Questions of war need to be carefully thought out…

Something that has never been clearly resolved in the United States is how the authority to declare and conduct war is delineated. Since Vietnam it seems that the president has the most power concerning war. If the president decides to use the authority as commander in chief to take military action anywhere, from then on he (or she) is in control and can charge treason (in the political sense, not legally) against anyone who objects.

It’s always a wise move to get congress on the record with some kind of resolution, such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, upon which the whole long, drawn out and disastrous Vietnam War was based. And even the “decider” George W. Bush got resolutions out of congress to fight his War on Terror.

I wished this was a coherent and well researched essay, but it’s just a blog off the top of my head. It occurs to me that there may not be much difference between a declaration of war which the Constitution gives the congress power to decide upon and a resolution. I really need to research this.

But I will observe here that when congress makes a declaration of war then it would seem to have shown a clear resolve.

Resolutions by their very nature appear to be something temporary, but they are not, i.e., the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which resulted in a costly decade-long war, carried out year to year almost as if it were temporary – no wonder we didn’t win. If congress had gone on record as declaring war, it might have had the resolve to actually win. Instead much time was spent debating how much and exactly what authority was given to the president.

The War on Terror resolutions seem to have created a war with no end in the Persian Gulf (yes we are supposedly easing out of Iraq, but it is pretty questionable what will eventually happen there — the violence is up again).

And it is hard to even envision how a victory would be achieved in Afghanistan, although I hasten to add it might not be impossible, if it can be figured out what a victory would be – a stable western-friendly government with no Taliban and Al Qaeda? And how long would that last? And wouldn’t we have to occuppy the whole region forever to make sure insurgents don’t rise up again? (These are the kind of questions that need to be asked and debated but are not.)

There is a question as to just what the president’s (any president) power as commander in chief means. Is the president simply in charge of the armed forces and not answerable to congress? Many people seem to think so.

Congress can effectively end a war by holding back on the funding (which it has unquestionable constitutional power to do), and did so eventually in the case of Vietnam. But that was only done after so many long years and casualties and the acceptance by the public that the cause was indeed in vain, giving congress the will and cover to act.

During the last Bush administration congress was intimidated by charges that to withhold funding while troops were in the field would be treasonous – and I agree that for the government to order troops to fight on the one hand and cut off their funding on the other seems at least is wrong morally and impractical. But eventually the only tool the congress, as the representative of its constituents, would have to effect a withdrawal if the executive resisted would be to not continue funding the war.

What made me think of all of this is that, as I blogged earlier, I am reading the late Robert S. McNamara’s book “In Retrospect, the Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam”.

I plan to review it via a future blog. But for now, I can say that it points out that narrow thinking predisposed the nation to go to war in Vietnam. President Johnson, who had mixed emotions about the affair from the start, concealed vital information from congress and the public and essentially had the Tonkin resolution written up before the Tonkin incident happened, that is a resolution calling for increased authority to deal militarily with the communist threat to South Vietnam. The Tonkin incident provided a pretext to introduce that resolution before congress. It was implied that it was simply for something temporary. I remember in the early days of Vietnam it was called a “police action” (as Korea was) and then when it heated up it was called the Vietnam “conflict” and finally, even though “war” was never officially declared, it was called the Vietnam War.

I think I was a sophomore in high school when the Tonkin resolution was passed. And I know when it was decided to send in the troops and air power and take an active instead of advisory role, it was thought the U.S. would surly overwhelm the enemy. I thought certainly it would be all over by the time I graduated from high school.

The Vietnam War caused me to make a kind of illogical decision to join the Army, based in part that I would be drafted anyway, and maybe joining would give me some advantage, and I needed something to do. I ended up going to Germany. One of my brothers was drafted and served in Vietnam. So lucky for the both of us – and the luck was especially for him since he faced the danger – we both managed not to be names on the Vietnam Wall.

And today I have two grandsons, one born a few weeks ago and one almost ten years old. What happens today in world affairs will impact their lives. And really I should mention I have a granddaughter too just entering high school, and the same goes for her.

That is why I think it is important that we have a system in which such momentous decisions as war are carefully thought out. While the president needs the authority to deploy forces or take military actions in immediate emergencies, one person should never be given a blank check to wage continuing war and then pass it off to his or her successor.

It should be kept in mind that at least 58,151 Americans died in Vietnam, 4,322 in Iraq so far (46,132 wounded), and 677 in Afghanistan.

Remember, the numbers started out small in Vietnam.

And shouldn’t we be seriously considering whether the notion of pepetual war makes sense? And since terrorists can pop up most anywhere, are we obligated to occupy every inch of the world to maintain U.S. security?

ADD 1:

I should mention the War Powers Act of 1973, but at this time I cannot find much to note of it. I think I am correct in saying that it essentially has been ignored or circumvented since its passage. And I would think since it deals with war powers and war powers are enumerated in the Constitution, then maybe the act is unconstitutional. The Constitution cannot be amended by simply passing a law. The whole point of this blog is that the power to get into and out of war is an unsettled matter and it should be settled. At lot of people thought that, I think, at the conclusion of the Vietnam fiasco, but all that was come up with was that War Powers Act — so really no progress.

There is one sure way to get out of  a war. When the public mood turns decidedly against a war, eventually the nation withdraws, but at major cost in the meantime.

Show bizz is killing serious news and politics

I’m a news and political junkie and as such I make this observation after reading about how Sarah Palin is trying to use her brief moment in the national political spotlight to cash in, even without gaining higher or holding lower political office. And then I read how her would-have-been son in-law Levi Johnston is saying critical things about her  nd is hoping to maybe get into acting or get a book deal – Palin herself has a book planned.

And now Johnston is quoting his would be mother in-law as saying she might rather cash in on all of the commercial offers she has received and forget the political office part of it. But of course he could be saying this because he has his own agenda, being attached to this Palin saga and hoping to cash in himself.

(As far as books, the two would certainly need help — from what I’ve heard of them, one is barely if at all able to utter a thought, and the other rambles on but seldom utters a complete thought.)

So I make this observation, being a news and political junkie:

Show biz has ruined news and politics.

Organizations that pass themselves off as dedicated to news operate like they are putting on a constantly-running variety show. People running or claiming to run for public office have found that there can be more money in promoting one’s self than actually seeking an office or fulfilling the duties of that office. And even the news people spend a lot of time interviewing each other and plugging their own books.

I wish all these people would leave news and politics and try their hands in the show biz world directly and that in some other universe there would be real news and real political discussion.

With all the problems the nation faces, from the disastrous economy to being threatened by North Korea and terrorists from the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation, it is galling that these phony pundits grab so much attention.

And the cable and internet news outlets discredited their credentials as serious news entities by spending and continuing to spend so much time on Michael Jackson – he’s dead already!. He was an entertainer, an artist, and a troubled person, and he apparently had one heck of a lot of fans. But that’s entertainment. What about the real news that affects everyone’s life and the future of the world?

I do this blog in a kind of fantasy world as if anyone really cared. But it seems to me there must be a lot of others living in some parallel universe who cannot or do not want to come to grips with real public issues but can obsess on Michael Jackson or Sarah Palin (although I think the latter is losing her allure, while the former, although dead, continues to bring in money).

Newspapers are dying, in part because many were serious. Meanwhile, TV news, cable and network, have completely sold out to commercialism, and the internet is full of gossip passing itself off as news, and is not really a separate entity for real news in that it still for the most part depends upon the traditional news sources, you know, the ones that are going out of business because they may be too serious.

Remembering after-work mandatory meetings with beer and re-inventing myself to fit the job…

Just watched a stupid commercial where a guy gets thrown out of an upper story window for suggesting at a company conference that they save money by not serving Bud Light at the meetings.

Reminds me of years ago when I worked at a paint store and we had mandatory meetings from time to time after work. We did not get paid for these meetings, but they did serve beer in a cooler.

Another good thing about that job is that I lived within walking distance – didn’t need a car.

I began the job mixing paint matches for auto body repairs – hey I know nothing about colors and how to mix them – I just followed a formula from the proper paint code, generally under the hood of your car somewhere (at least that’s the way it was back then). It was mighty exacting, though. One tiny drop too much and the entire batch was ruined – we just mixed pints, quarts, and gallons.

One day I was informed I would be doing the deliveries. And as it turned out, from then on I did the deliveries every day – a morning and an afternoon run. Easiest job for the money I ever had.

I should have known it was too good to last. I don’t recall how long I did it, but one day I was told they had to cut back – last hired, first fired. I was gone.

I actually thought I had learned a skill, mixing that paint, but when I applied at other places, they told me they didn’t need an extra hand, that they all took turns mixing.

I eventually went back to school and then later I went back to journalism and still later I went to big truck driving. When I applied for a big truck driving job, even though the company offered its own school they preferred some related experience. Those paint deliveries came in handy. Let me tell you, driving a pickup truck or a van or one week when both of those were not available, the boss’ station wagon, is not anything like driving a big truck – but of course I did have to make deliveries.

Come to think of it, when I applied for the paint store job, the boss wanted to know if I had sales experience. The only thing I could put down was that I sold newspapers on the street as a little kid. Good enough, I guess. Well I did sell insurance briefly – not sure I mentioned that.

And one time while I was working at the paint store, I had to make some deliveries of oxygen and acetylene tanks – the store I worked for was actually a welding supply store with an auto paint department. Good thing I had just taken a welding class (which I did not do extremely well in), because at one stop, the airport, as I recall, they assumed I knew how to undo the old tanks and hook up the new ones. Fortunately I did.

After that job played out I tried to get a truck driver job at another welding supply store. But the guy looked at my resume and saw that while I had just come from a welding supply business, most of my experience was as a newspaper reporter.

“I can’t figure out what you want to do” , he said.

I guess in a way I couldn’t either, but at that very moment I needed a job – any job. Didn’t get that one. I think that’s when I decided to go back school.

I’ll bet there’s a lot of people going through this sort of thing nowadays with unemployment so high and businesses closing their doors all over the place.

If I’m sure of anything, I’m sure things will get better, but just like everyone else I don’t have a clue as to when.

Meanwhile, large numbers of people are out there trying to figure out what they want to do or what they can do and trying to re-invent themselves to fit into a more competitive job market.

And if you are one who envies those who always knew what to do from the start and followed the straight path and have been successful at it, I have empathy – I feel your pain.

P.s.

And I know you’ve heard this one before, but take it from someone who thought he was a goner due to a bout with cancer – find some enjoyment in every day you can. Every day above ground is a good one.

Palin misleads (what else is new?) on ethics cost to state, and are ethics violation charges against Palin frivolous? If so, why do they cost her so much to fight?

ADD 1:

This claim by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin that that her state has had to spend $2 million dealing with “frivolous” ethics complaints against her is a little misleading, I now find. Certainly they have been distracting. But as I understand it now from a story out of the Anchorage Daily News that money represents normal staff time — she’s just trying to say that staff has been distracted from the normal work of the state. But the same amount of money would have been spent regardless (not that such is a good thing, just that it’s different from $2 million extra and, in fact, we don’t know how much time was actually spent from her statements, unless she claims staff did nothing at all but investigate the complaints, so the whole charge means little).

And in clarification from what I previously blogged on this very post — and I hope this is correct — out of 18 ethics complaints against her, three are still pending (I had said two).

And if you did not read the blog in the first place, I said:

Fighting “frivolous” ethics complaints has cost Sarah Palin and her husband a half million dollars in legal costs and has cost the state of Alaska $2 million, according to Palin lawyer Thomas Van Flein.

I have to wonder why it costs so much? One of the complaints as I understand it is that she wore a piece of clothing with a logo prominently displayed at some event. I’m not sure what the actual ethics violation was (this was one of those quickie TV reports), but I assume it would have to do with using her public office to promote a product. Next time rip that logo off Sarah. But anyway how much work does it take to decide whether she did this (saw the video tape, so I know she did) and whether it violates any ethics law? The complaint was dismissed.

I don’t even know the process of filing these complaints. I can’t imagine why a government agency would even have to accept such a complaint – unless there was actual evidence of a pay off . And even if someone had to read it over and there was a quicky consultation with a lawyer – really, how much should that cost?

The Anchorage Daily News lists 18 ethics complaints filed against Palin. All but three have been dismissed, according to the newspaper. Two  allege that aides used their offices for political gain are pending, as well as one that says she misused something called the “Alaska Fund”.

She had been accused of claiming too much per diem, but has paid back upwards of $10,000, so maybe these complaints keep politicians in line. But $2 million to get $10,000 does not seem cost effective (I know all the money was not spent on that one complaint, but still).

Hey, I’m not fan of Sarah Palin – not in the least. But there is something suspicious about the onslaught of complaints.

There needs to be some reasonable control over the filing of ethics complaints, otherwise they could indeed be used as harassment against political opponents. Unless complaints seem to have any seriousness on their face and unless they contain adequate supporting material, they should be summarily rejected.

And certainly any lawsuit filed in a court should be rejected unless it shows some merit. And losers should pay court costs, although not respondents’ legal costs (and I don’t know what the state of the law is on this).

Those who hold public office certainly must be held to ethical standards and the law and there has to be a system whereby they can be made to be held accountable. But allowing anyone to file papers without adequate support and paralyze government and cause it to waste taxpayer money can be as bad as unethical behavior.

It seems to me that either ethics violations are way too easy to file in Alaska and more discretion needs to be allowed for administrative agencies to decide whether to pursue them.

Or, considering all the money that has been spent or billed to the Palins and charged to the state in the name of Palin’s ethics violations, maybe where there is smoke there is fire and that is why it has cost so much – even if most have been dismissed so far.

Do simple country folks tend toward conservatism or liberalism?

Where I live, if you like country music and going to church and believe in good old down home values, it is automatically assumed that you are a Republican conservative. After all Democrats are by definition in popular thought here Godless, unpatriotic, and tolerant of the gay lifestyle (although the gay thing has caused a lot of soul searching among so many who look around at their own family members).

Good old down home country folks like to listen to the Grand Ole Opry it is thought.

But why then is there a program on public radio (or as one right wing bloviator calls it “communist radio”) that spews down home country values, but with a liberal undercurrent. I’m talking about “A Prairie Home Companion”, hosted by out and out liberal Garrison Keilor. Of course his show is a spoof, but then again, isn’t the Grand Ole Opry a spoof of sorts? It is a spoof of itself (and I’m just mentioning the Grand Ole Opry as a symbol – I’m not sure many country fans around here actually listen to it anymore – don’t even know if you can get it here). And besides, today’s country music resembles that of the just-passed Michael Jackson more than the long-passed Hank Williams.

Of course the Prairie Home Companion takes place in the setting of the mythical Lake Wobegon, Minnesota, whereas the Opry is out of Nashville, Tenn. Both have rural backgrounds, but one identifies with the Union forces in the American Civil War and the other with the old Confederacy and slavery and what was called down south The War Between the States.

For some reason over the years being “countryfied” has taken on the identity of being from the South. But there are country folks in all geographical areas and they don’t all speak with a drawl. Some of them speak with that clipped accent (if I’ve described it correctly) of those who have Scandinavian or Germanic ancestors, or Yankees from New England, not the twang and drawl of Scotch-Irish.

And I recall the actor Ralph Waite unsuccessfully ran for public office as a Democratic liberal. He had been the father in the TV series The Waltons, those homespun country folks of rural Virginia. His bookish son John Boy always seemed kind of liberal to me. And his dad was not a churchgoer, even though the rest of the family were faithful church attenders. But I do recall Grandma Walton referring to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s work programs as “boondoggle” (yes I know it was not real, just a TV show).

And what made me think of all of this is that two natives of Anoka, Minnesota, which is somewhat the model of Lake Wobegon, are the afore mentioned liberal Keilor and the ultra-right wingnut of a congresswoman Michelle Bachman. She has implied that the Democrats caused swine flu, that global warming is a liberal hoax, that the U. S. Census is a liberal plot, and that President Obama is anti-American, among other things. Not only are her ideas nuts, but fact checks often note that her supporting evidence is actually in error.

I just read a blog by Keillor extolling the virtues of England’s socialized medicine and complaining that in the U.S. folks have to hold fund-raisers to pay medical bills.

And why are those dressed as outlaw bikers so patriotic and seemingly so right wing these days? Back in the Vietnam era, motorcycle gangs were by their very actions, drug running and debauchery, the anti-thesis of the right wing of the time’s cherished law and order. And for some reason they paired up with the hippies of San Francisco. Of course the short-lived peace loving hippie movement quickly morphed into a violent drug subculture. But that was yesterday and this is today. Old habits die hard, but people change their minds.

Actually I’ll bet a large number of the folks who keep this nation running and get things done and who don’t stand in the way of individual freedom by supporting too many laws on personal behavior or by insisting on political correctness belong to that vast middle of the road, neither particularly liberal nor particularly conservative, and maybe think of themselves as practical – and wish everyone else was too.

They have horse sense like those from the Grand Ole Opry, and all their children are above average, like those of Lake Wobegon.

News media spends ‘bloody fortune’ on Michael Jackson coverage…

I thought the tickets to the Michael Jackson Memorial, awarded by lottery, were sold out (so to speak). But now I hear on FOX News that they are being handed out at the door as the funeral ceremonies begin at the Staples Center in LA.

I seldom check out FOX News, but I wanted to see how they were covering this event, said to be the largest of its kind in history. The major television news media has been covering this whole Michael Jackson death thing wall to wall as if it is far more important than, say, our war in Afghanistan. I watch the nightly network news and on one occasion CBS devoted its entire nightly cast to the death of Michael Jackson. I think it was last night that as I switched between CBS and ABC I heard much about Jackson and little about Afghanistan.

I don’t know what the FOX News folks think about Jackson, but it would seem that what with their constant right wing reactionary slant to the news that they would question all the hoopla (of which they are ironically part) about the death of a bizzarre entertainer with reportedly questionable moral values. One of the reporters questioned whether the media had blown the thing out of proportion (yes and no I think) and Gretta Van Sustern seemed to have an edge to her voice, noting the media has “spent a bloody fortune” on all of this.

Personally I think that on the one hand, it is a story. There can be no doubt that Jackson has a tremendous fan base and people all over the world were drawn to him and are affected by his demise. But I am surprised and disappointed that bonafied news outlets have gone way overboard on all of this simply because they have been forced to by ratings which bring adertising dollars.

Once upon a time, before cable, the three major networks covered the news and lost money doing it. They did it out of their desire for prestige and some sense of public responsibility.

The wall to wall Michael Jackson coverage in my mind would better be left to the entertainment news outlets. The real news outlets should concetrate on real news, with some breaks to the Jackson story, because it is news in that he had millions of fans and the story of his weird life and the questionable circumstances of his death is compelling — but should it overshadow news of war, international relations, fighting the economic disaster, struggling for better health care?

And why can the public, people all over the world, seemingly galvanize around someone whose main claim to fame is grabbing his crotch while he danced and sang but otherwise can’t get along with one another?

McNamara at least apologized for acting on false assumptions…

Upon reading that Robert S. McNamara, an architect of the Vietnam War, died at the age of 93 Monday, I went to the library and checked out his book “In Retrospect, the Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam”.

McNamara served as Secretary of Defense for both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson and was so closely connected with the Vietnam War policy that it was sometimes derisively called “McNamara’s War”.

Nearly 60,000 Americans died and thousands more were gravely wounded in an effort that was eventually abandoned after nearly a decade of all-out war.

I remember so many kept saying through the years of struggle that we could not quit because then all the sacrifice would have been in vain.

(To be fair, some have credited our effort with helping to force the eventual end to the Soviet empire, but I think McNamara rejects that in his book – and I would ask: and that made all of that worth the sacrifice?)

I’ve only begun reading it, but it is fascinating from the beginning, to me at least. I think in the book he pretty much says something like – the Vietnam War was all my fault and I’m sorry.

It’s history, but it has lessons for today.

Like I say, I’ve only just begun reading the book, but already I have picked up on the notion that no one involved in making foreign policy can really know what the consequences of actions might be, but one should really think a lot about a situation and ask questions rather than going on blind assumption.

We got bogged down in a seemingly unwinnable war in Southeast Asia largely because so many in government assumed that the “domino theory” that stated that if one country falls they all will fall like a row of dominoes to the communists was true on its face without need to reassess it. Much of the public fell for that line too.

All Vietnam went communist, but the rest of the dominoes did not fall, and Vietnam today is a solid trading partner trying to transform its economy to be more in line with the capitalist model (and of course suffering from the same malady now that all capitalist economies are afflicted with at this time. It still has a communist government).

And then since the 9/11 attacks were inflicted by persons from the Persian Gulf area (most natives of Saudi Arabia) and we as a nation seem to just lump all the peoples from that area together, the nation became jingoistic and you heard things like “better off to fight them over there than here”. And since we lumped them altogether we blindly let the former president put our forces in Iraq even though the 9/11 attacks came from elsewhere. And so many fell for the notion that the Iraqis suffering under a cruel dictator (and they were) would greet our troops with open arms and throw flowers as if they were the allies marching into Paris to liberate the city from the Nazis. But it was only upon pulling our troops out of the cities years later (just last week) that there was any jumping for joy. We’ve lost some 5,000 troops (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and thousands more gravely wounded. You’re welcome Iraq (sorry we killed so many of you and bombed out your houses, but it was like Vietnam, we had to destroy you to save you). The troubles in Iraq are not over yet – it’s still open ended.

And now under a new president we have finally turned our full attention back to Afghanistan from where the 9/11 attackers command was headquartered, harbored by the Taliban.

We assume that if only we can win over the people there we can destroy the safe haven they provide for Al Qaeda (the force behind 9/11) and the Taliban (who support or work with or are the same as Al Qaeda, take your pick).

We are back to winning the hearts and minds Vietnam style. Have enough questions been asked? Are we making false assumptions? What has been the history of foreign armies winning in Afghanistan? (Not good from what I have read, neither in recent nor ancient history.)

I keep hearing during Memorial Day and Fourth of July celebrations that our armed forces are fighting for our freedom. I’m sure they think so and I’m sure we want to believe that. But is it better to really think about and discuss things or do we just act impulsively? And here’s another question, do the different levels of policy makers just tell the next level higher up what they think they want to hear? (I think we know what the answer to that last question was in the previous administration.)

So many people probably don’t feel they have the time and probably don’t have the interest to read histories such as the McNamara book I mentioned. It’s too bad, though. If the public would only read them more, it might learn something that would save a lot of lives and forestall a lot of misery.

P.s.

I have mentioned books I am reading or planned to read before and said I would write more about them, only to not do so. But I make the claim once again. I plan to review it more fully once I’m done.

Palin lacks faith in democracy and quits when going gets tough…

Sarah Palin claims she is quitting her governorship of Alaska in part because she wants to effect change by working outside of government. I’m not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean. In this nation public policy is supposed to be made by the democratically (small d) elected government.

There is such a thing as lobbying – private interests who work to influence government. So maybe that is what she means.

Apparently she would rather help pressure government to do things from the outside, hoping to avoid public scrutiny – raise money, work behind the scenes, whip up the base with demogoguery by spouting off narrow-minded hot button issues that appeal more to emotion than rational public policy or accuse anyone who does not agree with her message of lacking patriotism. She could drum up money with her fanatical appeal to further her policy aims — whatever they might be — or to buy fancy clothes for herself and her family as she did with Republican Party funds when she ran with John McCain. Last I heard SarahPac or whatever it is called was still accepting donations.

Maybe she just means she is going to work on behalf of other candidates, but those candidates would be working directly in government.

And maybe she thinks there ought to be some power out there beyond government because she does not agree with the majority of voters at this time.

She claims to have been mistreated by the press. Well join the ranks of all those in public life. That is the ugly price that is paid for freedom of speech. We can’t just arrest people who may say things we don’t like, such as might be done in Iran. And it is true that freedom of the press, guaranteed in the First (the very first mind you) Amendment to the Constitution carries with it the annoying aspect of sometimes protecting those who distort the truth or tell outright lies (including Sarah Palin). Unfortunately, it’s the only way to guarantee an actual free press (and press these days means all types of public dissemination of thoughts and information – there are fewer and fewer newspapers).

Palin through a lawyer has reportedly threatened a blogger with a lawsuit over defamation of character. I think even Palin is aware of the First Amendment but thinks anything unfavorable to her is not covered.

Thanks to a Supreme Court decision called New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964), public figures have a higher standard to meet when trying to prove defamation and libel. It could be done if it is shown a person acted with reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice. But in the blogger’s case, as I understand it, it involved repeating a rumor or rumors that have been circulating about Palin for years, something about awarding construction contracts and personally benefitting when she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. True? Have no idea. Rumors can be a troubling thing and are often unfair. But if in public life rumors were illegal we’d never find out anything and real corruption would never be investigated. Word from rumors is often how investigations get started and/or how those in power are forced to look into things.

What Palin must be trying to do is intimidate opponents or anyone who might hold her up to public scrutiny. As evidenced by her VP campaign, her mode is to be able to say a lot of things but be questioned very little (and no wonder, have you ever heard her respond to questions?).

Palin also made a weird comment about quitting the governorship (half way through her term) because she did not want to waste the taxpayers’ money by being a lame duck. If she ran again, she would not be a lame duck. And does she mean that anyone who is voted into office should simply quit at the point he or she may not get his or her way? And does she not have an obligation to those who voted for her? I’m not understanding all of this.

(Add 1: An Anchorage Daily News editorial lauded Palin’s accomplishments as governor but said her explanation about not wanting to be a lame duck was “more lame than duck”.)

And I personally detest the political strategy that allows candidates (or potential candidates) to make a lot of noise, make accusations, distort the truth, but then allows them to hide from questions under the guise that questioners are only trying to discredit them – that is sometimes true, but what other way is there? Have FOX news lob leading softball questions to you? Or for that matter have CNN ask leading softball questions? No if you run for political office you should be able to stand up to penetrating questions from all and let the public at large judge. The public is smarter than you think Sarah. Is that what you are afraid of?

The United States is something worth celebrating…

(Blogger’s note: I posted this late in the afternoon Pacific Time on July 4, but on my blog time it was already July 5. Hope everyone is enjoying their July Fourth weekend.) 

 

As we celebrate this Independence Day, the Fourth of July, this year the 233^rd birthday of the United States of America, we might wonder independence from what?

We have our Constitution, to include its Bill of Rights. We have an elected government. We are not ruled by a king who proclaims a god given right to tell us what to do (although some political candidates would have you believe that God is on their side and Satan on the side of their opponents).

So we are independent from governmental tyranny, except for the fact we may have created such a monster of government in the name of protecting ourselves from ourselves that we may not be as free as we think we ought to be at times.

But we must have something going. People from all over the world have and still do flock to our shores and cross our borders, legally and illegally, to be part of America.

And to use a much abused or misused word, we are “unique” as a nation. Unique means one of a kind, and that we are. Nothing really like us existed before 1776 and nothing just like us has existed since. We have some close imitations around the world, but we stand out still as one of a kind.

Without going into some complicated history lesson where I would likely botch the whole thing anyway, I will just write here that yes we began as a colony of Englishmen, primarily. And those who revolted from the mother country were basically, as I understand it, only asking for the rights of Englishmen, of which they asserted they were being deprived. And I risk really going out on a limb here with ancient history, but the notion that men (and that really means women too in the modern context) should not be deprived of individual rights by an all powerful leader (read king) goes way back to the signing of the Magna Carta in England in 1215.

But once we got going with the revolution thing, we as a new nation totally abandoned any idea that we would have a sovereign at the head of our government. We did not invent Democracy, the idea came from ancient Greece and Rome, but we took it to a new level. We decided that we would have a government of and by and for the people.

And I think what has really done the trick is that we went beyond a group of Englishmen, and sons of Englishmen, to a nation of immigrants from all over the world who yearned for individual freedom and opportunity to live a better and freer life than they otherwise would be able to experience.

We’ve faced some problems and contradictions along the way. Slavery was recognized in our constitution but finally abolished after a civil war (in law anyway). And of course we ran roughshod over the native inhabitants of the American continent, but people fighting each other over the competition for land and resources is a large part of the story of man, just read the Holy Bible.

From the beginning of our nation there has been a disagreement as to how much freedom we should have and how power should be distributed. Some think there ought to be strong central rule and others think the power should be more loosely distributed, and some think there should be as little government as possible. And many have no precise notion of how governmental power should be distributed, except that individuals should be able to keep their freedoms – we can all agree on that.

And I think I am correct in stating that the Founding Fathers did not want or conceive that the United States would become a world power. But with people from all over the world coming to us we came to represent the aspirations for freedom and opportunity of everyone on the planet, and in the modern age we have become a super power, in fact, at present, THE super power.

And as much as it often seems the rest of the world loves to hate us, in reality in seems also that the world in general looks to us as a beacon of freedom and is disappointed when we fail or are perceived to have failed in that regard.

Our main problem now is that while we are free and independent as far as individual liberties, we are not free from the constant struggle of life. There’s that constant struggle for survival, the struggle for resources. Such struggles are not only between nations but within nations. And we are experiencing that struggle right now big time. We call it a recession or economic downturn or financial crisis or depression.

Throughout history, when people become desperate they have often turned to forms of tyranny that lessen their freedom but promise protection from want and attack.

Some would charge that under President Barack Obama and his stimulus program and his push for health care reform with the so-called public option, and his green energy program we are headed that way now, just as some did back in the 1930s under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal social programs, designed to add financial security and help bring us out of the Great Depression.

I don’t think so, but I do think there is always a danger that we might give up all of our freedoms in the name of some kind of security. Just as the current economic turmoil is caused larger numbers of voters to move to the political left, concern over a loss of moral values under a morally corrupt president, Bill Clinton, caused the nation to move decidedly toward the right, and then even more so as the result of 9/11 and our concerns for security from attacks by terrorists. And for some time the public seemed quite willing to put its trust in a secretive White House led by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that made war and spying on its own citizens and ignoring constitutional protections of liberty, that set us apart as a society, its mode of operation.

In the extremes of left and right, liberty is curtailed in the name of national security and well being. In order to maintain our freedom we need some type of equilibrium.

The good news is that so far we always have been able to do just that and there is no reason we cannot keep on doing so.

And while we all together celebrate our nation’s independence today and tonight, we may not be altogether in our preferred approach to the enjoyment of freedom.

But that is part of what makes this nation unique. We can agree to disagree.

And that is the essence of freedom. Unlike in places such as Iran, one can disagree without threat of imprisonment or death.

P.s.

And I for one support the troops as they say. I question some of the policies that got us to where we are today, but I think we owe our all to those we send into harm’s way. And we should all give thanks for their sacrifice this Day and night and always.

Sarah Palin stuns political junkies with quitting office — national spotlight apparently gives off too much heat for her liking…

If you can’t stand the heat down-home mother and governor Sarah stay out of the kitchen.

I’m just hearing on cable televison that controversial Alaska Gov. and failed U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has announced that she will quit the governor’s office, and right now no one seems to know why.

Commentators were trying to figure out what kind of advantage the move could give her to run for President or even VP again, but could not come up with any. In fact it would seem a disadvantage. If you can’t handle the governor’s job, how can you handle the White House or number two at the helm of the U.S. government?

And what popped into my mind is that something else – scandal? – might be the reason (and sure enough one commentator mentioned that). Now I’m hearing that she said that what with all the bad publicity she has been getting lately it was taking away from her effectiveness in office.

Sure I’m not fan of hers – can’t stand her and her ilk – but I think she quite by accident found herself on the national stage – reminds me of Andy Griffith in “A Face in the Crowd”. Anyway, I think Palin found that competing in the shallowness of a beauty contest is nothing like competing for something real, like being a heart beat away from being leader of the free world.

And I think something else, more scandal, is just under the surface at this time.

Palin found out that it is one thing to dish it out – and dish it out she did – but another thing to take it.

As much as I dislike Palin, she seems so hard to ignore – I think she’s a lot more fascinating than Michael Jackson.

All this does make excellent publicity for her forthcoming book she is going to have someone write for her – she may be issue ignorant, but she is no dummy when it comes to opportunity.

ADD 1:

Now I’m hearing Palin herself giving an explanation. Former sports annnouncer and hockey mom that she is she made a basketball analogy, she says she is going to work on the public issues that she thinks matters on the outside of government, giving it a “full court press”.

This is a novel approach I think. If the Obama crowd as she sees it has taken control of politics — work outside the system and as she said it in another sports analogy she will “call an audible” when the time is right.

ADD 2:

While this is not right on, I see some resemblence here to when Richard Nixon lost the California gubenatorial race but worked in the Republican wilderness for many years only to become president. Palin is no Nixon, in stature or anything else, but I see a possibility that she could work for her cause — whatever that is — and bone up on the issues, something that seems difficult for her, and build up some political IOUs in the process. She is a big draw in the hard right wing nut know-nothing crowd. With some work she could broaden her appeal by promoting herself more as a populist, something she already does to some extent. But she will always be more style than substance. And if she has to quit being governor just to study up on issues, I wonder why we have to decide on candidates who need to bone up rather than voting for ones who studied in the first place?

ADD 3:

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell has reported that close friends of Palin have said she has told them she is “out of politics”. Of course Nixon told reporters: “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore” and then went on to become president (and then being the first president to resign office).

It’s also been reported that the fact that Palin has had to fight so many ethics complaints has taken its toll.

The recent uncomplimentary Vanity Fair article certainly has not helped her. If not for the internet, that article would not have had as much weight.

Ah, the power of the press (traditional and internet). 

Oh, interestingly Palin is reported to have a $7 million book deal. And maybe that is what politics has come to be for many, just another avenue of self-promotion to make money. Who needs to even get into office? just make a lot of noise and get a book deal.

Believe me, it sounds enticing.