who genuinely study the facts of the present economic crisis and monumental deficit. They KNOW it has been the right of center policies that lifted controls on financial institutions – and the left of center policies that tried to subsidized the American Dream for millions of unqualified home buyers.

Hopefully soon the two odd fellows in this movement will split and those that recognize the true issues at hand will stop trying to recruit ‘Republican’ converts and start empowering Independent political candidates. For, you see, just 3 Independent U.S. Senators can eliminate the party based inertia syndrome, wherein voting along party lines is the norm and filibuster threats cause political lethargy.

Many believe the grass roots of this country cannot make Washington change. That is wrong. The Tea Party pundits at least have that much right. A complete revolution in all 50 States is not required for significant change to occur. A few well placed votes can upset the status quo. However, they cannot be ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ votes. THAT is what will maintain the status quo, not change it.

I look forward to the day when the sane members of the Tea Party movement join the rest of us that rally against the political status quo in Washington. Together we can get our country back on track and elect a few good Americans that work for the People rather than a Party.

JB

References & Sources:

Berger, J. (2010). Article: Tea Party Convention Gives Boost to Newcomer Politicians, FOXNews.com, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/tea-party-convention-gives-boost-aspiring-elected-officials/

Creation Entertainment. (2010). Promotion: The Official STAR TREK Convention 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, Creation Entertainment, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.creationent.com/cal/stlv.htm

Gerhart, A.; Rucker, P. (2010). Article: The Tea Party is still taking shape, The Washington Post, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020501694.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Meacham, J. (2010). Article: How the Tea Party Could Help All of Us, Newsweek, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233182

I’m sitting here this evening watching the CNN election returns on the Massachusetts Senate race. You know the one to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat. And to my amazement – the Democrat lost!  How could this be –OMG!!!.

I am just a guilty as any other intellectual leftist that thought the election in Mass was not much more than a formality.  The Tea Party wackos were not going to have any effect on this race!

Sorry ol’ timer… wrong again.

Republican Scott Brown successfully heaped fears of big government, excessive costs, huge tax increases and “nationalized medicine” on Mass voters… and it worked.  Never mind that many of the trappings of the healthcare package were formulated from very successful state insurance commissions and statutes. Never mind that much of the core principles of the healthcare bills – both House and Senate – were those that Ted Kennedy fought for – for decades.  And never mind that both Republican and Democratic controlled congresses have tried to get many of these same laws enacted.

His challenger made absolutely no attempt to give this information to the public. And, Massachusetts is the Insurance Company capital of the U.S.  The Lobby money was absolutely intense.  And yet Obama and the Democrats fiddled.

Brown was effective because Democratic leadership – including Obama – thought that their liberal base would follow their lead. They did not have to educate anyone on the workings of the proposed legislation.  There was no need for the Party to combat the Insurance lobby’s ad campaign.  Not to mention the Right Wing’s scare campaigns – led by crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck – had no chance of swaying the savvy intellectual left.

Right.

If there is one thing that is always going to be true in politics – its that if you ignore someone long enough they will flip on you.  From lobbyists to constituents, it is a political law of nature.   They will switch to the Nazi party if it treats them with respect. I’d keep this from Lieberman.

Obama may be the best communicator since Reagan. But he has not instilled that ‘fire-side chat’ type of trust that you had with Regan or even Roosevelt.  He never quite developed that ‘connection’ to the average American that we all thought he embodied back in 2008.

Most representatives and senators vote however they are told to vote by the party brass. They blindly follow in hopes of getting a treasure trove of support for their next election. There are a few however who think for themselves.  Not getting at least a few independent thinking members of the opposition on board with your policies is usually a recipe for failure.

I truly believe that the Left was so enamored with their sweeping victories in 2008, that they became incongruous persecutors of Republican ideals.  Pelosi and her ilk felt so sure of their superiority that they failed to maintain the essence of the election. That essence was “HOPE”.  They’ve took it away by making a partisan mockery of the problems before us.  They have not tried to keep the hope alive. They needed constant communication with their constituents to inform, educate and solicit feedback. They closed the door and made their deals amongst themselves – sans Republicans, C-SPAN, et al.  The vision of hope, blurred beyond all recognition, was waiting to be resurrected.

And a Republican did it.

So, as one of my favorite mentors would say, my Democratic friends: “We have been presented with an opportunity”.  Not to be viewed as a setback but rather an awakening (imagine if Democrats had not considered this until the mid-terms!).  The Democratic Party has been given a slim chance of resurrecting that which was. The message of hope. A change in the way we face problems and develop solutions.

Mr. Obama… The ball is in your court.  A change in congressional leadership may be in the offing.  But, more to the point, you need to spend time with the American people. News conferences (you remember those) , Q&A sessions (where you do not control the ‘Q’ only the ‘A’ – and try to shorten the ‘A’… boring!), and some good old ‘debates’. Yea, debates. You need to take some of the Republican leadership on – in a public forum – and debate the facts of stimulus, healthcare reform, financial reform, foreign policy… you name it. The time to take your view of government to the people is not ONLY during a political campaign anymore.

Oh, by the way – if you do not have a good argument for the debate at hand… it’s probably not a good position to keep.

We are in the “Information Age”. I thought you Mr. President, of all people, would know that. And keep this in mind, Mr. President, we voted you into office not because we wanted more government – we wanted better government.

Better start ‘informing’ or your whole agenda will be out the window right along with the hope we are losing…

JB

Dwyer, D. (2010). Article: Republican Scott Brown Defeats Democrat Martha Coakley in Mass. Senate Race; ABC News; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-scott-brown-defeats-democrat-martha-coakley-massachusetts/story?id=9602776

Babington, C. (2010). Analysis: GOP win forces review of Obama’s mandate; Associated Press; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011903444.html

There’s certainly no lack of political pundits, on the right and left, second-guessing Obama’s 2009 attempts at diplomacy.  From The Middle East to Europe and from Asia to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, he is on a mad carousel that gives the term ‘whirlwind diplomacy’ a whole new intensity over the last 10 months.  It seems a lot longer, doesn’t it?

Being a bystander, like so many of us bloggers are, and watching with interest something we know next to nothing about, has its benefits.  It gives one a certain detachment and allows you to see a bigger picture as causes and affects seem to come together.  A ‘method for madness’ seems to form as results come into focus.  Obvious successes and failures can be identified.

We can also easily pick out the idiots.

John Bolton may have been the worst UN Ambassador in history and his recent article in the Taipei Times is clear evidence that he continues to be a pitiful excuse for a political or diplomatic activist.  His bashing of Obama’s Asian trip as a ‘submissive’ & ‘post-American’ exercise was underscored by this quote:

“…Obama’s trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party’s ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downturn, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.” – John Bolton

A week later China announced the most significant commitment to carbon emission reduction ever made by that country (or any developing country for that matter).

“China actually promised Thursday [26 Nov, 2009] to reduce its ‘carbon intensity,’ a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.” – L.A. Times

What Bolton, and those that share his ideology, seem not to understand, is that these types of concessions and agreements are best served cold.  Months of negotiations and planning preempt these types of successes.  Often a government does not like the connotation that they were ‘strong-armed’ into making a concession. They want it to appear as if it was a product of their diligence, not America’s insistence, that brought about change.

“It’s amazing how much one can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.” – Ronald Reagan

Bolton has always been about ‘credit’. Obama’s statements in Singapore were obviously crafted and aligned with Chinese diplomatic needs that required their decision to be unexpected and completely their responsibility.  A move more like genius than naiveté; and a move to which the Bush administration would never have agreed.

In Afghanistan, one can see a change in language and rhetoric emerging as the Obama Administration tries to redefine Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ to a more palatable “combating extremism”.  In his recent speech on Afghanistan, the President cited the “al-Qaeda’s terrorist network” and “acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people”, but not once did he mention the now defunct ‘War on Terror’.  The term used by the Bush administration to justify any transgression, from the invasion of Iraq to the imprisonment of anyone even suspected of extremist sympathies, made the term ‘War on Terror” the laughing stock of the Islamic world.  The very people that are needed if we are to succeed in stopping state sponsored terrorism.

Obama’s biggest critics are, like Bolton, some of the same people that got us into this mess with their fascist style of foreign diplomacy.  None other than Dick Cheney remarked, during his long winded speech defending his “Interrogation techniques”, and other constitutional atrocities in the name of the ‘War on Terror’, that setting an exit strategy would be viewed by Afghans as a weakness.  No one ever told him that not setting one is viewed as an ‘occupation’.  Cheney and his “right blind” ilk have been getting it wrong for 7 years, they need to shut up and let this administration try to fix the mess they made.

While Cheney and others bashed Obama for setting a troop pull-out ‘begin’ date (a date, by the way, purposely ambiguous) NATO and ISAF allies this week announced they will add 7,000 more troops to the cause.  Now why would they do that for this administration while under Bush they made no new commitments since 2006?

Because there was a commitment to a real strategy – rather than an occupation.

Why will the Afghan army make more progress in the next 18 months than they did in the last 6 years?  Because, like Iraq, the knowledge that they are being given the responsibility and accountability for success – will bring about a pride and resolve not demonstrated while under foreign command.  Let us not forget, that the pull-out date in Iraq did not come about until the left wing politic and a presidential candidate by the name of Obama made it a populist movement in the U.S..  The resulting changes in the Iraq army competence and commitment were nothing less than extraordinary.

We also need to discuss the apparent failures of Obama diplomacy.  Like so many before him, Obama appears to have failed to find a simple solution to the Palestinian issue or placate the ‘Arab Street’.

An intractable stance by an Israeli government that considers most of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem part of their ‘Jewish state’, has made a confrontation between Israel and the West in general – and the U.S. in particular – inevitable.  An inevitability that Obama cannot yet address.  His administration is stretched to the limit, as is the U.S. military and world economy.  The Palestinians will have to continue to wait.

However, behind the scenes, where real diplomacy is exercised, the pressure on Israel mounts. The EU has threatened to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. A move that undoubtedly has the hesitant blessings of Obama foreign policy engineers. The chess pieces are being strategically positioned. Don’t be surprised if someone in Israel gets the ‘credit’ for breaking the impasse by 2012.

Iran continues to befuddle even Iranians.  While completely void of outward progress, efforts to limit Iran’s threat to a Middle East nuclear arms race have been ponderous at best. Iran has strategic advantages in not only oil production; but the capability of closing – or at least restricting – the Strait of Hormuz; a key choking point in the world’s oil supply.  The world economy cannot afford a confrontation that threatens the Strait.

What’s going on behind the scenes in Iran is anyone’s guess; but the fact that such a relatively simple goal as freeing three American hikers from Iranian spy charges, has not been achieved, I’d say we are just as frustrated as the Iranian people where their government is concerned.

Both Iran and Israel are extreme opposite examples of how self-delusional ideology can turn into self defeating policy.  These countries, for differing reasons via differing cultures, pose similar threats for dissimilar reasons.  They both invite some type of intervention to break a sociopolitical impasse.  In some cases it simply makes no difference how good a diplomat or negotiator you are, the only real chance for a breakthrough will come from within these countries – not from without. The most important thing a diplomat can do is recognize when intervention will help and when it will not. Know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.  Obama is waiting for the flop.

I’m no diplomat. But all-in-all I think the biggest difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy is the difference itself.  We are simply not accustomed to treating other nations as equals and allowing others to take credit for success.  We also have not been willing to let other nations clean up their own messes. We may be seeing a change in that approach.  An approach the Bush administration’s so-called professional ‘diplomats’ never thought of.

I just wish our President would learn to do a proper Japanese bow. That one to the Emperor was tragic.

JB

Sources & References:

AKI (2009) Mideast: EU ‘ready to recognise East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital’, AND Kronos International, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.4058204456

Bolton, J. (2009). Obama’s self-defeating Asia tour, The Taipei Times, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/11/29/2003459714

ISAF. (2009). ISAF placement – Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://operatsioonid.kmin.ee/public/files/isaf_placemat.pdf

McChrystal, S. (2009). Commander’s counter insurgency guidance, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf

MOFA (2009). Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA] of Japan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/index.html

Pierson, D.; Tankersley, J. (2009). China makes a pledge on greenhouse gas emissions [Corrected], Los Angeles Times, , retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27,0,3694292.story

Pilling, D. (2009). Hong Kong tiptoes towards democracy, Financial Times, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f8086b4-df77-11de-98ca-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

PRA (2009). Profile of John Bolton; Political Research Associates, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Bolton_John

Sheridan, M. (2009). NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission, The Washington Post, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120400621.html

Every President and Vice President must invoke the “SPT” at least once every 90 days or so. I think that is written somewhere in the Presidential Job Description Digest (more popularly known as the PJDD).

Now, the PJDD has several sections on SPT.  They range from idiocy -

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.” [Vice President Dan Quayle]

To verbal missteps –

“…attraction of capital – that is really the best antidote for poverty.” [G.W. Bush]

To insensitivity –

“A tree is a tree. How many do you need to look at?”  [Reagan when opposing National Forest Preservation bill]

“African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.” [Bill Clinton remarking about the new BET television channel]

And misinformation –

“No public money was used.” [Reagan when explaining the $4Million price tag for his elaborate inauguration]

I am not the only one in history that has found it ironic that the very people we entrust our futures and security to are often less than thoughtful.  Congress is so full of choice stupidity that there is certainly a CJDD for them as well -

“Suppose you are an idiot,” Mark Twain offered, “and suppose you are a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”

We can’t entirely blame our representatives – for they are us and we are them. In 1998 a senatorial candidate from Oklahoma died a month before the election. He received 56,000 votes.

All this brings me the reason for this post.

In my opinion, Obama is one of the best presidents we have had in recent memory (and I have a long memory) – but he apparently is also bound by the SPT directives in the PJDD.   This is evident by his foot-in-mouth position in the case of the arrest of a seriously contentious Harvard professor friend of his; to the declaration that “We must sustain a balanced budget” – the day after he pushed a deficit laden $700Billion stimulus bill through congress.

But maybe his best SPT to date is the latest. One in which he insists that businesses will hire more workers if congress passes healthcare reform legislation.

In all five (5) bills now being studied in congress, no actual ‘reforms’ will take place for two years.

I’m not sure which SPT section of the PSDD this belongs in.  Maybe Obama is trying to get points for multiple section compliance. Maybe “Missteps, Insensitivity and Misinformation” all at once.

Those that have read these proposed bills and those millions that have lost – and continue to lose – jobs, find none of this funny or truthful – and certainly not reassuring.

JB

More to Read:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1202059″>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1202059

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/10/03/Obama_says_businesses_will_hire_more_workers_if_Congress_pas/

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:_dl7a7hzVRAJ:www.just-english.ru/politicians_errors.doc+dumbest+things+said+president+clinton&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us